STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ROSEANNE E. GOULD, CASSANDRA ) KENNEDY, and HUBERT A. MCNEELY, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. )

) HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL ) BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

Case No. 02-3793RX

)

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on November 6, 2002, by video teleconference at sites in Tampa and Tallahassee, Florida, before Carolyn S. Holifield, a duly- designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: John Gould, II

Qualified Representative 4422 Ranchwood Lane

Tampa, Florida 33624

For Respondent: Thomas Gonzalez, Esquire

Jason L. Odom, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez

501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1400 Post Office Box 639

Tampa, Florida 33602

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the School Board policy that requires full-time non-degreed teachers of vocational programs to pass a basic skills test as a condition of being certified by the School Board and as a condition of continued full-time employment in such programs is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 27, 2002, Petitioners filed a Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division) challenging the validity of a rule of Respondent, the Hillsborough County School Board, which requires non-degreed vocational education teachers to pass an academic skills test as a prerequisite for a district-issued professional certificate.

By Order issued October 2, 2002, the matter was assigned to the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, who, on October 9, 2002, issued a Notice of Hearing scheduling the final hearing in this case for October 24, 2002. On October 14, 2002, Respondent filed a Motion for Continuance of Hearing. A telephone hearing on the motion was held by telephone conference call on

October 15, 2002. During the telephone conference call, Petitioners, through their qualified representative, agreed to a continuance of the final hearing. By Order issued October 15, 2002, Respondent's Motion for Continuance of Hearing was

granted, and the final hearing was rescheduled for November 6, 2002.

Prior to hearing, the parties filed separate Pre-hearing Statements. On the day of the hearing, Petitioners filed a request to amend their pre-hearing statement to add two additional issues. There was no objection and the request was granted. The specific issues that Petitioners requested be added were whether Respondent's Agenda Item 3.02, dated May 22, 1991, and adopted by the School Board on June 11, 1991, is invalid, and whether Respondent's Agenda Item 3.03 dated and adopted on August 6, 2002, by the School Board is invalid. Both of these agenda items relate to Respondent's policy on the employment and/or certification of non-degreed vocational teachers.

As noted above, the final hearing in this case was held on November 6, 2002. Prior to the evidentiary part of the hearing, the parties stipulated to facts that required no proof. At hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of two witnesses, Petitioner Cassandra Kennedy and Petitioner Hubert McNeely.

Petitioner's Exhibits I, J, K, N, and S were received into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, Janice Velez, the general director of Human Resources for the Hillsborough County School District. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the time for filing proposed orders was set for ten days from the filing of the transcript. The Transcript of the hearing was filed on November 21, 2002. Petitioners and Respondent timely filed their proposed final orders, which have been considered by the undersigned in preparation of this Final Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent, the School Board of Hillsborough County, Florida (School Board or Respondent), employs non-degreed persons to teach certain vocational subjects, including, health occupations and cosmetology.

2. In or about May 1990, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), which authorized school boards to establish qualifications for substitute teacher, teachers of adult education, and non-degreed teachers of vocational education. By virtue of that provision, which became effective in 1990, non-degreed vocational teachers are not required to obtain state-issued teaching certificates required of teachers of non-vocational subjects in Florida public schools.

3. Pursuant to Subsection 231.1725(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), school boards, including Respondent, are required to establish the minimum qualifications for non-degreed teachers of vocational programs.

4. The School Board has established requirements for the employment and certification of persons seeking to be employed as non-degreed teachers of vocational programs. The requirements for certification include requirements not identified as the minimum requirements in Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001).

5. On or about May 22, 1991, the Division of Personnel and Human Resources submitted Agenda Item 3.02 for approval to the School Board. According to the "Agenda Item" form submitted to School Board members, the proposed policy concerned non-degreed full-time vocational instructional personnel, part-time vocational instructional personnel and adult education personnel. The form indicated that the proposed policy was required because Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), "absolved the state of responsibility of issuing state certificates for non-degreed full-time, part-time vocational and adult education teachers" and each school district was "responsible for determining both eligibility and district certification requirements for non-degreed vocational and adult part-time teachers." The rationale for the proposed policy was that "recent legislation [Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes] has resulted in the need to create a district certification process" for non-degreed full-time personnel, part-time

   vocational instructional personnel, and adult education instructional personnel.

