STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CHARLIE CRIST, AS COMMISSIONER ) OF EDUCATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

GINGER L. DUDLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

Case No. 02-3455PL

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was held in this case before Daniel M. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, on November 7 and 8, 2002, in Lakeland, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire

Lisa Griffin Hogdon, Esquire Broad and Cassel

100 North Tampa Street Suite 3500

Tampa, Florida 33602

For Respondent: John Liguori, Esquire

345 West Davidson Street Suite 201

Bartow, Florida 33830

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for alleged inappropriate conduct with K.M., a female student, from December 1999 through February 2000 in violation

of Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), (h), and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Following an investigation by the Department of Education, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on February 13, 2002. Respondent denied the allegations and filed an Election of Rights, seeking a formal hearing. This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 27, 2002. Discovery ensued, and Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint on November 1, 2002. The parties timely filed their Joint Prehearing Stipulation, and the final hearing was held on November 7 and 8, 2002.

The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged three statutory violation counts and four rule violation counts. Count one stated the misconduct alleged was in "violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude." Count two stated the misconduct alleged was in "violation of Section 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board." Count three stated the misconduct alleged was in "violation of Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct

for the Education Profession in Florida prescribed by the State Board of Education." Count four alleged that the misconduct alleged constituted a rule violation in which Respondent "failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical safety," in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Count five alleged that the misconduct alleged constituted a rule violation in which Respondent "intentionally expose[d] a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement," in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Count six alleged that the misconduct alleged constituted a rule violation in which Respondent "exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage" in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Count seven alleged that the misconduct alleged constituted a rule violation in which Respondent "failed to maintain honesty in all professional dealings," in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code.

At the hearing, Petitioner called 13 witnesses: Dale McDonald, Shelia Farrow, Tara Baxley, Richard Land, K.M.'s sister E.M.H. and the sister's husband, K.M., Linda Nell Monroe, Anthony Carter, Jamie Solice, K.S., Patricia Clair Bush, David Lauer, David Franklin Lewis, and Respondent, Ginger Dudley.

Respondent testified in her own defense and called six

witnesses: Charles True, Christine Smith, Martha Michaelis, Vhavik Patel, Angela Theriac, and Martha Michaelis. Ten of Petitioner's exhibits were admitted, consisting of written statements and reports.

A Transcript of the hearing was filed on December 2, 2002.

However, upon review, it contained significant errors, and a corrected three-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed on January 13, 2003. Petitioner filed his Proposed Recommended Order on January 28, 2003. Respondent filed her proposals also on January 28, 2003. Following a motion and order, Respondent filed an Amended Proposed Recommended Order on February 14, 2003. Both parties' proposals have been given careful consideration in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent, Ginger Dudley, holds Florida Educator Certificate 726210, which was valid through June 2002.

2. Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher and athletic coach at Frostproof Middle/Senior High School in the Polk County School District during the 1999/2000 school year.

3. Respondent taught mathematics on the middle school campus of Frostproof. Respondent enjoyed a good reputation at Frostproof of being a good teacher, a compassionate and caring person who related well with students and teachers alike.

4. K.M. was a senior student at Frostproof Middle/Senior High School during the 1999/2000 school year and graduated at the end of the year. K.M. turned 18 years of age on January 5, 2000.

5. As a senior at Frostproof during the 1999/2000 school year, K.M. was on the high school campus. K.M enjoyed a good record and reputation as a pupil and athlete of the school. K.M.'s grades were good, and she was not a disciplinary problem.

6. At the times material hereto, K.M. was not in any of Respondent's classes, but had contact with Respondent in regard to athletic, tutoring, and personal matters.

7. The community of Frostproof is a small, closely-knit, rural and somewhat isolated community in Polk County, Florida. Frequently, teachers go out of their way to help the students. A teacher may even be something like a substitute parent.

