The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged and if so what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case the Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School District and was assigned as principal at John F. Kennedy Middle School (JFK). On or about March 9, 1998, a guidance counselor at JFK spoke with the Respondent regarding a complaint from a female student that she had been inappropriately touched by a male teacher at the school. Given the casual nature of the complaint, the Respondent believed the matter to be a "rumor" and made a note to himself to "check on" the allegation. The Respondent did not follow up on the allegation and did not "check on" the rumor. The Respondent also did not verify whether or not the guidance counselor investigated the allegation. Subsequently the Respondent became aware of other allegations involving the same teacher. The complaints alleged inappropriate acts with students. At least one of the incidents was witnessed by a student who supported the complainant's allegation. All of the incidents involving the teacher occurred before a criminal complaint was filed by a parent. It is undisputed that the Respondent knew of one or more of the alleged complaints. At no time prior to the teacher's arrest did the Respondent notify school authorities or the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) of the allegations previously made against the teacher. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Palm Beach County School District had a policy in effect that required the Respondent to notify HRS and school district authorities regarding the types of complaints involved in this case. Such policy is set forth in its entirety within the Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent did not view the incidents complained of as sufficiently serious to merit notification of authorities, as he maintained he did not have a reasonable cause to suspect that a child had been abused. Notwithstanding this position, the Respondent did nothing to confirm or disprove the allegations. At least one female student complainant continued to be enrolled in the alleged perpetrator's class before the arrest of the suspect. The failure of the Respondent to report the incidents seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the Palm Beach School District. As a result, the Respondent was relieved of his position as principal at JFK and reassigned to another position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 31st day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Sammy Berry, Jr., Esquire 516 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Florida Education Center, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's tentative decision to attempt to negotiate with Intervenor a contract for services as a construction manager at risk is contrary to statutes, rules, policies, or the request for qualifications, in violation of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In 2001, Respondent began to investigate various options for the construction of Jensen Beach High School and reconstruction of Port Salerno Elementary School. The recent, sudden departure of Respondent's Director of Facilities and several of his employees left Respondent with few employees sufficiently experienced to deal with a general contractor constructing substantial projects, such as the construction of these two schools. Respondent thus considered the use of a construction manager and construction manager at risk (CMAR) contract. Under these types of contracts, Respondent would hire a construction manager to serve as its representative in entering into contracts with subcontractors and suppliers. Although not relevant to this case, the CMAR contract imposes upon the construction manager greater risks for increased construction costs. Initially, Superintendent Wilcox and School Board Attorney Griffin investigated the CMAR form of contract. After they had decided to recommend the use of a CMAR, on January 14, 2002, Respondent hired Rodger Osborne as the new Director of Facilities, and Mr. Osborne assumed from them the primary responsibility for investigating and later implementing the CMAR procurement in this case. Immediately prior to his employment with Respondent, Mr. Osborne had been the Director of Maintenance and Operations for the Charlotte County School District. In this capacity, Mr. Osborne managed construction, maintenance, and operations for the school district. Among his duties was the procurement of construction contracts. The Charlotte County School District has used the CMAR form of contract seven or eight times. Managing the process, Mr. Osborne borrowed provisions and procedures from various sources, including state statutes and provisions used by Sarasota County. Four days after Mr. Osborne began employment with Respondent, Mr. Griffin submitted a memorandum to the Martin County School Board in which he recommended that it approve the use of a CMAR for the construction of Jensen Beach High School and Port Salerno Elementary School. Eight days after Mr. Osborne began employment with Respondent, the Martin County School Board approved Mr. Griffin's recommendation and authorized Respondent to advertise for applicants to serve as the CMAR for these projects. Mr. Osborne's first task as Director of Facilities was to prepare the legal advertisement. On January 28, 2002--two weeks after Mr. Osborne had started working for Respondent--a local newspaper published the first of three legal advertisements for submittals from interested parties. The advertisement states: MARTIN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS will select a qualified Construction Manager at Risk under the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act to provide preconstruction and construction services for the Port Salerno Elementary Replacement School and Jensen Beach High School. The School District will award both projects to a single Construction Manager at Risk. Firms interested in being considered are requested to submit a letter of interest, resumes of key personnel who would be used on the project, proof of professional liability insurability as required by Martin County Public Schools and a copy of Florida Registration Certification. Each applicant must submit a completed Professional Qualification Supplement (PQS). Copies of the PQS Format and project information are available through the Facilities Department by calling [telephone number omitted]. All data must be current as of date of submission and received no later than 4 P.M. February 15, 2002. Submissions to be received by: Director of Facilities Martin County Public Schools 500 East Ocean Stuart, Fl. 34994 Anticipated award date is, March 19, 2002, with work to begin immediately. Estimated construction cost of $43,500,000. In accordance with School Board Rule 6Gx43-8.01, the Professional Services Selection Committee will rank the top three (3) firms and submit the ranking of firms to the Superintendent and School Board. MARTIN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Dr. Sara Wilcox, Superintendent Fifteen potential applicants timely submitted responses to the advertisement. Mr. Osborne supplied each of these applicants a package consisting of another copy of the advertisement and "Guidelines for Selection of Construction Manager at Risk for Martin County Schools" (Guidelines). The Guidelines state: