STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 81-1677

)

DONALD WIEBER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, R. L. Caleen, Jr., held a formal hearing in this case on October 28, 29, and 30, 1981, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire, and

Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northwest Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: Alan D. Oppenheimer, Esquire

1515 Northwest Seventh Street Miami, Florida 33125

ISSUE

Whether respondent should be suspended or dismissed on grounds of immorality and misconduct in office.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner School Board of Dade County ("School Board") seeks to dismiss its employee, respondent Donald Wieber ("respondent"), on charges of immorality and misconduct in office. As grounds, the School Board alleges that during September or October, 1980, respondent -- while an assistant principal at Devon Aire Elementary School -- "knowingly participated in the showing of a film portraying nude bodies and explicit sexual activity at the office of the principal . . . during school hours and while other members of the school staff were present." Respondent disputes the charge.

At hearing, the School Board called the following witnesses: Sandra Block, Emma Mason, Rosalie Luis, Mary Ann Banks, and Catherine Buchan. The School Board offered into evidence Petitioner's Exhibit 1/ Nos. 1 through 3, each of which was received.

Respondent testified in his own behalf and called the following witnesses: Frederic Wetmore, Russell Burmail, Mary Jane Travis, Maria Elena Angolo, Cecile Roussell, Evelyn Evans, Virginia Everhart, Elvira Dopico, Fred Schwartz, Denny Bileca, Judge Jon Gordon, Thomas Russell, Barbara Cotton, Adele Macon, Richard

J. Greenberg, Dr. Leonard Britton, and Francis DeLaurier. Respondent's Exhibit 1/ Nos. 1 through 18 were offered and received into evidence.

After hearing, the parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by January 4, 1982.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined:

I.

The Incident

1. Ms. Block and Ms. Mason Invited to Principal's Office

   
   

   1. At all times material to this proceeding, Francis DeLaurier was principal and respondent was assistant principal of Devon Aire Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. Sandra Block was the school librarian in charge of the videotape equipment; Emma Mason was the school secretary, and Rosalie Luis, a counselor. (Testimony of Wieber, Block, Luis, Mason.)

      
      

   2. At approximately 9:00 a.m. on a school day at the end of September, 1980, Respondent telephoned Librarian Block and asked her if she had a copy of "the Marshall tape," a videotape on individual educational plans ("IEPs"). 2/ She replied that she had the tape. (Tr. 37.) He then asked her what time she ate lunch; she said "about noon" (Tr. 38). At his request, she agreed to set up the videotape machine in the principal's office at noontime so that the Marshall tape could be shown; 3/ she also agreed to join him for lunch in the principal's office. (Testimony of Block.)

      
      

   3. At 11:55 am. that morning, respondent called Ms. Block again to check on when she would be coming to the principal's office. She replied that she couldn't come yet because her library clerk was not back from lunch. Respondent then came to her office to get the film and videotape equipment. Just as he arrived, Ms. Block's clerk returned, so, together, they wheeled the videotape equipment to the principal's office. After setting up the equipment, she went to the teacher's lounge to get her lunch and a coke from the vending machine. She stopped at Emma Mason's desk where she learned that Ms. Mason had also been invited to watch the Marshall tape and have lunch in the principal's office. At the coke machine, Principal DeLaurier asked Ms. Block when she was coming to watch the tape; when she replied that she wasn't going to watch it, he encouraged her to come and watch it, saying it could be an interesting film. 4/ (Testimony of Block.)

      
      

   4. At that time, it was not the habit of Ms. Block or Ms. Mason to eat lunch in the principal's office. However, in the past, teachers and staff, including Ms. Block and Ms. Mason, had frequently eaten lunch there; for the convenience of his staff, the principal had salt, pepper, catsup, and similar items available in his office. (Testimony of DeLaurier, Wieber, Block, Mason.)

   5. The subject matter of the Marshall tape--education for exceptional children--was not directly related to the duties and responsibilities of Ms. Mason or Ms. Block at Devon Aire Elementary School. (Testimony of Mason, Block.)

      
      

2. Finding of Videotape Cassette Under a Portable Classroom

   
   

   1. At approximately 11:00 a.m. that morning--prior to Ms. Block's and Ms. Mason's arrival in the principal's office--the principal sent respondent to investigate a bee problem; they had received complaints about children being stung by bees in the portable classroom area. While poking around under one of the portable buildings, respondent found a bag with a videotape inside. It was a black cassette, unlabeled except for a small white tab with a number on it. He returned to the principal's office and showed him the videotape. Principal DeLaurier asked him what was on it; respondent replied that he didn't know.