8. Frostproof Middle/Senior High School (Frostproof) consists of two campuses with one administration. The two campuses share the library, lunchroom, and Physical Education area. There are strict rules at Frostproof regarding the co- mingling of high school and middle school students. Middle school students are not allowed in the high school area unless they either have a pass to be on the high school campus or are designated to be at the high school during that period. The same rules apply to high school students; unless the high school

   students have a class on the middle school campus or are doing an "executive internship," they are not permitted on the middle school campus. An executive internship is treated as a class at Frostproof. During an executive internship, a student shadows a teacher as an assignment, for one period during the day.

9. In the event that a teacher observes a high school student on the middle school campus without approval, and who is not doing an executive internship, that teacher is expected to immediately notify the administration. This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) the teacher can write the student up on a discipline referral; or (2) the teacher can press the intercom button that is located in the classroom, which is connected to the front office.

10. K.M. first met Respondent while helping out with the Frostproof girls volleyball team, which Respondent coached. After the initial meeting, K.M. began spending time during her lunch period in Respondent's classroom, grading papers and using the computer.

    Respondent's Inappropriate Conduct with K.M.

    
    

11. K.M. and Respondent developed a friendship relationship during the 1999/2000 school year. In December 1999, a couple of months after K.M. first began spending time in Respondent's classroom, their relationship developed beyond mere friendship, and their meetings became more secretive.

12. Despite strict rules at Frostproof that prohibited high school students from being on the middle school campus unless they had permission and/or were doing an executive internship, Respondent allowed K.M. to spend an exorbitant amount of time in her class room on the middle school campus.

    K.M. was not doing an executive internship with Respondent.

    
    

13. Respondent never notified Dean Carter that K.M. was in an unauthorized area. Respondent did not notify anyone in the administration that K.M. was in an unauthorized area. In fact, the administration became aware that K.M. was in an unauthorized area only after Respondent's roommate, Michelle Davis, notified Dean Carter that K.M. was in Respondent's classroom, which was in an unauthorized area for a high school student.

14. After receiving Davis' complaint, Dean Carter spoke with Respondent and warned her that Respondent should not allow

    K.M. in an unauthorized area. Respondent continued to allow

    
    

    K.M. in her middle school classroom.

    
    

15. In addition, Respondent had one of her sixth grade middle school students, K.S., take personal notes from Respondent to K.M. on the high school campus. Most of them were stapled together prior to giving them to K.S. Although, K.S. did read one note that was not stapled, which read: "Meet me

    . . . by the buses," and had a time for the meeting.

16. It is improper for a teacher to utilize a student in her class to deliver notes to another student for personal reasons.

    Respondent's Contact with K.M. after School Hours

    
    

17. Not only did Respondent and K.M. spend an exorbitant amount of time together at school, but this close relationship also extended beyond school hours. In fact, Respondent repeatedly met with K.M. outside of school hours, for non- academic reasons:

    1. Respondent visited K.M. at her sister's, E.M.H., residence on more than one occasion, where they watched television and left to take drives together.

    2. Respondent picked K.M. up at a Taco Bell in Lakeland, Florida, and took K.M. to Respondent's apartment. K.M. spent the night at Respondent's home and returned the following morning around six or seven in the morning.

    3. Respondent took K.M. to her home on two separate occasions.

    4. Respondent and K.M. were together late at night, at 11:05 p.m., on February 18, 2000 when Respondent received a speeding ticket. In an attempt to hide their relationship from Respondent's roommate, Davis, Respondent gave K.M. the ticket and a check to pay the ticket.

18. Respondent did not gain parental approval, or approval from any other family member or guardian, and/or any school official prior to visiting K.M. at her sister's home, driving in vehicles alone with K.M., and/or taking K.M. away from her home.

19. When K.M. spent the night at Respondent's home, K.M.'s parent or guardian had never given permission to Respondent, nor was Respondent's roommate present.

20. It is inappropriate for a teacher to let a student spend the night at their house on a one-on-one basis.

    Telephone Calls

    
    

21. Respondent's frequent and lengthy telephone calls with

    
    

    1. were inappropriate:

       
       

       1. Respondent admitted that she had called K.M. on her cellular telephone ("cell phone") approximately 79 times from December 15, 1999, until February 2000.