Complete all items of the Professional Qualifications Statement (PQS) for Construction Manager at Risk. Submit not less than three copies of the PQS along with any supporting information to Director of Facilities, Martin County Public Schools, 500 East Ocean, Stuart, Fl 34994. SHORT LIST Within approximately seven (7) days after the submission date of 4 P.M. February 15, 2002, for the purpose of reducing the number of applicants qualifying for interviews to no more than six (6), a short list committee will be formed. The Short List Committee will include one School Board Member, one Superintendent's designee, one representative from Operation Services, one Program Staff Member, the Director of Facilities and Supervisor of Construction. The Director of Facilities will serve as chairperson. The following criteria and point values will be used to determine a number rating for each applicant: Letter of Interest 0 points [PQS] 0 points Certified Minority Business 5 points Location 1-5 points Current Work Load 0-10 points Capability 0-10 points Professional Accomplishments 0-10 points Up to six (6) firms with the highest rankings will be interviewed by the Professional Services Selection (Ranking) Committee. The package supplied to potential applicants contained blank scoring sheets with specific points assigned to different factual scenarios. The package also contained a fact sheet describing each of the schools to be constructed and a set of forms seeking specific information; the forms were part of the Professional Qualification Statement for Construction Manager At Risk (PQS). PQS Paragraph E states: RELATED EXPERIENCE List the three (3) projects in the last five (5) years for which your firm has provided/is providing construction management and/or general contracting services which are most similar in scope to this project. In determining which projects are more related, consider: related size and complexity; how many members of the proposed team worked on the listed project; and how recently the project was completed. List the projects in priority order, with the most related project listed first. The PQS form provides one box that asks for specific information about the three listed projects, such as the size, type of construction, and construction cost. The PQS form supplies another box for a "detailed description of projects." PQS Paragraph F requires the disclosure, for each of the three projects, the owner budget, final budget, schedule status, and impact of firm on the final results. PQS Paragraph G states: PROPOSED TEAM Describe your proposed organization structure for this program indicating key personnel and their relationship to this project and other team members. Give brief resumes of key persons to be assigned to the program. The PQS form provides one box for office staff and one box for onsite staff. Each box asks for specific information about the listed key personnel, such as the percentage of time they will be assigned fulltime to the subject projects; their experience in terms of "types of projects, size of projects, [and] project responsibilities"; and "other experience and qualifications relevant to this project." Mentioned in the legal advertisement, although not included in the package, Respondent's Rule 6Gx43-8.01 provides: FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS 6Gx43-8.01 Professional Services Professional Service Contracts between the Board and architects, engineers and surveyors shall follow the following procedures if the basic construction cost for the project is estimated to be greater than $120,000 or if the fee for professional service for planning or study is estimated to exceed $8,500 (except valid emergencies so certified by the Superintendent of Schools): Publicly announce each project indicating: general project description how interested parties can apply Certify firms or individuals wishing to provide professional services while considering: General Services Administration Forms 254 and 255. Past performance Willingness to meet requirements of: time budget availability--planning-- construction ability to furnish required service Firm's workload in relation to job under construction. Volume of work previously awarded to the firm. A committee, comprised of the Superintendent of Schools and/or his/her designee, appropriate staff members, and an annually appointed School Board Members [sic] shall recommend to the School Board a minimum of three (3) "certified" firms or individuals which shall be recommended in order of preference 1, 2, and 3, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts, providing the selection of the most highly qualified firm is not violated. The School Board, or its designee, shall negotiate a contract with the most qualified firm for professional services at compensation which the School Board, or its designee, determines if fair, competitive, and reasonable. In making such determination, a detailed analysis of the cost of professional services shall be conducted in addition to considering the scope and complexity of the services required for the project. Should the School Board, or its designee, be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified at a price the School Board, or its designee, determines to be fair, competitive and reasonable, negotiation with that firm shall be formally terminated. Negotiations shall then be undertaken with the second most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second most qualified firm, negotiations shall be undertaken with the third most qualified firm. If unable to negotiate with any of the selected firms, three more firms shall be selected in the order of preference and negotiations will be continued until an agreement is reached. For professional services when the basic construction cost for the project is estimated to be less than $120,000 or planning or study fees estimated to be less than $8,500, the procedure shall be as follows: Follow steps B, C, and D outlined under preceding 1 for purpose of selecting the agency best to accomplish the project. The use of a continuing contract may be approved provided the following provisions are met. A continuing contract is for professional services for projects in which construction costs do not exceed $500,000; or for study activity, the fee for which professional service does not exceed $25,000; or for work of a specified nature as outlined in the contract required by the School Board, or its designee. The contract requires no time limitation but shall provide a termination clause. Footnote: All professional firms are encourage [sic] to submit their statements of qualifications and performance data using Govt. Service Adm. Forms 254 and 255. The submission will be valid for one year beginning July 1. A reminder for this purpose will be made in the form of an annual public announcement. Superintendent Wilcox selected a Short List Committee, whose task was to score the submittals and, based on these scores, select the five applicants that would make presentations to the Professional Services Selection Committee. The Short List Committee comprised Mr. Osborne, chair; Bob Sanborn, Supervisor of Operations; Darrel Miller, Director of Educational Technology; Dr. David Anderson, School Board chair; Tracey Miller, principal of Port Salerno Elementary School; and John Dilworth, Supervisor of Construction. The Short List Committee met on February 21, 2002. After examining the