STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ) EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-3662

)

DAVID M. HERNANDEZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing in Tallahassee, Florida, before Robert T. Benton, II, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 8, 1990. Petitioner filed a corrected proposed recommended order on September 11, 1990. The attached appendix addresses proposed findings of fact by number.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Carolyn Thompson LeBoeuf, Esquire

Brooks and LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Respondent: Pro se

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether petitioner should revoke respondent's teaching certificate or take other disciplinary action for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By administrative complaint dated May 31, 1989, as subsequently amended to correct a scrivener's error, petitioner alleged that respondent "at all times material . . . held and/or was applying for, Teaching Certificate Number 625796

. . . [and] was employed as a photography instructor at Lively Area Vocational- Technical Center, and at Florida State University"; that "[d]uring the years 1987 through 1989, the Respondent was guilty of acts involving immorality and moral turpitude, and conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board"; that he "made obscene calls to [an 18-year old woman] and to members in her household from 1987 through 1989 including but not limited to remarks such as, 'I want to fuck you'"; that "[a]s a result . . . [he] was arrested in January of 1989 and charged with . . . second degree misdemeanors"; that "[o]n or about January 20, 1988, respondent submitted a notarized application for a teacher's certificate . . . [but] failed to accurately . . . list and give complete details of all criminal offenses and all criminal charges pending"; that, when interviewed by one of petitioner's

employees, he "failed to reveal . . . that he was under investigation . . . for making harassing and obscene telephone calls" "[d]espite the opportunity to disclose all material information"; that "respondent did not divulge his prior criminal record as required by" an application for employment with Leon County School Board "he submitted "[o]n or about December 17, 1987; and that the foregoing occurred "in violation of Rule 6B-1.006, F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, more specifically 6B-1.006(5)(a), (f), (g) and (h), . . . seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the Leon County School Board as pr[o]scribed by Section 231.28(1) (f), Florida Statutes . . . [and that respondent was guilty of] gross immorality and moral turpitude . . . in violation of Section 231.28(1) (c) and (h), Florida Statutes."

By order determining depositions hearsay inadmissible over objection but affording petitioner an opportunity to reopen the evidence, entered September 20, 1990, petitioner was afforded an opportunity to reopen the evidence. But in petitioner's response to order of the hearing officer and opportunity to reopen the evidence, filed October 1, 1990, petitioner declined the offer because "the witnesses . . . are unwilling to testify."

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent David Mario Hernandez currently holds teacher's certificate No. 627596 authorizing him to teach photography. As an employee of the Leon County School Board, he taught photography at Lively Vo-Tech Center during the school year 1988-89, but his contract was not renewed; and he has not taught since, as far as the evidence shows.

   
   

   Incomplete Application Granted

   
   

2. On January 20, 1988, he executed an application for teacher's certificate, certifying before a notary public that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct and complete." Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1.

   
   

3. On the application, submitted to petitioner on February 11, 1988, respondent checked a box next to the word "YES," in response to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Id.

   
   

4. Immediately after this question, the form instructed applicants, "If yes, you must give complete details for each charge," id., and set out four columns headed "Where Arrested" "Date(s)," "Nature of Charge(s)" and "Disposition(s)." Id. In the appropriate columns, respondent wrote, "Tallahassee Aug 85 Obs. Phone Calls (2nd misd.) Jud. (guilty) probation (satisfactory completion)." Id.

   
   

5. Respondent made no disclosure on his application with regard to State of Florida v. David Hernandez, No. 81-MM-2153 (Fla. Leon Cty.; May 15, 1981) or with regard to State of Florida v. David Mario Hernandez, No. 5999 (Fla. 2d Cir.; June 16, 1970).

6. After respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in the former case, to an information charging "a scheme constituting a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud more than one person," Petitioner's Exhibit Number 2, Judge McClamma placed him on six months' probation. The case arose out of respondent's failure to deliver promised photographs.

   
   

7. In the latter case, respondent pleaded guilty to four felony counts of "[f]orgery & [u]ttering [checks]." Judge McCord sentenced him to three months in jail, concurrently on each of the first two counts, followed by four years' probation, currently on counts three and four.

   
   

8. Even though petitioner's personnel learned of his prior convictions and willful untruthfulness in filling out his application, petitioner granted the application and issued a teacher's certificate to respondent on December 22, 1988. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.

   
   

9. Mr. Hernandez told petitioner's Katherine Birdsong that he had not listed his first felony convictions and the scheme to defraud charges because he was "embarrassed." T.35. He classified his two more recent convictions as "basically a domestic dispute."

   
   

10. Not asked specifically about witnesses or other charges, he did not disclose that the state had listed three women (two ex-wives and a former girlfriend) as witnesses in the obscene telephone call prosecutions; or that a policeman had accused him on October 23, 1987, of making still other obscene telephone calls.