      Principal DeLaurier then said, "Well, put it on the machine and [let's] see what is on it." (Tr. 683.)(Testimony of Wieber, DeLaurier; R-16.)

      
      

3. Showing of Sexually Explicit Tape Cassette

   
   

   1. By this time, Ms. Block and Ms. Mason had entered the principal's office. Ms. Block had her lunch with her; Ms. Mason was busy assembling hers. Respondent, pursuant to Principal DeLaurier request, inserted the black cassette (which had been found under the portable classroom) and turned on the videotape machine. (Testimony of Wieber, Mason, Block, DeLaurier.)

      
      

   2. What then appeared on the screen was undisputed. The videotape depicted sexual activities between nude men and women. 5/ (Testimony of Block, Mason, Wieber, DeLaurier.)

      
      

   3. The videotape surprised and offended Ms. Block; she reacted immediately. Within 45 seconds from the film's inception, she asked Ms. Mason, who was absorbed in making a sandwich, "Are you sticking around for this?" (Tr. 42.) Ms. Mason, who had not yet looked up at the screen, answered, "Yes, why not?" (Tr. 42.) Ms. Block then walked out of the the principal's office. Approximately three minutes later, Ms. Mason, also offended by the film, exited the office and the two women went to a nearby office to finish their lunches. (Testimony of Mason, Block; P-1.)

      
      

   4. When the videotape machine was turned on, DeLaurier --who was at his desk -- could not see the screen. Respondent alerted him to what was being shown, after which DeLaurier came over and joined respondent. The two men then watched the sexually explicit film for approximately ten minutes. No one else was present during this interval. No children were in the principal's office at any time during which the sexually explicit videotape was played. (Testimony of DeLaurier, Wieber.)

      
      

   5. The sexually explicit videotape was seen by at least one other person on that day -- Rosalie Luis, a school counselor. Principal DeLaurier had asked her to come by his office after she finished lunch to see the Marshall tape.

      She complied. After watching the Marshall tape in the principal's office -- the sexually explicit videotape was shown. 6/ No warning was given or comments made prior to it being shown. Ms. Luis thought it humorous but left shortly after it began. DeLaurier was present at the time. Although respondent was present when the Marshall tape was shown, it is unclear whether he was present at the time the follow-up sexually explicit tape was shown. (Testimony of Luis.)

   6. Thereafter, Principal DeLaurier instructed respondent to take the tape cassette and "Get rid of it fast." (Tr. 689.) Respondent complied, disposing of the cassette in a garbage chute behind the school cafeteria. (Testimony of Wieber.)

      
      

4. Respondent's Knowledge and Intent

1. When, at the principal's request, respondent turned on the videotape machine, he did not know that the cassette portrayed explicit sexual acts. When, at the principal's request, he asked Ms. Block to set up the videotape equipment and have lunch in the principal's office, he had not yet found the offending cassette and could not have known that it would be shown at noontime. He had no intent to lure or trick Ms. Block into seeing a sexually explicit film. 7/ (Testimony of Wieber.)

   
   

2. When the offending videotape was shown in the principal's office, Respondent was insensitive to Ms. Block's, Ms. Mason's, and Ms. Luis's presence and the possibility that such a film might upset or offend them; he was oblivious to their presence. The film did not offend him; he chose to continue watching the film for approximately ten more minutes. (Testimony of Block, Mason, Wieber.)

   
   

   II.

   
   

   The Aftermath

   
   

3. After the September incident involving the offending videotape, Ms. Block, Ms. Mason, and Ms. Luis continued to work at Devon Aire Elementary School. Respondent continued to perform his duties; there is no evidence that the film incident adversely affected his job performance or his relationship with the school staff and teachers. Indeed, between September, 1980, and January, 1981, the teachers offended by the film (Ms. Block and Ms. Mason) did not report or complain about the incident to other school personnel. In January, 1981, Ms. Mason reported the incident to Renee Kachman, a person generally known to be critical of Principal DeLaurier; soon thereafter, the School Board launched an investigation. In May, 1981, the allegations against Principal DeLaurier and Respondent became a matter of public interest because of a series of news articles published in The Miami Herald. (Testimony of Britton, Block, Mason, DeLaurier, Wieber.)

