STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEEIVORY R. CLAY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

) BRADFORD-UNION AREA VOCATIONAL ) TECHNICAL CENTER, )

)

Respondent. )

Case No. 06-3424

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Upon due notice, a disputed-fact hearing was held in this case on November 13, 2006, in Starke, Florida, before Ella Jane

1. Davis, a duly-assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

   APPEARANCES

   
   

   For Petitioner: DeeIvory Clay, pro se

   405 East Market Road Starke, Florida 32091

   
   

   For Respondent: Lisa J. Augspurger, Esquire

   Bush, Augspurger & Lynch, P.A. 4ll East Jackson Street Orlando, Florida 32801

   
   

   John Cooper, Esquire Cooper & Adanec

   100 West Call Street Starke, Florida 32091

   STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

   
   

   Whether Petitioner was properly "administratively withdrawn" from the Bradford-Union Area Vocational Technical Center, pursuant to the termination letter issued February 22, 2006.

   PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

   
   

   This case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on or about September 13, 2006, pursuant to a Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, contract between the School Board of Bradford County and DOAH and the "Stipulation to Submit Plaintiff's Complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings" entered in Case No. 06-CA-0212, of the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit in and for Bradford County, Florida.

   On September 20, 2006, Petitioner's lawyer filed a Motion to Withdraw. On September 28, 2006, a Notice of Hearing for November 2, 2006, and an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions were entered. On October 5, 2006, an Order Permitting Withdrawal of Counsel was entered. On October 11, 2006, a Joint Motion to Place Matter in Abeyance was filed. On October 13, 2006, an Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing was entered. Thereby, the final disputed-fact hearing was moved to November 13, 2006, so that the parties would have additional time for the purposes outlined in the Joint Motion for Abeyance,

   yet Petitioner's request for an early Recommended Order could be met.

   The case was not settled, and the final disputed-fact hearing went forward on November 13, 2006.

   At the commencement of the disputed-fact hearing, the parties stipulated that this case is bounded by the four corners of the February 22, 2006, Administrative Withdrawal Letter, a/k/a "the termination letter," which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

   . . . effective immediately you will be discontinued from the LPN class. This termination is due to violation of the student handbook, Section V-E (3)(pages 21- 22). In essence, you avoided a discussion with faculty concerning inappropriate behavior, leaving class, not making up tests, and attendance.

   
   

   The student handbook states, that during probation, no inappropriate behavior will be accepted.

   
   

   This action will not exclude you from applying for next year's program as an LPN Student.

   
   

   The parties also stipulated to certain facts and conclusions of law which have been adopted as indicated infra.

   Respondent, as the party seeking to change the status quo, (e.g. Respondent administratively withdrew Petitioner over her protest), bears the duty to go forward and the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, Respondent

   presented its case first. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Clarence DeSue; Brenda Trogden, ARNP; Wineford Major, RN; and Joanne Bracewell, LPN, ARNP. Respondent had Exhibits 2B, 3A-C, 4A-D, 5, 6A-H, 7A-C, 8A-B, 9, and 10 admitted in evidence. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Shirley Douglas and testified on her own behalf. Petitioner had five exhibits admitted in evidence. Joint Exhibit One, a copy of Bradford County School Board Rule 2.06, was also admitted in evidence.

   On November 29, 2006, the Transcript of the "AM" session of the November 13, 2006, final disputed-fact hearing was filed.

   On December 27, 2006, Volumes I and II of the "PM" session of the November 13, 2006, final disputed-fact hearing were filed.

   Respondent timely filed a Proposed Recommended Order and Requests for Official Recognition of Section 120.54 and Section 1001.44, Florida Statutes. Those Requests have not been timely objected to and are granted.

   Petitioner has filed no proposed recommended order.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Respondent Bradford-Union Area Vocational Technical Center (B-UAVTC), is located in Bradford County, Florida, and is operated, pursuant to Section 1001.44, Florida Statutes, by the Bradford County School Board.

   2. The Bradford County School Board has adopted rules contained in its "Policy Manual," pursuant to Sections 120.536(1), 120.54, and 1001.42(22), Florida Statutes. Included in these rules is Rule 5.10(4), which reads, in pertinent part:

      The code of conduct for elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Rule.

