STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ) ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE ) STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-7357

)

SCOTT R. BLAIR, )

)

Respondent. )

) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ) ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE ) STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-7358

)

CHARLES A. PIAZZA, )

)

Respondent. )

) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ) ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE ) STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-7359

)

ROBERT C. SINGLETON, )

)

Respondent. )

) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ) ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE ) STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-7360

)

THOMAS A. SAYED, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Errol H. Powell, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on May 12, 1993, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Monica Atkins-White

Assistant General Counsel

Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondents: James A. Freese, Esquire

Post Office Box 2795 Stuart, Florida 34995-2795

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In November 1991, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) filed an administrative complaint against Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair), Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza), Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), and Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed), individually. Petitioner alleged in each administrative complaint that each Respondent had violated Subsections 943.1395(5) and (6) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and/or (c), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to maintain certain established qualifications which require that a correctional officer have good moral character. Each Respondent executed an election of rights disputing the allegations of fact in the administrative complaint and requesting a formal hearing. 1/

On December 9, 1992, the matters were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. A formal hearing was scheduled on March 3, 1993, but was continued until May 12, 1993. The cases were consolidated on April 12, 1993.

At formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of seven witnesses and entered six exhibits into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of three witnesses 2/ and entered one exhibit into evidence. A transcript of the formal hearing was ordered.

The time for filing post-hearing submissions was set at ten days following the filing of the transcript. Subsequently, the parties filed a joint motion for extension of time which was granted, and the parties were given up to and including July 30, 1993, to file their post-hearing submissions. Petitioner filed its proposed findings and conclusions on July 30, 1993; however, Respondents filed their proposed findings and conclusions on August 4, 1993.

Petitioner filed a motion to strike Respondents' post-hearing submission as untimely, to which Respondents filed a reply. Petitioner's counsel is commended for her diligence in meeting the deadline for submissions in light of the many

demands, indicated in her motion, simultaneously placed upon her. However, there is no showing or can it be inferred that Petitioner has been prejudiced or Respondents have been afforded an unfair advantage, and therefore, Petitioner's motion to strike is denied. The parties' proposed findings of fact are addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material hereto, Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 30982 on December 22, 1989.

   
   

2. At all times material hereto, Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 25166 on August 11, 1988.

   
   

3. At all times material hereto, Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 71355 on August 24, 1988.

   
   

4. At all times material hereto, Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 98281 on March 27, 1987.

   
   

5. At all times material hereto, all of the Respondents were employed as correctional officers with the Martin County Sheriff's Department in the Martin County Detention Center.

   
   

6. In or around December 1989, a new Detention Center was constructed and opened. Prior to that time, the old Detention Center, called the "stockade," was located in Indiantown approximately 19 miles from the site of the new facility.

   
   

7. The stockade contained a commissary which was used by both inmates and correctional officers. The commissary was a separate area of the stockade, which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes, and sodas for the benefit of the inmates of the facility, who could purchase the items with monies maintained in their individual accounts controlled by the Detention Center. 3/ None of the inmates had unsupervised and continuous access to the commissary.

   
   

8. Even though the commissary was for the benefit of the inmates, correctional officers from time to time would remove items from it. There existed an unwritten honor policy that any item removed by a correctional officer would have to be paid for by that officer. A container was placed in the commissary and a correctional officer would place money in the container for the item removed. If an officer was unable to pay for the item at the time of its removal, a supervising officer could approve payment at a later time. An inventory was performed on a weekly and monthly basis, with no shortage of money being reported.

   
   

9. This honor policy was well known to and acquiesced in by the commanding officer of the stockage, Major Murphy.

   
   

10. Respondent Singleton, who was employed at the stockade, frequently used this honor policy. He would remove items from the commissary and put money in the container for the items. At times, he would not be able to pay for an

    item until payday, and he was allowed to pay for the item at that time by his superior officer on duty at the time.

