STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-2911

)

TONY VILA, )

)

Respondent. )

) BETTY CASTOR, as Commissioner of ) Education, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-7414

)

TONY VILA, JR., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 23-24, 1993, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner Patricia D. Bass, Esquire School Board of Luis Garcia, Esquire

Dade County: 1501 North East 2nd Avenue

Miami, Florida 33132

For Petitioner William T. Jackson, Esquire Betty Castor: Professional Practices Services

352 Florida Education Center

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

For Respondent: Mark H. Klein, Esquire

Allison L. Nash, Esquire Grand Bay Plaza, Suite 606 2665 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented in Case No. 92-2911 is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained within the Notice of Specific Charges filed against

him, and, if so, whether his employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, should be terminated. The issue presented in Case No. 92-7414 is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against his licensure as a teacher in the State of Florida.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated April 23, 1992, Petitioner School Board of Dade County, Florida, advised Respondent that it was suspending him and initiating dismissal proceedings to terminate his employment. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing regarding the allegations against him, this cause was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal proceeding, and the School Board subsequently filed its Notice of Specific Charges.

Petitioner Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, subsequently filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, and Respondent timely requested a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained therein. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal proceeding. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Case Nos. 92-2911 and 92-7414 were consolidated by Order of Consolidation entered January 21, 1993.

Petitioners School Board of Dade County, Florida, and Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, presented the testimony of Anthony Pariso, Vernon Shotwell, Christina Serrola, Joe Catarineau, John Kertis, Matthew L. Ronchetto, Justin Patterson, Vincent Kubicek, Patrick Snay, Gregory Dunn, Darryl Brown, Daniel A. Smith, Eric Fleming, Thomas Hackett, and Joyce Annunziata.

Additionally, Petitioners' Exhibits numbered 1-6, 9-22, 25, 26, and 27 were admitted in evidence.

Respondent presented the testimony of Rene Armesto; Eduardo Macaya; Carolina Fuentes; Gustavo Marshall; Everett Bodie; and Vincent T. Cortina, Jr. Additionally, Respondent's Exhibits numbered 4A and B, 9, and 10 were admitted in evidence.

Although all parties requested and were granted leave to file post-hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders, only Petitioners did so. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact can be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 451673, covering the areas of driver education, reading, and physical education. His teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1999.

   
   

2. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner School Board of Dade County, Florida, as a teacher at Miami Killian Senior High School, pursuant to a professional service contract.

   
   

3. During the 1991-92 school year Respondent was employed as the department head of the driver education program at Killian. For that school year, it was determined that an additional driver education class would be offered after regular school hours, during the seventh period, through the adult education program at Killian.

4. Anthony Pariso, who was the principal at Killian, wanted to offer that seventh-period driver education class to Respondent, an opportunity which would provide extra salary to Respondent. He discussed his desire with Patrick Snay who was then the assistant principal at Killian and who was also in charge of Killian's adult education program. Snay was strongly opposed to giving the seventh-period class to Respondent because Snay had problems in the past with Respondent maintaining accurate enrollment and attendance records in the adult education program. Pariso reminded Snay that Pariso was the boss.

   
   

5. Because of Snay's concerns, Pariso and Snay met with Respondent. They advised Respondent that the class would be offered only if enough eligible students enrolled in the class since funding for the class (and Respondent's extra salary) was dependent upon a minimum of 24 sixteen-year-olds. Although the course itself was not new, the fact that it was being offered during the seventh period as part of the adult education (night school) program made it a pilot program, which would serve as a model for other high schools in Dade County. Therefore, it would be closely monitored, and it was important that all of the requirements of adult education be met.

   
   

6. During that conference Pariso and Snay specifically went over the requirements of the course, even though Respondent was the driver education department head and quite familiar with the course requirements. They made it very clear to Respondent that he had to have 24 sixteen-year-olds enrolled before the course could be offered. He was given specific instructions in terms of how to enroll the students.

