STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 96-4738

)

GALE SCOTT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on April 23, 1997, and on February 10, 1998, in Miami, Florida, before Patricia Hart Malono, a duly-designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

At the hearing conducted on April 23, 1997: For Petitioner: Ana Galinda-Marrone, Esquire

1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132-1306

For Respondent: Angela Nixon, Esquire

Kaplan & Bloom, P.A.

3001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 214 Coral Gables, Florida 33134

At the continuation of the final hearing conducted on February 10, 1998:

For Petitioner: Twila Hargrove Payne, Esquire

School Board of Dade County

1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132-1306 For Respondent: No appearance 1/

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Respondent's employment with the School Board of Dade County should be terminated.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In a letter dated September 12, 1996, the School Board of Dade County ("School Board") notified Gale Scott that she was suspended from her employment as a custodian at South Dade Senior High School ("South Dade") as of close of business September 11, 1996. The School Board also informed her that it intended to initiate proceedings to dismiss her from her employment with the School Board. Ms. Scott timely requested an administrative hearing, and the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law judge. On December 20, 1996, the School Board filed a four-count Notice of Specific Charges, in which it charged Ms. Scott in Count I with deficient job performance; in Count II with gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty; in Count III with violating the School Board rule requiring employees to conduct themselves in a manner that would bring credit to themselves and to the school system; and in Count IV with excessive absenteeism/abandonment of position.

Pursuant to notice, the formal hearing was scheduled for April 23, 1997. The hearing was not completed on that date, and the continuation of the hearing was scheduled for February 10, 1998.

At the hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of John Alexander, head custodian at South Dade: Donald Hoecherl, principal of South Dade; Orlando Gonzalez, former assistant principal of South Dade; Luis Villas, school resource officer at South Dade; Julia Menendez, director of personnel for Region VI of the Dade County school district; Lillian Delgado, administrative secretary in Region VI; Susan Lilly, payroll officer for the Dade County school district; and James E. Monroe, executive director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 37 were offered and received into evidence.

The School Board did not finish presenting its case at the April 23, 1997, hearing. Consequently, Ms. Scott did not present the testimony of any witnesses during that portion of the hearing. Respondent's Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 were, however, offered and received into evidence. Neither Ms. Scott nor her representative appeared at the continuation of the hearing on February 10, 1998.

The contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184, ("AFSCME") was received into evidence as Joint Exhibit 1, and official recognition was taken of Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Sections 230.03, 230.23(5)(f), 231.02, 231.3605, 231.44, and 447.209, Florida Statutes; and

Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4E-1.011, Dade County School Board Rules.

A transcript of the proceeding was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the School Board timely filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which have been considered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made:

1. The Dade County School Board is responsible for operating, controlling, and supervising all public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (1997).

2. Ms. Scott is employed by the School Board as a custodian. She began working for the School Board in 1990 as a part-time food service worker at South Dade, and, in early 1992, she began working at South Dade as a full-time custodian. Custodians are classified by the School Board as maintenance workers, and Ms. Scott was a member of AFSCME at all times material to this action.

3. The school's head custodian is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day performance of the custodians, which includes assigning duties to each custodian and developing a

   schedule for each custodian identifying the tasks that must be accomplished during specified blocks of time. The schedule is approved by the principal of the school. John Alexander is, and was at all material times, the head custodian at South Dade and Ms. Scott's immediate supervisor.

4. Ms. Scott's job responsibilities and duties included "policing" 2/ all ten girls' restrooms after each class change; policing the girls' locker room; policing certain other areas, including designated corridors, the auditorium lobby, the clinic, and the band area; cleaning five girls' restrooms after

   2:00 p.m.; cleaning designated cafeteria windows; removing graffiti from walls, mirrors, and corridors as needed; cleaning and disinfecting the drinking fountains in all corridors; cleaning graffiti off walls and doors in the ten girls' restrooms; and cleaning, dusting, and mopping the audio-visual room. Ms. Scott was also expected to respond to emergencies.

   These duties were the same as those assigned to the female custodian whom Ms. Scott replaced and as those currently being performed by the woman who replaced Ms. Scott at South Dade.

5. Ms. Scott's training consisted, first, of working for several weeks with the female custodian she was hired to replace. Then, after Ms. Scott's predecessor retired, Mr. Alexander worked with her for approximately two weeks.