submittals of the applicants in response to the Guidelines, the Short List Committee scored the submittal of each applicant. The highest-ranking applicant received 185 points. Intervenor was ranked third with 160 points, and Petitioner was ranked fourth with 158 points. The Short List Committee selected five applicants to make presentations to the Professional Services Selection Committee. By letter dated February 22, 2002, Mr. Osborne supplied each of the five short-listed applicants with a document entitled, "Interview and Selection for Construction Manager At Risk" (Selection Criteria). The Selection Criteria states that the Professional Services Selection Committee will use the following criteria to "reduc[e] the number of qualified applicants to three . . .": 1. Letter of Interest 0 points 2. Professional Qualification Supplement forms 0 points 3. Certified minority business 5 points 4. Location 0-5 points 5. Current work load 0-10 points 6. Capability 0-10 points 7. Professional accomplishments 0-10 points 8. Schedule & budget 0-10 points 9. Approach and methods 0-10 points 10. Understanding of project 0-10 points 11. Previous work for MCSD 0-10 points 12. Progressive use of technology 0-10 points 13. Warranty period 0-10 points 14. Construction administration 0-10 points The Selection Criteria states: "The Professional Services Selection Committee will present to the Superintendent for approval and presentation to the Board a ranked list of the top three qualifying firms." Separate pages of the Selection Criteria detail the scoring guidelines for each of the scored criteria. For example, the Selection Criteria states under Professional Services Evaluation: "Current and past records of those projects successfully completed which are similar in scope to project(s) under consideration. References listed and check [sic]. Review PQS form." Ratings of 9 and 10 are for "extremely qualified for project"; ratings of 7 and 8 are for "very qualified for project"; ratings of 5 and 6 are for "qualified--experienced with project type"; ratings of 2, 3, and 4 are for "not very qualified--questionable abilities for project"; and ratings of 0 and 1 are for "unqualified--no experience with project type." After sending the February 22 letter, Mr. Osborne called each of the applicants to confirm that each had received the letter. During these conversations, Mr. Osborne informed each applicant that only the applicant ranked first by the Professional Services Selection Committee would make a presentation to the School Board. As Mr. Osborne understood the selection process, the Board would have the final decision whether to accept the top-ranked applicant. If it did so, the School Board would then try to negotiate a CMAR contract with the top-ranked applicant. If the parties could not reach an agreement, the School Board could then try to negotiate a contract with the applicant ranked second by the Professional Services Selection Committee. Superintendent Wilcox, with Mr. Osborne's assistance, selected the Professional Services Selection Committee. The Professional Services Selection Committee comprised Leighton O'Connor, Executive Director of Operations Services and immediate supervisor of Mr. Osborne; Hank Salzler, Assistant Superintendent and designee of Superintendent Wilcox; Ms. Miller; Mr. Dilworth; Dr. Anderson; and Mr. Osborne. On March 5, 2002, Mr. Osborne informed the members of the Professional Services Selection Committee that they would rank the applicants and the top-ranked applicant would make a presentation to the School Board. No member of the committee voiced an objection to the process. After Mr. Osborne had addressed the Professional Services Selection Committee, the representatives of the five short-listed applicants made their presentations. Based on these presentations and the earlier submittals, the Professional Services Selection Committee, on March 5, 2002, ranked Petitioner first with 513 points and Intervenor second with 487 points. Immediately after the meeting of the Professional Services Selection Committee, Assistant Superintendent Salzler visited Superintendent Wilcox and told her that Mr. Osborne had told the committee members that only the top-ranked applicant would make a presentation to the School Board. For professional services contracts, the top three-ranked applicants customarily made presentations to the Board, which would then select the applicant that the Board felt was most qualified. Superintendent Wilcox had thought that the same process would apply to the selection of the applicant with which to negotiate the CMAR contract. Superintendent Wilcox immediately visited Mr. Osborne and informed him that the School Board would want the top three applicants to make presentations. Mr. Osborne replied that he had told the applicants that only the top-ranked applicant would make a presentation to the Board. Superintendent Wilcox told him to telephone the top three applicants and tell them that all of them would be making presentations to the Board, so that the Board could make the final ranking. Later the same day, Mr. Osborne telephoned the top three applicants and informed them of the new procedure. Dr. Anderson had had to leave the meeting of the Professional Services Selection Committee before it was finished, so, later the same day, he telephoned Mr. O'Connor to learn the results of the voting. Mr. O'Connor informed Dr. Anderson of the three top-ranked applicants and expressed his opinion that the key criterion was not the general ranking that resulted from the guidelines and criteria that Mr. Osborne had developed, but the quality of the personnel who would manage the actual construction. Acknowledging that the School Board would not have adequate time to view the applicants' presentations and evaluate their submittals, Mr. O'Connor asked Dr. Anderson if Mr. O'Connor should undertake an analysis for use by the School Board. Dr. Anderson agreed that such an analysis would be helpful and asked him to prepare one. Mr. O'Connor prepared a 24-page document entitled "Construction Manger [sic] at Risk Finalist Comparisons" (O'Connor Finalist Comparisons). Mr. O'Connor provided the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons to each School Board member prior to the March 19 meeting. The O'Connor Finalist Comparisons introduces a new element to the procurement criteria--cost. The document advises the School Board members that the "number of team members and percentage of time devoted to the project may impact the cost of services." The document also relates, in an unspecified manner, "pre-construction services" to "cost saving alternative." The O'Connor Finalist Comparisons emphasizes some published selection criteria at the expense of others--without regard to their relative point value. Admittedly reflecting only Mr. O'Connor's opinion, the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons states that the "key consideration [sic] for this project" are "pre-construction services," "onsite construction service," and "experiences of assigned project staff." The document adds: "Our architect indicated that the Project Superintendent was the most important team member." The O'Connor Finalist Comparisons analyzes the proposals of the three applicants in terms of two criteria-- "credentials" and experience of selected members of the onsite project team in school construction. The emphasis upon school--construction