6. On or about June 11, 1991, the School Board held a public meeting in accordance with its policies and procedures, and state law and approved "the proposed policies concerning certification for non-degreed full-time vocational, part-time vocational, and adult education teachers, as necessitated by recent legislation (F.S. 231.1725) which shifts responsibility of issuing eligibility certificates for such personnel."

7. The 1991 Agenda Item 3.02 consisted of three separate policies that were being recommended for approval by the School Board, for the following separate and distinct categories of employees: non-degreed full-time vocational instructional personnel; part-time vocational personnel; and adult education instructional personnel. The proposed policy and procedures for non-degreed full-time vocational instructional personnel provided the following:

   Policy: The School Board authorizes the employment of personnel to teach full-time in non-degreed vocational programs to comply with Section 231.1725(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

   
   

   Procedures: An applicant must hold at least a high school diploma or the equivalent and meet the established minimum competency in the area of assignment.

8. The minutes of the June 11, 1991, meeting state that "the proposed rules will now go through necessary process including advertising and public hearing per Administrative Procedures Act," with a notation to "See minutes of July 16, 1991." There is no indication that this process was not carried out as noted.

9. On August 6, 2002, at a regular meeting, the School Board considered and unanimously approved School Board Policy 6.25.

10. Section 2 of School Board Policy 6.25, addresses certification of full-time and part-time teachers of non-degreed programs. The policy provides in pertinent part the following:

    FULL-TIME TEACHER CERTIFICATION (Non-degreed

    programs): The Office of Teacher Certification issues an initial 3-year nonrenewable temporary certificate in the same manner that state-certified teachers are certified. During the validity period of this temporary certificate, the teacher must produce documentation of the following to qualify for the professional certificate:

    
    

    1. Successful completion of the district's Preparing New Educators (PNE) Program.

       
       

    2. Successful completion of the State Professional Educator's Exam.

       
       

    3. A minimum of three years successful teaching experience.

       
       

    4. Successful completion of the (4) district certification courses listed below or their university equivalents.

       [1.] Surviving the First Year of Technical Teaching

       [2.] Special Teaching Methods for Technical Teaching

       [3.] Special Needs Student for Technical Education

       [4.] Philosophy, Practices and Management of Technical Education.

       
       

    5. Verification of basic skills by successful completion of the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) at or exceeding the profile established for the area of certification, or successful completion of another recognized test of basic skills accepted for state-certificated teachers.

       
       

       Upon receipt of the above documentation and of the appropriate application fee, the Office of Teacher Certification issues the full-time technical and career education teacher the 5-year Professional District Certificate that is valid for five years from July 1st of the school year it was issued. This certificate must be renewed in the identical manner that a state-issued certificate is renewed.

       
       

11. According to School Board Policy 6.25, the School Board's requirements for certification as a non-degreed teacher of vocational programs include the successful completion of the Test of Adult Basic Education ("TABE") or successful completion of another recognized test of basic skills accepted for state certificated teachers, and successful completion of the Professional Education Examination. The School Board does not require the passage of these tests in order to meet the minimum qualifications for initial employment.

12. The executive summary which describes the purpose of the superintendent's recommendation regarding School Board Policy 6.25, states in pertinent part the following:

    In 1990, by legislative action, districts assumed responsibility and authority for establishing employment and credentialing qualifications for teachers of non-degreed vocational programs and of part-time adult programs. The School Board originally adopted procedures in 1991 to address these matters.

    
    

    Various improvements and refinements to these procedures, many of which have paralleled provisions provided by statute to state-certificated teachers, have been adopted as sound practices over the years.

    The enclosed manual, "Guide to Hiring Teachers: Technical & Career and Adult & Community Education Programs," reflects these improvements and modifications.

    
    

13. In accordance with School Board Policy 6.25, the School Board issues three-year temporary teaching certificates to full-time non-degreed vocational teachers upon their hiring. During the first three years that a full-time non-degreed vocational teacher is employed, the teacher must produce the documentation enumerated in Section 2 of School Board Policy

    6.25 and listed in paragraph 10 above, to qualify for the district professional certificate.