6. Mr. Alexander noticed problems in her job performance shortly after Ms. Scott began working as a custodian. In a

   memorandum dated May 12, 1992, Mr. Alexander identified two specific incidents when Ms. Scott refused to follow his instructions. He notified Ms. Scott in the memorandum that he would recommend her termination as of May 19, 1992, during her probationary period, for lack of motivation and failure to perform her job responsibilities.

7. As a result of this memorandum, on May 19, 1992,

   
   

   Ms. Scott, Mr. Alexander and Dr. Paul Redlhammer, the principal of South Dade at that time, met to discuss Ms. Scott's job performance. After this meeting, Dr. Redlhammer sent Ms. Scott a "Memo of Understanding: Job Performance," in which he summarized the reasons for the concern about her job performance and notified her that Mr. Alexander would work with her for two weeks to help her improve her job performance. Mr. Alexander did not notice any improvement in Ms. Scott's work during the two-week period or thereafter.

8. On February 3, 1993, Mr. Alexander had a discussion with Ms. Scott about leaving work early, failing to empty the trash cans in her areas, and failing to clean the floor in the audio- visual room. On May 21, 1993, Mr. Alexander issued a Notification of Written Warning to Ms. Scott regarding her unsatisfactory performance, which included insubordination, disrespect, and improper behavior. Mr. Alexander proposed that Ms. Scott's file be reviewed and that she be given an opportunity

   to explain her performance. Mr. Alexander intended to recommend her termination from employment.

9. From September 24, 1993, through October 27, 1993,

   
   

   Mr. Alexander kept a log of the time Ms. Scott reported for work and left work each day. The log reflected that Ms. Scott left work thirty to forty-five minutes early on fifteen days during that period, that she took a forty-minute morning break one day, and that she reported for work between one hour and forty minutes and two and one-half hours late on three days.

10. In Ms. Scott's November 15, 1993, annual evaluation, Mr. Alexander rated Ms. Scott poor in the categories of taking lunch and breaks at the proper times, cleaning bathrooms, washing windows, following orders, following work schedules, and working well with other custodians. Mr. Alexander discussed the evaluation and her deficiencies with Ms. Scott, and she acknowledged by her signature that she had seen the written evaluation.

11. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve during the 1994-1995 school year. Despite being told repeatedly not to do so, Ms. Scott spent inordinate amounts of time talking with school security monitors in the school's corridors and in the school's north parking lot, sometimes spending an hour or more a day in these conversations. During most of that time, Ms. Scott was not on authorized breaks or lunch period. At the same time, Ms. Scott often did not properly police the girls' bathrooms or

    clean the areas for which she was responsible, and, on several occasions, she refused to obey direct orders from Mr. Alexander.

12. In September 1994, Orlando Gonzalez, the assistant principal at South Dade, scheduled an informal conference with Ms. Scott to discuss the deficiencies in her work performance, including an incident in which Mr. Gonzalez observed Ms. Scott watching television at 9:30 a.m. in the audio visual room.

    Ms. Scott left the school before the scheduled conference without permission. As a result of this behavior, Mr. Gonzalez requested that Donald Hoecherl, the new principal at South Dade, schedule a formal conference for the record to discuss "serious deficiencies in her job performance." Mr. Gonzalez later withdrew the request for the conference on the record because he thought he could accomplish more by counseling with Ms. Scott informally to help her improve her job performance.

13. Nonetheless, a conference for the record was held by Mr. Hoecherl in November 1994 for the stated purpose of addressing "continuous incidents of insubordination, failure to complete assigned work, and leaving work early." Ms. Scott was advised by Mr. Hoecherl that, if the problems were not resolved, another conference for the record would be held and that he would formally request her dismissal. Ms. Scott refused to sign the conference summary.

14. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve after the November 1994 conference for the record. Mr. Hoecherl tried to

    work with Ms. Scott on an informal basis, but his efforts to improve her job performance were not successful.

15. In April 1995, Mr. Gonzalez received complaints from two parents about the lack of cleanliness in the ladies' restroom in an area which Ms. Scott was responsible for cleaning.

    Mr. Gonzalez told Mr. Alexander to direct Ms. Scott to clean that restroom. The next day, Mr. Gonzalez found that the restroom had not been cleaned. Mr. Gonzalez prepared a memorandum to

    Ms. Scott directing her to clean the restroom.

