STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

vs.

Petitioner,

Case No. 17-5567TTS

KIMBERLY HORBETT,

Respondent.

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this matter was conducted before

J. Bruce Culpepper, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ on January 23, 2018, in

Bartow, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire

Boswell and Dunlap, LLP

245 South Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830

For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire

Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110

29605 U.S. Highway 19 North

Clearwater, Florida 33761 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Polk County School Board, to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter, dated May 26, 2017, the Superintendent for Petitioner, Polk County School Board (“School Board”), notified Respondent, Kimberly Horbett, of her intent to recommend that Respondent be terminated from her employment as a teacher.

On June 7, 2017, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to challenge her termination. On October 4, 2017, the School Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) and requested assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a chapter 120 evidentiary hearing.

The final hearing was held on January 23, 2018. At the final hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of Alita P.,2/ as well as Officer Raven Greene and Officer Steven Volk from the Polk County Sheriff’s Office. School Board Exhibits 1 through 10 were received into evidence. Respondent

testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Joseph Palmer. Respondent’s Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.

A one-volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed at DOAH on February 2, 2018. At the close of the hearing, the parties were advised of a ten-day timeframe following DOAH’s receipt of the hearing transcript to file post-hearing submittals. The School Board subsequently moved (without objection) for an additional seven days to file its post-hearing

submittal, which was granted.3/ Both parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders, which were duly considered in preparing this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The School Board is the duly-constituted governing body charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise public schools within Polk County, Florida. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla.

   Const.; and §§ 1001.30 and 1001.33, Fla. Stat.

   
   

2. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher at Lake Shipp Elementary School and held a professional services contract pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes.

3. Respondent has spent the last 21 years as a teacher in Polk County. She has taught at Lake Shipp Elementary School since 1998. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary actions by the School Board prior to this matter.

4. On May 26, 2017, School Board Superintendent Jacqueline M. Byrd issued a letter (the “Termination Letter”)

   notifying Respondent that she was immediately suspending her from her teaching position and that Superintendent Byrd would recommend Respondent’s termination to the School Board. See

   § 1012.27(5), Fla. Stat., and School Board of Polk County Bylaws and Policies (“School Board Policies”) section 3140.

   
   

5. The Termination Letter set forth the basis for Superintendent Byrd’s recommendation as follows:

   In December 2016, the [School Board] . . . received allegations that you were having inappropriate contact with a student via text messages.

   
   

   In a subsequent letter, dated October 6, 2017, the School Board expounded that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code rules that require a teacher “to make a reasonable effort to protect students from harmful conditions, to not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to not exploit a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 8.

6. At a meeting held on June 13, 2017, the School Board adopted Superintendent Byrd’s recommendation and suspended Respondent, without pay, pending the outcome of this evidentiary hearing.

7. Respondent’s actions that gave rise to Superintendent Byrd’s recommendation of termination occurred in November and December 2016.

8. The student involved in this matter, Z.B., was ten years old at the time. Respondent was Z.B.’s fourth-grade math teacher.

   
   

9. Also at that time, Respondent’s son, S.H., was nine years old. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that her son had difficulty making friends. During that fall, Respondent had observed Z.B. in her class. She believed that he would make a good playmate for her son.

10. In October 2016, Respondent wrote a letter to Z.B.’s mother, Alita P., inquiring whether Respondent could get Z.B. and

    S.H. together to play. Ms. P. welcomed the invitation and supported the prospective friendship.

11. Over the next few weeks, Respondent invited Z.B. on multiple playdates with her son. On one occasion, Respondent took Z.B. to the movies with S.H. Z.B. also joined Respondent and S.H. on a day trip to Legoland for which Respondent paid. Twice, Z.B. spent a weekend at Respondent’s house. During the sleepovers, Z.B. slept with S.H. in his bedroom.

12. Respondent also gave Z.B. a college team sweatshirt, as well as purchased a skateboard and helmet for Z.B. so that he could join in with S.H. at a skate park.

13. Ms. P. and Respondent also became friends during this period. They communicated frequently. Respondent requested all playdates through Ms. P. Respondent regularly texted Ms. P. while Z.B. was in her care. Respondent professed that she never made any plans for Z.B. without notifying Ms. P.