       2. Respondent called K.M. on February 4, 2000, and talked to K.M. on her cell phone for 72 minutes.

       3. On February 21, 2000, Respondent also spoke to K.M. on seven separate occasions in one day within a two and one-half- hour time period.

       4. Respondent called K.M. on January 29, 2000, at 4:31 a.m.

       5. Respondent called K.M. at her mother's house.

          
          

       6. Respondent called K.M. at Sheila Farrow's house.

       7. Respondent called K.M. at the Hoxie's house.

    
    

22. Even though Respondent testified that she called K.M. numerous times because she was concerned K.M. was going to fail English, and refused to attend class, there has been no evidence that K.M. was failing a class or refusing to attend her classes.

23. Calling a student at 3:30 or 4:30 in the morning was highly inappropriate.

    Respondent's Statements

    
    

24. Throughout the course of the investigation, into this matter, Respondent made the following statements:

    1. Interview with Principal Lewis and Vice Principal Bush: During her first interview with Principal David Lewis and Vice Principal Bush, Respondent indicated she had only had contact with K.M. outside of school on two occasions, one involved a ballgame and the other involved car trouble. This was not a truthful statement by Respondent.

    2. March 7, 2000: Mr. McDonald, an investigator for the Department of Education authorized to administer oaths, and Principal Lewis placed Respondent under oath and conducted an investigative interview with Respondent. However, despite being placed under oath, Respondent was not truthful with Mr. McDonald and Principal Lewis. In fact, during the investigative interview,

       Dale McDonald had to remind Respondent that she was under oath. While under oath, Respondent never admitted to Mr. McDonald and Principal Lewis that K.M. had spent the entire night at Respondent's house.

    3. November 8, 2002: During the final hearing, Respondent finally admitted she did not tell Principal Lewis about K.M. spending the night at her house. Moreover, Respondent also admitted that during the course of her interview with McDonald, she denied that K.M. had ever been to Respondent's home. During her testimony at the final hearing, Respondent also admitted that even after McDonald reminded her that she was under oath, she still denied that K.M. had spent the night at her home.

25. During the final hearing, Respondent also added new information that she had not previously disclosed during her interviews with Principal Lewis, Ms. Bush, and Mr. McDonald. Specifically, at the final hearing, Respondent admitted that she had contact with K.M. outside of school hours and called K.M. late at night/early in the morning, talking for extended periods of time. She stated that she had contact and made the calls only because she was concerned that K.M. was being mentally or physically abused.

26. Respondent admitted that she knew that as a teacher she was required by Florida law to report any suspected child

    abuse. Respondent also admitted that she had actually called in a child abuse report prior to the 1999/2000 school year in reference to another child, but in this case, despite fearing that K.M. was allegedly being both physically and emotionally abused, she did not call the abuse hotline. Frostproof's protocol for reporting abuse is that teachers are asked to make reports in an administrator's or guidance counselor's office to ensure privacy when making the report. Further, teachers are to notify administration of any reports so they can keep a record. Teachers at Frostproof are not only advised of their mandatory obligation to report suspected abuse each year during the preplanning time but there are also posters posted in common areas like the faculty mail room.

    Respondent's Alleged Sexual Contact with K.M.

    
    

27. There were also a number of alleged intimate sexual encounters between Respondent and K.M. during the period of December 1999 and February 2000. The testimony of K.M. and other supporting evidence is not clear and convincing so as to find Respondent guilty of misconduct on this count.

28. The allegations of sexual misconduct cannot stand up to the clear and convincing evidence test because K.M. was characterized as not always being honest and truthful. K.M. repeatedly and materially contradicted herself in statements to friends, officials, and in prior proceedings. She even

    initially denied, under oath, any impropriety. K.M.'s allegations were not corroborated in regard to significant or material events. The accusations are essentially based on K.M.'s credibility.

