STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BETTY CASTOR, as Commissioner ) of Education, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 90-7101

)

ROBERT RESSLER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on September 10 and 11, 1991, before Daniel M. Kilbride, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings in New Port Richey, Florida. The following appearances were entered:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Lane Burnett, Esquire

331 E. Union St., Suite #2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202

For Respondent: Lorna Sills Katica, Esquire

1950 NCNB Plaza

Tampa, Florida 33602 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined in accordance with Sections 231.162(6) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, for alleged acts of misconduct as set forth in the Administrative Complaint in violation of Sections 231.28, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rules 6B-1.01 and 6B-1.06, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Robert Ressler, dated October 1, 1990, with the Education Practices Commission, which Complaint was amended on July 25, 1991, over the objection of Respondent. Respondent denied these allegations and elected for a formal hearing, and this matter was referred to the Division of administrative Hearings for adjudication. This hearing followed.

At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Wes Harden, Terekita Brown, Billy Eviston, James E. Davis, Richard Thiel, Monique Vinski, Virginia Lupo, Carolyn Fabal, Peter Kennedy, and Albert Bashaw. The Petitioner also introduced into evidence Exhibits 1-7.

The Respondent presented the testimony of Ann Marie Aycrigg, Brian Scott Lyons, Sandra Joyce Coe, Jeff Brawer, John S. Flatt, Louis Freijo, Joey Stokes, Glenda Smith, Joey Brauer, Joseph Deskins, Arthur Shapiro, Mary Ann Ressler and the Respondent testified on his own behalf. The Respondent introduced into evidence Exhibits 1, 2, 4-19.

At the conclusion of the proceedings, the parties elected to have the hearing transcribed, and to submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, concomitantly requesting an extended briefing schedule which was GRANTED. The transcript was filed on September 25, 1991. The parties' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders were timely filed on October 14 and 15, 1991, respectively. The proposed findings of fact contained therein have been treated in this Recommended Order and are specifically ruled on as provided in Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, in the Appendix attached thereto and incorporated by reference herein.

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent, Robert Ressler, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 396920 covering the areas of social studies, history, physical education, administration and supervision, which is valid through June 30, 1991.

   
   

2. The Respondent was employed as a teacher at the Land O'Lakes High School in the Pasco County School District from 1984 until April, 1990.

   
   

3. The Respondent is currently 43 years of age and weighs 215 pounds. During the years of the '88-89, and '89-90 school year, he taught three mainstream classes and two alternative education classes as a part of the Alternative Education Program at Land O'Lakes High School. There were approximately 80 students in his combined classes.

   
   

4. The Alternative Education Program was a program at Land O'Lakes High School for students that lacked motivation, were poor in attendance, were failing courses, and had low self-esteem.

   
   

5. One evening, in February of 1989, a mainstream class student, Wes Harden, and others, vandalized the Respondent's home and van by throwing eggs at it.

   
   

6. Subsequently, the Respondent heard rumors that Harden was the individual who vandalized his home and van.

   
   

7. Later, when Harden came into the Respondent's class, he took him in the hallway and angrily told him that he did not ever want to see him on his property again.

8. After class, the student, Harden, went to an administrator, Mr. Broadbelt, and reported the incident. He initially lied about his involvement in the vandalism, and alleged that Respondent threatened to break every bone in his body, and would kill him if he ever saw him around Respondent's neighborhood again.

   
   

9. The next day, Respondent discussed the incident with Assistant Principal Broadbelt, and no disciplinary action was taken against Respondent following this event.

   
   

10. In August, 1989, just prior to the beginning of the school year, teacher, Viginia Lupo, complained that she had a disagreement with Respondent, and that Ressler showed disapproval toward her and the school administrators.

    
    

11. Ressler went to Ms. Lupo's classroom to retrieve some world history textbooks. Lupo first denied that she had the textbooks, but after searching, she found them. Lupo admitted that she had mixed up Mr. Ressler with Mr. Russell, and thought that she had already given the books away. During this episode, Respondent became angry, loud, and excited, but did not degrade her.

    
    

12. In October, 1989 at an open house for Alternative Education parents, Ressler became angry and raised his voice toward Virginia Lupo for allowing students to sit on the desks and the floor in his classroom. Lupo was upset by Respondent's conduct.