experience also reflects Mr. O'Connor's opinion--this time clearly without the smallest support in the Guidelines or Selection Criteria, which ask for experience of similar scope, not merely school-construction experience. For Intervenor and Petitioner, the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons compares two employees per job site. For the high school, Intervenor's two employees have handled six school- construction projects, and their credentials consist of one bachelor's of arts degree in business administration. For the elementary school, Intervenor's two employees have handled 12 school-construction projects, and their credentials consist of one of them holding a bachelor's of science degree and master's degree in civil engineering. For the high school, Petitioner's two employees have handled one school, and their credentials consist of one bachelor's of science degree in business administration. For the elementary school, Petitioner's two employees have handled 11 school-construction projects, and their credentials consist of no four-year degrees. In this part of his analysis, Mr. O'Connor does not disclose his rationale for excluding from his analysis other key team members assigned 100 percent to the school projects, such as the two assistant project superintendents for the Jensen Beach High School project. These two persons have handled a total of seven school-construction projects. Interestingly, Mr. O'Connor included a third member of the third applicant's high-school team, and this person was an assistant superintendent. Mr. O'Connor fails to explain why he omitted analysis of project engineers assigned fulltime to the sites. From his charts, Intervenor did not assign such a person to either site, Petitioner assigned one to the elementary school and two to the high school, and the third applicant assigned one to each site. Petitioner's project engineer for the elementary school has handled two school-construction projects, and the sole person identified by name as a project engineer for the high school has handled one school-construction project. Again without explanation, Mr. O'Connor identifies Petitioner's project manager for the high school as someone other than the person whom Petitioner named in its proposal. The person identified by Mr. O'Connor has handled only one school-construction project. Although it is possible that Petitioner had had to change assigned personnel in the month since it first named its anticipated key personnel, nothing in the record indicates that such a change in personnel actually took place. Sometime after March 5, Superintendent Wilcox, Dr. Anderson, and Mr. Osborne informed each of the top three applicants that each of them would make a 20-minute presentation to the School Board and that the Board would use the Selection Criteria for ranking the applicants. On March 19, 2002, at a regularly scheduled School Board meeting, each of the top three applicants made its 20-minute presentation, interrupted by few, if any, questions from Board members. Petitioner's presentation covered the 14 criteria stated in the Selection Criteria. Petitioner complains that its presentation occurred at the end of the evening, long after the presentations of Intervenor and the third applicant, but this occurrence did not confer competitive advantage or disadvantage. Equally without meaning is the contention of Respondent and Intervenor that Petitioner never objected to any change in the procurement criteria. Nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner was ever aware, prior to the March 19 meeting, of the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent gave Petitioner a point of entry to challenge the changes that Respondent made during the course of this procurement. At no time during the March 19 meeting did anyone present the School Board with the rankings of the Professional Services Selection Committee. At no time during the March 19 meeting did anyone move that the School Board try to negotiate a contract with Petitioner. At the end of the meeting, without any public discussion, each School Board member voted his or her first, second, and third preference. Intervenor received three first-place votes, one second-place vote, and one third-place vote. Petitioner received two first-place votes and three second-place votes. Dr. Anderson, who ranked Intervenor first, announced that the vote was a tie, but that Intervenor should be declared the winner because it received more first-place votes. In response, another Board member moved to rank Intervenor first, Petitioner second, and the third applicant third and authorize Respondent to commence negotiations with Intervenor. The School Board unanimously passed the motion. The procurement documents are unambiguous, although they are less then comprehensive in their treatment of the procurement procedure. Rule 6Gx43-8.01.c provides that a committee shall recommend, in order of preference, three applicants to the School Board, which shall negotiate a contract with the most "qualified" applicant. The legal advertisement states only that the Professional Services Selection Committee shall rank the top three applicants and submit them to the Superintendent and School Board. The Selection Criteria states that the Professional Services Selection Committee will present to the Superintendent for approval and presentation to the School Board a ranked list of the top three "qualifying" applicants. Citing past practices--although none involves the procurement of a CMAR--Intervenor and Respondent contend that the School Board was authorized to re-rank the applicants and begin negotiations with any of the three applicants submitted to the Board. Citing the reference in the Selection Criteria that the Professional Services Selection Committee ranks the top three "qualifying" applicants and the language in the other documents requiring the School Board to negotiate first with the most "qualified" applicant, Petitioner contends that the Board has no right to change the ranking of the Professional Services Selection Committee, but must deal first with the top-ranked applicant. Due to the interpretation of Mr. Osborne, Respondent's interpretation of its rules and procurement documents is clearly erroneous and arbitrary. Until the telephone calls from Mr. Osborne to the applicants on March 5 after Superintendent Wilcox told Mr. Osborne that all three top-ranked applicants would make presentations to the Board, the applicants perceived correctly that Mr. Osborne was in charge of implementing the procedures for this procurement. And, from the start through his meeting with Superintendent Wilcox on March 5, Mr. Osborne consistently understood that the Professional Services Selection Committee would rank the top three applicants, and a committee member or the Superintendent would present to the School Board only the top-ranked applicant, which would then make a presentation to the Board. As Mr. Osborne envisioned the process, the Board could reject the top-ranked applicant and proceed to the second- ranked applicant, although this was unlikely, but the Board could not re-rank the top three applicants, without ever formally rejecting the applicant ranked first by the Professional Services Selection Committee. Mr. Osborne consistently communicated his understanding of the procurement process to the applicants. Mr. Osborne's understanding of the procurement process is the