29. Respondent has denied the accusations and is sufficiently credible. Although Respondent was not entirely forthcoming in her initial interview as to the full extent of her contact with K.M., by the end of the interview, she made corrections, and clear and convincing evidence is lacking that she was, finally, dishonest or less than truthful.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

30. The Division of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 231.262(5), Florida Statutes.

31. This proceeding involves disciplinary action against Respondent's teaching certificate and is therefore penal in nature. State ex rel Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission,

    281 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1973). The burden of proof to establish the facts upon which Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent's teaching certificate is on Petitioner. Balino v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The standard of proof required in this matter is that the charges must be proved by Petitioner through the

    introduction of clear and convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996). Petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence each of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

32. In the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, it has been alleged that she has committed the acts prohibited by the provisions of Section 231.2615(1)(c),(f) and (i), Florida Statutes. Further that she violated Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), (e) and (h) and Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code.

33. Section 231.2615(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Education Practices Commission to suspend, revoke or otherwise penalize a teaching certificate provided it can be shown that the holder of the certificate, inter allia:

    (c) Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (f) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (i) Has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education

    Profession prescribed by the State Board of Education rules.

    
    

34. Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, reads in pertinent part:

    6B-1.006 Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.

    
    

    1. The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.

       
       

    2. Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law.

       
       

    3. Obligation to the student requires that the individual:

       
       

       1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety.

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          (e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          (h) Shall not exploit a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          1. Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:

             
             

             1. Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.

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

    
    

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

    
    

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

    Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which, according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statutes fixes the moral turpitude.

    
    

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

    Moral turpitude involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society . . . It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not contemplated.

    
    

    State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 108 Fla. 607, 146 So. 660,661 (1933).

37. Section 231.262, Florida Statutes, reads in pertinent part:

    (7) A panel of the [Education Practices] commission shall enter a final order either dismissing the complaint or imposing one or more of the following penalties:

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    1. Revocation or suspension of a certificate.

       
       

    2. Imposition of an administrative fine not to exceed $2,000 for each count or separate offense.

       
       

    3. Placement of the teacher, administrator, or supervisor on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the commission may specify, including requiring the certified teacher, administrator, or supervisor to complete additional appropriate college courses or work with another certified educator, with the administrative costs of monitoring the probation assessed to the educator placed on probation.

       
       

    4. Restriction of the authorized scope of practice of the teacher, administrator, or supervisor.

       
       

    5. Reprimand of the teacher, administrator, or supervisor in writing, with a copy to be placed in the certification file of such person.

    
    

38. Respondent has failed to maintain honesty in her professional dealings by her ongoing misrepresentations regarding her contact with K.M. Respondent denied that K.M. had been to her house and/or had spent the night at her house. Accordingly, the clear and convincing evidence, including admissions by Respondent herself, establishes that Respondent

    has violated this rule, and has actively misled colleagues and administrators in the course of their investigation.

39. Respondent, by using the teacher-student relationship for her personal gain or advantage, clearly violated Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code, which prohibits the exploitation of a professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. Castor v. Westerfield, 1993 WL 943721 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hrgs. 1993). Respondent exploited her relationship with K.M. for personal gain or advantage during the 1999/2000 school year in that she used her improperly as her personal assistant and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a student.

40. In order to sanction an educator for such conduct, it must be shown that the educator intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. See School Bd. of Pinellas County v. Ray, Case No. 94-1631 (June 13, 1994). In Ray, the Hearing Officer explained that specific intent to embarrass is not always required, where "a general intent to act in a way in which one could expect to result in embarrassment or disparagement." Id. Here, the evidence is clear that while Respondent may not have intentionally exposed K.M. to embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent's conduct was such that one could reasonably expect to result in embarrassment or disparagement. It was not necessary for Respondent to engage in

    the inappropriate relationship with K.M. during the 1999/2000 school year. Here, testimony shows that there were not only rumors floating around about the inappropriate relationship between Respondent and K.M., but also that K.M. was upset because her integrity had been put into question as a result of Respondent's denial of any relationship with the student.

41. Respondent clearly and intentionally exposed K.M. to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of

    Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, since K.M. was forced to endure comments and rumors from classmates and teachers who heard rumors regarding the relationship. See Castor v. Westerfield, supra.

42. It was improper for Respondent to engage in the close personal relationship that developed between Respondent and K.M. during the 1999/2000 school year. It became harmful to the learning environment, it changed the relationship from a teacher-student relationship to a friend-friend relationship, and it tended to create an unhealthy appearance.