    
    

14. Around this time, Z.B. experienced a contentious confrontation with another student. Respondent commented to Ms. P. that Z.B. was distressed and exhibiting disruptive behavior. To help the situation, Respondent offered to bring

    Z.B. lunch at school. She also allowed him to eat breakfast in her classroom. A few days after the incident, Ms. P. relayed to Respondent that Z.B. expressed that he was excited to return to school. Ms. P. thanked Respondent for helping Z.B. through his difficulties.

15. On November 28, 2016, Respondent gave Z.B. a cellphone.

    
    

    Respondent explained that she had an extra, unused phone left over from a phone plan upgrade. Before Respondent provided the phone to Z.B., however, she expressly asked Ms. P. for permission. Not only did Ms. P. approve, but she was excited at how enthusiastically Z.B. accepted the gift.

16. Respondent arranged for Z.B.’s cellphone to reconnect to her family phone plan so that he could text her and S.H.’s cellphones. Respondent also purchased several games (apps) for

    Z.B. to download onto the cellphone. One of these apps was a music program that allowed him to post videos of himself singing. Respondent had access to watch Z.B.’s videos.

17. Respondent’s relationship with Z.B. (and Ms. P.) came to an abrupt halt on the evening of December 3, 2016. That night, Z.B. was staying with his father. (Ms. P. is divorced

    
    

    from Z.B.’s father.) Ms. P. called Z.B. just after 11:00 p.m. She asked what he was doing. Z.B. responded that he was texting Respondent.

18. Because of the late hour, Ms. P. immediately became concerned. She instructed Z.B. to show the cellphone to his father. After taking the phone and scrolling through the text messages, Z.B.’s father became even more alarmed.

19. A sample of the text messages Respondent sent to Z.B. from November 29 through December 3, 2016, includes:

    1. Just wanted to tell you goodnight. . . . See you in the morning. Love you like you are mine. [Z.B. responded with “Love you too.”]

       
       

    2. You really are the sweetest boy. . . . You’re a good person but you put on a show for people at school. I want you to be successful.

       
       

    3. You are very special to me. . . . There’s just something about you and your personality that I have grown very fond of.

       
       

    4. You know I love these late night talks we have.

       
       

    5. Love you too, yes I forgive you [for putting the phone away for the night], but you better prove it next week.

       
       

    6. Love you bunches that should make you smile.

       
       

    7. How much do you love me?

       
       

    8. Do I get more love?

       
       

    9. Gimme some love or I’m going to keep pestering you! Where’s my love? Gimme love or I’m taking [a gaming app] back.

       
       

    10. You can never have too much [heart symbol].

        
        

    11. Call me later if you want . . . just call when you want.

        
        

    12. Those are some smokin hot videos you posted! [Respondent texted after viewing several videos Z.B. created using a music app.]

        
        

    13. You being a little hottie. Like a gangsta video.

        
        

    14. You breaking up with me????

    
    

20. In a number of other texts, Respondent wrote “love you” to Z.B. In an equal number of texts, Z.B. wrote to Respondent that he loved her. (In texts with Ms. P., Respondent wrote that she loved her as well.) Other text messages between Respondent and Z.B. included heart symbols and “face throwing a kiss” and “smiling face with heart-eyes” emojis. The cellphone had also been used to “FaceTime” Z.B. several times.

21. Ms. P. believed that the language Respondent used and the sizable number of text messages she sent to her son were highly inappropriate. Therefore, just after Z.B.’s father confiscated the cellphone from Z.B., Ms. P. immediately texted Respondent and told her that she (and Z.B.’s father) had decided to return the phone. Ms. P. thanked Respondent for her “kindness and generosity.” But, she did not believe that Z.B. was “ready for that right now!”

22. However, as Ms. P. and Respondent texted throughout the night of December 3, 2016, Ms. P. grew increasing disturbed at the content and “AMOUNT” of the text messages Respondent sent to her son. She finally informed Respondent that she felt it was

    
    

    best to return the phone and “squash it.” Shortly thereafter, despite Respondent’s repeated apologies at having caused any problems, Ms. P. wrote:

    The friendship is over! There are a few inappropriate texts on there that an adult doesn’t have with a 10yr old child not [sic] alone a student. I trusted you!