    
    

11. Respondent Blair was also employed at the stockade and used this honor system.

    
    

12. When the new facility opened in or around December 1989, the commissary structure and procedure pertaining to inmate use remained the same, but the procedure pertaining to correctional officer use was changed by Major Murphy. Although the commissary continued to be for the benefit of the inmates, no longer were the correctional officers suppose to utilize it. The container for payment by the correctional officers for items removed no longer existed.

    
    

13. Now, the correctional officers were suppose to obtain their items from an area within the new Detention Center specifically set-aside for them, which was separate and some distance away from the commissary. This area contained coin-operated machines which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes and sodas.

    
    

14. However, although there was suppose to be this new policy, no one, other than administrative personnel and high ranking correctional officers, were aware of the change. No written policy was issued for the new facility to countermand the unwritten policy used at the stockade. This nonaction resulted in no notification to the correctional officers of the new policy. Without the written policy, some correctional officers who worked at the stockade continued their practice in the new facility of removing items from the commissary even though no container existed in which the officers could pay for the items removed.

    
    

15. In particular, at the new facility one correctional officer on the night shift had removed some items from the commissary. Being unsure as to how to pay or who to pay for the items, he waited the next morning, before going home, for the person who purchased items for the commissary, so that he could pay for the items. The commissary purchasing person worked only on the day shift. At that time, he was notified by the commissary purchasing person that he no longer could obtain items from the commissary, but she did accept his money for the items and informed the officer's superior of the incident. Then and only then did he become aware of the policy change.

    
    

16. Major Murphy continued as the commanding officer at the new Detention Center. He too used the commissary and the honor policy. At the stockade he would order boxes of cigars through the commissary, either prepaying for them or paying for them when they came in. He continued this practice at the new facility, which was at odds with his new unwritten policy of prohibiting correctional officers from using the commissary. Everyone was aware of Major Murphy's practice.

    
    

17. Approximately a year and a half after the new facility opened, on June 13, 1991, through an inmate informant, Major Murphy became aware of possible inmate theft of cigarettes from the commissary. The alleged theft occurred the night before on June 12, 1991, which was the usual periodic time that inmates' requests for commissary items were filled by other inmates under the supervision of correctional officers.

    
    

18. The inmates who were assigned to fill inmate requests from the commissary were questioned by an officer assigned to the investigation by Major Murphy. Implicated by the inmates interviewed in the June 12, 1991 theft of

    cigarettes were themselves, other inmates and several correctional officers, including Respondents. Besides officers actually removing cigarettes, one inmate was allegedly directed by one officer to deliver some cigarettes to another room and by another officer, Respondent Piazza, to deliver some cigarettes to her. Possible officer theft was a surprising development.

    
    

19. On the basis of only the inmates' statements, on June 13, 1991, Respondents were notified to report to Major Murphy without notifying them about the nature of the meeting. The written procedure for investigating officers was not followed. Major Murphy dictated the procedure to be followed in the investigation.

    
    

20. Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed met with Major Murphy and two of his ranking officers. Major Murphy did all the talking at the meeting. He cited the theft statute, notified them of the allegation against them and instructed them to tell what they had done. Major Murphy further told the Respondents that, if they did take the cigarettes, it would be the most expensive pack of cigarettes that they had ever had. At least one of Major Murphy's ranking officers perceived this statement by Major Murphy as a threat to the Respondents.

    
    

21. Only Respondent Blair admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes after changing his story several times as to how many packs he had removed. Respondent Sayed denied taking anything but at the conclusion of the meeting requested to meet with Major Murphy privately. In that private meeting, with one of Major Murphy's ranking officers also present, Respondent Sayed admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes and attempted to give Major Murphy the money for the cigarettes. Major Murphy refused to take the money. Respondent Piazza denied taking any cigarettes from the commissary.