correct interpretation of the procurement documents. Among other things, Mr. Osborne's interpretation of the procurement documents lends meaning to the task of the Professional Services Selection Committee in ranking the top three applicants. Under Respondent's interpretation, the Professional Services Selection Committee performs a useless act when, in addition to naming the top three applicants, it ranks them. Respondent's departure from this procedure at the moment of decision clearly violates the standards governing this procurement. Exacerbating the situation is the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons. This document distorts the Selection Criteria by omitting many criteria, reassigning weights among other criteria, and adding two criteria--cost and school-construction experience. This document distorts Petitioner's qualifications by its arbitrary selection of personnel for comparison purposes. Presumably, Respondent and Intervenor resist the inference that the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons influenced any of the School Board members. The administrative law judge infers that the document influenced one or more members; given the close outcome of the vote, the administrative law judge infers that the document was a material factor in the selection of Intervenor. These inferences are supported by numerous facts, including the following. The School Board chair, Dr. Anderson, endorsed the preparation of the document. Dr. Anderson preferred Intervenor over Petitioner. The O'Connor Finalist Comparisons appears to be the only document presented to School Board members that was not part of the formal procurement process. The School Board members did not extensively discuss at the meeting the merits of the three applicants before voting. Petitioner tried to elicit testimony from the School Board members, but at Respondent's request, the administrative law judge entered a prehearing order denying Petitioner the opportunity to compel testimony from any of them except Dr. Anderson, who had served on the Professional Services Selection Committee. The inference of materiality is eased by the magnitude of the distortions contained in the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons as to the Selection Criteria and Petitioner's qualifications and the closeness of the Board vote; the extensive distortion contained in the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons means that it was material if it had even the slightest influence on one of the School Board members. Under these facts, Petitioner proved that Respondent's selection of Intervenor was contrary to Respondent's rule, Respondent's policies (as stated by Mr. Osborne), and the other procurement documents. Under these facts, Petitioner proved that the deviations from Respondent's rule, Respondent's policies, and the other procurement documents rendered the selection of Intervenor clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As a remedy, Petitioner contends that Respondent should commence negotiations with Petitioner. However, by the time Respondent issues a final order, six months will have passed since each applicant submitted a proposal. The ability of applicants to meet various criteria, such as the availability of key personnel, may have changed dramatically. Also, contrary to Petitioner's contention, this procurement is not fundamentally flawed due to bad faith or favoritism. The change in procurement procedures was indisputably due to an innocent, mutual mistake among Respondent's employees. The newly hired Mr. Osborne intended to handle the procurement his way, and Dr. Anderson, Superintendent Wilcox, and District staff intended Mr. Osborne to handle the procurement their way. Nothing in the record suggests that the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons is anything more than Mr. O'Connor, as Mr. Osborne's supervisor, injecting himself into a process that was not going as smoothly as Mr. O'Connor would have liked. Relying on the advice of an architect, Mr. O'Connor belatedly rewrote the procurement criteria to emphasize school-construction experience and cost; it is easy to indulge the presumption that Mr. O'Connor was motivated by a desire to help Respondent, not an applicant. Absent other evidence in the record, Mr. O'Connor's distortion of Petitioner's qualifications, which was not of the same magnitude as his distortion of the procurement criteria themselves, may presumably be attributed to haste or carelessness, rather than favoritism toward Intervenor.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Martin County School Board enter a final order setting aside the proposed decision to enter into negotiations with Intervenor to provide services as a construction manager at risk in the construction of the Jensen Beach High School and Port Salerno Elementary Replacement School and restart the procurement process, if Respondent still seeks to proceed with these projects under this construction method through a competitive procurement. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Sara Wilcox, Superintendent Martin County School Board 500 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 34994-2578 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Gary M. Dunkel, Esquire Susan Fleischner Kornspan, Esquire Greenburg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Douglas G. Griffin, Esquire School Board of Martin County 500 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 34994 Joseph Ianno, Jr., Esquire Michael Winston, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 150 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-0150
The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violations alleged in the Respondent's Petition dated June 11, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duties of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2008).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Scott has been employed as a teacher with the School Board since 1986. She is a member of the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association and is subject to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida, and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association ("Collective Bargaining Agreement"). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Scott taught business classes at Palm Beach Central High School ("Palm Beach Central"). In 2006, Ms. Scott was charged with shutting a student into a windowless, unventilated closet and leaving him there "for a time estimated to be between ten (10) minutes by you and fifty (50) minutes by the student and other witnesses."2 The superintendent of schools recommended to the School Board that Ms. Scott be suspended without pay and her employment terminated. The termination was subsequently rescinded, and Ms. Scott's discipline for this incident was reduced to a 38-day suspension without pay. During fourth period on February 1, 2008, Ms. Scott was teaching a course in computing for colleges and careers. While she was taking attendance, several students were causing their computers to "beep." As a result, Ms. Scott sent a few students outside the classroom, into the hallway. She sent another student to the storage room that connected her classroom to the classroom next to hers and told the student to step inside and shut the door. The student was a male who was 17 years of age at the time