STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF HIGHLANDS ) COUNTY, FLORIDA )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-3758

)

WILLIAM LOCKE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William R. Cave, held a formal hearing in the above- captioned case on June 12, 1991 in Sebring, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Donald H. Wilson, Esquire

P.O. Box 1578 Bartow, FL 33830

For Respondent: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire

P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent should receive back-pay for the period of time he was suspended without pay by the School Board of Highlands County, Florida (Board) under the facts and circumstances of this case.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated January 8, 1990, Ruth E. Handley, Superintendent of the Highlands County Schools (Superintendent) advised the Respondent that she was officially reprimanding him for inappropriate conduct towards some of his female students, and that an official reprimand would be placed in his personnel file. Additionally, the Superintendent advised the Respondent that the matter was being reported to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and the Professional Practices Services of the Florida Teaching Program (PPS).

By letter dated February 5, 1990, the Superintendent advised the Respondent that he was suspended with pay until the next Board meeting on February 13, 1990, at which time she would recommend to the Board that Respondent be suspended without pay. The Superintendent stated that her action was based on the Respondent's conduct which she considered violated the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B.1.001 and Rule 6B-1.005, Florida Administrative Code, and constituted

"misconduct in office" under Section 231.26, Florida Statutes. The Board adopted the Superintendent's recommendation suspending the Respondent without pay on February 13, 1990 to be effective on February 14, 1990 and advised him of the Board's action on February 14, 1990. By letter dated February 21, 1990 the Respondent made a timely request for an administrative hearing alleging, among other things, that the incidents for which the Respondent had been suspended were the subject matter of a prior disciplinary action which culminated on January 8, 1990 by an official reprimand being placed in his personnel file.

Subsequently, the Respondent filed a Request for Administrative Hearing with the Board, and June 19, 1990 the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On August 28, 1990 the Respondent filed a Motion For Summary Judgment which was treated as a Motion For Recommended Order of Dismissal, and after a telephonic hearing on the motion a Recommended Order of Dismissal was entered. This order basically concluded that the facts upon which Respondent received an official reprimand were the same facts that resulted in the suspension without pay, and that the Board's action resulted in the Respondent being penalized twice for the same conduct. The Board rejected the Recommended Order of Dismissal, and remanded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Subsequent to the file being reopened, the Respondent filed a Petition for Review of Non-Final Administrative Order with the Second District Court of Appeal which was denied.

At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of N.S., Y.W., J.N.A., Lawrence A. Watson, Rebecca C. Clark, Carolyn Shoemaker, Natalie Smith and John Martin. Petitioner's exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were received into evidence. The Respondent did not present any witnesses. Respondent's exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were received into evidence.

A transcript of these proceedings were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 24, 1990. The parties timely submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A ruling on each Proposed Finding of Fact submitted by the parties has been made as reflected in an Appendix to the Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made:

1. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was employed by the Board as a guidance counselor at Sebring High School, Sebring, Highlands County, Florida.

   
   

2. Sometime around November 1989, N.S., a student in the Respondent's peer counseling class at Sebring High School notified Rebecca Clark (Clark), Assistant Principal, Sebring High School, that Respondent had engaged in inappropriate behavior with her and other students in the class. Thereafter, in early January 1991, J.N.A., another student in Respondent's peer counseling class, met with Clark to confirm N.S.'s allegations.

   
   

3. As a result of the allegations by N.S. and J.N.A., Clark notified Jim Bible, (Bible) Principal, Sebring High School, of the nature of the allegations.

   
   

4. Bible contacted John Martin, (Martin) Associate Superintendent for Administration by phone concerning the necessity of discussing the allegations, and both Bible and Clark met with Martin.

5. Bible was instructed by Martin to interview the Respondent about the allegations, and on January 5, 1990 a conference was held which included Bible, Clark and the Respondent wherein the Respondent was confronted with the allegations. With the Respondent's approval, the conference was electronically recorded by a tape recorder. The tape was transcribed, and the transcript received into evidence as Petitioner's exhibit 5.