   
   

4. Most of the staff members and teachers at Devon Aire Elementary School

   -- have signed a petition acknowledging the May 2, 1981, Miami Herald news article concerning the incident and requesting that respondent be reinstated as an assistant principal. (R-2.)

   
   

5. In June, 1981, an investigative report and Superintendent Leonard Britton's recommendation for disciplinary action were presented to the School Board. Mr. Britton recommended that respondent be reprimanded, financially penalized, demoted, returned to a non-instructional position, and notification be given to the State Education Practices Commission. The School Board rejected the recommendation and voted to institute dismissal proceedings. (Testimony of Britton.)

6. There was a substantial but mixed public reaction to the allegations against Principal DeLaurier and Respondent, and the disciplinary action recommended by the superintendent. Between 50-60 percent of the phone calls to the School Board's Office of Public Information agreed with the School Board's decision to dismiss respondent and DeLaurier 8/. Some parents would be angry if respondent is returned to the school system; others would not. (Testimony off Hanks, Everhart, Gordon, Travis, Britton, Block.)

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. s. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (1981).

   
   

8. The School Board seeks to dismiss respondent under the authority of Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1981):

   
   

   Any member of the district administra- tive or supervisory staff and any member of the instructional staff, including any prin- cipal, may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year; provided that the charges against him must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, [or] incom- petency . . . Whenever such charges are made against any such employee of the school board, the school board may suspend such person without pay, but if charges are not sustained, he shall be immediately rein- stated and his back salary shall be paid. (e.s.)

   
   

9. Although the terms "immorality," "misconduct in office," and "incompetency" are not statutorily defined, they have been given meaning by administrative rule and judicial decision.

   
   

10. Chapter 6B-4 9/, Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part:

    
    

    6B-4.09 Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal.

    1. Incompetency is defined as inabil- ity or lack of fitness to discharge the re-

       quired duty as a result of inefficiency . . .

       1. Inefficiency: [means] (1) repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes); . . . or

          1. repeated failure on the part of an admin- istrator or supervisor to communicate with and relate to teachers under his supervision to such an extent that the educational pro- gram for which he is responsible is seriously impaired.

             1. Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education pro-

                fession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community.

             2. Misconduct in office is defined

          as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system. (e.s.)

          
          

11. In Pearl v. Florida Board of Real Estate, 394 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981), the court endorsed the following definitions of "moral turpitude," a term closely analogous to "immorality":

    
    

    [Moral turpitude is a]n act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fel- low men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.

    Moral turpitude involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the pri- vate social relations or duties owed by man to men or by man to society. (cita- tions omitted). It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, hon- esty, principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not con- templated.

    
    

12. In Vernie M. Smith v. School Board of Leon County, 405 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the court construed "misconduct in office," as used in Section 231.36, supra. It held that the thrust of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession "deals with a teacher's relationships with the public or with the school administration as it affects the public." Id. at 185. In ruling that the actions of a school administrative employee did not constitute "misconduct in office," the court observed, "This incident [involving the employee] -- as the record before us reflects -- had no bearing on her exercise of her duties to the public." Id. at 185.

    
    

13. Measured by these standards, it is concluded that respondent's actions, under the circumstances described, do not constitute "immorality" or "misconduct in office" within the meaning of Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, (1981).

    
    

14. By allowing the showing of the offending videotape to continue after he became aware of its content, he demonstrated a lamentable lack of judgment, courtesy, and sensitivity to the feelings of Ms. Block and Ms. Mason. However, such a dereliction--although not to be minimized--does not approach the level of inherent baseness, vileness, or depravity normally associated with the term "immorality." 10/

15. Neither does his continuing to watch the videotape--in private--with Principal DeLaurier (after Ms. Block and Ms. Mason had left the office) constitute "immorality" or "misconduct in office." Neither Chapter 6B-4, Florida Administrative Code, nor School Board rules prohibit an administrative employee from viewing sexually explicit material in photographs or motion picture form. 11/

    
    

16. If the School Board wishes to articulate such a prohibition "it is not precluded from doing so as long as there is a record foundation in support of that policy." Smith, supra at 185. However, if it chooses to establish such a policy at hearing, it must sustain an elevated standard of proof:

    
    

    [W]hen the standards of conduct to be enforced are not explicitly fixed by statute or by rule, but depend on . debatable expressions . . .; when the conduct to be assessed is past, beyond the actor's power to conform it to agency stan- dards announced prospectively; and when the proceeding may result in the loss of a val- uable business or professional license,

    the critical matters in issue must be shown by evidence which is indubitably as "sub- stantial" as the consequences.