    
    

16. In June 1995, a Notification of Written Warning was directed to Ms. Scott because she refused to obey direct orders from Mr. Alexander.

17. Ms. Scott's job performance deteriorated during the 1995-1996 school year. On October 5, 1995, a Notification of Written Warning was issued for "[f]ailure to follow and complete assigned work."

18. On November 8, 1995, a conference for the record was held and was attended by Ms. Scott and two representatives of AFSCME, as well as by Mr. Hoecherl, and Mr. Gonzalez. Three issues were discussed: Ms. Scott's direct and implied insubordination when she refused an order by Mr. Alexander to clean up the clinic area after a student became ill and when she twice refused to comply with Mr. Hoecherl's request that she step into his office to discuss the incident; Ms. Scott's pattern of failing to complete her job assignments; and her pattern of

    loitering on the job by talking to the security monitors in the corridors and in the north parking lot. The written summary of the conference for the record, dated November 13, 1996, included the following:

    In an effort to resolve these issues the following directives were outlined:

    
    

    1. Comply with all requests and directives issued by your immediate supervisor or administrator. . . . In regard to this issue failure to comply with the direction of an administrator or immediate supervisor constitutes insubordination and will result in additional disciplinary action.

       
       

    2. Follow your job assignments as given to you prior to this conference and again at this conference. The cleaning must be performed in a satisfactory manner meeting the requirements to maintain a clean and healthy school setting. Failure to complete your job assignments will result in additional disciplinary action.

       
       

    3. Refrain from loitering while on the job. You are reminded that you may spend your break and lunch time in dialog with others if you wish. You are not entitled to spend an inordinate amount of time talking and not performing your job assignments. Failure to meet this condition will result in additional disciplinary action.

       Ms. Scott refused to sign the written summary of the conference.

       
       

19. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve after the conference, and she did not follow the directives outlined for her. She continued to talk with other employees at times when she had no scheduled break; she failed to perform or inadequately performed her assigned tasks; and she engaged in a pattern of

    arriving at work late without authorization, taking time off during her shift without authorization, and leaving work before the end of her shift without authorization.

20. On or about February 16, 1996, Mr. Alexander attempted to discuss these problems with Ms. Scott. She became angry and belligerent. Mr. Alexander stood in front of his office door to prevent Ms. Scott from going out into the corridor because the students were changing classes and he felt it would not be appropriate for them to see her in that frame of mind, but she left his office anyway. Ms. Scott was immediately summoned for a meeting with Mr. Hoecherl and Mr. Alexander. During the meeting, a school police officer arrived in response to a 911 call, which Ms. Scott had made, accusing Mr. Alexander of restraining her against her will. The police officer determined that there was no basis for this charge, and Ms. Scott left the meeting in an angry and belligerent manner.

21. Mr. Hoecherl referred this incident to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. An administrative review was ordered, and Mr. Hoecherl was assigned to investigate the February 16 incident. On March 25, 1996, at Mr. Hoecherl's request, he and Ms. Scott met in his office. Mr. Hoecherl explained to Ms. Scott that he was trying to learn what had happened and wanted her to tell him her version of the incident. Ms. Scott became very agitated and left Mr. Hoecherl's office, slamming the door behind her. Her behavior as she left his

    office was very disruptive, but he nonetheless followed her to her car and asked that she return to his office to discuss the February 16 incident. Her response was belligerent and defiant, and Mr. Hoecherl told her to go home and not return to South Dade for the rest of the day.

22. On the morning of March 26, Ms. Scott reported to work at South Dade. She was told that she had been reassigned to the Region VI administrative office and that she was not to return to the South Dade campus. In accordance with directions he received from the School Board's Office of Professional Standards,

    Mr. Hoecherl instructed Ms. Scott to report to the personnel director at the Region VI office.

23. At approximately 8:00 a.m. on March 27, Ms. Scott appeared at the custodial office at South Dade. Mr. Hoecherl again told her to report to the Region VI office and provided her with written notification of her reassignment. Ms. Scott reported to the Region VI office, but, a short time later, she left and returned to South Dade. Ms. Scott was again told to leave the school grounds and informed that failure to do so would be considered gross insubordination; she refused to leave South Dade despite repeated orders from Mr. Hoecherl and the school police. Ms. Scott was belligerent and disruptive, and she was placed under arrest by the School Board police. She was escorted out of the school building in handcuffs; Mr. Hoecherl covered her

    shoulders with a jacket to hide the handcuffs from the students, but Ms. Scott attempted to shrug it off.