43. K.M.'s testimony provides clear and convincing evidence that she was exposed to unnecessary embarrassment. Although K.M. was a willing participant in the relationship, it was incumbent upon Respondent, the adult authority figure who occupied a position of utmost trust and responsibility, to

    exercise utmost caution to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Crist v. Battles, DOAH Case No. 00-4356PL (October 19, 2001). Respondent's continual failure to acknowledge any lapse of judgment on her own part and complete denial of any inappropriate contact with K.M. caused additional pain and humiliation to the student she has exploited. See

    Crist v. Battles, Id.

    
    

44. It is concluded that, during the 1999/2000 school year, Respondent used poor judgment and failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety and that she exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.

45. Respondent's personal conduct has seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. Lack of integrity and trustworthiness on the part of a teacher, as reasonably perceived by her supervisor, necessarily impairs her effectiveness to the school board.

46. A number of circumstances give reason for hesitance in crediting the accusations of sexual misconduct by Respondent.

    1. It is undisputed that K.M. denied under oath that there was any impropriety and stated that she and Respondent had discussed K.M.'s family problems.

    2. K.M. was inconsistent in her statements, contradicted by others, and lacked corroboration. She admits that she repeatedly lied or was untruthful and that she may have lied in her deposition.

    3. Some of K.M.'s testimony appears improbable.

       
       

    4. K.M. herself testifies to there being justifications for contact with Respondent or for being in Respondent's presence. She says that she and Respondent were friends and talked with her at great length about her family situation and family problems.

    5. K.M. apparently contradicted herself in regard to how the supposed inappropriate relationship even began.

    6. There is some supposed corroboration of K.M., but it tends to be problematic for Petitioner or illusory. For example, K.M.'s knowledge of the name of Respondent's dog is merely consistent with the dog having been brought to school or to the Taco Bell, and is otherwise innocent in nature. In her earlier statement, K.M. then stated that Respondent had a daybed. K.M. then stated that she slept on a couch while Respondent slept on her bed in another room. Tellingly, after

       K.M. changed her story and said that she and Respondent slept together in Respondent's own bed, she does not describe that bed or the bedroom.

    7. Two witnesses testified to K.M. saying "I love you" or "I love you, too" while on the telephone, but it is not established that Respondent was on the phone when such remarks were made. They were made in circumstances wherein K.M. appears to know she has a potential audience, and the remarks, even if made while Respondent was on the other end, are susceptible of innocent interpretation.

    8. Even after alleging that Respondent digitally penetrated her, K.M. was inconsistent as to where the events allegedly occurred. Sheila Farrow's fairly contemporaneous March 2, 2000, statement says that K.M. said it occurred at K.M.'s sister's house and that it was Respondent penetrating

    1. K.M. testified she essentially told Farrow everything, day by day, but Farrow's statement does not mention any activity at Respondent's residence, and Farrow testified this was all K.M. told her of in regard to digital penetration. However, it is clear that K.M. changed her story to say that she and Respondent digitally penetrated each other. K.M., contrary to Farrow, claimed at the 2002 hearing that she cannot recall any digital penetration taking place at her sister's.

       1. If K.M. wanted to protect Respondent, it is unclear why she would give names to the investigators of persons whom she had made accusatory remarks to. This does not appear consistent or logical.

47. Because of these concerns and matters addressed elsewhere in this Recommended Order, it has no been proved that Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct.

RECOMMENDATION

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

RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Section 231.2615(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, but did not violate Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes or Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code. It is further

RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued suspending Respondent's teaching certificate for one year, a $1,000 fine for the above violations, and that the suspension be followed by a two-year period of probation subject to such conditions as the Commission may specify.

DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DANIEL M. KILBRIDE

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 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel

100 North Tampa Street Suite 3500

Tampa, Florida 33602

John Liguori, Esquire

345 West Davidson Street Suite 201

Bartow, Florida 33830

Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Mary Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building

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 should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 02-003455PL

Orders for Case No: 02-003455PL