      
      

   3. The "2005-2006 General Catalog of the Bradford-Union Area Vocational Technical Center" (hereafter referred-to as “the General Catalog”) constructively contains Respondent's "Code of Conduct."

   4. The General Catalog (Exhibit R-10) provides, at page 10, that “Profanity and rudeness will not be tolerated.”

   5. There are rules within the General Catalog requiring timely attendance in all classes, including the following:

      DRESS CODE/RULES OF CONDUCT

      Students are expected to dress appropriately for the occupation in which they are training. (Page 10.)

      
      

   6. There are rules within the General Catalog concerning calculation of absences and tardies, including the following:

      GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR DAY CLASSES

      Good attendance is an important key to success in the job world. The same is true of the classroom. Attendance policies are intended to promote realistic experiences in good attendance habits. These are the minimum requirements for all programs.

      Attendance policies may be more stringent in some programs.

      
      

      Tardies

      1. Students entering class after the tardy bell has rung will be marked tardy. Three tardies equal one absence.

      2. After three tardies, a discipline referral may be issued.

         
         

         Absences

         The Attendance Policy is monitored by nine week grading periods. The following policies apply to full-time and part-time adult students:

         
         

         First Nine Weeks August 8 - October 7 Second Nine Weeks October 10 - December 16 Third Nine Weeks January 4 - March 10 Fourth Nine Weeks March 13 - May 24

         
         

         Students registered for day classes Monday through Friday (five days a week) will be allowed up to five absences in any one nine week grading period. On the sixth absence, the student will be withdrawn.

         
         

         Students registered for day or night classes less than 10 hours a week will be allowed up to two absences in any one nine week grading period. On the third absence, he student will be withdrawn. (Pg. 13).

         
         

         * * *

         
         

   7. The concept of "administrative withdrawal" is also set out in the General Catalog as follows:

      Administrative Withdrawal

      Adult students may be withdrawn immediately by the administration for the following reasons:

      
      

      Discipline referral.

      
      

      Behavior or act that endangers students, staff, and/or faculty, or other inappropriate actions as determined by the

      administration.

      
      

      The student may not reapply for admission until the beginning of the next semester upon approval of the Director. (Pg. 14).

      
      

   8. Respondent B-UAVTC operates its Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Program, pursuant to the foregoing rules and policies, and pursuant to a "Student Handbook" (hereafter referred to as the "LPN Student Handbook.")

   9. The LPN Student Handbook provides:

      
      

      V. STUDENT PROGRESS

      C. Clinical Performance

      Progress in the clinical areas will be evaluated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, with frequent counseling in areas which need strengthening. At the end of each clinical rotation the instructor will complete a performance evaluation and discuss this with the student. . . . (Pg. 20-21)

      
      

   10. The LPN Student Handbook provides:

       
       

       V. STUDENT PROGRESS

       
       

       * * *

       
       

       1. TERMINATION BY "DUE PROCESS"

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          1. Probation-if there is no improvement it may be necessary to discuss the problem with the Director and to place the student on probation for a period of two to four weeks. During that time, satisfactory performance must be maintained (i.e. no absence, tardiness, test failure or inappropriate behavior will be accepted.)

             
             

          2. Termination:

             
             

             1. If at the end of the period of probation there is little or no improvement, the student will be allowed to resign by "due process," or remain in attendance without credit. The school reserves the right to ask a student to withdraw from the program for any of the following reasons.

                
                

                1. Unsatisfactory academic or clinical performance.

                2. Unsatisfactory demonstration of the expected effective behavior.

                   
                   

                   misdemeanor.

                3. Ethical and/or social

                   
                   

                4. Violation of the

                   attendance policy.

                5. Violation of school

                   policies.

                6. Violation of Student

          Training Agreement.

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          c. Dismissal-a student may be asked to withdraw immediately if there is sufficient cause. (Pg. 21-22).

          
          

   11. With regard to attendance, the LPN Student Handbook provides, in pertinent part:

       II. ATTENDANCE

       
       

       1. Policy

          1. Attendance-regular attendance is necessary for the student to take full advantage of available educational opportunities. All students shall be counted in attendance when they are:

             
             

             1. Present in assigned

                class(es).

