STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LASONJA SAULSBERRY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 97-0324RU

)

FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

SUMMARY FINAL ORDER

This cause came on for consideration upon Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition and Motion to Strike Count II of the First Amended Petition.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William R. Muldrow

Qualified Representative 3070 Waterford Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

For Respondent: Bishop C. Holifield

Florida A & M University Office of the General Counsel

300 Lee Hall

Tallahassee, Florida 32307

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Does the challenged language contained in the Academic Policy Statement Handbook constitute "curricula" so as to be exempt from rule-making pursuant to Section 120.81(1)(a), Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.]?

   
   

2. Is Petitioner entitled to a de novo hearing on the merits of her dismissal from the University pursuant to Section 120.57(1) Florida Statutes in light of the provisions of Section 120.81(1)(f) Florida Statutes?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arose by the filing of a Petition challenging a statement of Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University as an unpromulgated rule, pursuant to Section 120.56(4) Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.].

By an Order of Assignment entered January 27, 1997, the cause was assigned to the undersigned Administrative Law Judge.

The University filed a Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner filed a response, and oral argument was heard on February 12, 1997.

Upon review of the record and being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned entered an Order on February 14, 1997 which accepted William R. Muldrow as Petitioner's qualified representative and granted the Motion to Dismiss with leave for Petitioner to amend by a certain date.

The First Amended Petition was timely filed, and the University again moved to dismiss. Petitioner filed a response in opposition. The University also filed a Motion to Strike Count II of the First Amended Petition. A number of other motions were filed, some contained in responses to the motions and replies to the responses to motions. Oral argument was heard

on all pending motions on March 6, 1997.

On March 6, 1997, during oral argument on all pending motions, the following motions were argued, considered, and ruled upon. Those oral rulings are memorialized here.

1. Petitioner's motion to strike certain paragraphs of the University's Motion to Strike Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 (contained in her Responses to Respondent's Motion to Strike Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3) was denied.

2. The University's Motion to Strike Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 was denied.

3. It was agreed by the parties that Count II of the First Amended Petition should be struck, and the undersigned ruled orally that it would be struck as a matter of law. Procedurally, the University's Motion to Strike Count II of the Petition was taken under advisement for resolution simultaneously with the University's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition.

During the March 6, 1997 hearing, the parties were asked for further written argumentation and the submission of additional case law addressing the Motion to Dismiss Count I of the First Amended Petition.

On Friday, March 7, 1997, oral argument was heard on the University's emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena for Depositions and for Protective Order filed on March 7, 1997 and directed to seven named students set by Petitioner for deposition on Monday, March 10, 1997. That motion was orally granted and this order

memorializes that oral ruling.

Also on March 7, 1997, the parties submitted further written argumentation and case law on the pending Motion to Dismiss Count I of the First Amended Petition, and further oral argument on the issue was heard.

This Final Order addresses the entire First Amended Petition, Counts I and II.

This cause may be summarily disposed of without formal hearing on the merits.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner was enrolled in Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University's College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences.

2. On December 18, 1996, Petitioner was dismissed from the pharmacy program by a letter from the Dean of the College which stated, in pertinent part,

   After reviewing your academic record and the recommendation of the Admission and Academic Standards Committee, I must inform you that you are being dismissed from the College of Pharmacy. Please be advised that further request for readmission will not be considered.

   Because pharmacy is a career directed toward the safeguarding of community health, it also is a demanding career. We must insist that our students meet the academic challenges of the College of Pharmacy so that they will be well prepared to meet the challenge of a dynamic health care system. (Emphasis in original) [See, Exhibit to the First Amended Petition]

3. Count I of the First Amended Petition challenges "Academic Policy Statement Handbook, Section 2 Dismissal", found

   on pages 9 and 10 of the publication. (See, Paragraph 5 of the First Amended Petition) The full title of this handbook is "Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Academic Policy Handbook for BS and PharmD Students."

4. The "Disclaimer" on page one of the Handbook makes clear that the Handbook is,

   ". . .for information purposes only and should not be construed as the basis of a contract between the student and the FAMU College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Services . . ., the College reserves the right to change any provision listed, including but not limited to academic requirements for graduation, . . . it is especially important that each student note that it is his/her responsibility to keep himself/herself apprised of current graduation requirements by regular consultation with his/her advisor."