of the final hearing. The storage room was approximately 10 feet wide and 15 feel long. The student remained in the storage room for approximately 10 minutes, during which time the lights in the storage room were off. The storage room had two doors, neither of which had windows, and Ms. Scott could not see the student while he was in the storage room. After approximately 10 minutes, Ms. Scott opened the storage room door and told the student he could leave the storage room.3 The student did not consider his being sent into the dark storage room a "big deal," and he did not report the incident to his parents, to another teacher, or to the school administration.4 On February 15, 2008, a student reported the incident to a teacher, who reported it to an assistant principal, who reported it to another assistant principal, who reported it to the principal, Burley Mondy. Mr. Mondy reported the matter to the School Board police and requested that a formal investigation be initiated. Mr. Mondy also removed Ms. Scott from the Palm Beach Central campus on February 15, 2008, and she was given an alternate assignment in the Palm Beach County School District's office. After the investigation was completed, the matter was subject to an administrative review; a pre-disciplinary meeting was held with Ms. Scott in attendance; and the matter was reviewed by the School Board's Employee Investigation Committee. Based upon the recommendation of the Employee Investigation Committee, the superintendent of schools recommended to the School Board that Ms. Scott be suspended without pay and that proceedings be initiated to terminate her employment. The School Board approved this recommendation at its June 4, 2008, meeting. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that, by sending a student into a dark storage room for approximately 10 minutes, Ms. Scott exercised extremely poor professional judgment and that her actions posed a potential risk to the student's physical and mental health and safety. The School Board failed to present any evidence to establish that Ms. Scott's sending several students into the hall during class constituted poor professional judgment or posed a potential risk to the students' physical and mental health and safety. The School Board also failed to present any evidence to establish that Ms. Scott's effectiveness in the school system was impaired by the incident at issue, and it is not reasonable to infer from Ms. Scott's conduct that her effectiveness was impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Petition filed against Rutha Scott, immediately reinstating her, and awarding her back pay for the period of her suspension, as provided in Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 16th day of February, 2009.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Nicholas DiLorenzo be expelled from schools within the jurisdiction of the Palm Beach County school system through the 1984 - 1985 school year. RECOMMENDED this 15 day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1984.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes (2000), and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 711503, covering the areas of elementary education, varying exceptionalities, and pre-kindergarten handicapped. Respondent's certificate was valid at all times material to this proceeding. Respondent began teaching in 1995. There have been no complaints against Respondent prior to the allegations in this case. Over the years, Respondent has attempted to help students over and beyond her classroom duties. On at least two occasions, she temporarily has taken students into her home in time of need. Flagler County School Board employed Respondent as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher at Flagler Palm Coast High School (FPC) in the Flagler County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. That school term was her first year on the faculty at FPC. J.E. was a 17 year-old male student who attended FPC during the 2000-2001 school year. J.E. was classified as an 11th-grade ESE student because he suffered from attention deficit disorder. J.E. also worked as a part-time firefighter with the Flagler Beach Fire Department. J.E.'s employment as a firefighter was sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America Explorer Program. At some point during the month of October 2000, J.E. transferred into Respondent's math class. Initially, J.E. was unable to make a passing grade in math due to his learning disability. J.E.'s academic problems were aggravated by several in-school and out-of-school disciplinary suspensions, which caused him to miss class. Toward the end of November or the beginning of December 2000, J.E. was arrested for fighting with his sister. He was in the custody of the juvenile authorities for several days before being placed on juvenile home detention. When J.E. returned to school, Respondent contacted J.E.'s mother, D.B. Respondent requested permission to tutor J.E. after school to help him make up missed assignments. After receiving the approval of the juvenile authority staff, D.B. agreed that Respondent could tutor J.E. Respondent and D.B. agreed that, after each tutoring session, Respondent would transport J.E. to the place where D.B. was employed. Respondent then informed the assistant principal that she would be assisting J.E. after school in her classroom. The tutoring sessions began on December 12, 2000, and lasted for almost two weeks. The sessions terminated when FPC recessed for the holidays. During the tutoring sessions, Respondent and J.E. spent time working on J.E.'s math assignments. However, as time passed, they progressively spent more time discussing personal issues. These conversations included discussions regarding J.E.'s problems and history of abuse, as well as the physical abuse that Respondent experienced during her marriage to her ex-husband. Respondent revealed that she had been molested as a child, a fact that Respondent had shared only with her long-term boyfriend, her sister, and her closest friends. Respondent told J.E. about her two children and her relationship with her boyfriend. At times, Respondent spoke negatively about her boyfriend, referring to him as an "asshole." Respondent and J.E.'s student-teacher relationship became more personal as they spent more time together. J.E. began visiting Respondent during her planning period, during which they would discuss personal issues. Occasionally, J.E. would visit Respondent during her science class even though he was scheduled to be in another class. The personal conversations continued during the time that J.E. waited in Respondent's car for his mother at the school bus compound, sometimes for 20 to 30 minutes. Prior to one tutoring session, Respondent allowed J.E. to ride with her to a fast-food restaurant. She then took J.E. by the fire station before returning to the school. Respondent did not have anyone's permission to transport J.E. off campus. Sometime before the holiday break, J.E. told Respondent that he liked the music of a certain rap artist. The last day of school before the holiday break, Respondent gave J.E. a gift bag containing a compact disk (CD) of the artist's music. The gift bags that Respondent presented to other students contained only cookies and trinkets. On the afternoon of December 27 or 28, 2000, J.E. invited Respondent to visit the fire station with her children, a 