STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

VIRGIL L. MORGAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-3552

)

SANDRA BOULTON, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to written notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Daniel Manry, a duly designated hearing officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, on October 1, 1992, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire

Whitelock & Moldof

1311 Southeast Second Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316

For Respondent: Sally C. Gertz, Esquire

FEA/United

118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent used racial epithets in two separate incidents at school and, if so, whether Respondent should be dismissed or otherwise disciplined for such conduct.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on May 21, 1992. Respondent requested a formal hearing prior to June 2, 1992.

The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 15, 1992, for assignment of a Hearing Officer and assigned to Hearing Officer Michael Parrish on June 17, 1992. A formal hearing was scheduled for October 1 and 2, 1992, pursuant to a Notice of Hearing issued on June 29, 1992. The matter was transferred to the undersigned on September 28, 1992.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of twelve witnesses and submitted six exhibits. Respondent testified in her own behalf and presented the testimony of four witnesses and five exhibits. The witnesses and exhibits are identified in the transcript of the formal hearing. Respondent made an ore tenus motion in limine concerning the testimony of Mr. Ronald

Wright, the Director of Professional Standards for Petitioner. Ruling was reserved for disposition in this Recommended Order, and Mr. Wright's testimony was heard.

A transcript of the formal hearing was filed with the undersigned on November 18, 1992. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by Petitioner on December 17, 1992, and by Respondent on December 9, 1992. The parties' proposed findings of fact are addressed in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is the Superintendent of Schools for the Broward County School Board (the "School Board"). Petitioner is statutorily required to recommend the placement of School Board personnel and to enforce employee compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations.

   
   

2. Respondent is employed by the School Board, pursuant to the provisions of a professional services contract. Respondent is an art teacher at Markham Elementary School in Broward County, Florida ("Markham"). Respondent was so employed for the school year 1991-92, but was suspended without pay on or about June 2, 1992.

   
   

3. Markham is predominantly African American. It is one of several pilot schools in Broward County, Florida required by the county to provide an African American Infusion Program and a Multi-cultural Department. The program includes a curriculum designed to make children aware of who they are, their background, and current events.

   
   

4. Racial tensions exist at Markham between "clicks" in faculty, staff, and students and between faculty and students. The principal at Markham admonished Ms. Randy Laruso and Ms. Mary Washington, as leaders of the faculty clicks, for engaging in such activities. The principal prohibited racially divisive behavior and established a committee, including Ms. Laruso and Ms. Washington, to improve cohesiveness among the faculty. Racial tensions at Markham are so bad that some faculty members are not comfortable with the situation and others, including Ms. Laruso, have transferred.

   
   

5. Respondent is an experienced, competent art teacher. Respondent has been a teacher for 23 years. Seventeen of those years have been in Broward County. Respondent spent the last six years teaching in Broward County. Respondent's evaluations for the past six years in Broward County have been satisfactory with no notations that she needed any improvement. Respondent is considered by her principal to be very knowledgeable and competent as a teacher.

   
   

6. Respondent was conducting an art class for fifth grade students on December 5, 1991. The class included students from Ms. Mary Washington's fifth grade class as well as three handicapped students from Ms. Rosalyn Samuelsen's class who had recently been mainstreamed.

   
   

7. One of the students from Ms. Washington's fifth grade class was Deshanda Henley. Plasticine, a clay that does not harden, was on the floor. Respondent asked Miss Henley to clean up the clay. She refused and asked Respondent "why white people don't like black people." Respondent did not answer but went to the back of the classroom, got a broom and dust pan, handed them to Miss Henley and again asked her to clean up the clay. Miss Henley refused explaining that "you don't make those crackers clean up the clay." When

   Miss Henley refused Respondent's request again, Respondent said, "The reason white people don't like black people is because they ain't nothing but a bunch of nasty niggers." Miss Henley became angry and called Respondent a "white cracker."

   
   

8. The three students from Ms. Washington's class heard the racial epithet used by Respondent. The three students from Ms. Samuelsen's class were at an adjacent table and did not hear the slur.