    
    

23. On Monday morning, December 5, 2016, Ms. P. contacted Lake Shipp Elementary School to complain about Respondent’s interaction with Z.B. Ms. P. divulged that she believed that Respondent was carrying on an inappropriate relationship with her son.

24. Immediately after this incident, Ms. P. was allowed to transfer Z.B. to a new school. Ms. P. testified that her son had become increasingly uncomfortable at Lake Shipp Elementary School. She disclosed that his behavior changed both at school and at home during the time he was the subject of Respondent’s attention. Currently, Z.B. is doing much better at his new school. Ms. P. relayed that Z.B. has not exhibited any of the behavioral issues that arose during that fall and is making straight A’s.

25. At the final hearing, Respondent acknowledged sending the text messages to Z.B. Respondent also imparted that, as his teacher, she had grown fond of him. However, she adamantly

    
    

    declared that she had no improper intentions or motives other than to help Z.B. She was only trying to build his self-esteem.

26. Respondent explained that she develops an attachment to the children she teaches. She has always made an effort to help students who have fallen between the cracks. When she finds a child who struggles, she wants to make them successful. Respondent pointed out that she did help Z.B. with math during their relationship. Respondent further testified that she used the word “love” to mean that she loved Z.B. like her own child. Respondent asserted that she cared for Z.B. just as any mother would have.

27. Respondent also remarked that she bought Z.B. the skateboard and helmet only so that he could play with S.H. She denied that she ever FaceTimed Z.B. over the cellphone. Only

    S.H. and Z.B. used FaceTime.

    
    

28. Respondent insisted that she never had anything but the best intentions for Z.B. Respondent asserted that anyone who perceived an improper or intimate relationship between them was jumping to the wrong conclusions and making incorrect assumptions.

29. No evidence was produced at the final hearing indicating any inappropriate physical or sexual contact between Respondent and Z.B.

    
    

30. Respondent called Joseph Palmer to testify on her behalf. Respondent taught Mr. Palmer’s son, D.P., in first and second grade. D.P. is currently in high school.

31. Mr. Palmer expressed that Respondent was extremely helpful with his son in elementary school. Respondent was D.P.’s math teacher in first grade. She continued to help him with his math, reading, and speech skills throughout elementary school.

32. Mr. Palmer relayed that, similar to Z.B., Respondent invited his son on a trip with her family to Legoland. Prior to the trip, D.P. spent the night at Respondent’s home. Mr. Palmer maintained that he was never concerned with, nor did he ever observe, Respondent act in an inappropriate manner with his son. Mr. Palmer proclaimed that he considers Respondent “like family.”

33. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the final hearing, the School Board proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed “misconduct in office” in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. Accordingly, “just cause” exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, for the School Board to dismiss Respondent during the term of her

    teacher’s contract.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

34. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569,

    
    

    120.57(1), and 1012.33(6)(a)2. See also School Board Policies

    
    

    section 3140.

    
    

35. Respondent is an “instructional personnel” as defined in section 1012.01(2). A district school board in Florida, such as the School Board, is authorized to suspend or dismiss instructional personnel pursuant to sections 1012.22(1)(f), 1012.33(1)(a), and 1012.33(6)(a).

36. Pursuant to sections 1012.33(1)(a) and (6)(a), the School Board may dismiss Respondent during the term of her employment contract only for “just cause.” Section 1012.33(1)(a) defines “just cause” to include “the following instances, as defined by rule of the State Board of Education . . . misconduct in office.”

37. Section 1001.02(1), Florida Statutes, grants the State Board of Education authority to adopt rules pursuant to sections 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement provisions of law conferring duties upon it. Consistent with this rulemaking authority, the State Board of Education adopted rule 6A-5.056 setting forth instances of “just cause” to suspend or dismiss specified school personnel.