                
                

             2. Participating in a school- sponsored function on or off campus.

                
                

             3. On an educational field trip. (Pg. 11).

       
       

   12. The LPN Student Handbook also provides a list of acceptable excuses for an absence, including an emergency in the immediate family, a subpoena by any law enforcement agency, and other justifiable reasons approved by the principal or designee upon prior request. (Exhibit 3A pages 11-12).

   13. The LPN Student Handbook provides: VIII.

       F. PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND GROOMING Jewelry

       . . . one small pair of stud earrings is allowed. . . . (Pg. 26-27).

       
       

   14. Clarence DeSue was the Director of B-UAVTC at all times material.

   15. Petitioner was accepted into the LPN program of the B- UAVTC on May 11, 2005 (Stipulated Fact).

   16. Petitioner began classes in the LPN nursing program at B-UAVTC on or about August 8, 2005. (Stipulated Fact.)

   17. On August 8, 2005, Petitioner signed a Student Training Agreement, stating that she had read and understood the rules, regulations, and standards discussed in the LPN Student Handbook; that she would adhere to the attendance policy as

       written for the practical nursing student; and that if she violated the agreement her continuation in the LPN Program would be in jeopardy. (R-3B).

   18. In August 2005, after commencement of the first semester, Petitioner twice parked in a faculty lot that had easier access to her regular classrooms than did the student lot. The administrative employee who requested, on both occasions, that Petitioner remove her car perceived Petitioner's response, behavior, and demeanor as "rude." When Mr. DeSue made a blanket announcement that all student vehicles should be removed from that lot, Petitioner did, in fact, remove her car.

   19. The administrative employee involved requested and advised that Mr. DeSue write-up Petitioner for her rude response, behavior, and demeanor. Over the objections of the other administrator, who urged that Petitioner's rudeness should be addressed, Mr. DeSue did not address the issue with Petitioner at that time.

   20. Mr. DeSue testified that whenever he had to deal with Petitioner at any time during her enrollment at B-UAVTC in 2005- 2006, Petitioner’s demeanor was always critical of the LPN program, negative towards teachers, filled with allegations of inequalities within the classroom situation, and permeated with the belief that everyone was against her.

   21. In August 2005, a wound nurse at one of the clinical sites alleged to LPN Program Director Brenda Trogden that Petitioner had attempted to direct a Resident M.D. on how to dress a wound. Such behavior, if it occurred, would have been inappropriate and insubordinate. However, Petitioner denied the incident, and the issue apparently was never resolved.

   22. In September 2005, Petitioner was habitually arriving in the LPN classroom on time, but then leaving to return to her car to move it and retrieve her books. Therefore, on several occasions, Petitioner was, in fact, not ready to learn/work in class for up to 20-30 minutes after the class had commenced. Petitioner presented a doctor's note for one absence and a subpoena for another absence, but she was considered excessively tardy (seven tardies in four weeks) on the other occasions. On September 14, 2005, Petitioner was counseled by Ms. Trogden and given a written warning due to her tardiness and absenteeism.

   23. On September 19, 2005, Petitioner signed an "Expectations of Nursing" document, (Exhibit R-3C), which advised her of the administration's position concerning absenteeism, tardiness, cheating, and other issues. Among these “expectations” were the following:

       1. I will attend all class sessions and be on time unless there is a good reason not to do so.

       2. I will satisfy the course requirements and not expect to be relieved of the obligation to [do] so due to non-emergency commitments.

       
       

       ***

       
       

       6. I will treat other people with respect even when I disagree with their positions.

       
       

       ANY STUDENT MISSING 31 OR MORE CLINICAL OR 19 OR MORE LECTURE HOURS WILL BE PLACED ON ACADEMIC PROBATION.

       
       

   24. Although Petitioner signed the foregoing document, she noted that she agreed with Item Eight, the ban on cheating, but questioned some of the other policies.

   25. On September 23, 2005, another LPN student requested that Petitioner stop flipping pages in her notebook during a classroom lecture, because Petitioner was distracting others from the instructor, Ms. Trogden. Petitioner refused to move her seat in compliance with Ms. Trogden's request, and

       Ms. Trogden had to re-assign all seats alphabetically as a result of Petitioner's refusal to remove herself to a seat further away from the complaining student.