    
    

    Bowling v. Department of Insurance, 394 So.2d 165, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Here, the School Board did not adequately sustain its burden. It did not show how an assistant principal's use of sexually explicit material during his lunch hour was intrinsically harmful to him or adversely affected the performance of his duties.

    
    

17. Furthermore, respondent's actions do not constitute "misconduct in office" because it was not shown that they adversely affected the performance of his duties to the public or seriously impaired his effectiveness in the school system. If his effectiveness was reduced at all, it resulted from publicity surrounding the School Board's own investigation of the incident. Cf., Boyette

    v. State Professional Practices Council, 348 So.2d 598, 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). No showing was made that respondent knew or should have known that his activities were wrongful or violated School Board policy. His actions, although misguided, resulted from an isolated mistake in judgment, not an evil mind. Under such circumstances, the invoking of the provisions of Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, a penal statute, 12/ is unwarranted.

    
    

18. The parties' proposed findings of fact which are incorporated in this recommended order are adopted; otherwise, they are rejected as unsupported by the requisite quantum of evidence or immaterial to resolution of the issues presented.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the School Board dismiss its charges against respondent, reinstate him to his former position or a comparable position within the school system, and pay him his back salary and related benefits.

DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.

R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1982.

ENDNOTES

1/ Petitioner's and Respondent's Exhibits will be referred

to as "P- ," and "R- ," respectively. Pages of the transcript of hearing will be referred to as "Tr.

2/ Previously, Principal DeLaurier had instructed Ms. Block to videotape a public-TV broadcast by Dr. Willamere Marshall on IEPs so that it could be shown later to teachers who missed the broadcast.

3/ Principal DeLaurier had previously sent a memorandum to exceptional education teachers and counselors indicating that the Marshall tape would be shown in his office that day.

4/ DeLaurier denies inviting Ms. Block to his office. After considering the demeanor of the witnesses and their respective motives and interest in this proceeding, it is determined that Ms. Block's testimony is more credible.

5/ The parties stipulated that at least the first ten minutes of this videotape depicted such sexually explicit activities.

6/ There is conflicting testimony on when Ms. Luis viewed the sexually explicit videotape. She testified it was shown immediately after the Marshall tape, respondent and DeLaurier testified that she momentarily stepped into the office after Ms. Block and Ms. Mason had left, that she saw the sexually explicit film, made an exclamatory remark, and left. Ms. Luis's testimony was not impeached on cross-examination; she had no motive to falsify. Indeed, she spoke highly of Principal DeLaurier and evinced no ill-will toward him. Under such circumstances, her testimony is persuasive.

7/ The School Board's repeated argument that respondent tricked Ms. Block and Ms. Mason into coming to the principal's office and observing the film was not substantiated by the evidence. Such a conclusion is based on speculation and unjustified inference.

8/ Without knowing the allegations relied on by the callers and the facts which they assumed to be true, such figures are accorded little weight. (The petition of the school teachers and staff is treated similarly.)

9/ See, Vernie M. Smith v. School Board of Leon County, 405 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Copies of the pertinent provisions of Chapter 6B-4 wore accepted into evidence (T-12), and both parties have relied on them in their post-hearing submittals. However, those rules do not apply be non-instructional personnel (such as respondent) and there is some question as to whether they are not in effect. See, Chapter 80-191, s. 9, Laws of Florida (1980).

10/ Such insensitivity to the feelings of other persons is more properly dealt with in an employee's performance evaluation. For example, the School Board's evaluation form rates administrators on personal characteristics: consider evidence of courtesy . . . . tact . . . . sensitivity to the feelings of others (R-17)

11/ It should be noted that the School Board neither charged nor proved that the offending videotape was obscene or pornographic. See, Golden Dolphin v.

State Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 403 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

12/ See, School Board of Pinellas County v. Noble, 384 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire, and Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Lindsey Hopkins Building

1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132

Allen Oppenheimer, Esquire 1515 Northwest Seventh Street Miami, Florida 33125

Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County Lindsey Hopkins Building

1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 81-1677

DONALD WIEBER,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER OF

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard before The School Board of Dade County, Florida at its regular meeting of April 28, 1982 and the Board having heard arguments on the exceptions filed by the Petitioner herein and response thereto by the attorney for the Respondent and having read the record in this case and being fully advised in the premises, it is therefore

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Findings of Fact made by the Hearing Officer, R. L. Caleen, in his Recommended Order signed February 11, 1982 are hereby accepted and made a part Thereof.

