Findings Of Fact THIS CAUSE comes on for consideration based upon the Petition for Determination of the Invalidity of the existing Rules 6A-14.416 and 6A-14.417, Florida Administrative Code, for allegedly being in violation of the provisions of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petition was filed on September 22, 1978 and the hearing was conducted on October 20, 1978. The hearing rises out of the collateral Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing in which an administrative complaint had been filed under the guise of Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code, (in addition to certain statutory authority) against the current Petitioner, Gregory Bruce Nelson. During the course of that hearing it developed that Gregory Bruce Nelson, through his affirmative defenses to the Complaint, wished to challenge Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code for alleged violation of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. In response to that challenge, the Section 120.57(1) hearing, (which is reported as Lee G. Henderson, as Director of the Division of Community Colleges, Petitioner, vs. Gregory Bruce Nelson, Respondent, DOAH Case Number 78-283), has been stayed pending the outcome of the case sub judice. An order was entered by the undersigned allowing for sufficient time to file the Section 120.56, Florida Statutes challenge to Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code and Mr. Nelson has complied with the terms and conditions of that order as to timeliness of the Petition for review pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Concurrently, Mr. Nelson has availed himself of the opportunity to submit a challenge to Rule 6A-14.417, Florida Administrative Code. The issue of consideration of the validity of Rules 6A-14.416 and 6A- 14.417, Florida Administrative Code, is properly joined and will be determined. Respondents moved to strike certain portions of the Petition at the commencement of the hearing and the motion was granted as to paragraphs 3(f), (g) and paragraph 4(d) and a portion of paragraph 5, beginning with the words ".... deprivation to Nelson of due process of law..." to the conclusion of said paragraph 5. In addition, the clause containing the Petitioner's prayer for relief was stricken in its language, "and directing Respondents to dismiss Case No. 78-283 with prejudice." An additional motion was made to strike the name of Lee G. Henderson, as Director of the Division of Community Colleges as a named Respondent. In view of the fact that the Director of the Division of Community Colleges is not responsible for the promulgation of rules and regulations of the State Board of Education, he is hereby deleted and stricken as a party Respondent. The Petitioner, Gregory Bruce Nelson, is an employee of the Florida Junior College, an institution governed by Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. Nelson holds a certificate issued under the terms and conditions of Rule 6A- 14.415, Florida Administrative Code. The pending Amended Petition for Revocation of Mr. Nelson's teaching certificate makes reference to the substantive basis for action as being found in Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code, and the due process requirements for such revocation or suspension of the Petitioner's teaching certificate are ostensibly found in Rule 6A-14.417, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner's attack on the rules in question falls into two broad categories. The first category concerns the procedural requirements for the adoption of the rules and the second category is a contention on the part of the petitioner that the rules, as adopted, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The rules were adopted under the requirements of the then Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The adoption took place on December 3, 1974 and the rules became effective and operative on December 19, 1974. The controlling requirements for such adoption and effect and operation may be found in the former Administrative Procedures Act in operation in December 1974. Specifically, those provisions were Section 120.031 and Section 120.041,Florida Statutes. The Respondent in this cause met all conditions for the adoption of rules in terms of procedural requirements set forth in the aforementioned sections of the former Administrative Procedures Act. This can be determined by an examination of the Respondent's Exhibit #1, admitted into evidence which is a certified copy from the State of Florida, Department of State, of the promulgation and adoption of the rules in question on December 3, 1974, and of the filing of the rules with the Department of State on December 10, 1974, to become effective on the next day, December 19, 1974. Moreover, the rules were adopted by a public hearing which was noticed through publication in four newspapers of general circulation in the State of Florida on dates 10 to 30 days before the public hearing of December 3, 1974. Copies of the advertisements used in giving the notice may be found as the Respondent's Composite Exhibit #2, admitted into evidence. In view of the fact that the rules were adopted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the former Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and were adopted by a public hearing properly noticed, it was not necessary to comply with the conditions of the new Administrative Procedures Act, Laws of Florida 1974, Chapter 74-310, which became effective January 1, 1975. In particular, this refers to the requirements set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and Section 120.72, Florida Statutes, pertaining to Laws of Florida 1974, Chapter 74-310, effective January 1, 1975. Therefore, the Petitioner's claim of procedural violations as a basis for overturning Rules 6A-14.416 and 6A-14.417, Florida Administrative Code, is not well founded. The remaining question is whether or not the rules on their face constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of the current Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Turning to a consideration of the Respondent's Exhibit 41, it can be seen that in adopting and promulgating 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code, the State Board of Education made reference to Section 230.755, Florida Statutes as their general statement of authority and to the fact that the law being implemented was Section 230.759, Florida Statutes. Those provisions use the following language: "Section 230.755, Minimum standards for community colleges.