5. The portion of the Handbook specifically challenged by Count I of the First Amended Petition provides as follows:

ACADEMIC POLICY STATEMENT

The Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (the College) has a responsibility to prepare students to enter the practice of pharmacy with competencies demanded by his/her role in health care. Further, the College serves to provide breadth and depth of scientific and professional background so as to allow versatility of practice within the subsystems of pharmacy.

Students must make a commitment to their chosen profession by making those sacrifices necessary to insure academic success in their course of study.

Being admitted to the College comes with the understanding that excellence in academic performance is expected.

Failure to maintain academic performance will result in some action by the appropriate College of Pharmacy Committee. **It should be further understood that failing a course will usually result in the suspension of the student's program due to the structure of the curriculum and the associated

prerequisite requirements in addition to any academic sanctions that may be imposed.

The curriculum is designed to be followed from a course prerequisite standpoint while maintaining the integrity of the courses based on the year offered in the curriculum (i.e. 3rd year courses must be completed before entering 4th year courses, etc.).

In addition to University Academic Regulations, the following rules will be used to provide for the immediate intervention of the Admissions and Academic Standards (A&AS) Committee. Additionally, the A&AS Committee may intervene at times other than specifically stated below if it is deemed necessary in order to ensure the academic integrity of the College.

1. Probation

   1. A student will be placed on academic probation if EITHER of the following occurs:

      1. Two or more D's in any course work in any semester

      2. Failure of a professional course

      3. A G.P.A. less than 2.0 in any semester.

         While on academic probation, the student will be required to meet with his/her advisor to determine what steps are needed to increase the student's academic performance. The student will be expected to adhere to the plan worked out with the student's advisor. The advisor will inform the A&AS Committee of the student's compliance and progress.

         
         

         **A "C" grade or better is required for passing all pharmacy courses.

   2. Probation will be lifted when BOTH of the following occur:

1. A G.P.A. above 2.00

2. No additional D's or F's

1. Dismissal

   1. A student may be dismissed from the program under provisions set by the A&AS Committee if EITHER of the following occurs:

      1. Two or more failures in one semester

      2. A total of three failures in professional

         courses

         
         

         semester

         
         

      3. A G.P.A. less than 2.00 for the third

   2. The student will be required to attend ALL professional courses in the semester in which he/she is retaking courses.

   3. The A&AS Committee will review every case separately and reserves the right to determine the provisions for each individual situation.

   4. The A&AS Committee will define the conditions for readmission for each individual student.

      
      

2. Dismissal

   1. A student will be dismissed from the program if EITHER of the following occurs:

      1. The fifth failure in professional courses

      2. The fifth failure in non-professional

         courses

      3. Three failures in professional courses in

         one semester

      4. The second failure of a single course

   2. The student is eligible to reapply and be considered for admission one year after studies in the College have been discontinued.

It is the student's responsibility to ask to be withdrawn from a course in a timely manner. Failure to seek counseling or guidance in a situation that negatively impacts his academic performance will not be used as cause to prevent the imposition of the appropriate academic penalty. (Emphasis in original) [See, Paragraph 5 of the First Amended Petition and Exhibit attached thereto]

1. In her Supplementary Response to the Motion to Dismiss

   
   

   the First Amended Petition, Petitioner conceded that "No doubt the major text of the 'ACADEMIC POLICY STATEMENT' challenged, constitutes 'curriculum' which is exempt from rulemaking under Florida Law." The thrust of her challenge was then directed to the fifth paragraph on page 9 of the Handbook which reads,

   Additionally, the A & AS Committee may intervene at times other than specifically stated below if it is deemed necessary in order to ensure the academic integrity of the College.

   
   

   Petitioner further argued that she "contends that it is not what the challenged agency statement says . . . but what is not specifically in that text. The statement granted the

   A&AS Committee authority to take action against the Petitioner to preserve the 'academic integrity of the College,' but the text did not state what grounds that action must be based upon or what reasons are needed to take such action." Petitioner ultimately argued that she is "not challenging the 'curricula' use of the challenged statement to judge academic standards, but the use of the statement for other purposes as used against her." [See Petitioner's Supplementary Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss].

   However, Petitioner conceded in the March 7, 1997 oral argument that she had no idea what those "other purposes" (also referred to as "discipline" or "other or secret agenda" in oral argument) might be, if any.

2. Count II of the First Amended Petition adds anew a petition for a de novo review of the action of the Dean in dismissing Petitioner from the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Services. See, Finding of Fact 2, above.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

3. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the pending motions pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.].