   
   

6. During the conference, the Respondent talked candidly about the allegations, and although he did not deny specific allegations such as, kissing a female student on the lips or whispering to students about being pretty, or sexy or that he or some one loved them, he did not recall any specific incident where he kissed a female student on the lips or just breathed heavily into their ears or licked their ears or kissed them on the ear. Additionally, he did not recall any student pulling away from him or telling him to stop. In fact, it was Respondent's recollection that most of the contact was initiated by the students, and he had had no indication from the students that they were uncomfortable with his mannerisms or behavior.

   
   

7. Following the January 5, 1990 conference, Martin was furnished a copy of the tape which he and the Superintendent reviewed. Following this review, the Superintendent asked Martin to talk with the Respondent. During this conference with Martin, Respondent assured Martin that there was nothing beyond what had already transpired, and Martin assured Respondent that if there wasn't then there would probably be only a letter of reprimand, but that PPS and HRS would have to be notified.

   
   

8. Following Martin's conference with the Respondent, the Superintendent issued a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. This letter of reprimand was dated January 8, 1990 and advised the Respondent that: (a) his behavior in regards to the allegations was "totally inappropriate and unacceptable" and "enough to indicate a possible violation of Section 6B-1.06(sic), Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida"; (b) he was to "consider this an official reprimand which will be placed in your personnel file upon completion of the investigation"; (c) "any future or similar behavior may result in action to terminate your teaching contract with the Highlands County School Board"; and (d) "the matter must be reported to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Professional Practices Services of the Florida Teachers Profession".

   
   

9. There was no evidence that Respondent repeated the conduct discussed in the January 5, 1990 conference, or the conduct referred to by the Superintendent in her letter of reprimand on January 8, 1990, or the conduct discussed with Bible in the informal conference referenced in Finding of Fact 29.

   
   

10. The Superintendent reported the matter to HRS and PPS, and although Martin was kept abreast of the pending investigations by HRS and PPS, neither the Board nor the Superintendent made any further investigation of the Respondent's conduct which formed the basis for the Superintendent's action set out in her letter of reprimand of January 8, 1990, before the Board's suspension of the Respondent without pay on February 13, 1990.

    
    

11. In early February 1990, HRS informed Martin that "a confirmed finding of sexual abuse had been reached by the HRS".

12. On February 5, 1990, solely as a result of the disclosure by HRS that sexual abuse had been "confirmed", the Superintendent suspended the Respondent with pay and recommended to the Board that the Respondent be suspended without pay.

    
    

13. In apparent disregard of the confidentiality provided for such records in Section 415.51, Florida Statutes, a copy of the complete entire HRS files in this matter was given to Martin who in turn had the files reproduced, and provided a copy to each Board member and the Board attorney before the Board's February 13, 1990 meeting.

    
    

14. No written or other notification was provided to the Respondent that the contents of the confidential files were being provided to the Board.

    
    

15. As a result of its receipt and review of the HRS file, the Board on February 13, 1990, acting pursuant to the Superintendent's recommendation, suspended the Respondent from employment without pay effective February 14, 1990, and such suspension to continue "until investigations have been completed by the Professional Practices Services and other agencies". The Board provided that should the Respondent be "exonerated of all charges, he will receive back pay".

    
    

16. The Board at its February 13, 1991 meeting did not have before it any of the PPS investigatory file or any other facts found by the PPS in its investigation and, therefore, in that sense, the PPS investigation was not a factor in the Board's decision to suspend the Respondent without pay.

    
    

17. Although the Board did have the unlawfully disclosed contents of the HRS file at the time of its decision, there was no evidence presented at the hearing that the file contained any facts evidencing any misconduct by the Respondent other than those facts known by the Superintendent when she issued her official letter of reprimand. In fact, when Martin was asked at the meeting to elaborate on the facts in the HRS file, other than those facts known by the Superintendent at the time she issued her official letter of reprimand, that the Board considered in making its decision to suspend the Respondent without pay, he declined to answer on the basis of the HRS file being confidential. Yet, Martin's testimony was that the information in the HRS file was a "significant factor" in the determination by the Superintendent and the Board to effect the suspension without pay of the Respondent. Apparently, the only additional fact known by the Board at its February 13, 1990 meeting was that HRS had reached "a confirmed finding of sexual abuse" in regards to the Respondent's conduct and that fact was a significant factor in its determination to suspend Respondent.