-- The state board shall prescribe minimum standards which must be met before a community college is organized, acquired or operated, and which will assure that the purposes of the community college are attained. * * * Section 230.759 Employment of community college personnel.-- Employment of all personnel in each community college shall be upon recommendation of the president, subject to rejection for cause by the board of trustees and subject to the rules and regulations of the state board relative to certification, tenure, leaves of absence of all types, including sabbaticals, remuneration, and such other conditions of employment as the division of community colleges deems necessary and proper; and to policies of the board of trustees not incon- sistent with law." Section 230.755, Florida Statutes, is a general statement establishing minimum standards for the organization, acquisition or operation of the various community colleges in the state. it does not create legislative authority for the relocation or suspension of the teaching certificates of those individuals who are employed in the community college system In the State of Florida. Section 230.759, Florida Statutes prescribes the method by which individuals may be hired by the community college. However, that provision is not sufficiently broad enough in its language to authorize procedures for the revocation or suspension of the teaching certificates of those personnel employed by the community college in the State of Florida. One other background item should be examined in discussing the authority for promulgating Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code. As was noted in the course of the hearing, the published accounts of Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code contains a reference to Section 229,053(1), Florida Statutes, which was not found in the rule as originally filed with the State of Florida, Department of State. Consequently, it may be argued that Section 229.053(1), Florida Statutes, may not be utilized in supporting the promulgation and adoption of rules 6A-14.416, Florida Statutes, because it was left out of the official Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code, filed with the Department of State. That provision, Section 229.053, Florida Statutes, reads as follows: Section 229.053 General powers of state board.-- The state board of education is the chief policy-making and coordinating body of public education in Florida. It has the general powers to determine, adopt or prescribe such policies, rules, regulations, or standards as are required by law or as it may find necessary for the improvement of the state system of public education. Except as otherwise provided herein it may, as it shall find appropriate, delegate its general powers to the commissioner of education or the directors of the divisions of the department. " Assuming for purposes of argument that Section 229.053(1), Florida Statutes may be properly attributed to Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code, as an attempted statement of authority for the exercise of the powers found in the subject rule, the provision Section 229.053(1), Florida Statutes, could not authorize the exercise of the powers found in that rule; which rule attempts to allow for the revocation or suspension of a teaching certificate held by a member of a staff of the community college in the State of Florida. Section 229.053(1), Florida Statutes is a general statement of the powers of the state board of education, only. No other provisions of Chapter 230, Florida Statutes, were offered in support of Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code. Nonetheless, a review of Part II of Chapter 230, Florida Statutes, dealing with community colleges, in existance at the time that the rule was adopted and promulgated, does not reveal any provision of that Part which would allow for the adoption of rules pertaining to penalties against the holders of certificates to teach in the community colleges of the State of Florida. Consequently, Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, and is invalid in its entirety. Rule 6A-14.417, Florida Administrative Code, is a due process statement of procedure to implement the provisions of Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code. Again, it has as its statement of authority found in the Respondent's Exhibit #1, admitted into evidence, the then existing provisions of Sections 230.755 and 230.759, Florida Statutes. That statement of authority is also found in the published compilation of rules made by the Department of State. For the reason that there exists no statement in Chapter 230, Florida Statutes, as it existed at the time that the Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code was promulgated, that allows penalties to be placed against the certificate held by the community college teachers, there is likewise no authority to establish procedures for undertaking a consideration of probable cause to revoke or suspend and the subsequent hearing on revocation or suspension. The rationale in reaching this opinion is the same as was utilized in the consideration of Rule 6A-14.416, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, Rule 6A-14.417, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes and the entire language of Rule 6A-14.417, Florida Administrative Code is invalid.