    
    

11. Allegations concerning obscene telephone calls were the occasion for respondent's arrest in early 1989. After defense counsel deposed the state's witnesses, criminal charges were dropped; but the same allegation eventually led to the present proceedings.

    
    

    False Application

    
    

12. While working as a photographer at Florida State University, a position he had held since September of 1985, respondent made application to the Leon County School Board for employment as a photography instructor. On an application form dated December 17, 1987, in answer to the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony or first degree misdemeanor?" he checked a box next to the word "No." Petitioner's Exhibit Number 4.

    
    

13. Based on the falsity of this answer "and the allegations . . . regarding the obscene phone calls and his criminal record . . . Respondent has lost effectiveness," (T.198) or so "believe[s]" id. David D. Giordano, Leon County Schools' Director of Personnel Services, who testified the Leon School District would not re"employ respondent.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

14. Since petitioner referred respondent's hearing request to the Division of Administrative Hearings, in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1989), "the division has jurisdiction over the formal proceeding." Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1989).

15. "The Education Practices Commission shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person . . . for a period of time not to exceed

    3 years . . . ; to revoke . . . for a period of time not to exceed 10 years

    . . .; to revoke permanently . . . ; or to impose any other penalty provided by law, provided it can be shown that such person:

    
    

    (c) Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude;

    . . .

    (f) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board;

    . . .

    (h) Has otherwise violated the provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education, the penalty for which is the revocation for teaching certificate."

    
    

    Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (1989). The administrative complaint alleged that respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1989) because he violated Rule 1.006(5)(a), (f), (g) and (h), Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

16. License revocation proceedings have been said to be "'penal' in nature." State ex rel. Vining vs. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487, 491 (Fla. 1973); Kozerowitz vs. Florida Real Estate Commission, 289 So.2d

    391 (Fla. 1974); Bach vs. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 378 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (reh. den. 1980). But see DeBock v. State, 512 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1987) cert. den. 484 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1988). Strict procedural protections apply in disciplinary cases, and the prosecuting agency's burden is to prove its case clearly and convincingly. Ferris vs. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

    See Addington vs. Texas, 441 U.S. 426 (1979); Ferris vs. Austin, 487 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. vs. Department of Business Regulation,

    393 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Walker vs. State Board of Optometry, 322 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Reid vs. Florida Real Estate Commission, 188 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966).

    
    

17. Among the evidence petitioner adduced were two depositions taken for discovery purposes, not in the present case but in the most recent criminal prosecution, before those criminal charges against respondent resulted in a nolle prosequi. For reasons set out at length in an interlocutory order entered on September 20, 1990, these depositions constitute hearsay that does not fall within the former testimony exception; and cannot, therefore, serve as the basis for a finding of fact under Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989).

    
    

18. No competent evidence supports the allegations in paragraphs three, four and five of the administrative complaint, that respondent made obscene telephone calls after he was certificated. The arrest alleged in paragraph five occurred, but the underlying charges were not proven.

    
    

19. With respect to paragraph six, petitioner proved that respondent deliberately falsified his application for a teaching certificate, by failing to disclose most of his criminal convictions. Perhaps petitioner would have done well to deny the application on that ground. But the evidence showed that petitioner concluded instead that the falsification, discovered before the certificate issued, was not disqualifying. See generally, e.g., Tri-State

    Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 500 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and C-Sand Company v. Department of Transportation, 494 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

    
    

20. The evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that respondent gave Ms. Birdsong false answers to specific questions in the course of their conversations, after the convictions came to light. The administrative complaint did not allege a violation of Section 231.28(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989) ("[o]btained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means") nor does the proposed recommended order cite Section 231.28(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). See Wray v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners,

    435 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Davis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 457 So.2d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

    
    

21. Petitioner voluntarily dismissed paragraph seven. As alleged in paragraph eight, petitioner proved that respondent deliberately falsified his application for a position with the Leon County School Board. Such conduct by a certificate holder violates Rule 1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and, petitioner proved, seriously reduces an employee's effectiveness (at least in combination with a criminal record and a habit of making obscene phone calls.) But respondent made application to the School Board before petitioner issued (or respondent applied for) his teaching certificate. His pre-certification submission of a false application to the School Board cannot be the basis for disciplinary action against the certificate. Taylor v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 534 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Farzad v. Department of Professional Regulation, 443 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

    
    

22. Both the personal misconduct petitioner proved here and respondent's employment by a school board occurred before petitioner granted respondent's application for a teaching certificate. The statute cannot be stretched, in keeping with accepted principles, to fit these circumstances. Taylor v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 534 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Farzad v. Department of Professional Regulation, 443 So.2d

373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). "[S]tatutes authorizing the revocation of a license to practice a business or profession must be strictly construed for they are in penal in nature." State v. Pettishall, 99 Fla. 296, 126 So. 147 (1930)." Davis

v. Department of Professional Regulation, 457 So.2d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

RECOMMENDATION

It is, accordingly, recommended that petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint.

RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

ROBERT T. BENTON, II

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1990.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3662

Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, the first sentence of No. 18, Nos. 27, 28, the last sentence of No. 30, No. 32, the last clause of the last sentence of No. 33, Nos. 34, 36 and 37 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material.

With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4, the application was submitted some time after it was executed.

With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17, since petitioner did not allege that respondent obtained his license fraudulently, the substance of these conversations, which took place before licensure, is immaterial. The form itself indicated obscene phone calls, not a one-time incident. Respondent was not asked if a policeman had accused him of anything.

With respect to the second clause of the second sentence of petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 18, and proposed findings of fact Nos. 19 through 26, 29, the first sentence of No. 30, No. 31 the first sentence and first clause of the second sentence of No. 33 and No. 35, the evidence in support consisted of hearsay inadmissible over objection in civil proceedings, which cannot form the basis for findings of fact, under Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). E.G., Johnson v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 546 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Harris v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 495 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 38, the statutory standard is "effectiveness as an employee of the school board."

With respect to the first sentence of petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 39, respondent's reputation for truth and integrity is a subordinate matter; whether a fellow photographer thinks he is a thief was not put in issue by the pleadings.

COPIES FURNISHED:

David Hernandez

1508 Viscount Avenue

Tallahassee, FL 32302

Carolyn LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks & LeBoeuf

863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301

Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director

301 Florida Education Center

325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services

352 Florida Education Center

325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education

The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

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 EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

BETTY CASTOR, as

Commissioner of Education,

Petitioner,

vs.

DAVID M. HERNANDEZ, ORDER

EPC CASE NO.89-077-RT

Respondent. DOAH CASE NO.89-3662

/

This Order is being issued solely to correct a scrivener's error in the title from Final Order to Order.

This cause came on for hearing before the Education Practices Commission (EPC) pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S. on December 6, 1990, for purposes of considering the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order issued October 18, 1990, and Petitioner's exceptions. Petitioner was represented by Carolyn LeBoeuf, Esquire. Respondent was neither present nor represented by legal counsel.

RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS

1. Petitioner's Exception, number I (a), to the Findings of Fact contained in paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order is rejected in that said exception is taken on a point not material or relevant to the disposition of this case, considering in part the rulings on the following exceptions.

   
   

2. Petitioner's Exception II (a) to the Conclusions of Law is granted in that the deposition of Keely Waters was to be admitted into evidence by binding agreement of the parties, and because the hearing officer did not have the right to withdraw either the Keely Waters or the Mary Waters depositions from evidence or the record following their being admitted at the hearing. Furthermore, Section 90.804 (1)(e) and (2), Florida Statutes are applicable and provide that depositions of unavailable witnesses, are exceptions to the hearsay rule set out in section 90.802 F. S. Also, Section 120.58(1)(a) F. S. provides that a hear- say statement may be admitted to explain or supplement certain other evidence. Under this provision the Mary Waters deposition would be admissible even if it was hearsay evidence.

   
   

3. Petitioner's Exception to Conclusion of Law Number II (b), is rejected because the hearing officer's analysis was correct in that Respondent's pre- certification submission of a false application to a school board cannot be the basis for disciplinary action against Respondent's teaching certificate as it is not a violation of Rule 1.006 F.A.C. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not generally established that Rule 1.006 F.A.C. can be applied to Respondent after certification to discipline him for pre-certification actions.

Also, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent gave the Department of Education false answers to specific questions in the course of his application consideration.

REMAND

The Board sua sponte considers remand to the Division of Administrative Hearings appropriate to resolve disputed issues of fact which remain in this case due to the EPC's ruling that the Keely Waters and Mary Waters deposition transcripts be admitted into evidence (see ruling on Petitioner's Exception II (b). Furthermore, the subject evidence (i.e. the Keely Waters and Mary Waters Transcripts) must be considered on remand because it may change the findings of fact in this case. That is, that evidence may either add to the weight of evidence previously admitted or it may independently support new relevant and material findings of fact. In either case, the effect of consideration of this evidence may change the recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law or penalty, if any, in this case.

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that, in accordance with the rulings of the EPC in this ORDER, this cause be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings to consider the previously prof fered deposition transcripts of Keely Waters and Mary Waters, as newly admitted evidence offered in proof of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and to issue an amended Recommended Order including appropriate Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations based on said newly admitted evidence.

