STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FRANK T. BROGAN, Commissioner ) of Education, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-0803

)

ROBERT B. STEWART, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its Administrative Law Judge, David M. Maloney, conducted a final administrative hearing in this case on June 5, 1998, in Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire

Post Office Box 131

St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131

For Respondent: Robert B. Stewart, pro se

3801 Allen Road

Zephyrhills, Florida 33541 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent as the holder of a Florida Educator's Certificate: (1) violated the law as charged in the Administrative Complaint in this case; and therefore, (2) failed to comply with an order of the Department of Education entered in an earlier case? If so, what is the appropriate discipline?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 17, 1998, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter dated one week earlier from Kathleen

1. Richards, Executive Director of the Education Practice Commission. The letter referenced EPC # 97-176 RT, a case styled as "Frank T. Brogan vs. Robert B. Stewart." Ms. Richards wrote that the matter was forwarded to DOAH, "for full evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 231.262(5), Florida Statutes, because the parties had failed to reach a settlement and because there appeared to be disputed issued of material fact remaining in the case."

   Attached to the letter were both an administrative complaint and an "Election of Rights" form. In the complaint, dated May 7, 1997, Petitioner, in his capacity as Commissioner of Education, charged Respondent with three statutory violations and one rule violation. By the form, Respondent in turn requested a period of time in which to reach a settlement, and in the event one could not be reached, he requested a formal administrative hearing because of disputed allegations in the administrative complaint.

   Shortly after the receipt of the letter from the Executive Director of the Education Practices Commission, an initial order was entered by the Division of Administrative Hearings designating Carolyn Holifield as the Administrative Law Judge to conduct the proceedings. Administrative Law Judge Holifield entered a pre-hearing order on March 20, 1998. The pre-hearing order, among other directions, instructed the parties that

   "[d]iscovery may be undertaken in the manner provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure." Prehearing Order, p. 3.

   On March 6, 1998, Bruce P. Taylor as attorney for Petitioner, served a number of discovery requests on Respondent, including "Petitioner's First Request for Admissions to Respondent." In the request, Respondent was requested to admit the accuracy of the allegations contained in the first five paragraphs of the Administrative Complaint.

   Of the five allegations requested to be admitted, four referred to jurisdiction, the existence of a Settlement Agreement in an earlier case between the parties, and Respondent's resignation of his position with the Hillsborough County School District effective September 17, 1996. The remaining allegation (paragraph 4 in the Administrative Complaint) reads as follows:

   On or about September 9, 1996, Respondent entered a public toilet in a city park exposed his penis to an undercover police officer and began to masturbate. On or about September 9, 1996, Respondent was arrested and charged with Entering/Remaining for the Purpose of Lewdness or Assignation. On or about December 19, 1996, the Court closed its file on the case after Respondent was accepted into a Misdemeanor Intervention Program.

   Administrative Complaint, pg. 2 of 3.

   
   

   At the outset of the Request for Admissions, Petitioner stated, "Petitioner . . . pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.370, requests that the Respondent admit the accuracy of the following statements within thirty (30) days[.]" Despite this statement

   and despite the instruction in the pre-hearing order that discovery would be conducted in the manner provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 1.370 of which declares admitted those matters not answered within 30 days after service of the request), Respondent did not respond in any manner to the Request for Admissions.

   Respondent did not respond either to other discovery filed by Petitioner. The failure was due, at least in part, to Respondent's receipt of the discovery requests near the time of the death of his father. In all likelihood, moreover, Respondent's participation and appearance pro se were not helpful to his understanding of the meaning of a failure to respond to discovery requests. Nonetheless, no finding of excusable neglect was made in favor of Respondent. Hence, the matters requested by Petitioner to be admitted by Respondent were deemed admitted at hearing.

   At hearing, Petitioner presented two witnesses as did Respondent. The Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice filed May 6, 1998, was granted and judicial notice was taken of the four documents attached to the request. Of the four exhibits presented by Petitioner, Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 were admitted into evidence without objection and Exhibit 3 (a sketch made by the undercover officer during testimony) was used for demonstrative purposes only. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 7 were all admitted into evidence.