38. Rule 6A-5.056 defines “just cause” as “cause that is legally sufficient.”4/ Rule 6A-5.056 also provides the following definition:

    
    

    1. “Misconduct in Office” means one or more of the following:

       
       

       * * *

       
       

       1. A violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6A- 10.081, F.A.C.;

          
          

       2. A violation of the adopted school board rules;

          
          

       3. Behavior that disrupts the student’s learning environment; or

       
       

39. Rule 6A-5.056(2)(b) incorporates by reference rule 6A- 10.081, which is titled: “Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.” Rule 6A-10.081 provides in pertinent part:

    1. Florida educators shall comply with the following disciplinary principles. 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.

       
       

       1. 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.

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          5. Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          8. Shall not exploit a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.

          
          

40. School Board Policy section 3140 establishes that any instructional personnel “may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the term of the contract for just cause. As

    defined by State law, ‘just cause’ includes, but is not limited to . . . misconduct in office.”5/

41. School Board Policy section 3213, entitled “Student Supervision and Welfare,” prohibits a teacher’s inappropriate association with students and interaction with students on social media. Section 3213 provides, in pertinent part:

    Each instructional staff member shall maintain a standard of care for the supervision, control, and protection of students commensurate with their assigned duties and responsibilities which include but are not limited to:

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    E. An instructional staff member shall not inappropriately associate with students at any time in a manner which may give the appearance of impropriety, including, but not limited to, the creation or participation in any situation or activity which could be considered abusive or sexually

    suggestive. . . . Any sexual or other inappropriate conduct with a student by any staff member will subject the offender to potential criminal liability and discipline up to and including termination of employment.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    1. Staff members are discouraged from interacting with students in social media and online networking media, such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.

       
       

    2. Staff members are expressly prohibited from posting any video or comment pertaining to any student on social network sites or similar forums, such as YouTube, unless authorized to do so by the Principal.

    
    

42. To dismiss Respondent, the School Board has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and that such violations constitute “just cause” for dismissal. § 1012.33, Fla. Stat.; Cropsey v. Sch. Bd., 19 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); and Dileo

    v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty., 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

    
    

43. Preponderance of the evidence is defined as “the greater weight of the evidence,” or evidence that “more likely than not” tends to prove a certain proposition. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. v. RLI Live Oak, LLC, 139 So. 3d 869, 872 (Fla. 2014); see

    also Dufour v. State, 69 So. 3d 235, 252 (Fla. 2011) (“Preponderance of evidence is defined as evidence ‘which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.’”).

44. Whether Respondent committed the alleged misconduct is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation. Holmes v. Turlington,

    480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1985); McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d

    
    

    387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d

    
    

    489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

    
    

45. Turning to the matter at hand, the School Board proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, legally sufficient grounds to terminate Respondent’s employment. The competent substantial evidence in the record establishes that Respondent committed “misconduct in office” as defined in rule 6A-5.056(2)(b), (c), and (d). Accordingly, “just cause” exists under section 1012.33(1)(a) to dismiss Respondent from her teaching position at Lake Shipp Elementary School.

46. Based on the facts and testimony, Respondent violated rule 6A-5.056(2)(b) in that she failed to comply with the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as set forth in rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 5. Specifically, Respondent failed to reasonably protect Z.B. from conditions harmful to learning or his mental health, as well as acted in a manner that exposed Z.B. to unnecessary embarrassment.

47. The evidence indicates that Respondent’s actions had a deleterious effect on Z.B.’s mental and social state. While Respondent professed that she did not pursue Z.B.’s acquaintance with any salacious intent, her frequent expression of love for Z.B., and her demand for his love in return, were (as Ms. P. expressed) more than a ten-year-old boy was “ready for . . . right now.” As Z.B.’s relationship with Respondent evolved, he

    
    

    began to act out, including fighting with a fellow student. These issues led to Z.B. withdrawing from his classmates to the safety of Respondent’s classroom. Furthermore, Z.B. began to focus much of his personal time on texting Respondent or playing games on the cellphone she gave him. Even if Respondent’s attentiveness was well-intentioned, based on this development, Respondent should have recognized that her continuous “loving” attention exposed Z.B. to “unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.”

48. Respondent also committed “misconduct in office” under rule 6A-5.056(2)(c) by violating School Board rules. School Board Policy section 3213 directs that teachers shall “maintain a standard of care” to protect students by not inappropriately associating with them in a manner which may give the appearance of impropriety.