14. The School Board's requirement that non-degreed full- time vocational teachers successfully complete a basic skills test and the Professional Educator Examination is not a

    requirement of initial employment, but is required in order to obtain a district teaching certificate. The district-issued teaching certificate is a prerequisite for a non-degreed vocational teacher to continue full-time employment in such capacity.

15. Non-degreed vocational teachers employed by the School Board on a full-time basis for three years may not continue such full-time employment unless they obtain a district-issued professional certificate by meeting the requirements of School Board Policy 6.25, which includes successfully completing the basic skills test.

16. The School Board employs non-degreed vocational teachers on a part-time basis. Part-time non-degreed vocational teachers are not required to take a basic skills test under the School Board's current policy, and those teachers were not required to do so prior to 1990, when the State issued teaching certificates to this category of teachers.

17. Pursuant to the School Board's current policy, non- degreed vocational teachers may be hired by the School Board to teach vocational courses on a part-time basis, and there is no requirement that they ever take or successfully complete a basic skills test. However, in order to continue full-time employment as a non-degreed vocational teacher beyond the initial three years of employment, the teacher must successfully complete the

    basic skill test. If the non-degreed vocational teacher fails to do so, that individual may no longer work as a full-time non- degreed vocational teacher.

18. Petitioners are non-degreed teachers of vocational subjects who were formerly employed by the School Board as full- time, non-degreed teachers of vocational programs. Petitioners are affected by the challenged rule because each has been deemed ineligible for a district-issued certificate and for continued employment as a non-degreed teacher of vocational programs due to his or her failure to comply with one or more of the School Board's requirements for certification as a non-degreed teacher of vocational programs. Here, Petitioners failed to successfully complete at least one part of the required basic skills test.

19. Non-degreed vocational teachers who are terminated or not rehired as full-time teachers because they failed to successfully complete the basic skills test may be employed by the School Board as part-time vocational teachers or as substitute teachers.

20. The School Board employs substitute teachers in vocational subjects in the same fashion it employs substitute teachers for academic subjects. The only requirement to become a substitute teacher is a high school diploma and the completion of a ten-day training program.

21. Although Petitioners failed to successfully complete the basic skills test requirement of School Board Policy 6.25, they are eligible for employment as part-time non-degreed vocational teachers or as substitute teachers. Petitioner McNeeley is currently employed as a part-time vocational teacher, and Petitioner Kennedy is employed as a full-time substitute teacher in a vocational program.

22. Prior to 1990, non-degreed vocational teachers were employed in the same manner as degreed teachers. During that time period, the State of Florida issued certificates to both degreed teachers and non-degreed teachers. The State of Florida required all teachers, degreed and non-degreed, to take and pass the FUCOSE exam, which later became the Florida Teachers Certification Exam, ("FTCE").

23. From 1990 through 1991, Janice Velez, general director of Human Resources for the Hillsborough County School District, was part of a consortium of Florida school districts that worked together to develop a policy for the employment and certification of non-degreed vocational teachers.

24. As a result of the work of the consortium, the School Board developed its current policy and procedures, which require non-degreed vocational teachers to take and pass a basic skills test.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

25. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.

26. Petitioners have standing, pursuant to

    
    

    Subsection 120. 56(3)(a), Florida Statutes, to challenge the validity of the rule which is the subject of this proceeding.

27. The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal. Florida Department of

    Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Because Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, does not provide otherwise, Petitioners, who are challenging the existing rule, have the ultimate burden to establish that the rule is invalid.

28. An existing rule may be challenged pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, only on the ground that it is an “invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority,” as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, which provides as follows:

    1. "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one of the following applies:

       1. The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in this chapter;

       2. The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

       3. The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

       4. The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency;

       5. The rule is arbitrary or capricious;

       6. The rule is not supported by competent substantial evidence; or

       7. The rule imposes regulatory costs on the regulated person, county, or city which could be reduced by the adoption of less costly alternatives that substantially accomplish the statutory objectives.

    
    

    A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary but not sufficient to allow an agency to adopt a rule; a specific law to be implemented is also required. An agency may adopt only rules that implement or interpret the specific powers and duties granted by the enabling statute. No agency shall have authority to adopt a rule only because it is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and capricious or is within the agency's class of powers and duties, nor shall an agency have the authority to implement statutory provisions setting forth general legislative intent or policy. Statutory language granting rulemaking authority or generally describing the powers and functions of an agency shall be construed to extend no further than implementing or interpreting the specific powers and duties conferred by the same statute.