9-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter. Respondent and her children spent approximately one hour at the station while J.E. showed them the facility and firefighting equipment. Next, J.E. told Assistant Fire Chief Shane Wood (Chief Wood), that he was going to a nearby park with Respondent and her children. He advised Chief Wood that he would return to the station if it received a call. J.E. rode to the park in Respondent's vehicle. Francis Abramczyk, another student firefighter and J.E.'s friend, rode a bike to the park at J.E.'s request. When the group arrived at the park, Respondent asked Mr. Abramczyk to watch her children so she and J.E. could talk in a nearby gazebo. About 45 minutes after Respondent and J.E. left to go to the park, Chief Wood got off from work. Chief Wood then rode his motorcycle to his parent's house near the park. Chief Wood visited his parents for 10-15 minutes before riding his motorcycle to the park where he spoke briefly to J.E. Respondent and J.E. were sitting in the gazebo when Chief Wood came by on his motorcycle Once in the gazebo, Respondent and J.E. spent at least 30 minutes talking about Respondent's recent trip to North Carolina, among other things. During this time, Respondent and J.E. sat side-by-side. At one point in time, Mr. Abramczyk saw Respondent's hand resting on J.E.'s hand, which was resting on his leg. Respondent jerked her hand back when she made eye contact with Mr. Abramczyk, who was retrieving a ball from the far side of the gazebo. While sitting in the gazebo, Respondent asked J.E. if he was willing to baby-sit for her that evening while she went out with a girlfriend. Respondent told J.E. that she would not be returning home until late and suggested that he spend the night at her residence. J.E. did not think his mother would approve of Respondent's suggestion. In the meantime, Mr. Abramczyk decided to walk to a nearby store to get some ice cream. Respondent's son tagged along with Mr. Abramczyk. When Mr. Abramczyk returned to the park, Respondent and J.E. were sitting in Respondent's vehicle. While J.E. was sitting in Respondent's vehicle, two or three girls came to the park in a car. One of the girls was J.E.'s former girlfriend. At first J.E. did not want the girls to see him, but eventually he got out of Respondent's vehicle and talked to Mr. Abramczyk and the girls. During this conversation, J.E. was teased about hanging out with his teacher. Mr. Abramczyk rode the bike back to the fire station after this conversation. At approximately 5:00 p.m., J.E., Respondent, and Respondent's children went back to the fire station. J.E. then called his mother to ask permission to baby-sit for Respondent. D.B. told him that he could baby-sit. In a later conversation between Respondent and D.B., Respondent stated that she would not be home that evening until approximately 2:00 a.m. Respondent asked D.B. if J.E. could spend the night at her residence. D.B. responded negatively, telling Respondent to take J.E. home or to the fire station where there was adult supervision at all times. After leaving the fire station, J.E. rode with Respondent and her children to a convenience store where Respondent purchased soft drinks and snacks for her children. She also purchased several wine coolers for herself. At approximately 6:00 p.m., Respondent, her children, and J.E. arrived at Respondent's residence. J.E. changed out of his work uniform before walking to a nearby beach with Respondent and her children. The children played on the beach and in the clubhouse area while Respondent talked to J.E. During this time, Respondent consumed one of her wine coolers. J.E., Respondent, and her children returned to Respondent's home after spending about an hour at the beach. Next, Respondent prepared dinner for J.E. and her children. She then got dressed to go out while J.E. played video games with the kids in the living room. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent walked out of her bedroom into the living room wearing only a skirt and bra during this time. Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. Respondent left her residence to meet her girlfriend, taking her wine coolers with her. The girlfriend was not at home, so after waiting for a while, Respondent returned to her home between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent was heavily intoxicated when she returned. Respondent's long-term boyfriend was spending time that evening with one of his male friends. The boyfriend usually stayed with Respondent but decided that evening to stay at his separate residence in St. Augustine, Florida, because he had consumed some beer and did not want to risk driving back to Respondent's residence. However, Respondent did not know that the boyfriend would not come to her house later that evening. When Respondent returned to her residence, her children were asleep and J.E. did not want to go home. Without checking with J.E.'s mother, Respondent decided to let J.E. stay. J.E. listened to music in Respondent's bedroom while she straightened up the house and did the laundry. Respondent took time to talk to J.E. and to listen to some music with him. Sometime during the evening, Respondent spoke to her boyfriend on the telephone. During this call, Respondent learned for the first time that her boyfriend probably would not be returning to her home that night. Respondent talked to her boyfriend a second time that night from her garage. When she went back into the house, J.E. pretended to be asleep but when Respondent approached him, he sat up and appeared to have been crying. Respondent assumed that J.E. was upset because he was jealous of her boyfriend. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent provided J.E. with alcohol or engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with him while he was in her home. However, Respondent admitted during the hearing that J.E. might have consumed beer kept in her refrigerator while she was gone because she found one beer can in her closet weeks later. At approximately 2:00 a.m., Respondent drove J.E. to the fire station. The lights were off in the station. After waiting a few minutes to see if any of the adult firemen were going to return to the fire station, Respondent drove J.E. home, arriving there between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. On the way to J.E.'s house, Respondent made J.E. promise not to tell anyone that he baby-sat at her residence. She paid J.E. $20 for baby-sitting. When J.E. got home, his mother was asleep on the couch. D.B. woke up as J.E. entered the house. She did not smell any alcohol on him or see any signs of intoxication. Respondent went with her children to the fire station two days later on December 29, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to return one of J.E.'s CDs that he had left at her house. Respondent visited with J.E. for about 15 minutes. During the visit on December 29, 2000, J.E. appeared upset. He told Respondent that he was worried because a man from his past was about to be released from jail. He also stated that he had been fighting with his mother. J.E. told Respondent that he was afraid the fire chief would not like him having visitors. He wanted Respondent to leave, telling her that he would talk to her later. By the end of December, Respondent knew that the other students were teasing J.E. about their close relationship and that he was embarrassed about