DONE AND ORDERED, this 20th day of February, 1991.

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services JOHN STEWART, Presiding Officer

Daniel Bosanko, Esquire I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the Attorney General's Office foregoing Order in the matter of

BC vs. David M. Hernandez, was Sydney McKenzie, III mailed to David M. Hernandez, 1508 General Counsel Viscount Ave., Tallahassee,Florida

32303, this 26th day of February Florida Admin. Law Reports 1991, by U. S. Mail.

Bill Woolley, Superintendent Leon County Schools

2757 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 GEORGE A. BOWEN, Clerk

Dr. Paul Onkle, Executive Dir. Human Resources

Leon County Schools

Robert Benton, Hearing Officer Division of Admin. Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

Carolyn LeBoeuf, Esquire 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Robert Boyd, Esquire Department of Education

325 W. Gaines Street, Room 352 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

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

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

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

BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

BETTY CASTOR, as

Commissioner of Education,

Petitioner,

vs. FINAL ORDER

EPC CASE NO. 89-077-RT

DAVID M. HERNANDEZ, DOAH CASE No.89-3662

Respondent.

/

This cause came on for hearing before the Education Practices Commission (EPC) pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S on December 6, 1990, for purposes of considering the Hearing Officer's Recommended order issued October 18, 1990, and Petitioner's exceptions. Petitioner was represented by Carolyn LeBoeuf, Esquire. Respondent was neither present nor represented by legal counsel.

RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS

1. Petitioner's exception number I (a), to the Findings of Fact contained in paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order is rejected in that said exception is taken on a point not material or relevant to the disposition of this case, considering in part the rulings on the following exceptions.

   
   

2. Petitioner's exception II (a) to the Conclusions of Law is granted in that the deposition of Keely Waters was to be admitted into evidence by binding agreement of the parties, and because the hearing officer did not have the right to withdraw either the Keely Waters or Mary Waters depositions from evidence or the record f0llowing their being admitted at the hearing. Furthermore, section

   58.001 (1)(e) and (2), Florida statutes are applicable and provide that depositions of unavailable witnesses, are exceptions to the hearsay rule set out in section 90.802 F. S. Also, Section 120.58(1)(a) F. 5 provides that a hear-

   say statement may be admitted to explain or supplement certain other evidence. Under this provision the Mary Waters deposition would be admissible even if it was hearsay evidence.

   
   

3. Petitioner's Exception to Conclusion of Law Number II (b), is rejected because the hearing officer's analysis was correct in that Respondent's pre- certification submission of a false application to a school board cannot be the basis for disciplinary action against Respondent's teaching certificate as it is not a violation of Rule 1.006 F.A.C. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not generally established that Rule 1.006 F.A.C. can be applied to Respondent after certification to discipline him for pre-certification actions.

Also, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent gave the Department of Education false answers to specific questions in the course of his application consideration.

REMAND

The Board sua sponte considers remand to the Division of Administrative Hearings appropriate to resolve disputed issues of fact which remain in this case due to the EPC's ruling that the Keely Waters and Mary Waters deposition transcripts be admitted into evidence (see ruling on Petitioner's Exception II (b). Furthermore, the subject evidence (i.e. the Keely Waters and Mary Waters Transcripts) must be considered on remand because it may change the findings of fact in this case. That is, this evidence may either add to the weight of eviccnce previously admitted or it may independently support new relevant and material findings of fact. In either case, the effect of consideration of this evidence may change the recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law or penalty, if any, in this case.

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that, in accordance with the rulings of the EPC in this ORDER, this cause be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings to consider the previously proffered deposition transcripts of Keely Waters and Mary Waters, as newly admitted evidence offered in proof of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and to issue an amended Recommended Order including appropriate Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations based on said newly admitted evidence.

DONE AND ORDERED, this 15th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services JOHN STEWART, Presiding Officer

Daniel Bosanko, Esquire I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the Attorney General's Office foregoing Order in the matter of

BC vs. David M. Hernandez, was Sydney McKenzie, III mailed to David M. Hernandez, 1508 General Counsel Viscount Ave., Tallahassee, Florida

32303, this 15th day of January Florida Admin. Law Reports 1991, by U. S. Mail.

Bill Woolley, Superintendent Leon County Schools

2757 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 KAREN B. WILDE, Clerk

Dr. Paul Onkle, Executive Dir. Human Resources

Leon County Schools

Robert Benton, Hearing officer Division of Admin. Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

Carolyn LeBoeuf, Esquire 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida ?2301

Robert Boyd, Esquire Department of Educatic

325 W. Gaines Street, Room 352 Tallahassee, Florida 33399

Docket for Case No: 89-003662

Orders for Case No: 89-003662