    
    

22. Respondent Singleton was late for the meeting because he had not received notification of it. Again, Major Murphy did all the talking. He gave Respondent Singleton the same introductory comments regarding the theft statute, what was alleged, and requested his story of what happened. When Major Murphy completed his comments, Respondent Singleton admitted that, during his night shift, he had taken, but not stolen, a pie to eat because he lacked change for the machines and had intended to pay for the pie later.

    
    

23. Respondent Singleton also admitted that in the past he had removed snack items from the commissary but had paid the commissary purchasing person for them later. 4/ His statement pertaining to paying for the items later is found not to be credible. If he had engaged in this type of conduct, it is reasonable to assume that the commissary purchasing person would have informed him that he could no longer engage in such conduct, as she had done with the correctional officer discussed in Finding of Fact 15.

    
    

24. Respondents were suspended from their positions that same day and subsequently terminated.

    
    

25. Prior to the meeting with Major Murphy, there was nothing other than the statements by inmates to connect the Respondents to the theft of cigarettes from the commissary. Moreover, no inventory was performed on the commissary items. No evidence existed to show that any unauthorized items had been taken from the commissary or that Respondents had taken any items from the commissary.

26. Even though Major Murphy found the inmates' statements, standing alone, credible to initiate an investigation against the Respondents and personally question them, he failed to find these same statements from these same inmates credible to investigate any of the other correctional officers named in the statements and question them. Furthermore, no other correctional officer named on that evening shift was disciplined by Major Murphy.

    
    

27. One of the inmates from whom the so-called credible statements were taken testified at the hearing that, when he assisted in the new commissary, it was not uncommon for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary. 5/ At the hearing, the inmate refused to name correctional officers other than those named in his investigative statement, which included Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed, because he was fearful of what might happen to him at the new Detention Center at which he was now again incarcerated. Importantly, before he agreed to give a statement during the investigation in which he named officers, he was told by the investigating officer that other inmates had already given statements and named officers. The inmate's testimony at hearing is found to be credible.

    
    

28. Regarding Respondent Piazza, this inmate was directed by Respondent Piazza to take some cigarettes to another room within the facility where other officers were located, but none of whom personally accepted or received the cigarettes.

    
    

29. Approximately four days after the Respondents' meeting with Major Murphy, on June 17, 1991, he issued a written memo regarding correctional officers removing items from the commissary. Major Murphy indicated in the memo that through an investigation, without revealing the nature of the investigation, "apparently there was a practice of correctional employees removing items from the commissary, on all four shifts, without paying for them but that the practice would not be tolerated." Moreover, he further indicated that employees who had participated in the practice could remain anonymous and pay for the items, describing the procedure to follow, and that in the future a container would be placed in the commissary for the correctional employees who remove items to pay for them at the time they are removed.

    
    

30. It is inferred from Major Murphy's memo that he believed, and it is found, that it was common practice for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary without paying for them as described by the Respondents.

    
    

31. Even though other correctional officers who participated in the practice were provided an opportunity to pay for the items they had removed from the commissary, Major Murphy denied the Respondents this same opportunity.

    
    

32. Prior to the memo of June 17, 1991, and after Major Murphy's meeting with the Respondents, another officer who was named in an inmate statement admitted to Major Murphy that he had removed a cigar from the commissary without paying for it. No disciplinary action was taken against that officer. Also, additional correctional officers were named in additional statements by one inmate.

    
    

33. Major Murphy determined the extent of the investigation (limited only to the evening of June 12, 1991), and who would be investigated and disciplined (only Respondents and the inmates).

    
    

34. Before issuing the memo of June 17, 1991, Major Murphy had decided not to pursue an investigation of any additional correctional officers because he

    believed that the disciplining of Respondents had sent a message to the other officers that the practice would not be tolerated and because he did not want to have to suspend and possibly terminate the majority of his staff.

    
    

35. No criminal charges were recommended or filed against Respondents. The investigating officer recommended, and Major Murphy agreed, that the incident did not warrant theft charges.