    
    

18. In the late summer of 1990, Martin recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent be reinstated, but assigned to a position that did not involve student contact. The Superintendent made such recommendation to the Board, and the Board, acting on the Superintendent's recommendation, reinstated Respondent at the beginning of the 1990/91 school year but declined to award back pay. The Respondent was assigned to work with an adult school. Subsequently, the Respondent voluntarily resigned his position with the Board, and accepted a position with South Florida Community College.

    
    

19. Martin's recommendation to reinstate the Respondent was based on the following: (a) the Respondent being on a continuing contract and nothing being done to terminate this continuing contract; (b) the resolution of the allegations made against Respondent by HRS and PPS were taking longer than anticipated; and (c) the indication that Martin had from the school board

    attorney that the "confirmed" report of abuse would most likely be reclassified downward, and, as such, would not warrant terminating Respondent's continuing contract.

    
    

20. On May 8, 1991, a final order was entered by HRS in the child abuse case involving the Respondent, granting the Respondent's request for expunction, and reclassifying the report from "confirmed" to "unfounded". The final order was the result of HRS adopting a recommended order of the Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings who had conducted a formal evidentiary hearing in the child abuse case on February 19, 1991.

    
    

21. The PPS commenced its proceedings on June 27, 1990 by filing an administrative complaint against the Respondent, and concluded those proceedings before the Educational Practices Commission with a final order dated May 20, 1991 adopting a settlement agreement dated February 19, 1991.

    
    

22. The Respondent chose not to contest the allegation in the administrative complaint, and neither the settlement agreement nor the final order make any findings of wrongdoing against the Respondent.

    
    

23. As a result of the PPS action, the Respondent received a reprimand to be placed in his personnel file and his certification file, and upon re- employment in the education profession in Florida, in a position which requires state certification, to be placed on probation for a period of three years under conditions set out in the agreement.

    
    

24. Notwithstanding Martin's understanding that Respondent's teaching certificate was suspended for short period (2-3 weeks), the Respondent's teaching certificate was never suspended for any period of time, and no action was taken which deprived the Respondent of his ability to continue teaching in the public school system of Florida.

    
    

25. N.S. was a minor female student at Sebring High School, and a member of Respondent's peer counseling class during the 1988/89 school year (S/Y) and the fall semester of 1989/90 S/Y. Often, during the time N.S. was in Respondent's class, Respondent would give her an affectionate hug or squeeze, and would give her a kiss or peck on the cheek, forehead, or the back of the head, and whisper such things in her ear as "love you" or "you're sweet" or "you're pretty" or "you're sexy". There were occasions when Respondent was whispering in N.S.'s ear that his lips brushed against her ear. When Respondent was hugging, whispering or making remarks to N.S. it was always in the presence of staff or students in a public area of the school such as the hallway, classroom or guidance area, but never in private or off campus.

    
    

26. Although N.S. testified that Respondent's behavior made her uncomfortable, she did not ever ask Respondent to stop or tell him or anyone else that his behavior made her feel uncomfortable.

    
    

27. J.N.A. was a minor female student at Sebring High School, and a member of Respondent's peer counseling class during the 1988/89 S/Y and 1989/90 S/Y. Basically, J.N.A. experienced the same type of behavior from Respondent as did

    N.S. as set out in Finding of Fact 25, and likewise, did not ever tell the Respondent to stop or that his behavior made her feel uncomfortable. As with N.S., the incidents with J.N.A. always occurred in the presence of staff or other students in the public areas of the school, but never in private or off campus.

28. Y.W. was a female student at Sebring High School, and a member of Respondent's peer counseling class during the fall semester of the 1989/90 S/Y. On one occasion, while Y.W. was standing next to Respondent in the class where other students were present, Respondent asked Y.W. to sit on his knee and talk about a problem, and after some protest N.S. sat on his knee. Although Y.W. considered Respondent as a "father-figure", this made her uncomfortable because it was not usual for her to sit on her father's or grandfather's lap. Y.W. also testified that Respondent probably kissed her on the cheek one time as he did with all his students, but found nothing unusual about this.

    
    

29. There was no evidence that Respondent made any sexual overtures to any student or touched any of the females on their breasts, inner thighs, genital areas or buttocks.