   The transcript was filed on June 22, 1998. Proposed Recommended Orders were filed by both parties. Respondent's was received first, on July 9, 1998; Petitioner's was received the next day, July 10.

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. The Parties

      
      

      1. Petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, is the Commissioner of Education. Upon a finding of probable cause in a case involving a complaint against a teacher which is cause for discipline under Section 231.262(6), Florida Statutes, Petitioner is directed by statute to file a formal complaint and prosecute the complaint under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. If it appears that there are disputed issues of material fact in the case, the statute directs that an Administrative Law Judge be directed to hear the complaint. Section 231.262(5), Florida Statutes.

      2. As the Commissioner of Education, the Petitioner is the head of the Department of Education (the "Department"). Section 20.15(2), Florida Statutes. The Department serves as staff to the Education Practices Commission (the "Commission"). Section 231.261(6)(b), Florida Statutes. The Commission, following receipt of recommendations from an administrative law judge in a contested case involving a complaint against a teacher, is responsible for issuing a final order through one of its panels. Section 231.262(5), Florida Statutes. Such final orders are governed by Section 231.262(6), Florida Statutes.

      3. Respondent, Robert B. Stewart, is the holder of Educator's Certificate No. 424860. The certificate covers the areas of "Administration and Supervision, English and Speech," in recognition of his undergraduate and Master's degrees. Set at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed in this case to expire on June 30, 1997, the certificate has since been renewed. Now, it will not expire until mid-year 2002.

      4. Until his resignation shortly after the occurrence of the incidents that gave rise to the complaint in this case, Mr. Stewart was a teacher in the Hillsborough County School System with eighteen years of experience. At one point in these eighteen years, he was recognized as the Hillsborough County Teacher of English of the Year. He has been married for twenty years. He and his wife are the parents of two daughters.

   2. An Earlier Disciplinary Proceeding

      
      

      1. On April 30, 1996, Commissioner of Education Frank T. Brogan filed against Mr. Stewart an Administrative Complaint (the "first complaint"). Just as in the complaint issued in this case, the first complaint sought to discipline Respondent's Educator's Certificate pursuant to provisions in the Florida Statutes governing complaints against teachers and administrators in public schools, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as found in the Florida Administrative Code.

      2. The first complaint alleged that Mr. Stewart, while employed as a teacher at Marshall Middle School in Hillsborough County "[o]n or about May 24, 1995 . . .'mooned' several other staff members by exposing his buttocks to them during a break in a Faculty meeting." Page 2 of 3 of Administrative Complaint issued in Case No. 956-0178-B.

      3. The first complaint charged that Mr. Stewart's action was misconduct which, inter alia, seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the school board and violated the Principles of Professional Conduct prescribed by the State Board of Education.

      4. In a Settlement Agreement executed June 28, 1996, Respondent did not admit or deny the charge of misconduct. Instead, he elected not to contest the allegations.

      5. Respondent also agreed in the Settlement Agreement to accept a letter of reprimand to be placed in both the School Board's personnel file and the Department's certification file. He further agreed to submit to an appropriate evaluation by a treatment provider approved by the Recovery Network Program and thereafter provide verification that he was capable of performing the duties of an educator.

      6. Most pertinently to this case, Respondent agreed in the Settlement Agreement to be placed on a period of probation for two years. Among the conditions of probation, imposed by the Settlement Agreement and the Final Order of the Education

         Practices Commission accepting it, was that Respondent would "violate no law and . . . full comply with all district school board regulations, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006 [the Code of Professional Ethics of the Education Profession as found in the Florida Administrative Code]." Settlement Agreement, page 2 of 4.