    
    

36. Respondents have not been employed as correction officers since June 13, 1991.

    
    

37. Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action.

    
    

38. The inmates who stole cigarettes on the evening of June 12, 1991, were also disciplined.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

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

    
    

40. License revocation proceedings are penal in nature. The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish the truthfulness of the allegations of the administrative complaints by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

    
    

41. One of the minimum requirements of being a correctional officer established by Section 943.13, Florida Statutes (1991), is that the correctional officer

    
    

    
    

    that

    (7) Have a good moral character as determined by a background investigation under procedures established by the commission.

    
    

42. Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes (1991), provides in pertinent part

    
    

    1. The commission shall revoke the certification of any officer who is not in compliance with the provisions of

       s. 943.13(1)-(10) . . .

       
       

    2. Upon a finding by the commission that a certified officer has not maintained good moral character, the definition of which has been adopted by rule and is established as a statewide standard, . . . the commission may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties in lieu of revocation of certification:

       1. Suspension . . . not to exceed 2 years.

       2. Placement on a probationary status . . . not to exceed 2 years, subject to terms and

          conditions imposed by the commission . . .

       3. Successful completion . . . of any basic recruit, advanced, or career development training or such training deemed appropriate

          by the commission.

       4. Issuance of a reprimand.

    
    

43. Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code, defines in pertinent part a certified officer's failure to maintain good moral character as

    
    

    1. The perpetration by the officer of an act which would constitute any of the following misdemeanor or criminal offenses, whether criminally prosecuted or not:

       sections . . . 812.014(2)(d), [petit theft]

       . . .

    2. The perpetration by the officer of an act or conduct which causes substantial doubts concerning the officer's honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others irrespective of whether such act or conduct constitutes a crime, . . . .

    
    

44. Section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1991), provides in pertinent part that theft is committed when a person "knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: (a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom . . . ." Furthermore, petit theft is defined in pertinent part by Section 812.014(2)(d) as property stolen that is valued at less than

    $300, or any other property not specified in subparagraphs (2)(a) or (2)(b) or (2)(c) of Section 812.014.

    
    

45. The evidence is clear that the items removed from the commissary are property defined in petit theft by Section 812.014.

    
    

46. Furthermore, the evidence is clear and convincing that the elements of the commission of petit theft have been satisfied and that Respondents Blair, Sayed and Singleton committed petit theft even though they were not charged with the crime. Consequently, they have failed to maintain good moral character as defined by Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b).

    
    

47. As to Respondent Piazza, his conduct requires closer scrutiny. Petitioner argues that, even if he did not himself commit the crime, he assisted in the crime, by having cigarettes taken to another correctional officer, which action makes him a "principal" in the crime and equally as guilty. Petitioner's argument is found persuasive and, therefore, Respondent Piazza has also committed petit theft even though he too was not charged with the crime. Hence, he, too, has failed to maintain good moral character as defined by Rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(b).

    
    

48. Although it has been determined that the Respondents have committed petit theft, the alternative aspect of good moral character, Rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, will be addressed. The operative phrase in this rule is "substantial doubts" and there are "no substantial doubts" regarding Respondents.

49. It is clear that Major Murphy maintained strict and substantial control over the Detention Center, which he should as the commanding officer. Moreover, the evidence is clear that, if Major Murphy had issued no written policy on what a correctional officer could or could not do or had not verbally informed all his correctional officers what they could or could not do regarding the new commissary, the correctional officers would have complied and acted accordingly. However, there was no written policy and no verbal communication to all the officers, so they continued their conduct of removing items from the new commissary, which was acknowledged by Major Murphy in his memo of June 17, 1991. Significantly, the officers observed Major Murphy continue his practice at the new Detention Center of obtaining boxes of cigars from the commissary.

    By example, he was indicating to the officers that their practice could continue but not to the extent of not paying for items removed from the commissary.