   
   

9. The teacher who was substituting for Ms. Washington on December 5, 1991, gathered Ms. Washington's students when Respondent's class was over. When they were back in Ms. Washington's classroom, Miss Henley reported the racial epithet to the substitute teacher in front of the entire class. There was a discussion among the entire class about the accusation. The substitute teacher sent Miss Henley to the administrative office to report the incident to the principal. Later that day, Miss Henley came to Respondent's class and apologized for calling her a "white cracker." The principal did not hear of the incident until the following Spring.

   
   

10. Respondent continued teaching at Markham without incident for the next several months. In January or February, Miss Henley related the incident to Ms. Washington for the first time. Ms. Washington wrote a letter to the principal asking her to come to her class and talk to the students about the allegation that Respondent used a racial epithet in class. The principal went to Ms. Washington's class, listened to the accusations and student concerns, and told them she would look into it.

    
    

11. In early March of 1991-92, Mr. Roderick Lester, an interim teacher at Markham that year, was holding a resource class in which he had sixteen or seventeen of Ms. Washington's students. During that class, Miss Henley raised her hand and related the incident to Mr. Lester. Mr. Lester took the students back to their class and informed Ms. Washington of Miss Henley's allegations. Ms. Washington held another discussion with her class regarding the incident.

    
    

12. One of the students who heard the racial slur on December 5, 1991, told her parents about the incident for the first time in early March, 1992. When her parents learned that the incident had been reported to the administration on December 5, 1991, and that no action had been taken since then, they were angered. On March 3, 1992, the parents went to Markham to confront Respondent. The student's mother told Respondent that if Respondent used a racial slur again, "I'm going to jack you up." Respondent reported the incident to the front office. The principal was in a meeting off campus. Ms. Laruso was an acting administrator that day. Ms. Laruso called the police and reported the threat.

    
    

13. When the principal returned to the campus, she was informed of the day's events. The principal called the parents who had threatened Respondent and asked them to return to the school. Respondent was not invited to meet with the principal or the parents. Nor was she contacted or otherwise advised that the meeting was taking place. The principal never contacted Respondent to ask her version of what happened in the classroom on December 5, 1991. The incident was reported in the local press and created much public attention.

    
    

14. The principal contacted the School Board's special investigative unit ("SIU") on March 11, 1992, and requested an investigation into Miss Henley's allegations concerning the incident on December 5, 1991. Sandra Hart, an SIU

    investigator, conducted the investigation. Respondent was notified that an investigation had been requested concerning the incident on December 5, 1991.

    
    

15. The investigation was expanded to include alleged use of racial slurs in front of administrative staff on March 23 and 24, 1992. Respondent was not formally notified until several months later of the additional allegations. By letter dated May 21, 1992, Respondent was suspended from her employment with pay and later suspended without pay.

    
    

16. The additional allegations were raised in connection with a demonstration project promised by a representative from the Polaroid Company ("Polaroid") scheduled for March 24, 1992. Respondent was responsible for setting up a class to be put on by the Polaroid representative. Respondent arranged for 50 participants to take the class. For $15, each participant received three continuing education credits and a free Polaroid camera.

    
    

17. On the afternoon before the camera class was to begin, Respondent was informed by a telephone call from one of her supervisors that the Polaroid representative would not attend the class unless his round trip air fare was paid. Respondent's supervisor stated that such an arrangement was not financially feasible and instructed Respondent to cancel the class and refund the moneys to the participants.

    
    

18. After the telephone conversation, Ms. Lois Davis, the office manager and a registered participant in the cancelled class, asked what happened. Respondent advised Ms. Davis that the camera representative was not going to come. Respondent explained that "he's getting really niggly because he won't pay his plane fare."

    
    

19. On March 24, 1992, Respondent was asked by another staff member why the demonstration class had been cancelled. Respondent stated that the Polaroid representative had refused to come unless his air fare was paid.

    
    

20. The term "niggle" means to pay too much attention to detail. A "niggler" is one who niggles. Niggle is a word that is commonly used in Britain. Respondent's mother is British. Her husband is Australian. Respondent has visited her family in Britain and Australia on several occasions during the last few years. Respondent frequently uses the terms "niggle", "niggly", or "niggler" at school to describe her teenage daughters to other staff members.