   26. A blanket amnesty to all students, including Petitioner, with regard to certain tardies and absences helped Petitioner as of October 3, 2005.

   27. On October 12, 2005, another LPN student reported to Ms. Trogden and to Mr. DeSue that Petitioner had hit her in the back with a deliberate elbow punch while they were in a clinical

       setting at a nursing home. Petitioner denied any intentional touching of, or animosity toward, the other student.

       Petitioner's explanation was that, at most, she had grazed the other student with her clipboard upon entering a patient's room. Ms. Trogden had investigated the incident within two hours of its occurrence the previous day. At that time, Ms. Trogden had observed the accuser's back, which evidenced a red area between the accuser's shoulder blade and her spine. Ms. Trogden later reviewed a doctor's note concerning the injury. Ms. Trogden concluded, within her nursing expertise, that the bruise on the victim's back was inconsistent with a brush by a clipboard. She further concluded that the bruise was consistent with a mechanism of injury by forceful contact with an elbow. However, neither the victim nor two other students present at the time of the assault could state with certainty that Petitioner had struck the blow because they had not seen the blow struck and because they had only seen Petitioner in the near vicinity.

       Ms. Trogden concluded that Petitioner's explanation that she had unintentionally or inadvertently touched someone with her clipboard at a minimum demonstrated poor body mechanics for a nurse, but also concluded that a deliberate touching by Petitioner had not been proven.

   28. On October 13, 2005, Petitioner was counseled by Ms. Trogden and LPN Nursing Program Coordinator Joanne

       Bracewell, LPN, ARNP, concerning absences and tardies, inappropriate parking, and Petitioner's inappropriate behavior when requested to move her seat on September 23, 2005.

   29. Petitioner was evaluated by Ms. Bracewell on October 14, 2005. Therein, Petitioner was cited as setting

       forth unsatisfactory performance and conduct for the following reasons, among others: poor eye contact and communication skills; assisting a confused patient in the shower without getting additional help; lack of teamwork; and illegible handwriting. These were all patient safety deficits.

   30. With Mr. DeSue's concurrence, Petitioner was placed on her first probation from October 14, 2005, through December 16, 2005, (approximately nine weeks).

   31. Petitioner viewed this first nine weeks' probationary period as placing her under ever-closer scrutiny and as harassing her. At hearing, Petitioner raised the concept that, according to the LPN Student Handbook, probations were supposed to be no more than four weeks in duration. Petitioner is quite right that only a two-to-four weeks probation period is provided for in the LPN Student Handbook. (See Finding of Fact 10.) However, it appears that this extended probation for Petitioner was intended to be to her advantage. If Petitioner had been re- evaluated on October 28 (after two weeks) or on November 17, 2005, (after four weeks) she still would not have been meeting

       expectations and would have been subject to termination from the LPN program. Instead, Petitioner was given the entire remainder of the first semester in which to improve her performance.

   32. Petitioner also was able to make up missed clinicals before the end of the first semester. This was before the end of the second nine weeks' grading period and during her lengthy first probationary period. Although she had not made up all the academic hours by the end of the first semester, Petitioner was making a "B" academically and could have completed the required academic hours for LPN licensure if she had managed perfect attendance in the second semester. Therefore, Petitioner's first probation ended with relative success on December 16, 2005.

   33. Although Mr. DeSue testified that Petitioner was placed on probation again from January 16, 2006, through February 1, 2006, the remainder of the record does not support these dates as dates of Petitioner's second probation. Rather, the four days of clinical observation of Petitioner by Wineford Major, RN, as described, infra, occurred within this time span.

   34. An evaluation of Petitioner's clinical competency, dated February 2, 2006, by LPN program instructor Wineford Major, RN, again revealed unsatisfactory performance. (Stipulated Fact.)

   35. Among deficiencies in Petitioner's clinical skills observed by Ms. Major, and recorded contemporaneously on the competency check-off list, were deficient communication skills with fellow students, doctors, and patients; excessive record review; deficient knowledge of decubitus ulcers; deficient knowledge of laboratory tests and results; deficient observational skills; and insecurity in the administration of medicines. This evaluation was one of the reasons Petitioner was placed on her second probation from February 2, 2006, to March 3, 2006.