   
   

2. The School Board rejects the Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer except as indicated herein below:

1. The School Board accepts the conclusions in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 of the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law.

   
   

2. To the extent that footnote 9 to the Hearing Officer's conclusions, paragraph 3, indicates that the definitions found in s. 6B-4.09 F.A.C. are inapplicable in this case, that conclusion is rejected and the School Board specifically finds that the definitions of immorality and misconduct in this rule are pertinent to this case.

   
   

3. The School Board rejects the definition of immorality set forth in the first paragraph on page 9 of the Recommended Order (It appears that this paragraph was intended to be numbered as number 4 but that the number was omitted.) The School Board Board finds that the case relied upon by the Hearing Officer for a definition of immorality is a case which defines instead the term "moral turpitude." Furthermore, it is a case involving a realtor, and not an educator. As stated in the recent Florida decision of Adams v. State Professional Practices Council, 406 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) when

   distinguishing the Pearl v. Florida Board of Real Estate, 394 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) case relied upon by the Hearing Officer

   
   

   In our view, however, the moral standard to he upheld by teachers is different from that of realtors, since teachers are charged by

   s. 231.09 and 231.28(1) with pro- viding leadership and maintaining effectiveness as teachers. By virtue of their leadership capac- ity, teachers are traditionally held to a high moral standard in a community. See Negrich v. Dade

   County Board of Public Instruction, 143 So.2d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)

   
   

   See also Pyle v. Washington County School Board, 239 So.2d 121, 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)

   
   

   The term immorality in the context of a teacher dismissal case is better defined as ". . . a course of conduct as offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate." Lesley v. Oxford Area School District, 420 A.2d 764 (Pa. 1980)

   
   

4. The School Board also rejects the Hearing Officer's definition of "misconduct in office" found in the second paragraph on page 9 of his Recommended Order and relies instead on the definition in the Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.09.

   
   

5. The School Board rejects the Hearing Officer's conclusion in paragraph

5 of his Recommended order that the Respondent's actions do not constitute immorality or misconduct in office within the meaning of s. 231.36(6) Fla. Stat. The School Board specifically finds that Respondent's act of watching a sexually explicit film for approximately ten minutes in the office of the school principal at Devon Aire Elementary School during school hours was an immoral act and that allowing this sexually explicit film to be played in the presence of female staff members was an immoral act and misconduct in office. The School Board agrees with the Hearing Officer that these acts also demonstrated a lamentable lack of judgment, courtesy, and sensitivity to the feelings of Ms. Block and Ms. Mason.

The School Board specifically rejects the Hearing Officer's implications that it must adopt a rule prohibiting its administrative employees from viewing sexually explicit films at school before it can terminate such an employee's employment for such behavior. The School Board finds that any responsible school system administrator should know better than to do such a thing.

Tomerlin v. Dade County school Board, 318 so.2d 159, 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

The School Board further finds that the evidence sustaining Wieber's dismissal is as substantial as are the consequences.

The School Board finds that the Petitioner has shown that the use of the sexually explicit material at the elementary school has adversely affected Wieber's ability to perform his duties and seriously impaired his effectiveness in the school system. See Adams v. State Professional Practices Council, supra at 406 so.2d 1172 and Tomerlin v. Dade County school Board, supra.

The School Board specifically finds that whether the investigation by the School Board of the Respondent's wrongdoing caused the publicity which destroyed his effectiveness is immaterial. Wishart v. McDonald, 367 F.Supp. 530 at 535 (D. Mass 1973) aff'd at 500 F.2d 1110.

The School Board finds that the Respondent knew or should have known that his activities were wrongful and specifically rejects the Hearing Officer's conclusions to the contrary. See Tomerlin v. Dade County School Board, supra.

WHEREFORE, The School Board of Dade County, Florida rejects the Recommendation of the Hearing Officer in this case and orders that:

1. Donald Wieber he and is hereby dismissed from his employment with The School Board of Dade County, Florida, and

   
   

2. Donald Wieber shall receive no salary from June 4, 1981 from The School Board of Dade County, Florida.

Done and Ordered this 28th day of April, 1982.

PAUL CEJAS, Chairman

The School Board of Dade County, Florida

Docket for Case No: 81-001677

Orders for Case No: 81-001677