24. In a memorandum dated March 28, 1996, to the Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Hoecherl detailed Ms. Scott's poor job performance from January 12, 1996, through March 25, 1996.

25. A conference for the record was scheduled for March 29 at 2:00 p.m. by James Monroe, the Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. Ms. Scott failed to report for the conference even though she was contacted at her home by telephone shortly after 2:00 p.m. and told that they would wait for her for one hour.

26. The conference for the record was rescheduled for April 4, 1996, and the topics to be discussed were identified in the notice as follows: "[Y]our failure to report for a conference on March 29, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., as previously directed . . .; failure to comply with site directives;

    unauthorized departure from the work site; attendance/performance related issues; medical fitness for continued employment and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools."

    During the conference, Ms. Scott was advised that her employment status would be reviewed in light of the facts discussed at the conference, and she was directed to report to the Region VI office pending formal notification of the decision of the Superintendent of Schools and to perform all tasks and duties assigned to her.

27. During the time she was assigned to the Region VI office, from April 1996 until September 1996, Ms. Scott disregarded instructions and directives from her supervisors, she failed to perform her job responsibilities or performed them inadequately, and she was absent from work a number of times without authorization.

28. From September 1995 to September 1996, Ms. Scott was absent from her job without authorization for 20 days. She was absent from her job without authorization for three consecutive workdays from March 28 through April 1, August 23 through September 5, 1996. 3/

29. Ms. Scott was suspended by the School Board at its September 11, 1996, meeting.

30. Mr. Alexander, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Hoecherl tried for several years, through numerous informal memoranda and discussions, to help Ms. Scott bring her job performance up to an acceptable level. Ms. Scott was given several formal written notifications and warnings about the deficiencies in her job performance, and three formal conferences for the record were held to put Ms. Scott on notice of the perceived job deficiencies and of the complaints about her work and to allow her to explain the situation from her perspective. Ms. Scott did not comply with the directives for corrective action developed during the conferences for the record, and her attitude and job performance

    generally deteriorated from 1992 until September 1996, when she was suspended and dismissal proceedings instituted.

31. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that Ms. Scott's job performance was deficient in that she failed to perform or inadequately performed her assigned job responsibilities; that on numerous occasions she refused to comply with requests and direct orders from the head custodian, from the assistant principal, and from the principal of South Dade; that she accumulated excessive unauthorized absences; and that she abandoned her position with the School Board.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

32. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of the parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1997).

33. Because this case is a dismissal proceeding and does not involve the loss of a license, the School Board has the burden of proving the allegations against Ms. Scott by a preponderance of the evidence. Allen v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

34. Section 230.23(5), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that a school board has the power to suspend and dismiss employees as follows:

    (f) Suspension and dismissal and return to annual status.--Suspend, dismiss, or return to annual contract members of the instructional staff and other school employees; however, no administrative assistant, supervisor, principal, teacher, or other member of the instructional staff may be discharged, removed or returned to annual contract except as provided in chapter 231.

35. Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes (1995), deals with the employment status of educational support employees, and it provides in pertinent part:

    (1) As used in this section:

    1. "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system who is so employed as a teacher aide, a teacher assistant, an education paraprofessional, a member of the transportation department, a member of the operations department, a member of the maintenance department, a member of food service, a secretary, or a clerical employee, or any other person who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or school board pursuant to s. 231.1725. . . .

       * * *

       
       

       (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist.

    2. Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year, unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist, or reduces the number of employees on a districtwide basis for financial reasons.

36. The contract between AFSCME and the School Board defines the terms and conditions of employment for individuals employed as custodians by the School Board, to the extent that such terms and conditions are not defined by statute.

37. Section 447.209, Florida Statutes (1995), identifies generally the rights of a public employer regarding its employees and authorizes a public employer to take disciplinary action against a public employee for "proper cause." Likewise, the contract between AFSCME and the School Board provides in

    Article II, Section 3, that the School Board has exclusive authority over the "separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause" and that the School Board may, among other things, "[d]iscipline or discharge any employee for just cause."