   
   

7. In that conference Pariso and Snay specifically told Respondent the rules relating to driver education classes in the Dade County Public Schools. Specifically, driver education class cannot be repeated unless the student received a "D" or an "F" in the class and then only during summer school. The class cannot be repeated for credit or for insurance reasons. Because of the problem Snay had in the past with Respondent, Pariso and Snay made Respondent repeat to them the instructions regarding who would be eligible to take the new seventh-period class.

   
   

8. Respondent also coached the baseball team at Killian. As part of his efforts to enroll students in the class, Respondent met with the baseball team. He told them that they were to enroll in his seventh-period driver education class. The baseball players attending the meeting told Respondent that they had already taken the class from him. Respondent specifically told them that it did not matter, that they were to sign up for his class, that they were not required to attend the class, and that he would give them credit and an "A" without them attending. He passed out forms for enrollment and told them to fill out those forms and to sign the name of one of their parents on the portion of the form that required the signature of a parent to give permission for the student to attend night school.

   
   

9. Several of those students who did not complete the enrollment form when first directed to by Respondent were contacted by him at their homes.

   Respondent reminded at least one of them that Respondent was in charge of deciding who would play baseball, implying there would be repercussions if that student did not enroll in the class.

   
   

10. Respondent did such a good job enrolling students that it was possible to offer a second class during the seventh period. Snay was opposed to giving

    Respondent the opportunity to teach the additional class. Vincent Kubicek, another teacher in the driver education department at Killian, was offered the second class.

    
    

11. Pariso and Snay met with Respondent and Kubicek. They explained to Kubicek and reminded Respondent that the offering of the driver education class as part of the adult education program was a pilot program initiated by the Superintendent of the Dade County Public Schools and that Kubicek and Respondent would have to stay in strict compliance with attendance guidelines, with grading, and with all School Board policies. The requirements for eligibility to take the class were again explained.

    
    

12. The two seventh-period driver education classes were combined into one large class, known as Group A and Group B. Both groups were taught at the same time. Kubicek taught the class lecture and driving range portions. Respondent was in charge of the on-street driving part of the class.

    
    

13. Respondent, as the department head, was responsible for the entire driver education program. He was also responsible for enrolling students in the seventh-period driver education course and for making an accurate and official record of attendance.

    
    

14. Kubicek took the daily attendance for his portion of the course from the grade and range cards which he created. He did not have access to the official driver education seventh period attendance sheet. Respondent had the official attendance sheet, and the official attendance report was signed by him. There were students enrolled in the seventh-period class who were on the official attendance sheet signed by Respondent who never attended the class and who were not eligible to take the class.

    
    

15. When it was time to fill out the official grade sheets for the first 9-week grading period, Kubicek was responsible for completing them. For the

    first time in the years they had worked together, Respondent insisted on helping Kubicek average the grades. While they were doing that, Kubicek discovered that there were students on the official grade sheets who had never attended the class. Kubicek called that to Respondent's attention, and Respondent replied that he would take care of it. Respondent told Kubicek, however, to give "A"s and "B"s to the students who had never attended the class.

    
    

16. Kubicek awarded grades to all the students on the grade sheet, as instructed by Respondent, Kubicek's department head. Kubicek then took the official grade sheets to assistant principal Snay and explained what had happened and what Respondent had instructed him to do.

    
    

17. Snay reported Respondent's falsification of the official records to principal Pariso. Pariso and Snay confronted Respondent about enrolling students who were ineligible and about directing Kubicek to give them passing grades when they had not attended the course. Respondent admitted his actions, stating that he was simply trying to help the students. Pariso fired Respondent from the seventh-period driver education class and replaced him with another of Killian's driver education teachers Eric Fleming.

    
    

18. Respondent intentionally failed to follow the direct and reasonable orders of his superiors for enrolling students in the driver education class. Those orders were given to Respondent on at least two occasions, and he had been required to repeat them to show that he understood them when they were given. Despite those clear orders from both Pariso and Snay, Respondent enrolled

    students in the after-school driver education course that he knew had already taken the course and passed it and who were, therefore, ineligible to take the course again.

    
    

19. As a result of an anonymous phone call to the principal of Palmetto Adult Education Center regarding improprieties in Killian's after-school driver education course, Pariso initiated a personnel investigation. He told Respondent that an investigation was forthcoming.