   COUNT II (The Dismissal Letter)

   
   

4. Count II of the First Amended Petition requested a de novo hearing on the merits of Petitioner's dismissal. That Count is improperly before the Division of Administrative Hearings for

   several reasons.

   
   

5. Count II of the First Amended Petition exceeds the permissive boundaries granted by the February 14, 1997 Order. The First Amended Petition includes a new count on a new subject not present in the original Petition. See, Rule 1.140(f), Fla. R. Civ. P.

6. Moreover, Count II of the First Amended Petition raises disputed issues of material fact based upon final agency action. Assuming arguendo, but not ruling, that there were jurisdiction in the Division over the dismissal dispute, this type of controversy may not be filed directly with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Direct filing with the Division of the Petition (in this case, the First Amended Petition) is appropriate for all the permutations of rule challenges pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. However, all issues of disputed material fact based on (proposed) final agency action, such as Petitioner's dismissal, first must be filed with the agency. See, Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, governing initial filing with the "agency" for referrals, in the agency's discretion, to the Division of Administrative Hearings.

7. However, seminal to resolution of the Motion to Dismiss/Strike, is the clear legal premise that the Division of Administrative Hearings simply does not have jurisdiction of the dismissal dispute alleged in Count II of the First Amended Petition.

8. Section 120.81(1)(f), Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.] provides,

   Sections 120.57 and 120.569 do not apply to any proceedings in which the substantial interests of a student are determined by the State University System. The Board of Regents shall establish a committee, at least half of whom shall be appointed by the Council of Student Body Presidents, which shall establish rules and guidelines ensuring fairness and due process in judicial proceedings involving students in the State University System.

9. Despite new numbering introduced in 1996, the content of this statutory exclusion is not new. See its predecessor statute, Section 120.57(5)(a) Florida Statutes [1995], and Canney v. Board of Public Instruction, 278 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1973), Charity v. Florida State University, 680 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Beheshtitabar v. Florida State University, 432 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Devito v. University of South Florida, 619 So.2d 470 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1993), Metsch v. University of Florida,

   550 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989); and Florida State Board of Education v. Brady, 368 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

10. Therefore, as previously ruled orally, Count II of the First Amended Petition should be dismissed as a matter of law.1

    COUNT I (The "Rule" Challenge)

    
    

11. Section 120.81(1)(a), Florida Statutes, [1996 Supp.] is the new repository for the statutory language excepting curricula of an educational unit from the definition of "rule" as defined by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

12. That statutory exclusion now reads:

    120.81 Exceptions and special requirements; general areas.--

    
    

    (1) EDUCATIONAL UNITS.--

    (a) The preparation or modification of curricula by an educational unit is not a rule as defined by this chapter.2

13. The Respondent University is such an "educational unit" by a clear facial reading of the statute, by statutory definition, by prior case law, and by implication of the new surrounding statutes.3

14. Peripherally, it also should be noted that pursuant to far-reaching amendments in 1996, "educational units" are now exempt from all or most requirements for promulgating rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

15. The threshold question in assessing Count I of the First Amended Petition must be, "What does the statement unpromulgated as a rule seek to do?" Basically, it describes a means by which students with potentially failing grades and grade point averages can avoid immediate suspension of the student's program, dismissal from the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Services or other academic sanctions normally in the discretion of the Dean of the College, and provides guidelines as to how an appropriate College of Pharmacy Committee (paragraph 3 of the challenged statement) and the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee (paragraph 5 of the challenged statement) shall assess such student's academic rehabilitation prior to making any recommendations for dismissal.

16. The second question in assessing Count I must be, "Does the statement constitute curriculum?"

17. If the statement constitutes curriculum, then it is not subject to being promulgated as a rule under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and Count I must be dismissed.

18. The University has relied on the definition of "curriculum" contained in Charity v. Florida State University, DOAH Case No. 94-5973RP (Final Order of Hearing Officer Don W. Davis entered June 22, 1995), affirmed at 680 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). That case dealt with proposed rules, the purpose and effect of which was to repeal a number of existing University rules which dealt with curriculum, because Chapter 120 Florida Statutes excluded curricula from the definition of a "rule." The repeals were accommodated by the simultaneous amendment of Rule 6C2-5.002 Florida Administrative Code, adopting by reference FSU's bulletin series as permitted by Section 120.54(8), Florida Statutes. The parties agreed, and the hearing officer found, as follows:

    Proposed rule 6C-5.0021 repeals some of the current rules in Rule Chapter 6C2-5 - Academic matters, which rules contain university curricula, and other rules which contain admission/readmission requirements and procedures, graduation requirements, retention requirements, etc. The proposed rule additionally provides for incorporation by reference of University Catalogs and Bulletins and other various publications which "establish, contain or prescribe various academic and curriculum matters that include admission and degree requirements, course offerings, fields of study, academic calendars, facilities available to students, faculty and staff of the university, and other matters of education delivery.