   3. Treatment for Depression

      
      

      1. Several weeks after the incident which led to the letter of reprimand, Mr. Stewart visited the office of Michael Caselnova, M.D., a family practitioner. Dr. Caselnova's office notes reflect the following history:

         He is very concerned with an episode that happened recently. He notes that in the last year he has been pretty irritable and he has had some problems at work with it, but he had an episode recently where somebody called him for something and he was irritated and just had an uncontrollable compulsion to "moon another teacher". He said he knew what was happening, but had no control over it and it was very out of character for him and he was very concerned with it. On further questioning, he has been somewhat depressed at times, very irritable . . .

         Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. Stewart was diagnosed as suffering clinical depression for which his family practitioner prescribed Paxil. Two weeks later Dr. Caselnova pronounced him to be feeling "an amazing difference with the Paxil." Id.

      2. In the meantime, Mr. Stewart was seen by Charles G. Walker, M.D., a psychiatrist, for purposes of the evaluation called for by the settlement agreement. On March 25, 1996,

         Dr. Walker reported his evaluation of Mr. Stewart. In a letter to Ms. Marilyn T. Wittner, General Director of Human Resources for the Hillsborough County Schools, Dr. Walker offered his opinion that Mr. Stewart "was suffering from a very severe Major Depression at the time of the . . . [May 24, 1996] incident." Dr. Walker continued to report that Mr. Stewart had shown a good response to the Paxil and that "he is able to return to teaching and will have no difficulty conducting himself appropriately and professionally." Id.

   4. Return to Teaching

      
      

      1. Sometime following Dr. Walker's report, Mr. Stewart was hired as a Technical Education teacher at Pierce Middle School in the Hillsborough County School District. He remained employed there until his resignation on September 17, 1996.

      2. Pierce Middle School is in Tampa. Mr. Stewart lives in Zephyrhills, 32 or 33 miles away, where he also works at a Scotty's Home Center as a part-time employee. In between the school and Scotty's is the scene of the incidents alleged in the Administrative Complaint to have led to this disciplinary proceeding: a public park.

   5. Lettuce Lake Park

      
      

      1. Lettuce Lake Park is open to the public daily from the morning until about 10:00 p.m. It has areas for picnics with public facilities including rest rooms. Throughout the park are both paved trails for bicycles and roller blading as well as

         nature trails for members of the public to walk and enjoy the park's wooded areas. The park is well-used, in fact "crowded quite often" (Tr. 19) with men, women, and children.

      2. In the late summer of 1996, park personnel lodged complaints with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office in reference to sexual activity in the park, particularly in the rest rooms and on the nature trails. The complaints were reported to make reference to "explicit sexual activity among men, genital exposure and a man-made trail lined with condoms." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4.

      3. Deputy Sheriff L. D. Hyder, a ten-year member of the force and participant in the Sheriff's Vice and Morals Unit in 1996, was assigned to investigate.

      4. Together with four or five other officers, all undercover and split into teams for the purpose of observation "to see if any activity occurs or somebody comes in and tries to, you know, make any advances or things of that nature," (Tr. 19) Deputy Hyder went to Lettuce Lake Park on September 9, 1996.

   6. September 9, 1996

      
      

      1. After grading papers following the departure of his students from Pierce Middle School on September 9, 1996, Mr. Stewart was "running a little bit late." (Tr. 77). He needed to be at Scotty's in Zephyrhills for his part-time job by 5:00 p.m.

      2. On the way to Scotty's, he stopped at a fast-food restaurant "to grab a burger and a drink." Id. By the time he

         had reached the area of the park in his car, he needed to urinate and wanted to dispose of the remains of the fast-food meal. He didn't want his two daughters to see that he had had a burger "because if the girls see it [the paper wrappers and bag with fast food restaurant logo] in the car then they want to know why they didn't get burgers too." Id.

      3. Mr. Stewart pulled into Lettuce Lake Park. He headed toward the rest room in one of the picnic areas with the refuse in hand. As he approached the rest room, he observed Deputy Hyder entering before him. Deputy Hyder "paused at the opening, glanced over his shoulder, looked [in Respondent's] direction." Tr. 78.