    
    

21. Respondent's use of the terms "niggle", "niggler", or "niggly" at Markham impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Such terms have a high probability for creating misunderstanding and ill will in the racially tense environment at Markham and, in fact, had such a result. Racial tensions are high at Markham. Clicks exist between faculty, staff, and students. Racially divisive behavior has been admonished and prohibited by the school's principal. Respondent's explanation is that she chose to use the terms "niggler", niggle", or "niggly" to communicate in such an environment because they are common words in British and Australian society. Respondent's disregard for the potential effect caused by her choice of words in her school environment and the actual misunderstanding caused by that disregard impaired her effectiveness.

    
    

22. Respondent's use of the terms "niggler", "niggle", or "niggly" was imprudent in light of Respondent's previous history. Respondent received a written reprimand on August 21, 1990, for an allegation that she used a racial slur in an earlier incident. While other witnesses testified in connection with

    the investigation leading up to the written reprimand that they heard the racial slur, the student against whom the alleged slur was directed testified that he never heard Respondent use a racial slur against him. The written reprimand notified Respondent that, "Your failure or refusal to abide by this directive could result in disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for your dismissal." Respondent signed the written reprimand without any admission of the alleged wrong doing.

    
    

23. Respondent is an experienced teacher with the benefit of a formal education. Respondent has been a teacher for 23 years. Seventeen of those years have been in Broward County. Respondent has ample exposure to the racial diversity of Broward County and previous experience with accusations that she used racial slurs. Respondent should have been more mindful of the audience she was communicating with, more prudent in her choice of words, and more sensitive to the potential for misunderstanding under the circumstances.

    
    

24. Respondent's use of the term "nigger" in the classroom on December 5, 1991, is an act of immorality within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2). Respondent's conduct was sufficient and notorious to bring Respondent and the educational profession into public disgrace and disrespect and to impair Respondent's service in the community.

    
    

25. Respondent's use of the term "nigger" in the classroom on December 5, 1991, is an act constituting misconduct in office within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 4.009(3). Respondent's conduct impairs her effectiveness in the school system.

    
    

26. Respondent's use of the term "nigger" in the classroom on December 5, 1991, constitutes gross insubordination or wilful neglect of duties within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(4). Respondent's conduct is an intentional refusal to perform or attend to her duties by failing or refusing to follow the directive in the written reprimand.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

27. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The parties were duly noticed for the formal hearing.

    
    

28. Respondent's motion in limine concerning the testimony of an expert witness not disclosed on Petitioner's witness list is denied in part and granted in part. The witness was called as both a party witness and an expert witness. The factual testimony of the witness is admissible as the testimony of a party witness.

    
    

29. The expert testimony of the witness is precluded. It is uncontroverted that counsel for both parties entered into an agreement to exchange witness lists prior to the formal hearing and in fact exchanged witness lists. While no order requiring the exchange was entered, the undisputed agreement of attorneys in a proceeding should be complied with when their noncompliance would create surprise in fact and deprive opposing counsel of due process. Counsel for Respondent expressly stated that she would have called her own expert if she had been notified that Petitioner intended to call an expert witness on the subject of his testimony. Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1981).

30. Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding. Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the reasonableness of the penalty to be imposed. See Dileo v. School Board of Dade Countv, 569 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); Ferris v. Austin, 487 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

    
    

31. Petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of proof that Respondent used racial epithets in front of school administrative staff on March 23 and 24, 1993. The context of the use of the terms "niggly" or "niggle" and the surrounding facts and circumstances make it more likely than not that Respondent used those or similar words rather than a racial epithet.

    
    

32. Petitioner satisfied its burden of proof that Respondent used a racial slur in the classroom on December 5, 1991. The consistency and relative detail with which 11 year old student witnesses described the incident on December 5, 1991, their consistent recollection over time, their live testimony at the formal hearing, and the testimony of adults supplementing and explaining the testimony of the students persuaded the trier of fact it was more likely than not that the racial slur occurred. The fact that three students at an adjacent table did not hear the racial slur does not mean the racial slur did not occur.