38. Section 4 of the AFSCME contract provides in pertinent part:

    Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent [collective bargaining] unit member and the Board may occur by any of four distinct types of separation.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    1. Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position -- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. . . .

    2. Disciplinary -- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities.

    Such action occurs at any necessary point in time.

    
    

39. In Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board claims that Ms. Scott's employment should be terminated because of deficient job performance. On the basis of the findings of fact herein, the School Board has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Scott's job performance was habitually deficient. Such continual deficient performance constitutes just and/or proper cause to terminate her employment.

40. In Count II of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board claims that Ms. Scott's employment should be terminated because she was insubordinate and willfully neglected the duties and responsibilities of her job. On the basis of the findings of facts herein, the School Board has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, from the inception of her employment as a custodian at South Dade,

    Ms. Scott willfully neglected her job responsibilities by failing to perform all of the tasks assigned to her or by failing to perform these tasks adequately.

41. There is no authorization in Section 231.3605 or in the AFSCME contract for termination of an educational support employee specifically for insubordination. Cf. Section 231.36(6)(b)(administrative and supervisory employees may be

    terminated during the term of contract for gross insubordination); Rosario v. Burke, 605 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(head custodian was supervisory employee and termination was governed by Section 231.36(6)(b)). However, based on the findings of fact herein, the School Board has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Scott was frequently disrespectful not only to her immediate supervisor but also to the assistant principal and principal of South Dade. Her lack of respect and defiant attitude constitute just and/or proper cause to terminate her employment. See Jacker v. School Board. of Dade County, 426 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(affirming dismissal of non-instructional employee for failure "to show proper respect for the authority of supervisors/managerial employees" because that requirement is inherent in public employer's right to discipline employee for "proper cause," as provided in section 447.209, Florida Statutes (1979)).

42. In Count III of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board claims that Ms. Scott's employment should be terminated because she violated the requirements of

    Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Dade County School Board Rules, which requires that employees conduct themselves in a manner to "reflect credit on themselves and the school system." Based on the findings of fact herein, the School Board has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Scott's conduct on March 25, 1996, when she was arrested for refusing

    to leave the South Dade campus, did not bring credit to her or to the School Board.

43. In Count IV of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board claims that Ms. Scott's employment should be terminated because of excessive absenteeism and because she abandoned her position. The School Board has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Scott was classified as being on unauthorized leave without pay for more than ten days during the twelve-month period from September 1995 until September 1996 and that Ms. Scott also took unauthorized leave without pay for more than three consecutive days at the end of March and the beginning of April 1996 and in August and the beginning of September 1996. Pursuant to Article XI, Section 4B of the contract between the School Board and AFSCME, Ms. Scott's absenteeism and abandonment of position are grounds for termination.

44. Article XI, Section 1, of the contract between AFSCME and the School Board defines the due process standards that must be observed by the School Board when an employee "renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy." The School Board satisfied these due process standards regarding the disciplinary actions taken against Ms. Scott.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County issue a final order terminating Gale Scott's employment.

DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

PATRICIA HART MALONO

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998.

ENDNOTES

1/ Angela Nixon, Esquire, of Kaplan & Bloom, P.A., represented Ms. Scott on behalf of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184), at the hearing on April 23, 1997. Osnat Rind was substituted for Ms. Nixon pursuant to a stipulation filed June 18, 1997. Kaplan & Bloom, P.A. was allowed to withdraw as counsel for Ms. Scott by order entered October 6, 1997.

2/ "Policing" includes filling dispensers, replenishing paper towels and toilet tissue, picking up litter, and doing general light cleaning.

3/ On August 23, 1996, Ms. Scott submitted a request for an extended leave of several months. Ms. Scott was informed that this leave request would have to be approved even though it would be leave-without-pay. Thereafter, Ms. Scott did not report to work or contact the Region VI office to learn whether the leave request had been approved.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Twila Hargrove Payne, Esquire School Board of Dade County

1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

Ms. Gale Scott

Post Office Box 902006 Homestead, Florida 33090

Mr. Sherman Henry President of AFSCME Union 2171 Northwest 22nd Court Miami, Florida 33142

Mr. Roger O. Cuevas Superintendent

Dade County Public School System 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 403

Miami, Florida 33132-1306

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of 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: 96-004738

Orders for Case No: 96-004738