      4. Mr. Stewart entered the restroom shortly after the deputy sheriff. Once inside, he threw away the trash and stepped into the area of the urinal.

      5. In the meantime, Deputy Hyder, with his partner stationed outside the rest room, had become seated on a toilet. The toilet was next to the urinal but separated from it by a partition fastened to the wall. The toilet area had no door and could not be considered a stall. In other words, the area, between the wall opposite the partition and the partition, was open. The partition extended out at least several feet and was raised a foot or so above the floor, allowing a person seated on the toilet to see the feet of a person near the urinal.

      6. While seated, Deputy Hyder did not make any noise except to cough or clear his throat. "I'm constantly clearing my throat." Tr. 29. The law enforcement officer remained fully clothed. He had on a large shirt that was not tucked in because under his shirt at his waist, he had a camera.

      7. Deputy Hyder's first sight of Mr. Stewart in the rest room was of his feet and the lower part of his legs through the space below the partition. It was approximately 4:50 p.m.

      8. Soon after Mr. Stewart's entry, Deputy Hyder had become suspicious. Although standing in the vicinity of the urinal, Mr. Stewart's feet were not positioned as if he were standing at the urinal and, therefore, using it. Mr. Stewart's feet shifted back and forth next to the partition. Remaining in a seated position, Deputy Hyder continued to watch Mr. Stewart's feet. He describes what happened this way:

         I saw those feet turn, walk towards the end of the partition. I saw the defendant put his head around and peek and look at me. At that point in time, I'm sitting on the urinal, and I smiled at him.

         
         

         At that point he stepped on into the front portion [of the toilet area] unzipped his pants and pulled out his penis and started to rub his penis.

         
         

         
         

         Tr. 23.

         * * *

         
         

         I pulled [the] camera out, took a snapshot and immediately identified myself as Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and yelled for my partner, and we then arrested him for lewd and lascivious behavior.

      9. Mr. Stewart's testimony about these moments differed dramatically. He testified that to use the urinal, he had to stand on a concrete block. His testimony at this point follows:

         [I]t was difficult for me to stand at that urinal and use it properly. So I had not yet zipped my pants up when I stepped back from the urinal.

         
         

         Off the block puts you pretty much at the doorway or the opening to the stall, and at that time I heard noises coming from the stall. It could have been moaning, it could have been groaning; it was hard to say. And then I heard the man in the other stall say, "Come here."

         
         

         I stepped back a little bit, looked around the corner, a gentleman on the stall was wearing, you know, a rather large shirt and was rising. I'm not stupid. I pretty much guessed that he was masturbating; and for a moment, I have to admit, I looked in his direction. He gave me a wink, jerked his head, and at that time, I thought, "Geez, I've got to get to work." So I reached down to zip my pants up. He flashed out a camera, announced that he was a deputy and that I was under arrest.

         (Tr. 78-79, emphasis supplied).

         
         

   7. Newspaper Reports and Resignation

      
      

      1. Eight days later, the arrest was reported in both the Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times. Mr. Stewart was not the only person nor the only teacher arrested as part of the undercover operation of which Deputy Hyder was a part. Twenty- four other persons were reported to have been arrested on September 9 as well, three of them teachers.

      2. Of the teachers reported arrested, one was reported to be at the college level; the other two were reported to be public school teachers: an elementary teacher and Mr. Stewart.

      3. It was reported at what school the elementary teacher worked and for how long he had been a school district employee. The charge against him was briefly discussed. As to the remainder of those arrested, with the exception of Mr. Stewart, the newspaper reported little. But in Mr. Stewart's case, both newspapers reported that the arrest would not lead to Mr. Stewart's first encounter with teacher discipline; it was reported Mr. Stewart had been disciplined before and the reason for the discipline, mooning school personnel the year before, was also spelled out.

      4. On the same day as the newspaper reports, Mr. Stewart submitted his resignation as a teacher with the Hillsborough County School District. The resignation was accepted by the district effective the day it was made, September 17, 1996.