    
    

33. Respondent's use of a racial slur on December 5, 1991, constitutes just cause for dismissal or suspension within the meaning of Sections 231.36(1)(a) and 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Just cause includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty.

    
    

34. Immorality is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2) 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 profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community.

    
    

    Use of a racial epithet by a teacher toward a student constitutes gross immorality and exposes the student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Department of Education, Education Practices Commission v. Ferrell, 10 FALR 4279 (1988).

    
    

35. Misconduct in office is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 4.009(3) as:

    
    

    A violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule

    6B-1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.

    
    

    Respondent's use of a racial slur on December 5, 1991, was so serious that it impaired her effectiveness in the school system.

36. Gross insubordination is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(4) as:

    
    

    A constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.

    
    

    The directive in the written reprimand directing Respondent to refrain from using racial epithets is a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by the proper authority. Respondent intentionally refused to obey that order on December 5, 1991.

    
    

37. The reasonableness of the penalty to be imposed in this proceeding should take into account all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the current incident as well as those surrounding Respondent's disciplinary history. Cf. Son v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, 608 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 20, 1992) (holding that the hearing officer correctly applied the rationale in Ayala v. Department of Professional Regulation, 478 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), to allow a party who had entered a plea of nolo contendere in a previous criminal proceeding to present evidence in the case at issue to show his innocence or to explain the surrounding facts and circumstances for purposes of mitigating his penalty). If justice requires that a party be permitted to present evidence for such purposes in a prior criminal proceeding in which the party entered a plea of convenience, justice requires no less than to give Respondent an opportunity to present evidence to establish her innocence or to explain the circumstances concerning a prior written reprimand in which she did not admit guilt.

    
    

38. This was the second occasion in which Respondent was involved in the use of a racial epithet. The current offense occurred in the classroom. In the prior offense, Respondent was accused of using racial epithets toward a student in the classroom and elsewhere in front of staff. The student against whom the racial epithet was supposed to have been directed in the prior offense testified in that investigation that Respondent did not use the alleged racial epithet. Respondent never admitted guilt to any of the allegations in the prior offense but signed the written reprimand as a matter of convenience. Respondent was not a member of the teacher's union and was not represented by a legal or other representative. Except for the written reprimand, Respondent has a record of satisfactory performance over the past six years and is a knowledgeable and competent art teacher. Respondent has the ability to be of service, perhaps in a different school setting.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Respondent should be found not guilty of the charge of using a racial epithet on March 23 and 24, 1992, and guilty of using a racial epithet on December 5, 1991. Respondent should be suspended without pay from the date she was first suspended without pay through the date of the Final Order to be entered in this proceeding. Respondent should also be required to attend and satisfactorily complete the African American Infusion Program administered through the Multi-cultural Department at Markham or a comparable program of education and rehabilitation designated by Petitioner. Nothing in this

Recommended Order shall be construed in a manner that precludes Petitioner from "non-renewing" Respondent's professional service contract in accordance with the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of February 1993.

DANIEL S. MANRY

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February 1993.

APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3552

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-4. Did not cite to the record

1. Accepted in Findings 7.

2. Accepted in Finding 8.

3. Accepted in Finding 12.

8.-9. Did not cite to the record

10. Rejected in Finding 19.

9. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings 7. and 18.-20.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Accepted in Finding 2.

2. Accepted in Finding 5. 3.-4. Accepted in Finding 7. 5.-6. Accepted in Finding 9. 7.-8. Accepted in Finding 10.

1. Accepted in Finding 11.

2. Irrelevant and immaterial, in part. Accepted in part in Finding 12.

3. Accepted in Finding 13.

4. Accepted in Finding 10.

5. See Finding 14.

6. Accepted in Findings 16.-17. 16.-17. Rejected in Finding 18.

1. Accepted in Finding 19.

2. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 20.-21. Accepted in Findings 20.-22.