49. No evidence indicates any improper physical contact between Respondent and Z.B. However, the evidence does show that Respondent was fostering a detrimental emotional attachment with

    Z.B. Considering Z.B.’s age and maturity, Respondent’s numerous texts to Z.B. encouraging a “loving” relationship created a situation that crossed the line beyond what is appropriate between a teacher and a student. By exhibiting such conduct, Respondent failed to maintain the appropriate standard of care to protect Z.B.’s welfare.

    
    

50. Finally, Respondent violated rule 6A-5.056(2)(d) by exhibiting “behavior that disrupts the student’s learning environment.” As discussed above, the relationship that Respondent cultivated with Z.B. caused emotional declarations of “love” for a teacher at a critical period in his development. Respondent avows that she was only motivated by “motherly” love. However, at some point, a boundary of pedagogical professionalism must be drawn, and maintained, between a teacher and her student. In this matter, Respondent transgressed that boundary.

51. As a direct consequence of Respondent’s conduct, Z.B. transferred out of Lake Shipp Elementary School. This repercussion indisputably disrupted Z.B.’s learning environment. Based on these facts, the competent substantial evidence establishes that Respondent committed “misconduct in office.”

52. In sum, the School Board proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent’s actions constitute “misconduct in office” as set forth in rule 6A-5.056(2). Therefore, “just cause” exists under section 1012.33 to dismiss Respondent from her contract with the School Board. Accordingly, the School Board established legally sufficient grounds to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher at Lake Shipp Elementary School.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Polk County School Board, enter a final order upholding its decision to dismiss Respondent, Kimberly Horbett, from her employment contract.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2018.

ENDNOTES

1/ All rule and statutory references are to the 2017 versions unless otherwise indicated.

2/ Initials are used for the names of minors and Alita P. to maintain confidentiality.

3/ By requesting a deadline for filing post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after the final hearing, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order was waived. See Fla. Admin.

Code R. 28-106.216.

4/ The undersigned notes that the School Board’s Proposed Recommended Order referenced older, now inapplicable,

administrative rules as the bases for Respondent’s dismissal (Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-4.009 and 6B-1.006). In 2012, rule 6B-4.009 was transferred to rule 6A-5.056. In 2013, rule 6B-1.006 was transferred to rule 6A-10.081. The current version of rule 6A-5.056 was adopted on July 8, 2012. It was in effect at the time of Respondent's alleged misconduct, and, therefore, applies in this proceeding. Accordingly, the undersigned referred to rules 6A-5.056 and 6A-10.081 for the legal authority to terminate Respondent’s employment with the School Board.

Further, the undersigned finds that Superintendent Byrd’s Termination Letter contains sufficient specificity to provide Respondent a fair opportunity to prepare a defense for the alleged charge. See Davis v. Dep’t of Prof’l Reg., 457 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

5/ As a member of the School Board’s instructional staff, Respondent’s employment was also governed by a Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement, 2013-2016, and amended on May 10, 2016, in accordance with section 1012.33, which provides, in pertinent part:

4.4 Just Cause: No teacher will be disciplined, reprimanded, suspended, terminated or otherwise deprived of fringe benefits or contractual rights during the term of his/her contract without just cause. No teacher shall be demoted from continuing contract/professional service contract to Annual Contract nor be deprived of his/her contractual salary for the remainder of the contract year without just cause. Any

teacher terminated during the term of his/her contract shall be entitled to a fair hearing based on due process.

4.4-1 Progressive discipline shall be followed, except in cases where the course of conduct or the severity of the offense justifies otherwise. Unusual circumstances may justify suspension with pay. Progressive discipline shall be administered in the following steps: (1) verbal warning in a conference with the teacher. (A written confirmation of a verbal warning is not a written reprimand); (2) dated written

reprimand following a conference;

1. suspension without pay for up to five days by the Superintendent and

2. termination. “Letters of Concern” are not a form of discipline.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110

29605 U.S. Highway 19 North

Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed)

Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell and Dunlap, LLP

245 South Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 (eServed)

Jacqueline M. Byrd, Superintendent Polk County School Board

1915 South Floral Avenue Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831

Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)

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: 17-005567TTS

Orders for Case No: 17-005567TTS