    
    

30. Clark came to Sebring High School as assistant principal at the beginning of 1988/89 S/Y (having completed three years as assistant principal at the end of the 1990/91 S/Y), and observed the Respondent exhibiting behavior similar to that expressed by N.S. and J.N.A. through late November or early December 1989 (about a year and a half). Although Clark considered Respondent's behavior as being inappropriate, enough so that she counselled her daughter not to go near him, she never told him he should stop or counsel him as to her views on his behavior even though she was his supervisor. In fact, Clark did not report the Respondent's behavior to Bible until after the beginning of the 1989/90 S/Y, sometime around November, and again when N.S. and J.N.A. came to her in late December 1989 and early January 1990. After Clark advised Bible on the first occasion around November 1989, Bible had an informal conference with the Respondent. Although Clark did not sit in on this conference she heard the tail end of the conversation between Bible and Respondent wherein Bible told Respondent "you can't do that" or "it doesn't look right" or "people will misinterpret it".

    
    

31. Carolyn Shoemaker, guidance secretary, Sebring High School, observed Respondent exhibiting behavior similar to that expressed by N.S., J.N. and Clark, which she considered inappropriate, for about the same period of time as Clark, but she never expressed to the Respondent that he should stop or that his behavior was inappropriate. However, she did report it to Clark and Bible.

    
    

32. Natalie Smith, Chairman, Guidance Department, Sebring High School, observed Respondent exhibiting similar behavior as that expressed by N.S., J.N.A., Clark and Shoemaker, which she considered inappropriate, for about the same period of time as Clark and Shoemaker. Although Smith was head of the department where Respondent worked, and felt this behavior to be inappropriate, she did tell him to stop or express her views on this behavior with Respondent. Smith remembers telling Bible about Respondent's behavior, but doesn't recall when she told Bible.

    
    

33. Until Respondent's informal conference with Bible referred to in Finding of Fact 30 and the January 8, 1990 letter of reprimand, the Respondent was never disciplined, counselled or otherwise directed to refrain from his affectionate interaction with students.

    
    

34. The Respondent's suspension without pay by the Board in February 13, 1990 was premised on the same facts and conduct which had resulted in the January 8, 1990 letter of reprimand being issued to the Respondent by the Superintendent.

35. While the Respondent may have used poor judgment in his method of establishing rapport with the some 400 students in any given year for which he had counseling responsibilities, and his conduct may have been inappropriate under the circumstances, his conduct as established by the substantial competent evidence in the record does not rise to the level of being so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the Highlands County School system, notwithstanding the opinion of both Clark and Smith to the contrary.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

36. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

37. The responsibility for administering and managing the schools and supervision of instruction in the school district is vested in the Superintendent of Schools as the Secretary and Executive Officer of the School Board, Sections 230.03(3) and 230.31, Florida Statutes, and any action taken by the Superintendent pursuant to that responsibility that does not specifically require further action by the School Board, such as suspension without pay or dismissal, is the same as if the School Board had acted. It was under this grant of authority and under Section 230.33, Florida Statutes, that Superintendent Ruth Handley investigated the complaint against the Respondent, reviewed the facts and made the decision to officially reprimand the Respondent for his conduct related to those incidents and to place the official reprimand in his personnel file pursuant to Section 231.291(1) and (2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

38. The Board at its meeting on February 13, 1990 had before it, with only one exception, the same information the Superintendent had relied upon in issuing the official reprimand to Respondent on January 8, 1990. The only additional element under consideration by the Board in determining whether to effect the suspension of Respondent was the unlawfully released copy of the HRS investigative file concluding that the abuse report should be classified as "confirmed", and that the Respondent should be listed as an alleged perpetrator in the Florida Protective Services Systems (FPSS) report, commonly referred to as the Abuse Registry Report. However, the Board presented no evidence as to the contents of the HRS investigative file or any portion of that file upon which it relied to effect the Respondent's suspension other than that "a confirmed finding of sexual abuse had been reached by HRS", and that conclusion could have been reached on the same allegations made by J.N.A. and N.S. against Respondent that resulted in the letter of official reprimand. Therefore, it has not been shown that the Board had any other information before it on February 13, 1991 than that information used by the Superintendent in issuing her letter of official reprimand to the Respondent. Therefore, the conduct for which the Board suspended the Respondent was the same conduct for which Respondent had earlier received an official reprimand from the Superintendent.