    The hearing officer further concluded as law that

    
    

    Respondent's assertion that the proposed rule sets forth "curricula of an educational unit" is supported by the United States Supreme Court which has considered curriculum to cover school-sponsored activities, including school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. Hazelwood v. Kulmeier, 108 S.Ct. 562, 569 (1988). Specifically, in Hazelwood, the Supreme Court found no infringement on the student First Amendment rights to freedom of speech since the publication involved was within the ambit of "legitimate pedagogical concerns." Since the subject matter of proposed rule 6C2-5.0021 would appear to be encompassed within the boundaries of curriculum identified in Hazelwood, the various publications set forth in the rule qualify for exemption from rule-making . . .

    However, the hearing officer then went further to determine, that for a number of reasons, Mr. Charity had not met his burden of establishing the invalidity of the proposed "rule". On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to discuss the portion of the hearing officer's order addressing the issue of the Chapter 120 exemption of "curricula" from rule- making requirements, determining that,

    ". . . if the hearing officer had concluded that the subject matter of the proposed rule was exempt from rulemaking, the denial of the petition would have been based on that ground. That the hearing officer did not base his order on this ground is evident from the extensive findings and conclusions justifying his decision on the merits.

    
    

    The District Court considered the issue of what is or is not "curricula" irrelevant under the posture of the Charity case. Therefore, its opinion in Charity neither clearly approves of,

    nor disapproves of, the Hazelwood test. Neither are the Hazelwood and Charity cases analogous to the case at bar simply because they all involve school sponsored publications (brochures). The District Court foundationed its decision that there was "no reversible error" in the hearing officer's final order upon Section 120.59(8) Florida Statutes which permitted the incorporation into rules of material by reference, provided adequate notice of the content of the incorporated material was made. As a practical matter, what appears to have happened in the Charity case is that a number of FSU brochures and bulletins contained mixed material of curriculum (exempt from Chapter 120 rule-making requirements) and also contained other miscellanea which probably would require the promulgation of rules under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. FSU covered all contingencies by enacting a rule encompassing everything by reference. In their respective opinions, neither the hearing officer nor the appellate court distinguished between the two types of material in each brochure.

19. Although the cases are not analagous on their facts, and even though the First District Court of Appeal did not clearly approve the Hazelwood v. Kulmeier definition of "curriculum," neither did it disturb that general definition, and that general definition, as cited by the hearing officer, is accepted here.

20. Also, for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss, the

    Florida Legislature is presumed to have been aware of the United States Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood v. Kulmeier, and other case law defining curriculum when it re-enacted/renumbered Section 120.81(1)(a) Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1996. If the Legislature had intended to enact a law contrary to interpretations in case law prior to the 1996 revisions, it would have done so expressly. See, Kirk v. State, 663 So.2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

21. The case law is clear that the content of individual courses constitutes "curriculum". See, Hazelwood School District v. Kulmeier, supra. and Muldrow v. Leon County School Board, DOAH Case No. 90-2396R (Final Order of Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, May 31, 1990)

22. Decisions of public administrators acting within their official capacities, "on the front line," as it were, are presumed correct. See, State ex rel Seigendorf v. Stone, 266 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1972). However, "curriculum" as used in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes also has come to refer to more than just the substantive content of one or several courses of study, and a school's description of certain activities as being included within its curriculum constitutes persuasive evidence that the activity directly relates to curriculum. This is particularly true when a school's pronouncement relates to academic performance or the attainment of passing grades in a manner satisfactory to the school's faculty and administrative personnel

    for progress toward graduation. See, Hazelwood School District v. Kulmeier, supra. and Militana v. University of Miami, 236 So.2d 162 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970), citing with approval Connelly v. University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, 244 F. Supp. 156 (D.C.D.A. 1965).