    
    

20. Respondent contacted the students affiliated with his baseball team who were ineligible but enrolled in the class to tell them that they would be questioned. He also told them to tell the investigator the same story, i.e., that they had enrolled but that they had dropped the course because they had a job or had other demands on their time during the seventh-period class. He also told them what had occurred during the class in order that they could answer any questions regarding the class itself.

    
    

21. When the investigator interviewed the ineligible students, they gave the false statements that Respondent had told them to give. One student later went to the investigator and told him that they had all lied and told the investigator why. The students were interviewed a second time.

    
    

22. During the second set of interviews, the ineligible students admitted that they had taken the class previously and had received passing grades, that Respondent had pressured them to enroll again, that they had forged their parents' signatures to the form as instructed by Respondent, that some had agreed to take the course based upon his offer to give them credit and an "A", and that Respondent specifically said they did not have to attend. Moreover, at least one of the students had been enrolled in the seventh-period class by Respondent without her knowledge.

    
    

23. After the ineligible students admitted that they had provided false statements to the investigator during the first interviews and after they had provided truthful statements in the second set of interviews, Respondent contacted at least one of those students and attempted to pressure that student into retracting the second statement and returning to the original false statement.

    
    

24. In approximately 1989 Respondent asked two Killian students to follow his ex-wife home from work so Respondent could find out where she lived. They did so, and Respondent paid them $20. He then asked them to damage his ex- wife's car, which they refused to do because they thought that part was too risky.

    
    

25. In approximately October 1991 Respondent asked those same students who had by then graduated from Killian to follow Fleming and Kubicek, the two teachers teaching the seventh-period driver education class, home from work. He offered them $50 to "trash" Fleming's and Kubicek's cars. Although those former students did follow Fleming home and subsequently gave Fleming's address to Respondent, they did not follow Kubicek home and they refused to damage either Fleming's or Kubicek's cars.

    
    

26. On December 20, 1991, Kubicek's car was deliberately scratched with a key or other sharp object in the faculty parking lot at Killian. On that day, Fleming and Respondent were together all morning except for one period of time which lasted a few minutes during which Respondent left the driver education

    portable and then returned holding his keys. After his return, it was discovered that Kubicek's car had been "keyed".

    
    

27. Later that day, Greg Dunn, a math teacher at Killian, was talking to his students about honesty while he was teaching his sixth-period consumer math class. One of the students challenged Dunn, asking the teacher how he could talk about honesty when the student had seen a teacher "keying a car." Dunn asked that student if he would talk to him after class, and the student agreed.

    
    

28. The student explained that he and another student were behind a row of trees next to the faculty parking lot while they were cutting classes that morning. They saw and heard a teacher scratching Kubicek's car. Dunn reported his conversation to principal Pariso, who contacted the special investigative unit of the Dade County Public Schools.

    
    

29. The investigator interviewed those two students individually, and both students independently identified Respondent as the teacher who keyed Kubicek's car. Further, both students independently identified Respondent from a photo line-up even though the photograph of Respondent used in the line-up was taken from a old yearbook and showed Respondent at a time when he wore a mustache.

    
    

30. During the 1988-89 school year, Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a minor female Killian student, which included sexual activity. That student's father met with Respondent and requested Respondent to terminate the relationship, unsuccessfully.

    
    

31. The student's father subsequently scheduled a conference with principal Pariso and played a tape which the father had secretly made of a telephone conversation between his daughter and Respondent. It was clear to Pariso from the tape that Respondent and the student were engaging in a sexual relationship and that Respondent had ignored the father's request to terminate that relationship.

    
    

32. Pariso confronted Respondent about the tape and the relationship. Respondent was visibly shaken and quite upset about the tape. At first, Respondent suggested that he would simply lie to the father about the contents of the tape. Thereafter, however, Respondent admitted the relationship and assured Pariso that he would terminate it.

    
    

33. Pariso directed Respondent to stay completely away from that student. Respondent did not terminate the relationship as ordered to by principal Pariso. Respondent's inappropriate sexual relationship with the minor female student was well known among students and teachers at Killian.

