The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission (EPC), impose discipline against Respondent, who holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 292611, for the alleged violations set forth in EPC Case No. 001-0121-A?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: Respondent holds a Florida Educators Certificate (FEC), number 292611, in the areas of General Science, Physical Education, and Middle Grades. Respondent's FEC is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as Physical Education Teacher at Sante Fe High School (Sante Fe) in the Alachua County School District. Additional Facts: During his career Respondent has been employed by the Alachua County School Board as part of the instructional staff. His career spans 33 years. Respondent taught physical education at Sante Fe from 1974 through 2001. In the last two years he has taught at Bucholz High School in drivers education. The physical education curriculum at Sante Fe, to include the spring of 2000, emphasized physical activity for the students three days a week. Two days a week were devoted to classroom instruction. The physical fitness instruction emphasized cardio vascular conditioning and building endurance in the participants' muscles. The physical activity took place both inside the gymnasium and outside on the school grounds. The physical activity involved stretching before engaging in the prescribed activity. A typical physical fitness class taught by Respondent would have had 35 to 48 students. In the spring of 2000 two of the students taught physical education by the Respondent were E.C. and L.B., who were ninth graders. On the whole, the proof is not clear and convincing that Respondent inappropriately stared at the students E.C. and L.B. when they were doing their exercises in the physical education class in the spring of 2000, as they claim. During the spring of 2000 E.C. and L.B. went to Respondent's office to exchange a basketball which was flat for one that was not. After the students asked for a new basketball Respondent replied "well that's not the only thing that's flat" while looking in the direction of the students. The students took this remark to be intended as sexual innuendo concerning the chest of the student E.C. but their impression was gained outside the context of another remark made at that time directed to those students referring to them as a "bunch'a airheads." When the set of remarks are considered together they do not constitute remarks that are perceived as sexual harassment or sexual innuendo as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. To refer to students as "airheads" is not appropriate, however that remark is not the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The comments made by Respondent directed to E.C. and L.B. were overheard by a male student, F.T.B. M.H., whom one can infer was a student at Sante Fe, showed Respondent her midriff where she had been sunburned. Respondent commented "M., you need to put sunscreen on. You're going to get burnt up." No other facts were established concerning Respondent and the student M.H. Contrary to the material allegations in the Administrative Complaint, no proof was presented concerning the allegation that Respondent told female students in his class that the shorter their shorts were, the higher their grades would be.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint in all its counts. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 23rd day of April, 2003.
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Bobby Leon Murphy holds a Florida teacher's certificate, No. 170876. He began his teaching career in Mobile, Alabama, at Satsuma High School, in 1958. Now 55 years old, he has served as aquatic coordinator for Escambia County and director of the Washington Aquatic Center since June 14, 1982, twelve days before he lost the eldest of his three sons in an automobile accident. Sherman L. Robinson, the black principal of Washington High School, was among the first to learn of the tragedy, and came promptly to the family home to console his friend, "Bobby Lee," as he is known. It was Mr. Robinson to whom Coach Murphy referred, on some ten occasions, in conversations with another employee of Washington Aquatic Center, as a "big nigger" or simply as a "nigger." He once called his principal "just a big nigger trying to throw his weight around." T.102. Wife To Blame Mr. and Mrs. Murphy were with friends at Rosie O'Grady's in Pensacola on April 14, 1968, when a dispute arose between respondent Murphy and another patron. The gentlemen decided to pursue the matter outside. Mr. Murphy landed the first and perhaps only blow before a policeman ended the altercation and placed him under arrest for "assault with hands." Eventually, Mr. Murphy paid a $50.00 fine on account of the incident, or so he testified at hearing. On his application for extension of certificate dated March 24, 1987, after these proceedings began, Mr. Murphy reported that he had been fined $75.00. The application for extension was granted. On three previous applications for teacher's certificates, dated November 16, 1971, July 27, 1973, and April 4, 1983, there was no mention of the arrest. In response to the question, "Have you ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation?" the box in front of "No" had been checked on the 1971 and 1973 applications. On the 1983 application, "No" had been checked in response to the question "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Respondent testified that he had not meant to mislead anybody in submitting the applications