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined because of Respondent's misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Background and parties Mr. Negedly holds Florida Educator's Certificate 836720, in English, which was valid through June 30, 2008. At all times pertinent, he was employed by the Volusia County School District as a language arts teacher at Heritage Middle School (Heritage). The Department of Education, which was headed by Petitioner at all times material to this case, is the state agency charged with investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida Educator's Certificates. The Education Practices Commission is charged with, among other things, imposing discipline on teachers. The Becker incidents During the 2004-2005 school year, Jami Lynn Becker was a consultation teacher at Heritage. A consultation teacher advises and otherwise aids teachers who have exceptional student education (ESE) pupils in their classes. She ensured that ESE students were provided the accommodations to which they were entitled. Mr. Negedly taught sixth-grade language arts at Heritage. There were three ESE students in his class. Ms. Becker's duties included visiting his class in order to provide services to those three students. On September 16, 2004, immediately before the commencement of classroom activities, Ms. Becker went to Mr. Negedly's room to inquire if he needed any help. During the conversation, Mr. Negedly mentioned that he and his wife had by happenstance seen Ms. Becker driving into New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Ms. Becker related that she was there to receive counseling regarding a recent divorce. Mr. Negedly moved the subject of the conversation to his own marriage and related that he was having problems and was sexually frustrated. He stated that he was having impure thoughts. He suggested that he was willing to engage in a physical relationship with Ms. Becker if she was willing. Ms. Becker was completely shocked by this conversation. Ms. Becker knew Mr. Negedly's wife, Joely Negedly, because she taught at Heritage also, and Ms. Becker suggested that he should direct his intimate conversations to his wife, not her. Mr. Negedly then revealed that he had the same feelings with another teacher, Jaqueline Brame, in the previous year. At that point in the conversation, the school bell rang, students entered the classroom, and Ms. Becker told Mr. Negedly that she would pray for him and then departed for her office. She also made it clear to him that she hoped that this type of conversation would not be repeated. However, that was not to be the case. About 45 minutes later, Mr. Negedly provided Ms. Becker with a note saying that he was sorry if what he said was too much, too fast, and that he hoped that he had provided her with some help. During the seventh period, which was Mr. Negedly's planning period, he came to Ms. Becker's office and renewed the conversations about his sexual frustration and stated that he didn't understand why God intended for man to be with one woman for his entire life. He asked Ms. Becker not to tell others about the conversations. On one or more occasions, Mr. Negedly came into Ms. Becker's office at the end of the school day and talked to her for as long as 45 minutes. Both his presence and his conversations during these times made her feel uncomfortable. Ms. Becker is a self-described non-confrontational person and could not bring herself to tell him to leave. These sort of encounters occurred about seven times over several weeks. Ms. Becker felt that the conversations he initiated were inappropriate. His words made her feel uncomfortable, and she felt that it was necessary for her to take evasive action in order to avoid him and therefore avoid repeat occurrences. She also honored his request not to reveal the nature of his conversations. At some point, Ms. Becker approached Ms. Brame, the person Mr. Negedly had identified as a previous target of his affections, and told Ms. Brame of her experiences. Ms. Brame related her experience with Mr. Negedly, and Ms. Becker ascertained that they were very similar. As a result, Ms. Becker resolved to inform higher authority. This plan was shelved, however, by the intervention of Hurricane Jeanne, which resulted in the suspension of school activities. On September 28, 2004, when school resumed, Mr. Negedly came into her office and after about 45 minutes Ms. Becker told him that his conversation was inappropriate. A few days after that, Ms. Becker reported these events to Mrs. Gunderson, who was an assistant principal and supervisor of ESE. All of these encounters occurred on school grounds. However, there was no evidence that any student observed or heard Mr. Negedly's suggestions. Mr. Negedly never touched Ms. Becker, threatened her person, or used sexually explicit language. His actions disturbed her to the extent that her ability to teach was affected. However, her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board was not seriously compromised. The Brame incidents Jacqueline Brame is currently a teacher at River Springs Middle School in the Volusia County School District and was a teacher at Heritage during all times pertinent to this proceeding. Ms. Brame was Mr. Negedly's mentor when he began teaching at Heritage and worked with him on a sixth-grade team of teachers providing education to the same 150 children. By the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year, Ms. Brame, Mr. Negedly, and Joely Negedly had become close friends. They mingled socially and would visit one another in their homes. Ms. Brame confided in Mr. Negedly, and Ms. Brame described their relationship as "best friends." Ms. Brame was having marital problems, and she shared intimate details about this with Mr. Negedly. She valued his advice and respected his opinions about her problems. After the 2003-2004 school year commenced, Mr. Negedly attempted to move the relationship into a romantic one. He told her that he cared