    
    

34. Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has been severely impaired.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

35. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

36. The School Board seeks to terminate its employment of Respondent, to have its suspension of Respondent affirmed, and to have Respondent's claim for back pay since the date of his suspension denied. Since Respondent holds a professional service contract, the School Board must show that Respondent's

    suspension and dismissal is in accordance with Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. That statute requires that such action be taken only for just cause which includes but is not limited to misconduct in office and gross insubordination. The Notice of Specific Charges filed in this cause by the School Board alleges that Respondent is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, gross insubordination, employee misconduct, and conduct unbecoming a School Board employee.

    
    

37. Section 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, contains the definitions for some of those terms, as follows:

    
    

    1. Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standards 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 individual's service in the community.

    2. Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule

       6B-1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule

       6B-1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.

    3. Gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties is defined as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and

       given by and with proper authority.

       
       

38. Although the Notice of Specific Charges also alleges that Respondent has violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, found in Sections 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, respectively, the Notice does not advise Respondent which of those standards he is charged with having violated. Having failed to notify Respondent in advance as to those standards alleged to have been violated, Petitioner cannot take action against Respondent for violation of unspecified standards contained in either the Code of Ethics or in the Principles of Professional Conduct. Likewise, the School Board cannot take action against Respondent for statutory and rule violations alleged for the first time in its proposed recommended order.

    
    

39. The Notice of Specific Charges also alleges that Respondent is guilty of employee misconduct and conduct unbecoming a School Board employee, in violation of Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4C-1.01 of the School Board of Dade County, Florida. Again, the specific portion of those School Board Rules allegedly violated is not set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges. Similarly, the allegations in the Notice of Specific Charges regarding violations of the labor contract have not been shown to be within the jurisdiction of this forum.

40. The School Board has, however, met its burden of showing that Respondent is guilty of immorality and gross insubordination, warranting Respondent's suspension and dismissal from employment.

    
    

41. Respondent's enrolling students in a course when he knew those students were not eligible constitutes immoral conduct. Respondent's telling them they did not have to attend in order to receive credit and an "A" constitutes immoral conduct. Respondent's instruction to those students to forge their parents' names constitutes immoral conduct. Telling those students to lie to the investigator in order to hide Respondent's wrongful conduct constitutes immoral conduct. Respondent's falsification of official enrollment and attendance records constitutes immoral conduct. Respondent's instruction to falsify records, given to a teacher over whom Respondent was the department head, constitutes immoral conduct. Respondent's hiring of students to follow his ex-wife and co-employees constitutes immoral conduct. Respondent's attempts to hire students to damage cars belonging to his ex-wife and his co-employees constitutes immoral conduct. Respondent's sexual relationship with a female Killian student constitutes immoral conduct. Lastly, Respondent's vandalism of his colleague's car constitutes immoral conduct. All of these acts are inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals and were sufficiently notorious to bring Respondent and the education profession into public disgrace. Respondent has seriously impaired his ability to serve in the community.

    
    

42. Respondent committed gross insubordination when he enrolled ineligible students in his class and falsified the official enrollment and attendance records after being specifically instructed twice by his principal and by his assistant principal to not do that. Those orders were reasonable in nature and were given to Respondent by those with the authority to do so. Similarly, Respondent committed gross insubordination by continuing his sexual relationship with the female student after being specifically ordered by Pariso to cease having any contact with that student.

    
    

43. Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Education Practices Commission to suspend or revoke a teaching certificate for certain specified conduct. The Administrative Complaint filed in this cause by Petitioner Castor, as Commissioner of Education, alleges that Respondent has violated Sections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes. Petitioner Castor has met her burden of proving that Respondent is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), and that Respondent is guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as a School Board employee, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(f), for the same reasons that the School Board has proven Respondent to be guilty of immorality and gross insubordination.