he did after his arrest and before the present charges were laid. It was just that his wife had filled earlier applications out, he explained, while he himself had completed the most recent and only accurate application. Life at Poolside Mr. Murphy has coached swimming for many years, and enjoys an interstate (Florida and Alabama) reputation as a good swimming coach. Since former Superintendent Stokes named him director of the Washington Aquatic Center, however, his principal duties have been administrative. The Center was built on the campus of Washington High School, but is used by junior and senior high students from other Escambia County schools as well. The office Mr. Murphy occupied at the Center opens onto the pool deck, and the office door is mostly glass. Almost all of the office is visible from outside, but passersby cannot see the corner of the office into which he retreated one day in the summer of 1982, while addressing Susan Lynn Graham, then 18 years old, and the only other occupant of the office. He urged her to join him in the corner and rub her "boobs" against him, but she declined. Ms. Graham was a pool attendant at the time. Mr. Robinson, the principal, had delegated to Mr. Murphy authority to hire and fire pool attendants, young people paid minimum wage to work as lifeguards, and to help with teaching, coaching and keeping the Center clean. Coach Murphy regularly hugged the pool attendants and others, and Ms. Graham was no exception. A witness described these as lateral, as opposed to frontal, hugs. Standing beside the recipient, he placed an arm around his or her shoulders, and pulled, squeezing the near shoulder against the side of his chest. For the most part, these hugs were gestures of friendship, encouragement or commendation, but, in Ms. Graham's case, he whispered into her ear when he hugged her, "I'm going to make love to Sue Graham," or "I'm going to make love to Sue Graham before the summer's over," or "Don't you forget it, baby, or something of the kind. This happened repeatedly. Once, when just the two of them were in his office, he told her he would eat her "pussy," then stuck his tongue out, emitted a "kind of laugh," (T.22) and shook his head. At this, she left the office, shocked and embarrassed, telling him not to say things like that. He seemed to her always to be leering: sometimes he raised his eyebrows. He offered to meet her "any time" at his condominium. (T.24) He once told her he liked watching her jump up and down on the diving board and seeing her bosom bounce. Ms. Graham told co-workers that Mr. Murphy had made passes at her and asked them not to leave her alone with him. When she complained to Mike Haas, however, the Center's assistant director, he seemed to support Mr. Murphy. She decided against reporting Mr. Murphy's attentions to his superiors, and left her job in May of 1983. She "just decided that it was not worth the pressure [she] was under to continue to work there." (T.24) Ann Cobb Palmer had known Mr. Murphy since she was eight years old, maybe even longer. He had been her swimming coach. Hired by respondent as a lifeguard at Washington Aquatic Center, she felt intimidated and degraded one day at work when, in her presence, he said to two young men, Messrs. Haas and Martin, "I wonder what she would be like in bed." (T.70) Eighteen years old at the time, she burst into tears and left his office crying a few days later when, again in her hearing, Coach Murphy told Mike Martin, "I would like to get in her pants." Id. Teresa Hunter Murphy, no relation to the respondent, was a married college graduate when she began working as a swimming instructor at Washington Aquatic Center in the summer of 1982. In October of 1982, as she and Coach Murphy sat in his office, he "stared at [her] crotch and said, mmmmm, I think I could eat on that thing for a few days," (T.96) adding, "[B]aby, we'd have to send out for room service." (T.97) When she expressed dismay at his language and stood up to leave, he asked, "[D]on't you like it?" Id. During the three years or so she worked under respondent's supervision, Ms. Murphy's first marriage deteriorated and eventually came to an end. Coach Murphy, who was aware of her marital problems, said to his assistant Mike Haas, "Mike, Teresa is not getting any, can you handle that[?]" (T.94) Another time, Coach Murphy asked her if she would "go for" dating or having sex with either of the "PE coaches" at Washington High School. Looking at a picture of the Washington High School girls' swim team one day, Coach Murphy pointed out to Ms. Murphy that "several of the girls on the front row had shown through their bathing suits" (T.95) and said it "looked like they had been busted wide open . . . [meaning that they] were not virgins any longer." (T.96) The pool attendants had no guarantee of continued employment and, at least one, Katherine Taylor, was dismissed by Mr. Haas, who said he and Coach Murphy had reached the decision together. At the time, the only explanation he offered was that it was for her benefit. (T.53) At hearing, however, he testified she was fired because she had been unwilling to clean a toilet. Keys to the Condo Coach Murphy hired Julie Ann Halpern Schweitzer, 22 years old and unmarried, to work at the Washington Aquatic Center as a lifeguard in September of 1983. At school board expense, he sent her to a coaching convention in Orlando in the company of his assistant, Mike Haas, Teresa Murphy, and Mike Byrd, who did not work at the Center. Upon their return, Coach Murphy summoned Ms. Halpern, as she then was, to his office. When she arrived, Mike Haas