    
    

39. The Petitioner having elected to discipline the Respondent for such conduct by the issuance of a letter of official reprimand cannot now use the same conduct as the basis for suspension without pay. See: State, Department of Transportation v. State Career Service, 366 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Dade County School Board v. John W. Jackson, Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 87-4159, final order entered May 25, 1988.

    
    

40. Had the Superintendent not intended the official reprimand to be a final determination of the penalty to be imposed, she should have given the Respondent proper notice that the official reprimand was given subject to a

    pending investigation and that upon completion of that investigation, a more severe penalty, such as suspension or dismissal, might be imposed. Had that occurred, the Petitioner would not now be precluded from imposing a more severe penalty such as it has attempted to do in the instant proceedings. See: Department of Corrections v. Duncan, 382 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

    
    

41. The Board's contention that the only disciplinary measures available to the Board in a situation such as this one is suspension or dismissal is without merit. Had the legislature not envisioned the Board having authority to impose a lesser disciplinary measure it would not have been necessary to make a distinction between discipline and suspension or dismissal in the exception for derogatory materials relating to an employee's conduct being allowed in an employee's personnel file, and requiring those materials to be reduced to writing and signed by the person competent to know the facts or make the judgment. See Section 231.291(1)(a) and (2)(a), Florida Statutes. Likewise, the Board's contention that an official reprimand placed in an employee's personnel file is not a disciplinary measure or does not penalize the employee receiving the official reprimand is also without merit. First, unless the official reprimand is considered a disciplinary measure it would not come within the exception provided in Section 231.291(1)(a), Florida Statutes for derogatory materials being placed in the employee's personnel. Apparently, the Superintendent considered the reprimand as disciplinary since she has placed the written official reprimand in Respondent's personnel file. Secondly, where boards or commissioners created by the legislature are authorized to discipline a person under their control, reprimand is one of the disciplinary measures used and is considered a penalty, and in the instant case that is what happened, the Education Practices Commission reprimanded the Respondent. Section 231.262(6)(f), Florida Statutes.

    
    

42. Assuming arguendo that the Board was not precluded from taking further disciplinary measures because of the Superintendent's prior action of officially reprimanding the Respondent, the Board has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, the charge used by the Board to effect the suspension.

    
    

43. Misconduct in office is one of the reasons set forth in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, for suspending or dismissing an employee on a continuing contract, and is defined in Rule 6B4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, as follows:

(3) Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.

While Respondent's behavior may have been "inappropriate", and sufficient to support an official reprimand, there was insufficient evidence to show that even if Respondent's behavior may have been a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, it was not so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED:

That the Board enter a Final Order rescinding the Respondent's suspension, reimbursing him for any pay lost as a result of the suspension, and restoring any benefits that the Respondent may have lost as a result of the suspension.

DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM R. CAVE

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 31st day of July, 1991.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3758

The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case.

Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner

1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed

finding of fact: 1(1); 2(4,5); 3(5,6); 4(7); 5(7,8);

6(10,11); 7(12,15); 8(18,19); 9(25,26); 10(27); 11(28);

12(30); 13(31); 14(32); 15(21,22,23,24).

Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent

1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact and adopted in substance as modified in

   the Recommended Order. The member in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts that

   proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(3); 3(4); 4(5); 5(5);

   6(7); 7(8); 8(8); 9(9); 10(10); 11(16,17,34); 13(11);

   14(12); 15(13); 16(13); 17(14); 18(15); 19(16); 20(17);

   21(17); 22(20); 23(20); 24(21); 25(22); 26(23); 27(24);

   28(18,19); 29(18); 30(34); 31(25,27,28); 32(30);

   33(30); 34(25, 27); 35(33,9); 36(29).

   
   

2. Proposed findings of fact 12 and 37 are unnecessary or subordinate.

Copies furnished to:

Donald H. Wilson, Esquire

P.O. Box 1578 Bartow, FL 33830

Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire

P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302

Ruth E. Handley, Superintendent Highlands County School Board

426 School Street Sebring, FL 33870

Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol

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.

Docket for Case No: 90-003758

Orders for Case No: 90-003758