   36. Ms. Major was very concerned because Petitioner, an LPN student in her second semester, should have mastered several skills and knowledge areas that Petitioner had not have mastered. While conceding that Petitioner could recite the "six rights" of nursing, Ms. Major did not feel Petitioner was translating nursing theory into nursing performance, either appropriately or speedily enough during the clinicals she had observed. Ms. Major believed Petitioner's lack of proficiency signaled patient safety issues.

   37. The ability to administer medications appropriately is an essential part of the LPN Program because it is such a large part of the duties a nurse will perform upon graduation and licensure.

   38. Ms. Major had also learned that one of the nurses employed by the clinical site had reported to her superiors that she was uncomfortable in allowing Petitioner to pass medications due to Petitioner's affect and clinical deficiencies.

   39. Petitioner was placed on her second probation from February 2, 2006, through March 3, 2006 (four weeks), in part as a result of Ms. Major's assessment of Petitioner's nursing skills. However, this second probation was also based on a conference which included Petitioner, Major, Trogden, and Bracewell, during which conference Petitioner's instructors attempted to counsel Petitioner concerning her deficits and to suggest to Petitioner that probation was an opportunity for her to improve and gain confidence. Petitioner did not wish to hear their criticisms and counseling, and abruptly walked out of that conference without permission. In a hospital setting, Petitioner's abrupt exit and treatment of superior nurses probably would have resulted in termination of her employment for insubordination.

   40. On February 3, 2006, Petitioner told Mr. DeSue that Ms. Major believed, and had told Petitioner that, Petitioner had a clear slate or mastery with regard to the required competencies raised on her clincals. Mr. DeSue's investigation at the time, and Ms. Major's emphatic testimony at hearing established persuasively that Ms. Major made no such statement.

       Mr. DeSue and Ms. Major considered Petitioner's February 3, 2006, statement to Mr. DeSue to be a untruth, as opposed to a misunderstanding.

   41. Being truthful in the LPN Program in preparation for being a nurse one day is an essential part of the LPN Program.

   42. Having good communication skills, as observed and practiced in the LPN Program in preparation for being a nurse one day, is an essential part of the LPN Program.

   43. The counseling memorandum for February 3, 2006, the day Petitioner was again placed on probation, included, among other statements, that Petitioner still had communication and collaboration issues with peers, faculty, agency staff, and patients; lacked foundational nursing knowledge; was practicing unsafe nursing interventions; listed a number of safety issues; and stated that Petitioner "does not demonstrate knowledge of ethical responsibilities." Petitioner was warned orally and in writing that a third probation would result in termination.

   44. On or about February 15, 2006, Ms. Bracewell requested that Petitioner remove her earrings, which were about four inches long and dangled to Petitioner's clavicle, because they were unsafe to wear while an EKG practice was in progress. Due to Petitioner's defensiveness with Ms. Bracewell at that time and due to Petitioner's immediate complaint about the earring ban to Mr. DeSue, Ms. Bracewell measured earrings on all her

       other students and discovered three other students wearing earrings measuring one and one-half inches long. Their earrings and Petitioner's earrings violated the LPN Handbook's jewelry code. (See Finding of Fact 13.) Ms. Bracewell requested of them, as she had of Petitioner, that they also remove their earrings. The other students presented no earring problems.

   45. On February 16, 2006, Ms. Bracewell asked to speak to Petitioner in private concerning the prior incidents, but particularly the earring incident. Petitioner refused, in front of the entire class, to meet privately with Ms. Bracewell. As a result, Ms. Bracewell told Petitioner that Petitioner could not take the examination that was about to be given until she had spoken privately with Ms. Bracewell. Petitioner then left the classroom without speaking to Ms. Bracewell privately. When Petitioner returned to the classroom after the examination, she acknowledged that she was the clean-up team leader appointed for the day but refused Ms. Bracewell's order to clean-up the room. Again, Petitioner's refusal of a direct order was made in front of other students.

   46. On February 20, 2006, clincials at North Florida State Hospital ended before the usual time, and Petitioner was asked to attend a meeting at a Burger King nearby. The meeting was to include Petitioner, Bracewell, Major, Trogden, and DeSue. The purpose of the meeting was to address Petitioner's current

       deficiencies in the LPN Program. The Burger King location was selected by B-UAVTC personnel for the convenience of all concerned and to fit into the remaining extra time at the end of the clinicals.