was already there. Coach Murphy asked if anything had happened on the trip, "insinuating hanky-panky and asked Mike Haas if he made a pass at [Ms. Halpern]. Mike Haas said he had tried. But the truth was, he never had tried." (T.42) After more banter in "almost a sick joking manner," Id., Coach Murphy handed some keys to Ms. Halpern, saying, "Julie, these are the keys to my condo. I want you and Mike to go out there and finish your business." (T.43) Mike Haas drove Ms. Halpern to the condominium and, after she declined his invitation to go inside, to Cordova Mall where they bought a birthday card for a boy they worked with, before returning to Washington Aquatic Center. This excursion took place "on Aquatic Center time." (T.47) After it was over, Coach Murphy called them into his office and asked what had happened. When Ms. Halpern told him they had not even gone inside the condominium, "he was upset very . . .silent." (T.45) "[H]e was silent for two days straight. For that whole week, we didn't get much out of him. We had to walk on eggshells." (T.47) This lack of communication made him less effective as an administrator. Many of the young women working under Coach Murphy's supervision avoided him, even though they needed to communicate with him regularly to do their jobs as well as possible. His behavior toward young women impaired his effectiveness as an administrator. New employees were sometimes told to avoid him. Electioneering Ann Cobb Palmer, a pool attendant named Daniel, Katherine Taylor, Teresa Murphy, Mike Haas, Michael T. Martin all were directed by respondent to display signs or make telephone calls on behalf of Charles Stokes, the former superintendent of schools who sought reelection, and did so, many of them on school time, during the fall of 1984. Respondent gave Renee Branum permission to make telephone calls on behalf of the Stokes candidacy on school phones during her working hours. (T.305) Students Not Involved As far as the evidence showed, respondent never propositioned any student or discussed any sexual topic with a student. He testified without contradiction, "I don't even have sex, and I haven't for the past three or four years." (T.295)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(c)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, testimony, and stipulated facts, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 834897, covering the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”), and varying exceptionalities, which is valid through June 30, 2023. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (“ESE”) teacher at Wyomina Park Elementary School (“WPES”) in the Marion County School District (“MCSD”). Ms. Miller has served as an elementary education teacher since the 2000-01 school year. Thus, she has a 20-year career with MCSD. From 2008 to 2018, Respondent taught third, fourth, and fifth grades at Reddick Collier Elementary (“Reddick Collier”’). Since she holds certification in ESE, she also taught ESE inclusion students in her general education classrooms. However, she has never taught a classroom of only ESE students. In 2018, Respondent’s value-added model (commonly referred to as VAM) scores rendered her ineligible to continue teaching at Reddick Collier because it was one of the District’s lowest performing schools. As a result, she was involuntarily transferred to WPES. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent was initially assigned to teach students with academic issues, not behavioral issues. The initial assignment was consistent with her experience and previous work with ESE inclusion students. Respondent had maintained certification in ESE so that she could better serve academically low-performing ESE students in a general education inclusion environment. While Respondent had training in an inclusion environment, she did not have training or certification in Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children (“TEACCH”) or Crisis Prevention Intervention de-escalation techniques for use with students with behavioral issues. Ms. Baxley believed that Respondent had been trained to work with children with behavioral issues. After the initial assignment, students were reassigned between Ms. Miller and Patricia Poag. Respondent became responsible for only students with behavioral issues. Some of the students assigned to Respondent had extensive behavioral issues to the extent they required medication treatment. Respondent’s new assignment was a kindergarten through second grade self-contained ESE class of 12 to 13 students. Generally, a self- contained ESE classroom is a group environment with students who have special needs. Respondent’s students required increased supervision, structure, visuals, and very specific direct instruction. Respondent, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Poag testified that the classroom assignment was very “challenging, overwhelming, and distressing.” The new classroom structure included six or seven more students than previously assigned. Respondent had one paraprofessional to assist with supervision of the students. Respondent requested additional staff support, but never received it. In addition to learning to navigate the struggles with the student’s behavioral issues, Respondent was struggling with paperwork. Respondent made the effort to get help with completing necessary documents and learning how to complete IEP’s and behavior plans. She had no experience in completing these documents, or in working with “severe maladaptive behaviors” before being assigned to WPES. Allegations Involving Classroom Management As an ESE instructor, Ms. Miller’s primary responsibility was to ensure compliance with services or accommodations required for ESE students assigned to her classroom. Gina Gazzaniga is the MCSD ESE specialist. Her primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with services/accommodations required for all ESE students. Ms. Gazzaniga visited Respondent’s classroom. While in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Gazzaniga observed students run on tables, throw items, and elope from the classroom unsupervised. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that while students were engaged in this conduct, Respondent did not intervene. Ms. Gazzaniga also testified that when students eloped from the classroom, they would typically go to the Guidance office or the Dean’s office. Ms. Gazzaniga had the Behavior Team (behavior tech, behavior specialist and analyst, and school academic coaches) assist with structure and behavior/classroom management strategies in Respondent’s classroom. The team implemented procedures to help prevent students from eloping. However, Respondent would change the practices the behavior team implemented. Respondent testified that some of the practices put into place were not effective. For example, when tables were lowered, the students increased their jumping from table to table. In addition, the assistance button was not within the reach of the teachers in the classroom. Ms. Gazzaniga’s overall assessment was that she saw “limited improvement, or refusal to follow taught strategies.” Other members of the WPES administration expressed concerns about Respondent’s classroom management. While visiting Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley, along with Kendra Hamby, saw student W.H. pulling the hair of M.D. W.H., a male student, dragged M.D., a female student, by her hair as she screamed. Ms. Baxley testified that she heard Respondent say “stop.” Ms. Baxley then approached the students and removed W.H.’s hand from M.D. so that he would “stop pulling M.D. around like a caveman on the floor.” Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did not intervene to help M.D., but rather “she just stood there.” Ms. Hamby testified that “Ms. Miller was standing there, not intervening, not saying or doing anything. So that was extremely concerning.” On another occasion, while in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley saw students hitting each other with containers. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did nothing to intervene. Respondent testified that she approached the students and instructed them to return the containers. Jennifer Foster was a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom. On one occasion two students were running around the room, fighting, and chasing each other. Ms. Foster tried to “get in the middle to separate them and they both ran behind the big solid wooden table.” When Ms. Foster went in front of the table in an effort to separate them, the two students picked up the table and tossed it over on the side. Ms. Foster was able to move one foot out of the way, but the table landed on her other foot. Ms. Foster testified “I eventually got up and hobbled over to push the panic button and asked for assistance.” Her foot was injured as a result of the incident involving the students. Ms. Foster indicated that Respondent did not assist her. Allegations Involving Failure to Supervise Students In addition to concerns about classroom management, the Administrative Complaint alleged Respondent failed to supervise students. One of those incidents involved K.C. K.C. was one of Respondent’s kindergarten students. He is an ESE student with a medical condition. On September 6, 2018, a teacher informed Assistant Principal Troy Sanford that Respondent’s student, K.C., was found standing at the exit door of a hallway that opens to the playground. Mr. Sanford saw K.C. approaching the exit doors to the playground alone at 11:24 a.m. K.C. stood there alone until 11:29 a.m., at which time the teacher spoke to K.C. After consulting with another teacher, Ms. Hawthorne, about where K.C. belonged, the teacher took him to Respondent’s classroom. Respondent denied allowing K.C. to stand alone in the hallway for several minutes. She testified that while standing at her classroom door, awaiting the arrival of students coming from the restroom, K.C. began to walk from Ms. Davis toward her. This was customary for her students if children needed additional time in the restroom. As K.C. got close to Respondent, L.G.R. began climbing on the top shelf of a bookcase in the classroom. Since their routine was for the students to come into the classroom, she assumed K.C. would follow the customary practice and enter the classroom. Respondent testified that she made a judgment call to turn her attention to L.G.R. to ensure his safety and prevent harm to him. Instead of entering the classroom, K.C. walked down the hallway. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s actions were reasonable. A second incident involved a different student. Two first-grade teachers, Nancy P. Neal and Ireina Hawthorne, were outside on the playground with their students. When recess was over, they were gathering their students and doing a head count to go back inside to their classrooms when they noticed there was “an extra child” in line. The student did not belong in their classroom. The student was nonverbal so they could not determine to which classroom he belonged. Ms. Hawthorne assumed that he belonged in Respondent’s class and took the student to Respondent’s classroom. When Ms. Hawthorne took the student to Respondent’s classroom, Respondent “ushered him into the classroom.” Respondent testified that she was in the hallway, counting her students before going to her classroom. She explained that she had a substitute paraprofessional, Ms. Foster, who did not know all of her students. In addition, this was the first time she had Ms. Foster serve as a substitute. To help remedy the issue regarding the student left outside, Respondent asked her assigned paraprofessional not to take breaks or lunch during recess. Whether Respondent was in her classroom (as stated by Ms. Hawthorne) or in the hallway, the student was left outside without her supervision, which could be harmful to the student’s safety. A third incident related to supervision involved student L.G.R. On October 19, 2019, L.G.R. entered Ms. Gazzaniga’s office and hid under a table. The evidence offered at hearing demonstrated that when the student eloped from the classroom, Respondent immediately followed the student into the guidance office. However, she did not see the L.G.R., so she continued to search for him. A minute or so later, Ms. Gazzaniga saw Respondent walk down the hallway towards the main office. Respondent later learned the student was in the guidance office at the time she initially searched that location. However, Ms. Gazzaniga did not alert Respondent that L.G.R. was in her office. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that she “kept an eye on him while he was there.” After a short time, Ms. Gazzaniga went over to L.G.R. and spoke to him. He came from under the table and went to the doorway of the office. At the same time, Respondent was walking back down the hallway and saw L.G.R. and took him back to her classroom. The credible evidence demonstrates that Respondent made reasonable efforts to locate the student by searching for him immediately after his elopement from the room. DP-3 Assessment On September 10, 2018, Ms. Scott gave Respondent a Developmental Profile Third Edition (“DP-3”) to complete for student A.M.S. Students who are developmentally delayed must have a DP-3 completed for re-evaluation to determine what ESE services need to be continued. A DP-3 is an assessment tool used to evaluate nonverbal or low achieving students that have not reached the cognitive level to take an IQ test. MCSD uses the DP-3 to assess the student’s level of achievement. The DP-3 assesses five areas of development, including the child’s cognitive functioning, physical development, communication skills, social, emotional, and adaptive skills. The assessment is completed by completing a series of questions on whether a student can or cannot perform a particular task. Respondent returned the DP-3 to Ms. Scott on September 25, 2018. Respondent circled items indicating a “yes” response. During the hearing, however, Respondent acknowledged the student would not be capable of performing the tasks. In addition, Ms. Scott did not believe A.M.S. could perform the skills for which Respondent answered yes. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, some of the responses Respondent provided on the DP-3 were inaccurate. Performance Assessments Throughout her career, Respondent had been assessed as progressing or effective related to instructional practice as an educator. For the 2018 informal classroom teacher instructional assessment performed by Ms. Baxley, Ms. Cino, and Mr. Sanford, Ms. Miller was assessed as unsatisfactory in multiple areas.1 However, in the areas of criticism, it was also noted that Ms. Miller was engaged in instruction of students. Interestingly, she was criticized for a child wandering to her desk, and then, criticized for leaving the group of students she was working with to redirect the wandering student. In another instance, the observers were critical of a Positive Behavioral Interventions Support plan but Ms. Miller was never trained in the area of behavioral management. For the 2019 informal classroom teacher evaluation, Ms. Miller was assessed effective in each category, including areas where she was assessed unsatisfactory in 2018. Disciplinary Action at WPES For the first time in her career, Respondent received disciplinary action while working at WPES. On or about September 10, 2018, Respondent was issued an oral reprimand for purported failure to supervise the students assigned to her. On or about September 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for misconduct for purported falsification of documents. On or about October 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for alleged failure to supervise a student assigned to her. On or about November 26, 2018, Respondent was issued Step One progressive discipline for substandard performance due to behavioral concerns in her classroom and failure to report grades. On or about December 11, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Two verbal reprimand regarding substandard performance. 1 In 2018, Ms. Miller was assessed unsatisfactory in the following areas: 2b. establishing a culture for learning, managing student behavior; 3b. using questioning and discussion techniques; and 3c. engaging students in learning. On or about December 18, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Three progressive discipline written reprimand regarding substandard performance. Respondent’s educator certificate has no prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that: Respondent violated the statues and rules as referenced above; Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2021. Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