    
    

29. In the Petition filed in this case, Petitioners challenged the validity of the School Board's rule regarding the

    employment and certification of non-degreed vocational teachers. Specifically, Petitioners allege that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.1

30. In the Petition, Petitioners allege that School Board Policy 6.25 violates Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001),2 but did not specify upon which provisions of Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, they were seeking to have the challenged rule declared invalid. However, based on the language in the Petition, it is determined that Petitioners contend that the subject rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under Subsections 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes.

31. Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), provides in pertinent part the following:

    (1) Notwithstanding ss. 231.02, 231.15, 231.17, and 231.1726, or any other provision of law or rule to the contrary, each school district shall establish minimal qualifications for:

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (c) Part-time and full-time nondegreed teachers of vocational programs. Qualifications shall be established for agriculture, business, health occupations, family and consumer sciences, industrial, marketing, career specialist, and public service education teachers, based primarily on successful occupational experience rather than academic training. The qualifications for such teachers shall require:

    1. The filing of a complete set of fingerprints in the same manner as required by s. 231.02. Faculty employed solely to conduct postsecondary instruction may be exempted from this requirement.

    2. Documentation of education and successful occupational experience including documentation of:

       1. A high school diploma or the equivalent.

       2. Completion of 6 years of full-time successful occupational experience or the equivalent of part-time experience in the teaching specialization area. Alternate means of determining successful occupational experience may be established by the district school board.

       3. Completion of career education training conducted through the local school district inservice master plan.

       4. For full-time teachers, completion of professional education training in teaching methods, course construction, lesson planning and evaluation, and teaching special needs students. This training may be completed through coursework from a standard institution or an approved district teacher education program.

       5. Demonstration of successful teaching performance.

    
    

32. Clearly, there is no requirement in Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), that non-degreed vocational teachers pass a basic skills test as a condition of employment or a prerequisite to obtaining a district-issued certificate. That provision merely sets forth the "minimal qualifications" for part-time and full-time, non-degreed vocational teachers.

33. In this case, the School Board has adopted a rule which includes a requirement, the successful completion of a

    designated basic skills test, that is not found in Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001). Nonetheless, pursuant to the exception in Section 120.81, Florida Statutes, the inclusion of the basic skills test requirement in the School Board rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

34. Section 120.81, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part the following:

    120.81 Exceptions and special requirements; general areas.--

    1. EDUCATIONAL UNITS.-

       1. Notwithstanding s. 120.536(1)and the flush left provisions of s. 120.52(8), district school boards may adopt rules to implement their general powers under s. 230.22.

          
          

35. Respondent is a duly constituted school board within the meaning of Article IX, Section 4, Florida Constitution, which provides in pertinent part, as follows:

    4. (a) Each county shall constitute a school district. . . . In each school district there shall be a school board . . . .

    1. The school board shall operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the district . . . .

    
    

36. Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2001),3 provides in part the following:

    1. DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD.-In accordance with the provisions of s.(4)(b) of Art. IX of the State Constitution, district school boards shall operate, control, and supervise all free public schools in their respective districts and may exercise any power except

    as expressly prohibited by the State Constitution or general law.

    Emphasis supplied.

    
    

37. Subsection 230.03(2), Florida Statutes (2001), is a recognition by the Legislature that district school boards possess "home rule" powers to carry on school business. This "home rule" power allows school boards to enact any rule or policy that is not expressly prohibited by the State Constitution or general law. See, e.g., School Board of Collier County v. Florida Teaching Profession National Education Association, 559 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); and Sulcer v. McFatter, 497 So. 2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

38. Subsection 230.22(2), Florida Statutes (2001),4 enumerates the general powers of school boards. In accordance with that provision, school boards are authorized to adopt rules pursuant Subsection 120.536(1) and Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, to implement the provisions of law conferring duties upon it to supplement those prescribed by the State Board of Education and the Commissioner of Education. Subsection 230.22(3), Florida Statutes (2001), further authorizes school boards to "prescribe and adopt standards as are considered desirable for improving the district school system."