    
    

13. Lupo complained to two school administrators regarding Respondent's conduct, but no disciplinary action was initiated against Respondent.

    
    

14. On October 17, 1989, Respondent brought a student, Michael Moore, into Assistant Principal Carolyn Fabal's office, for extreme misbehavior, including spitting, throwing food, and making obscene gestures toward him.

    
    

15. Respondent had written up disciplinary referrals several times on Michael Moore prior to this incident, and the student had previously been suspended, and otherwise disciplined on grounds of defiance of authority and misconduct.

    
    

16. While in Carolyn Fabal's office, Michael Moore raised his voice, and was extremely angry. Respondent was also angry, and raised his voice in order to be heard over the student and inform Fabal about what happened. During the course of this incident, Respondent demonstrated the obscene gesture which was made by Michael Moore toward him by grabbing his crotch. This was inappropriate behavior on the part of Respondent when attempting to discipline a student.

    
    

17. Robert Ressler did not fill out disciplinary forms in connection with the Michael Moore incident on the day in question.

    
    

18. Respondent had also complained regarding his perceived lack of support from the administration, and that he had asked for support from Ms. Fabal regarding policies in school suspensions.

    
    

19. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Fabal wrote an informal "letter of clarification" regarding these incidents directed to Respondent which was not placed in his file.

20. During that same school year on December 5, 1989, the Respondent attended a Land O'Lakes High School varsity girls basketball game as an assistant coach. During the game, two technical fouls were called on the opponent's head coach, and one technical on his team's head coach.

    
    

21. At the conclusion of the game, the Respondent expressed his dissent concerning the calls made during a game by approaching one of the officials and stating that he had done a really poor job, and that both head coaches from each school felt that way. He asked the official to make sure he put his name in the score book.

    
    

22. As a result of this exchange with the official, the principal of the school, Albert Bashaw, received a letter from Fred Rozelle, the Executive Secretary for the Florida High School Athletic Association. This letter reproached the Respondent for acts unbecoming a coach.

    
    

23. The letter charged that, "the Respondent's conduct tended to incite the spectators and players, and showed a poor example of good sportsmanship." The letter went on to state, "under no circumstance shall a coach attempt to publicly criticize, berate, or intimidate the official which should be shown the utmost courtesy, dignity, and respect." Upon receipt of the letter, the principal discussed its contents with Mrs. Marion Ressler, the girls varsity coach. He did not talk with Respondent or give him a copy of the letter. There was no competent evidence to support these allegatoins.

    
    

24. During the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school year, the Respondent frequently allowed the students in his Alternative Education classroom to use inappropriate language; to-wit, cursing between themselves and occasionally between himself and his students.

    
    

25. Respondent did not encourage inappropriate language in his classroom, and did reprimand and write-up students who swore excessively. Respondent tried to handle the problem himself by either talking it through, or by using humor.

    
    

26. The Administrator at Land O'Lakes High School received some complaints from parents and students regarding the Respondent's use of vulgar language in the classroom.

    
    

27. During the 1988-89 school year, an Administrator, Peter Kennedy, at Land O'Lakes gave him a written warning which the Respondent signed regarding his inappropriate use of language when he brought a student to the office for discipline.

    
    

28. The administration of Land O'Lakes High School never made any mention of these allegations concerning the use of profanity or inappropriate language in Respondent's evaluations.

    
    

29. An Alternative Education class requires informality. Foul language may sometimes be overlooked, since the goal is to get these students, who are disinterested and disruptive, to stay in school and learn. Behavior, not language, is the appropriate focus of the Alternative Education classroom.

    
    

30. During the 1988-89 school year, Respondent became angry and began shouting when he caught two EH students using the back of the school to go back and forth between classes. An EH teacher, Ms. Monique Vinski, had received permission for her students to pass behind the school. Because the Administration had a general rule which prohibited students from going in this

    area between classes, Respondent did not accept her statement that the students had permission to use that route and was visibly angry. Ms. Vinski was subsequently told by the Administration to take her students through the hallway. Respondent was never formally or informally disciplined for this event, nor was there any record of the event in his personnel file.