22. Rejected as a truism.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Moldof

1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Sally C. Gertz, Esquire FEA/United

118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700

Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education

The Capitol, PL-08

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Virgil Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 S.W. 4th Street

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

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

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

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

BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

VIRGIL L. MORGAN

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 92-3552

SANDRA BOULTON,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard before THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA on June 22, 1993, upon the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer Daniel Manray dated the 19th of February, 1993, said Recommended Order consisting of Statement of the Issues, Preliminary Statement, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation; the Petitioner Morgan's Exceptions to the Recommended Order, Respondent's Brief in Support of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order; Petitioner Morgan's Amended Exceptions to the Recommended Order and Respondent's Response to Petitioner Morgan's Amended Exceptions to the Recommended Order and the Board hearing oral arguments of counsel and otherwise being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Petitioner Morgan waived Exceptions one (1) through four (4) of the Amended Exceptions to the Recommended Order.

   
   

2. As to Exception number five (5): after reviewing the complete record, the School Board accepts the fifth (5th) Exception set forth in Petitioner Morgan's Amended Exceptions to increase the penalty. The Board finds an increase of the hearing officer's recommended penalty is appropriate in that the occurance of December 5, 1991 was the second incident where the Respondent exhibited insensitivity to racial sensitivity in the community in which the Respondent was employed and because of the nature of the occurances, the Respondent should not be placed in another school setting.

   
   

3. The Board accepts in its entirety the Hearing Officer's Statement of Issues, Preliminary Statement, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

   
   

4. As to the Hearing Officer's Recommendations, the first sentence is accepted and the remainder of that recommendation is amended in that the Respondent is terminated from her employment with The School Board of Broward County, Florida.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 22nd day of July, 1993.

By Eileen Schwartz, Chairperson

The School Board of Broward County, Florida

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sally C. Gertz, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire

Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Hearing Officer Daniel Manray

APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER

THIS ORDER may be appealed by filing notices of appeal and a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 9.110(b) and (c), within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this ORDER.

Filed in Official School Board Records this 22nd day of

July, 1993.

Supervisor, Official School Board Records

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

SECOND AGENCY FINAL ORDER

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

VIRGIL MORGAN, BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

Petitioner, CASE NO. 92-3552

vs.

SANDRA BOULTON,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard before THE SCHOOL BOARD OFBROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA on January 17, 1995, upon the Mandate ofThe Fourth District Court of Appeal rendered November 18, 1994 inthe case of Sandra Boulton v. Virgil Morgan, Case No. 93-2439,Fourth District Court of Appeal, wherein the Court directed THESCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA to reinstate the recommended penalty set forth in the hearing officer's RecommendedOrder and the Board being fully advised on the premises,

IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

l. Paragraphs one and three of the Final Order rendered inthis case on July 22, 1993 are incorporated herein by reference.

1. Exception Five of Petitioner Morgan's Amended Exceptions to the Recommended Order is moot by virtue of the decision of theFourth District Court of Appeal.

   
   

2. The Board accepts the Recommendation set forth in theRecommended Order rendered by Hearing Officer Daniel Manry onFebruary 19, 1993.

   
   

3. The Respondent, SANDRA BOULTON, is found not guilty ofthe charge of using racial epithet on March 23 and 24, 1992. TheRespondent, SANDRA BOULTON, is found guilty of using racialepithet on December 5, 1991.

   
   

4. The Respondent, SANDRA BOULTON, is suspended without payfrom the date she was first suspended without pay through thedate of the Final Order dated July 22, 1993.

   
   

5. The Respondent, SANDRA BOULTON, is required to attendand satisfactorily complete an African American Infusion Programadministered by the school district.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 17th day January, 1995.

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

By MIRIAM M. OLIPHANT, Chairperson

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sally C. Gertz, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo Hearing Officer Daniel Manry

APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER

THIS ORDER may be appealed by filing notices of appealand a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68(2), FloridaStatutes, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and(c), within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this ORDER.

Filed in Official School Board Records this 17th day of January, 1995.

Ellen Ruth Kohli Supervisor, Official School

Board Records

Docket for Case No: 92-003552

Orders for Case No: 92-003552