39. Section 230.23, Florida Statutes (2001),5 sets forth the powers and duties of district school boards. Subsection (5) of that provision confers upon school boards the authority to

    "[d]esignate positions to be filled, prescribe qualifications for those positions, and provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees."

40. The School Board rule that is being challenged, School Board Policy 6.25, is a policy that was adopted in an effort to comply with the legislative mandate set forth in Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001),6 that school boards establish minimum qualifications for non-degreed vocational teachers. The School Board rule sets forth the "minimal requirements" established in statute. However, in addition to these minimal requirements, the School Board's policy requires non-degreed vocational teachers to successfully complete a basic skills test in order to obtain a district-issued professional certificate and to continue full-time employment as a non-degreed vocational teacher.

41. School Board Policy 6.25, which mandates successful completion of a basic skills test for continued full-time employment as a non-degreed teacher of a vocational program and issuance of a district certificate in that area, is within the range of powers granted to the School Board by the Legislature.

42. Contrary to the position of Petitioners, School Board Policy 6.25 regarding the employment and certification of non-

    degreed vocational teachers may not be invalidated pursuant to Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.

43. Petitioners argue that the rule adopted in 1991, which related to the employment and certification of non-degreed vocational teachers, is invalid and that the procedure which, allegedly implemented that rule were not adopted in accordance to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Those issues are deemed moot and are not addressed in this order.7 A review of the record in this case reflects that the rule adopted in 2002, School Board Policy 6.25, is the rule that currently governs the employment and certification of non-degreed vocational teachers, not the rule adopted by the School Board in 1991 or the procedures presented to the School Board in 1991.

44. Rules are deemed valid unless and until they are successfully challenged. In this case, the rule and procedures regarding the employment and certification of non-degreed vocational teachers that were adopted and/or presented to the School Board in 1991 were never challenged. Subsequently, in August 2002, Respondent adopted School Board Policy 6.25, which superceded the prior rule. Therefore, currently, it is the 2002 rule that governs the employment and certification of these non- degreed teachers.

45. Petitioners have failed to show that the School Board rule, adopted in 2002, School Board Policy 6.25, constitutes an

"invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," within the meaning of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as alleged. Moreover, the challenge to the 1991 School Board policy and procedures is moot, in that they were not challenged when they were allegedly in effect.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that the Petition filed in this cause is hereby DISMISSED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD

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 January, 2003.

ENDNOTES

1/ Petitioners also seek to challenge the rule under Section 120.54(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes. However, pursuant to Subsection 120.52(8)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, an existing rule may only be challenged as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

2/ The language contained in Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), has remained essentially the same, but pursuant to Chapter 2002-387, Section 716, Laws of Florida, the provision has been renumbered as Section 1012.39, Florida Statutes (2002).

3/ Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2001), has been re- numbered Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2002).

4/ Section 230.22, Florida Statutes (2001), had been renumbered Section 1001.41, Florida Statutes (2002).

5/. Section 230.23, Florida Statutes (2001), has been renumbered 1001.42, Florida Statutes (2002).

6/ Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), has been renumbered Section 1012.39, Florida Statute (2002).

7/ With respect to the issue that the 1991 policy was not adopted in accordance with Section 120.54(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, see Endnote 1. With regard to School Board Policy 6.25, adopted in 2002, Petitioners did not allege that Respondent failed to follow the rulemaking/adoption procedures in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and neither party presented evidence on that issue at the hearing.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thomas Gonzalez, Esquire Jason L. Odom, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez

501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1400 Post Office Box 639

Tampa, Florida 33602

John Gould, II

Qualified Representative 4422 Ranchwood Lane

Tampa, Florida 33624

Roseanne E. Gould 4422 Ranchwood Lane

Tampa, Florida 33624

Cassandra Kennedy 8016 North Ola Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604

Hubert A. McNeely 3009 East 25th Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605

Carroll Webb, Executive Director

Joint Administrative Procedures Committee

120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

Dr. Earl H. Lennard, Superintendent Hillsborough County School Board Post Office Box 3408

Tampa, Florida 33601-3408

Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.

Docket for Case No: 02-003793RX

Orders for Case No: 02-003793RX