    
    

31. During the same period of time, Respondent stopped another emotionally handicapped student for being in an inappropriate area. Respondent became very angry, and was shouting at the student.

    
    

32. During the '89-90 school year at Land O'Lakes, the Respondent had in his class an Alternative Education student by the name of Billy Eviston.

    
    

33. During a discussion on racism and abortion, in American History class, Eviston expressed an opinion that was opposed by the Respondent. Whereupon the student felt that Respondent had demeaned him, and he reported his recollection of the event to the Administration. No disciplinary action was taken for this incident.

    
    

34. During the 1989-90 school year, Sgt. Richard Thiel, who was a recruiter in the National Guard, taught employability skills classes at the different high schools in Pasco County.

    
    

35. Sgt. Thiel had scheduled months in advance a classroom presentation to several classes, including Respondent's class, through the Occupational Specialist, Woody Wall.

    
    

36. Thiel and his assistant walked into Respondent's class in civilian clothes, pushing a cart with a movie projector on it. He did not identify himself.

    
    

37. Upon the Sgt.'s entry into the classroom, the Respondent said he did not know who Sgt. Thiel was, and that he was expecting Woody Wall to teach the class. Whereupon Respondent exited the classroom in a futile search to find Wall.

    
    

38. Thiel felt that Respondent's attitude toward him was very arrogant and he decided he would not teach the class that day. He and his assistant left Respondent's classroom prior to the return of Respondent.

    
    

39. There was no altercation between Respondent and the Sgt. and his assistant. No disciplinary action was taken in connection with this incident.

    
    

40. In March of 1990, an Alternative Education student, Terekita Brown, date of birth, 9/2/72, was in the Respondent's 10th grade class. She was a disruptive student, who had a history of poor grades, high absenteeism, and disruptive and rude behavior.

    
    

41. Brown came late to class with an admit slip for readmittance into the ecology class which she gave to the Respondent, who questioned it's authenticity. Miss Brown became angry and responded by saying "fuck you."

    
    

42. When other students became agitated with her, she swore at the other students as well, and made vulgar comments to Respondent about his wife, and continued to repeat "fuck you" in a loud and angry manner.

43. Finally, to diffuse the situation, Respondent tried to use humor and said to Brown, "right here in front of the class?". Respondent did not return profanity toward Brown, or the students that day. The mood in the room was laughter, and Brown was also laughing concerning the interchange. When the class quieted down, Respondent taught the remainder of the class, and Terekita Brown finished out the remainder of the class without incident. The entire incident lasted between two to five minutes.

    
    

44. Following the class, the incident was reported to the Administration who assigned James Davis, Director of Instructional Employees Relations to investigate.

    
    

45. Davis concluded the Respondent did not call Brown a prostitute directly, but did so by implication, and should be disciplined.

    
    

46. The method used by Respondent to diffuse the Brown situation was an acceptable technique in alternative education.

    
    

47. Each assessment evaluation for the period of 1984 to 1990 rated Respondent as a very satisfactory teacher. The March 7, 1990 evaluation, performed by an assistant principal and signed by the principal, classified Respondent "as a very fine teacher and a credit to Land O'Lakes High."

    
    

48. On or about April 4, 1990, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the District School Board of Pasco County. On or about May 2, 1990, the Respondent's employment contract with the District was terminated as a result of their finding of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and neglect of duty.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

49. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and subject matter of these proceedings. Sections 120.57(1) and 231.262(5), Florida Statutes.

    
    

50. This proceeding involves disciplinary action against Respondent's teaching certificate. Therefore the burden of proof to establish the facts upon which the Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent's teaching certificate is on the Petitioner. Balino v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The charges must be proved by the Petitioner through the introduction of clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

    
    

51. Section 231.28(1), Florida Statues, authorizes the Department of Education, Education Practices Commission, to revoke or otherwise penalize a teaching certificate provided it can be shown that the holder of the certificate:

    
    

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

    
    

52. In the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, it has been alleged that he has committed the acts prohibited by the provisions of Section 231.28(1)(c),(f) and (h), Florida Statutes. Further that he violated Rule 6B-1.01(2), Rule 6B-1.06(3)(a), (e) and (f), Rule 6B-1.06(5)(d) and (e).

53. Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, as provides:

    
    

    (2) 'Immorality' is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standard of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individuals's service in the community.

    
    

54. The term "moral turpitude" is defined in Rule 6B-4.009(6), Florida Administrative Code, as follows:

    
    

    Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which, according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes to his or her fellow

    man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statutes fixes the moral turpitude.

    
    

    Moral turpitude has also been defined by the Supreme Court of Florida as follows:

    
    

    Moral turpitude involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society . . . It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty,

    principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong

    was not contemplated.

    
    

    Turlington v. Hollingsworth, 108 Fla. 607, 146 So. 660,661 (1933).

    
    

55. On some occasions, Respondent used poor judgment, and failed to communicate in a positive way on those particular incidents as described, and on those certain days he was ineffective as a teacher. When he loses his temper, Respondent's confrontational style and unwillingness to communicate with individual students and colleagues were actions which reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board in violation of Section 231.29(1)(f), Florida Statutes.

    
    

56. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to establish "pattern" of misconduct on behalf of Respondent.

    
    

57. The greater weight of evidence shows that Respondent was an extremely successful and effective teacher throughout his term at Land O'Lakes High School.

58. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, it is hereby found that: a.) Respondent was not guilty of gross immorality or an act

involving moral turpitude;

b.) Respondent did not violate Rule 6B-1.001(2) concerning the exercise of professional judgment and integrity;

c.) Respondent did not violate Rule 6B-1.006(3)(f) concerning the intentional violation or denial of student rights;

d.) Respondent did not violate Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) concerning the making of intentionally false or malicious statements about a colleague;

e.) Respondent did not violate Rule 6B-1.006(5)(e) concerning the use of coercive means or promise of special treatment to influence professional judgments of colleagues;

f.) Respondent did not violate Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) concerning a failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, or to their health and safety;

g.) Respondent did violate Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) concerning intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in the two incidents with students of Ms. Vinski.

h.) Respondent is guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, due to his frequent loss of his temper.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Robert Ressler did

not violate the provisions of Sections 231.262(6) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, but did violate Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, due to his loss of temper. It is further

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued reprimanding Respondent for the above violations.

DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DANIEL M. KILBRIDE

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 20th day of November, 1991.

APPENDIX

The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties.

Petitioner's proposed findings of fact.

Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9 (in part), 10, 11, 13 (in part), 18, 19 (in part), 20, 22 (in part), 23 ( in

part), 24, 25, 26, 28 (in part), 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 (in part), 34, 35, 37, 38,

42, 43, 46, 47, 49, 54, 56

Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence or irrelevant: paragraphs 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 12, 13(in part), 14, 15, 16, 17,

21, 22 (in part), 23 (in part), 27, 28 (in part), 33 (in part), 36, 39, 40, 41,

44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55

Rejected as subsumed or conclusions of law: paragraphs 57, 58, 59, 60, 61,

62, 63, 64, 65

Respondent's proposed findings of fact.

Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,9 (in part), 11, 12, 13, 14,

16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 (in part), 29, 30, 32, 33 (in part), 34 (in

part), 36, 37 (in part), 39, 41, 42 (in part), 43, 44, 45 46 (in part), 47, 48,

56, 58, 59, 60, 61 (in part), 62, 63

Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or argument: paragraphs 7, 8, 9 (in part), 10, 15, 17, 19, 26, 27 (in part), 28, 31, 33 (in part), 34 (in part), 35,

38, 40, 46 (in part), 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 61 (in part), 64, 65

Copies furnished:

Lane Burnett, Esquire

331 E. Union Street, Ste #2 Jacksonville, Florida 32203

Lorna Sills Katica, Esquire 1950 NCNB Plaza

400 N. Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602

Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director

301 Florida Education Center

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services

352 Florida Education Center

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the 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 consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their 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, DOAH CASE NO. 90-7101 vs. EPC CASE NO. 90-239-RT

ROBERT RESSLER,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

Respondent, ROBERT RESSLER, holds Florida educator's certificate no. 396920. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint seeking suspension, revocation, permanent revocation or other disciplinary action against the certificate.

Respondent requested a formal hearing which was held before a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order was forwarded to the Commission pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S., which is attached to and made a part of this Order.