   47. Petitioner, Bracewell, Major, and Trogden met at the Burger King. Petitioner had not received much notice of the meeting, and became belligerent while awaiting Mr. DeSue's arrival. Petitioner demanded to have her representative present at this counseling session and her request was denied. Ultimately, Petitioner refused to remain for the conference, stating that her child had been taken to a hospital by her mother due to the child's asthma attack.

   48. Petitioner's mother testified that Petitioner's daughter was a severe asthmatic whom she frequently took to the hospital, but no specific date for trips to the hospital were elicited from her. Assuming arguendo that her testimony was meant to include a trip to the hospital on February 20, 2006, Petitioner still offered no medical excuse for February 20, 2006.

   49. Petitioner's testimony that she requested to reschedule the February 20, 2006, meeting is not credible in light of the evidence as a whole.

   50. Failure to attend the February 20, 2006, meeting as requested by all three of her instructors and the B-UVATC

       Director was inappropriate and insubordinate under the circumstances.

   51. Petitioner's attitude on February 20, 2006, was perceived as rude by those in attendance.

   52. Ms. Bracewell recommended that Petitioner be administratively withdrawn because Petitioner was not performing satisfactorily during her second probation and because of Petitioner's rudeness. Ms. Trogden and Mr. DeSue concurred with Ms. Bracewell. Ms. Major was not contemporaneously made aware of this recommendation, but she testified that if she had known of the recommendation, she would have concurred in it, based on her recent clinical observations of Petitioner and Petitioner's walking out of the February 3, 2006, counseling session. (See Findings of Fact 34-43.)

   53. On February 22, 2006, Mr. DeSue wrote Petitioner, advising her that she was being administratively withdrawn, as follows:

       . . . effective immediately you will be discontinued from the LPN class. This termination is due to violation of the student handbook, Section V-E (3)(page 21- 22). In essence, you avoided a discussion with faculty concerning inappropriate behavior, leaving class, not making up tests, and attendance.

       
       

       The Student Handbook states, that during probation, no inappropriate behavior will be accepted.

       This action will not exclude you from applying for next year's program as an LPN Student.

       
       

   54. All three of Petitioner’s instructors (Bracewell, Trogden, and Major) described Petitioner as consistently not making eye contact and being unreceptive and hostile to their suggestions and counseling. Her affect was defensive at most

       times.

       
       

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   55. DOAH has jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, and Sub-sections 120.57(1) and 120.68, Florida Statutes.

   56. Findings of Fact 1-13 are adopted and incorporated herein as Conclusions of Law.

   57. It is Respondent's position that while on probation, no absence, tardiness, test failure, or inappropriate behavior will be accepted. See LPN Student Handbook V.E.3., specifically providing that "[d]uring probation, satisfactory performance must be maintained (i.e. no absence, tardiness, test failure, or inappropriate behavior will be accepted)." (See Finding of Fact 10.) Petitioner's refusal to remain for counseling on

       February 16, 2006 and on February 20, 2006, with regard to her deficiencies in the current probationary period constituted absence and/or inappropriate behavior, under the circumstances. Moreover, her clinical deficiencies equate with a test failure,

       and her behavior on February 15, and 16, 2006, was also inappropriate.

   58. Respondent has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it was entitled to administratively withdraw Petitioner from B-UAVTC on February 22, 2006.

RECOMMENDATION

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

RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Bradford County enter a final order ratifying the February 22, 2006, administrative withdrawal letter.

DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

ELLA JANE P. DAVIS

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 9th day of February, 2007.

COPIES FURNISHED:

DeeIvory Clay

405 East Market Road Starke, Florida 32091

Lisa J. Augspurger, Esquire Bush, Augspurger & Lynch, P.A. 4ll East Jackson Street Orlando, Florida 32801

John Cooper, Esquire Cooper & Adanec

100 West Call Street Starke, Florida 32091

Mr. H.M. Hatcher, III, Superintendent Bradford County School Board

501 East Market Street Starke, Florida 32091

Clarence DeSue, Director Bradford Union Area Vocational-Technical Center 609 North Orange Street Starke, Florida 32091

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: 06-003424

Orders for Case No: 06-003424