   8. Criminal Proceeding and the Destruction of Evidence

1. As the result of his encounter with Deputy Hyder, Mr. Stewart was charged with a second-degree misdemeanor: entering in a place for lewdness or assignation.

2. The criminal proceeding was resolved without an adjudication or admission of guilt when Mr. Stewart was placed in a pre-trial misdemeanor intervention program. Mr. Stewart resisted such a resolution at first. His attorney had advised

   him that, although odds were in his favor for a dismissal of the case, the chance of a conviction remained since it was possible that, of the only two eye-witnesses to the events, Deputy Hyder's testimony would be believed rather than his. At his wife's urging in light of the attorney's advice, Mr. Stewart agreed to enter the program.

3. On November 20, 1997, Mr. Stewart successfully completed the intervention program. The result of the successful termination was that all pending charges in the criminal proceeding were dismissed.

4. In the meantime, Deputy Hyder had received routine periodic inquiries from the evidence room in the Sheriff's Office with regard to whether the evidence in the case, including the photograph taken of Mr. Stewart in the Lettuce Lake Park rest room, should continue to be stored. Deputy Hyder was informed on November 11, 1997, (although the notice of successful termination of the intervention program was not issued until nine days later on November 20, 1997) that the criminal proceeding had ended.

   Not knowing the licensing proceeding was ongoing and the use to which the evidence might still be put, Deputy Hyder ordered the Evidence Room to destroy the photograph. His order was carried out.

5. What could have been a determinative piece of evidence then in weighing the testimony of Deputy Hyder and Mr. Stewart,

   the photograph was not in existence at the time this case was heard.

   
   

   1. The Importance of Judgment

      
      

6. Mr. Stewart's lack of judgment in the earlier disciplinary case and, if Deputy Hyder's version of the events in the Lettuce Lake Park rest room is true, were matters of serious concern to Janice W. Velez, Director of Professional Standards for the Hillsborough County School District. Ms. Velez' expert opinion outlined the importance of good judgment on the part of teachers. It is important, for example, for employees of a school district to have the ability to trust in each other's judgment. It is also important that a teacher display good judgment so that parents of students will have confidence in the teacher's ability to supervise and make decision concerning their children. Finally and critically, it is not just important but essential that a teacher exercise and display good judgment because of direct contact with students for whom the teacher is responsible. This responsibility rises to the level of a fiduciary so that the teacher is a trustee of the student's future. The teacher, moreover, serves as a role model for his students. This role is central to the educator's profession and lies at the heart of the purpose of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

7. The Division of Administrative Hearing has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Sections 120.57 and 231.262(5), Florida Statutes.

8. Petitioner seeks the suspension of Mr. Stewart's certificate. The standard of proof necessary to sustain a license suspension is clear and convincing. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

9. The provisions cited in the Administrative Complaint and with which Mr. Stewart is charged to have violated are designed, in part, to ensure that a teacher exercises good judgment. They are designed for other purposes which are obvious. A teacher holding an educator's certificate can be subject to discipline for either engaging in personal conduct that seriously reduces effectiveness, Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes; or for being guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; or for violating the Principals of Professional Conduct for the education profession, Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes.

10. Rule 6B-1.006(5)(o), Florida Administrative Code, part of the Principles of Professional Conduct, prohibits a teacher from violating the terms of his probation imposed by the Education Practices Commission.

11. The difficulty of this case lies not in the course to be taken if the charges are true. Rather, it lies in resolving

    the issue of culpability for the violations in light of the state of the evidence. It is unfortunate that the photograph taken by Deputy Hyder was destroyed. Had the photo been available, it might have put an end to the discrepancies between Deputy Hyder's testimony and Mr. Stewart's. (One can only hope that steps have been taken to alert criminal authorities in cases involving teachers in order to avert in the future the loss of evidence critical to administrative cases of teacher discipline.)