A panel of the Education Practices Commission (EPC) met on February 6, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida, to take final agency action. Petitioner was represented by Margaret O'Sullivan, Esquire. Respondent was represented by Lorna Sills Katica, Esquire. The panel reviewed the entire record in the case.

Both the Petitioner and the Respondent filed exceptions in this case. The panel ruled as follows on the exceptions of the Respondent:

Respondent's exception number one (#1) was accepted by the panel in that there was not substantial competent evidence the support the sentence "an E H teacher, Ms. Monique Vinski, had received permission for her students to pass behind the school" found in paragraph 30 of the Findings of Fact.

Respondent's exception number two (#2) referring to paragraph number 7 of the recommended Conclusions of Law is not accepted because the conclusion is adequately tempered and limited in its basis to the Findings of Fact.

Respondent's exception number three (#3) which objected to the recommended Conclusion of Law 10(g) and 10(h) was accepted in part in that the panel rejected conclusion of law 10(g) in that there was insufficient factual evidence to support this conclusion of law. This exception was also rejected in part in that the panel ruled that Conclusion of Law 10(h) was proper in that the respondent did seriously reduce his effectiveness as an employee of the school board due to his frequent loss of temper.

The panel ruled as follows on the exceptions of the Petitioner's: Petitioner's exception number one (#1) to the recommended Finding of Fact,

paragraph 23, is rejected in that the panel agreed that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the allegations in paragraph 23 relating to Respondent's conduct.

Petitioner's exception to the recommended Conclusion of Law number 10(b) was rejected by the panel in that the panel did not find that the recommended Finding of Fact, paragraphs 21, 22, 23, and supported finding a violation of Rule 6B-1.001 (2), F.A.C.

Petitioner's exception to recommended Conclusion of Law paragraph 10(c) was rejected by the panel because the recommended Finding of Fact, paragraphs 16, 27, 33, 41, and 43, did not support a conclusion that the Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(f), F.A.C.

Petitioner's exception to the recommended Conclusion of Law paragraph 10(e) was rejected by the panel because the recommended Finding of Fact, paragraphs 11, 16, and 30 did not support a conclusion that Respondent violated Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(e), F.A.C.

Petitioner's exception to recommended Conclusion of Law 10(f) was rejected by the panel because the recommended Finding of Fact, paragraph 33 and 43, did not support a conclusion that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), F.A.C.

The panel adopts the Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order as the Findings of Fact of this Final Order with the exception that the sentence "an E H Teacher, Ms. Monique Vinski had received permission for her students to pass behind the school" is stricken and not adopted in accordance with the ruling on exceptions.

The panel adopts the Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order as the Conclusions of Law of this Final Order with the exception that paragraph 10(g) of the recommended Conclusions of Law is stricken and not adopted in accordance with the rulings on exceptions.

Therefore it is found that the Respondent, Robert Ressler, did not violate Section 231.262(6) and 231.28(1)(c) and (h) Florida Statutes and Rules 6B- 1.006(3) and 6B-1.006(5) F.A.C. but did violate Section 231.28(1)(f) Florida Statute.

Wherefore, it is ORDERED that the penalty recommended by the Hearing Officer in the Recommended Order is hereby adopted and that Respondent be issued a Reprimand for the above found violation.

This Order may be appealed by filing notices of appeal and a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68(2), F.S., and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and (c), within 30 days of the date of filing.

DONE AND ORDERED, this 14 day of FEBRUARY , 1992.

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services AARON WALLACE, Presiding Officer

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

matter of BC vs. Robert Ressler

Sydney McKenzie, III was mailed to Lorna Sills

General Counsel Katica, Esquire, 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1950 , Tampa

Florida Admin. Law Reports Florida 33602, this 14 day

of February , 1992, by U.S. Thomas E. Weightman, Supt. Mail.

Pasco County Schools

7227 Land O Lakes Blvd. Land O'Lakes, FL 34639 KAREN B. WILDE, Clerk

Dr. Myndall Stanfill, Asst. Supt. Human Resource Development

Pasco County Schools

Margaret O'Sullivan, Esq. Daniel M. Kilbride, Hearing Officer Department of Education Division of Admin. Hearings

1701, The Capitol The DeSoto Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

Docket for Case No: 90-007101

Orders for Case No: 90-007101