    
    

50. Moreover, Respondents' unlawful acts were isolated, their transgressions were of a limited nature, and there has been considerable passage of time since the isolated incidents occurred.

    
    

51. Hence, Petitioner has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents have failed to maintain good moral character as defined by Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c).

    
    

52. Regarding penalty, the disciplinary guidelines indicate that suspension be imposed for the violation committed by Respondents, with deviation permitted for aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Rule 11B-27.005, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner suggests that a two-year suspension, beginning

15 days after the issuance of the final order, is appropriate. To the contrary, mitigating circumstances discussed in Conclusions of Law 49 and 50 show that a two-year suspension is too harsh. Also, in mitigation, Respondents have no prior disciplinary history and significantly, as pointed out by Petitioner, they have not been employed as correctional officers since June 13, 1991.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission

enter a final order

1. Reprimanding the Respondents.

   
   

2. Placing the Respondents on probationary status for six months.

DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1994.

ERROL H. POWELL

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 17th day of June 1994.

ENDNOTES

1/ Executed by Respondent Blair on December 6, 1991; by Respondents Piazza and Sayed on December 3, 1991; and by Respondent Singleton on May 22, 1992.

2/ Respondent Sayed did not attend the hearing. Nor was his testimony presented by deposition.

3/ Inmates do not possess any money on their person. An inmate's money is placed into individual inmate accounts controlled by the Detention Center. An inmate makes a request for what he wants from the commissary, and the cost of the requested item is deducted from the monies in the inmate's account. The items requested are disseminated to inmates at specific, periodic times.

4/ This testimony was contradicted by the commissary purchasing person who testified that none of the Respondents ever paid her for items they obtained from the new commissary. She knew of only one such incident involving after the fact payment which is discussed in Finding of Fact 15.

5/ It is inferred that the inmate could only observe correctional officers removing items from the new commissary when he assisted because that was the only time that the new commissary was accessible to inmates. Furthermore, inmates assisting in the filling of inmate requests occurred only at certain times and only in the evenings.

APPENDIX

The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact.

Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 1.

2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 2.

3. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 3.

4. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 4.

5. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 5.

6. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 17.

7 & 8. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 7, 12 and 13.

1. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 6, 12 and 13.

2. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 12, 13 and 15.

3. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 17-23, 27 and 28.

4. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 26 and 32.

5. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 22.

6. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 8.

7. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 16.

16 & 17. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23.

18. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 38.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

1 & 2. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 1-4.

1. Rejected as irrelevant, or unnecessary.

2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 36.

3. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 17-24.

4. Rejected as constituting argument, or conclusions of law.

5. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 36.

6. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 6, 10 and 11. 9-14. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 8-11.

1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 14.

2. Rejected as argument, or conclusion of law.

3. Rejected as recitation of testimony.

18-21. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 12-13, 27,

29 and 30.

22-25. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 16.

26-28. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 29 and 31.

29-31. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 18, 26, 27 and 32.

1. Rejected as unnecessary, or irrelevant.

2. Rejected as recitation of testimony.

3. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 7, 8 and 12.

4. Rejected as unnecessary, or irrelevant.

36-53. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 17 and 19-24.

1. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 25, 27, 29 and 30.

2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 33.

3. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 29.

4. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 34.

5. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 24.

6. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented.

60-62. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 17, 27 and 28.

1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 29 and 32-34.

2. Rejected as unnecessary, or irrelevant.

65-70. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. 71-74. Rejected as unnecessary, or irrelevant.

75. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented.

NOTE -- Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the more credible evidence, contrary to the evidence presented, recitation of testimony, argument, or conclusion of law.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Monica Atkins-White Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law

Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

James A. Freese, Esquire Post Office Box 2795 Stuart, Florida 34995-2795

A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Florida Department of Law

Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Michael Ramage General Counsel

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

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.

Docket for Case No: 92-007357

Orders for Case No: 92-007357