12. Had this case been burdened with the standard of proof required in a criminal trial, the outcome might be different. There are several points that could have served to create reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury: Deputy Hyder was present at Lettuce Lake Park on September 9, 1996, for the express purpose of observing sexual activity in the men's rest room; a skillful criminal attorney might have been successful in arguing that what Deputy Hyder testified he saw, therefore, might have been a product more of what he expected to see than reality, especially given the suspicious frame of mind he was in having observed Mr. Stewart's feet movements beneath the partition moments before he appeared in front of the deputy; a skillful criminal attorney might have been able to demonstrate entrapment especially given the astonishing number of males arrested at the park on September 9; no attempt was made to describe what the photograph showed by those who saw it before it was destroyed; and any assistance the case might have gleaned from Deputy

    Hyder's partner was not provided because he did not testify. Most critically, no one other than Deputy Hyder and Mr. Stewart observed and therefore knows for sure what occurred in the rest room.

13. On the other hand, Mr. Stewart might have strengthened his case in ways that either did not occur to him in his status of being unrepresented, or, perhaps, ways he chose to reject. For example, one would expect that his criminal attorney requested production of the photograph during the criminal proceeding. If so, he might have been able to testify that what he saw on the photo was consistent with Mr. Stewart's testimony.

14. In the end, however, this is a case that must rise or fall on the contradictory testimony of two and only two witnesses. In a case of one-against-one testimony with little else upon which to rely, the finder of fact may conclude that the testimony of the two witnesses under oath and at odds results in a draw, or the party with the burden of proof has not provided evidence which meets the standard necessary to sustain the penalty sought. In this case, however, careful analysis reveals that the case provides proof that meets the "clear and convincing" standard.

15. This feat is not achieved because of Mr. Stewart's failure to respond to Petitioner's request for admissions. It is achieved because Mr. Stewart's testimony about his encounter with Deputy Hyder is found to be strained and disingenuous,

    particularly his testimony about not "zipping up" after leaving the urinal until he saw Deputy Hyder. In sum, Mr. Stewart's testimony is found to be not credible, leaving only Deputy Hyder's testimony about the critical moments of September 9, 1996.

16. Mr. Stewart's testimony as to his encounter with the deputy is rejected. Deputy Hyder's, the only testimony about the critical events remaining, is determined to be credible and is accepted.

17. Mr. Stewart, based on the facts found in this proceeding, is in violation of each of the statutory and rule provisions cited in the paragraphs 39, and 40, above, which were also cited in the "violations" sections of the Administrative Complaint.

    Penalty

    
    

18. Petitioner has recommended a penalty of a three-year suspension of Respondent's Educator's certificate followed by a two-year period of suspension. At minimum, such a penalty seems appropriate in this case. See Castor v. McCoy, 16 FALR 857 (1994). The severity is appropriate given Petitioner's violation of probation for another incident in which he demonstrated lack of judgment, a lack many (including Mr. Stewart when in a better frame of mind, as his medical records make clear) would find disturbing if not appalling. Finally, it is appropriate because students in Florida's public schools deserve to be protected from

future lapses in judgment by Mr. Stewart, lapses which have occurred more than once in his case, albeit none of which have occurred in the presence of students. In this regard, no matter how long the suspension, Mr. Stewart should not be allowed to return to teaching until a competent mental health professional determines that he is fit to teach students in the public schools of this state.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is recommended to the Education Practices Commission, that Respondent, Robert B. Stewart, holder of Educator's Certificate No. 424860, be found to have committed the statutory and rule violations charged in the Administrative Complaint; that his certificate be suspended for at least a period of three years and that he not be allowed to return to teaching until a competent mental health professional pronounces him fit to teach even if such pronouncement is not made until more than three years from the commencement of the certificate suspension. It is further recommended that he be placed on probation for two years after his return to teaching if and whenever that occurs.

DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DAVID M. MALONEY

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 22nd day of July, 1998.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131

St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131

Kathleen Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission

224B Florida Education Center

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Robert Stewart 3801 Allen Road

Zephyrhills, Florida 33541

Carl Zahner, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Commission Department of Education

224E Florida Education Center

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education

The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

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 must be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 98-000803

Orders for Case No: 98-000803