    
    

44. Similarly, Petitioner Castor has proven Respondent guilty of misconduct in office, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(h), for his violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, which are so serious as to impair Respondent's effectiveness in the school system. As alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety. Respondent intentionally jeopardized the students whom he involved in his scam related to falsification of official school records. By using his influence to pressure them, he placed them in a position of vulnerability as to their academic integrity and involved them intentionally in illegal activity by encouraging them to commit forgery and instructing them to

    commit perjury. Further, his hiring of students to follow people and destroy their property put those students at risk for their own safety.

    
    

45. Similarly, Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. A number of students were repeatedly questioned by investigators as a result of Respondent's falsification of the official records relating to the seventh-period driver education course. Having pressured those students to lie to the investigator, it later became necessary for each of them to admit their dishonesty and expose their own wrongful behavior.

    
    

46. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent violated Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code, by exploiting a professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. Petitioner Castor has met her burden. The evidence reveals that in order to obtain sufficient enrollment that he could teach an additional class for additional remuneration, Respondent used his position as a teacher and specifically as a baseball coach to pressure students affiliated with the baseball team to enroll in a class for which they were not eligible. Further, Respondent intimidated at least one of those students who did not want to take the class a second time by suggesting that if the student did not do what he was told then Respondent, as the baseball coach, would not allow that student to play baseball.

    
    

47. The Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with violating Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. Respondent falsified enrollment records. He falsified attendance records. He told the students that they could forge their parents' names with impunity. He told them they could trick the investigator by all telling the same story. He told them they could get an "A" and credit for not even attending class. He told his principal that he had terminated a sexual relationship with a student when he had not.

    
    

48. Although the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, by submitting fraudulent information on a document in connection with professional activities, the Rule cited does not forbid that conduct. Rather, Rule 6B-1.006(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, forbids misrepresenting one's own professional qualifications. No evidence was offered that Respondent has done so, and Petitioner Castor has failed to prove that Respondent is guilty of violating that particular principle.

    
    

49. Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, permits the Education Practices Commission to revoke a teaching certificate for a period of time not to exceed ten years or to revoke permanently a teaching certificate. The nature of Respondent's conduct at issue in this cause is such that there is no reasonable expectation that Respondent is likely to change his moral code sufficiently that he can be entrusted to be a role model as required by a member of the teaching profession in the State of Florida. It cannot be said that revocation of his teaching certificate for a certain period of time is likely to enable Respondent to be entrusted with the education of the children in this State. It is appropriate that Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that:

1. A Final Order be entered by Petitioner Dade County School Board in DOAH Case No. 92-2911 terminating Respondent's employment and denying his claim for back pay from the date of his suspension, and

   
   

2. A Final Order be entered by the Education Practices Commission in DOAH Case No. 92-7414 permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate.

DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida.

LINDA M. RIGOT

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1993.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2911 AND 92-7414

1. Petitioner School Board's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3-31, 34-47, and 51 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

2. Petitioner School Board's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause.

3. Petitioner School Board's proposed findings of fact numbered 32, 33, and 49 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein.

4. Petitioner School Board's proposed findings of fact numbered 48 and 50 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause.

5. Petitioner School Board's proposed findings of fact numbered 52-56 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony.

6. Petitioner Castor's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 10-64, 68- 77, 81, 82, and 84-87 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

7. Petitioner Castor's proposed finding of fact numbered 66 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause.

8. Petitioner Castor's proposed findings of fact numbered 7-9, 65, 67, 83, 88, and 89 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein.

9. Petitioner Castor's proposed findings of fact numbered 78-80 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Patricia D. Bass, Esquire Luis Garcia, Esquire

1501 North East 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132

Robert J. Boyd, Esquire Bond & Boyd, P.A.

411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Mark H. Klein, Esquire Allison L. Nash, Esquire Grand Bay Plaza, Suite 606 2665 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133

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.

rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause.

1. Petitioner Castor's proposed findings of fact numbered 7-9, 65, 67, 83, 88, and 89 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein.

2. Petitioner Castor's proposed findings of fact numbered 78-80 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Patricia D. Bass, Esquire Luis Garcia, Esquire

1501 North East 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132

Robert J. Boyd, Esquire Bond & Boyd, P.A.

411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Flori

Docket for Case No: 92-002911

Orders for Case No: 92-002911