the situation. J.E. and Respondent had agreed that they would not continue with the after-school tutoring and that they would not socialize at school or at the fire station. Despite this agreement, Respondent returned to the fire station on December 31, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to give J.E. a six-page handwritten letter that included references to Respondent's personal experiences. Several of J.E.'s friends from FPC were at the fire station when Respondent arrived. When J.E.'s friends told him that Respondent was in the lobby area, he told them he did not want to see her and hid in a back room in an effort to avoid her. Two of J.E.'s friends then told Respondent that J.E. was not at the fire station. Respondent started to leave when she realized that her son, who had been waiting in the car, had probably gone into the fire station through the open bay doors. Respondent then went into the station through the bay doors to look for her son. Upon entering the bay, Respondent noticed that J.E. was at work. Instead of asking about her son, Respondent approached J.E. holding the letter. As Respondent walked toward J.E., his friends began to tease him again. J.E. was visibly upset and demanded to know what Respondent was doing at the station. Respondent knew or should have known that she was giving the other students reason to pick on J.E. J.E. was angry and embarrassed by Respondent's presence. He told Respondent to come back later just to hasten her departure. He shredded the letter as soon as she left the station. Notwithstanding J.E.'s extreme displeasure during Respondent's visit, Respondent returned to the fire station later that day about 5:00 p.m. J.E. was not there when Respondent arrived. At that time, Chief Wood told Respondent that J.E. was gone and that she needed to stop visiting him at the station because it did not look right for her to be there "hanging all over J.E." The relationship between J.E. and Respondent dropped off beginning in early January 2001. Shortly after the holidays, J.E. became angry with Respondent. He told her to go screw her boyfriend. Respondent just ignored this comment. On another day during the first week of January, J.E. attempted to leave Respondent's class on a pretext that he was required to go to the school attendance office. J.E. became angry when Respondent would not let him leave the classroom. A short time later, during the same class period, two of J.E.'s friends walked by and looked into the classroom through the window in the door. J.E. noticed his friends, went to the door to speak with them, and asked them to help get him out of class. Respondent again refused to let him leave, causing him to be even more angry. Respondent told J.E. that if he left the class without permission, she would write him up. He then said, "You're gonna write me up? Well, I could do something about that." The first semester ended on January 8, 2001. Although J.E. was failing math in early December, he received a grade of B in Respondent's class for the semester. He then transferred to another teacher's math class for the second semester. After the transfer, J.E.'s grades began to decline again. The other students continued to tease J.E. about Respondent. On or about January 19, 2001, a rumor surfaced that Respondent was pregnant with J.E.'s child. Respondent first learned about the rumor during her science class. The class discussion involved the harmful effect of fumes from spray bottles on the environment and humans. Someone in the class stated that fumes could harm a fetus like Respondent's fetus. Another student said, "Oh, I wonder who the father is." A third student responded, "Oh, it's J.E." The class then began laughing. Respondent made no effort to report the incident to FPC's administrators. Instead, on a day when Respondent was extremely depressed and disillusioned with her career, and when she was feeling "emotionally cheated" and/or "manipulated" by J.E., Respondent wrote J.E. an e-mail message that states as follows: Hi I hope your Term 2 classes are going well so far, and life in general. I heard you're in Mr. Krenichen's class for Algebra now. If you need any help or need a place to escape to you know where to go. I still have 3rd period planning, except for lunch duty 3rd lunch. Even if you still are or stay mad at me forever, I'm still rooting for you to make it. I hope you're staying out of trouble. Well, I just wanted to say hi. I was thinking about you and my kids have been asking about you too. They think you're so cool! Yeah, I guess you're all right most of the time. Ha Ha. I miss you. I miss you talking to me every day most of all. Well, see you around. K. p.s. I also wanted to thank you for keeping your word. Means a lot. Gives me a little bit of hope the whole thing wasn't a lie all along. That helps even if that's all I'll ever have. Well, there's other things I need to talk to you about but don't want to say in an e-mail, so will just let you go now. Bye. Respondent's statement in the e-mail that she hoped J.E. was not still mad at her referred to her refusal to let J.E. leave class. She thanked him for keeping his word about not dropping out of school, not telling anyone that he baby-sat at her home, and not revealing her personal confidences. The e-mail was not specifically romantic in nature but clearly and convincingly evidences an inappropriate personal relationship between Respondent and J.E. After receiving this e-mail, J.E. asked Chief Wood to help him draft a reply that would break off his relationship with Respondent. Chief Wood declined to help but told J.E. he would proofread the message after J.E. wrote it. After reading the e-mail, Chief Wood decided that J.E. had adequately communicated his message to Respondent and did not make any changes. On or about January 24, 2001, a fellow student told J.E. that Respondent had said she was pregnant with J.E.'s child. J.E. became frightened by the false rumor. That same day, J.E. lied to his mother, stating that Respondent had given him alcohol and that, while he was in an intoxicated state, Respondent had forced him to have sexual intercourse on the night that he visited her home. D.B. immediately contacted the sheriff's office. On January 26, 2001, the principal of FPC confronted Respondent with J.E.'s allegations regarding the alcohol and sexual misconduct. During this conversation, Respondent stated that she wished she had never had J.E. baby-sit in her home. She admitted that her relationship with J.E. was inappropriate. Respondent immediately drafted and submitted her resignation effective February 6, 2001, the day of the next scheduled school board meeting. Following Respondent's resignation, J.E. continued to endure severe teasing at the hands of his classmates. Some students referred to J.E. as a "teacher fucker." Understandably, such comments caused J.E. a great deal of stress. J.E. eventually dropped out of FPC and entered the adult education program, where he admitted to one student that he did not have sex with Respondent. He told the student that he wished he could take it all back. Respondent is now employed in a real estate office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That EPE enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificate for two years followed by five years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 2nd day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