23. Indeed, although Petitioner also relied on Connelly as supporting her theory of a "secret agenda" to expel her contrary to the actual language of the challenged statement, Petitioner has also essentially conceded that course content, academic grades, dismissal from the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences for academic failures, and even dismissal from the University for academic reasons would constitute excluded "curriculum", and Petitioner was unable to point to any portion of the challenged statement which clearly was non-curricular. [See Finding of Fact 6].

24. Usually while deciding a case's ultimate issues on other grounds, Florida courts have established that the distinction between "curriculum", which is exempt from the rule- making requirements of Chapter 120 Florida Statutes, and other, non-curricular functions of a University is that "curriculum" involves academic decisions of a faculty member or school administrator as opposed to some other type of decision, such as a disciplinary or a fiscal decision which is not "curricular." This concept of what distinguishes "curriculum" has spanned several decades and the cases all pre-date the 1996 amendments to

    Chapter 120 Florida Statutes which continue to exempt curricula from rule-making.

25. For instance, in Canney v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, supra, the Florida Supreme Court recognized that notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard is essential to due process and must be provided when a student is dropped from school for disciplinary reasons but is not required when the student is dismissed for academic failure.

26. In Florida State Board of Education v. Brady, 368 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the court determined that,

    Whether a student will be considered as having attained proficiency in any subject is a matter peculiar to the field of education and is not one, in our view, that was intended by the legislature to be arrived at through promulgation of rules under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    
    

    The decision quotes with approval from Board of Curators, University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 98 S. Ct. 948,

    55 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1978) to the effect,

    
    

    Like the decision of an individual professor as to the proper grade for a student in his course, the determination whether to dismiss a student for academic reasons requires an expert evaluation of cumulative information and is not readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial or administrative

    decision-making.

    
    

27. Cortes v. State Board of Regents, 655 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), held invalid a Board of Regents rule to the extent the rule conferred discretion on State University presidents to choose a negative check-off system for collection of fees from students for financing of chartered non-profit public research

    organizations but also held,

    
    

    The authority to make available to students an opportunity to perform public research or to participate in public affairs is part and parcel of university presidents' statutory discretion to establish instructional programs and academic curriculum on their campuses. (Emphasis supplied)

    
    

28. A fair reading of the statement challenged herein by Petitioner (See Findings of Fact 5-6) does not reveal any non- academic purpose or language which would remove it from the generally understood definition of "curriculum."

29. Upon the foregoing definitions and learned judicial expositions, the Academic Policy Statement contained in the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Academic Policy Handbook for BS and PharmD Students constitutes "curriculum" which is not subject to rule-making under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.] nor to rule challenge under Section 120.54(4) Florida Statutes. Since Respondent University is not required to publish its statements regarding curriculum as if they were "rules," Count I of the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law.

ORDER

Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ORDERED

Count I of the First Amended Petition is dismissed because the subject matter (statement) challenged is excepted from rule- making as a matter of law. See, Section 120.81(1)(a) Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.]

Count II of the First Amended Petition is dismissed as outside the jurisdiction of Section 120.57(1) and of the Division of Administrative Hearings. See, Section 120.81(1)(f) Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.]

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida.

ELLA JANE P. DAVIS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (904) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1997.

ENDNOTES

1 At oral argument on March 6, 1997, Petitioner conceded that Count II was barred on the basis of Section 120.181(1)(f) Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.] because Petitioner was dismissed for academic reasons. However, in light of her subsequent arguments as to "discipline" and "other or secret agenda," (see Finding of Fact 6), the dismissal ruling is determined without Petitioner's stipulation.

2 The predecessor statutory language, upon which all case law to date has been foundationed (see infra in text) is substantially similar. It read as follows:

Section 120.52 Definitions -

(16) "Rule" means each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization

, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of a rule. The term does not include:

***

(c) The preparation or modification of:

***

5. Curricula by an educational unit

3 Clearly, "educational unit" is defined at Section 120.52(7) Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.] to include the state universities. By implication, see Section 120.81(1)(d), Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.], which refers to educational units other than State Universities, thereby clearly showing that State Universities constitute "educational units." For extensive case law to the same effect, see infra in text.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bishop C. Holifield, General Counsel Florida A & M University

Office of the General Counsel

300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, FL 32307

William R. Muldrow 3070 Waterford Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32308

Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedure Committee

120 Holland Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to a judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.

Docket for Case No: 97-000324RU

Orders for Case No: 97-000324RU