for her deeply and that he was in love with her. These comments made Ms. Brame uncomfortable. She reminded Mr. Negedly that he was married, that she, Ms. Brame, was Mrs. Negedly's friend, and that his son was in her class. This conversation occurred in school, during the school day. He told Ms. Brame that he wanted to have a physical relationship with her. This continued even when Ms. Brame was seven months pregnant. After each advance and rebuff, Mr. Negedly would apologize. His pursuit continued for almost a year. On numerous occasions she would tell him that his advances were unwelcome and inappropriate. Ms. Brame, like Ms. Becker, described herself as someone who did not like confrontation, and she did not firmly tell him that his behavior was unacceptable. Once when Ms. Brame had temporarily abandoned her marital home as the result of a domestic dispute, Mr. Negedly invited her to stay at his home. Ms. Negedly was out of the area at this time because of her duties as a consultant for the college boards, but their children were present in the home. Ms. Brame refused. However, she did not take the invitation to be an invitation for sex. She said that had Ms. Negedly not been away during this time, she might have accepted the invitation. Mr. Negedly's pursuit made Ms. Brame uncomfortable and occasionally sick to her stomach. It adversely affected her emotions and affected her teaching. The events happened in school, in the school cafeteria, and after school, but in connection with school activities. As a result of his unwelcome overtures she had to attend counseling. However, her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board was not seriously reduced or compromised. Eventually Ms. Brame restructured their relationship. She transformed it into a professional friendship and maintained this status through the 2003-2004 school year. At no time during these encounters did Mr. Negedly touch Ms. Brame inappropriately or use sexually explicit language. Most if not all of the encounters occurred on school grounds or in connection with school activities. However, there was no evidence that any student observed or heard Mr. Negedly's overtures. Ms. Brame did not tell anyone in authority about Mr. Negedly's behavior. She cared deeply for Mr. Negedly and his family. She believed remaining silent was her Christian duty. She stated during the hearing that she does not believe he should be removed from the teaching profession. Ms. Brame's allegations surfaced during the investigation into Mr. Negedly's conduct that resulted from Ms. Becker's allegations. The Hepsworth incidents Ms. Kuuleialoha Hepsworth was a teacher's assistant at Heritage during the first semester of 2004. She was in charge of the "lunch club." This informal organization provided lunches to teachers who desired to have their lunch prepared by commercial providers. Ms. Hepsworth would collect money from participating teachers, acquire the food at nearby restaurants, and deliver them to those who had placed orders with her. Once when Mr. Negedly handed her money to be used for purchasing lunch, she claimed he inappropriately brushed the bottom of her hand. Mr. Negedly was the sponsor for the school yearbook and in connection with that duty, he was taking pictures of children in a seventh-period classroom Ms. Hepsworth was teaching. Ms. Hepsworth testified that he said that he was intrigued with her and that "he wanted to pursue her." She said she asked him, "What about your wife?" She said he then asked her if "I would do his wife too, because that would be too cool." Ms. Hepsworth claimed that she was "freaked out." She related that this latter incident occurred on the Friday before Mr. Negedly was removed from the school because of the Becker allegations. She was asked on October 28, 2004, to give a statement to an investigator and that is when she revealed her alleged encounters. The alleged behavior of Mr. Negedly as related by Ms. Hepsworth was so dissimilar to the events related by Ms. Becker and Ms. Brame that it is deemed unworthy of belief. Mr. Negedly Mr. Negedly's targets were women who did not like confrontation and who sought unsuccessfully to communicate their discomfort passively. Had they been confrontational with him, or if they had reported his behavior to higher authority immediately, the behavior could have been corrected locally, and the downward spiral of unpleasantness which has resulted, could have been avoided. On the other hand, these two women may have been selected as targets because of Mr. Negedly's perception that they were unlikely to either harshly react to his overtures or immediately report him to those in authority. Mr. Negedly's certificate expired June 30, 2008. He was employed as a teacher from the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year until the latter part of the school year 2005-2006. Mr. Negedly received a certificate of appreciation for his outstanding dedication to education from the assistant principal of Heritage, on May 7, 2002. All of his performance assessments indicated that he met standards, and he had no disciplinary record prior to the discipline at issue in this case. As previously noted, he was given the additional duty of yearbook sponsor at Heritage. He was also made sponsor of the Junior Beta Club. Heritage Principal Dennis Neal wrote a recommendation dated May 7, 2004, when Mr. Negedly applied for a Stetson University Teacher Scholar Grant that related, "Mr. Negedly continues to demonstrate high professional standards and a dedication to his students' success both in and out of the classroom. He is a valuable team player who can be counted on to go above the norm in all his endeavors. I commend Mr. Negedly on taking on the challenge of an advanced degree and professional growth." When Mr. Negedly was teaching English at David Hinson Middle School, he was chosen teacher of the month for October 2005 by students and teachers. Subsequent to the exposure of Mr. Negedly's transgressions, he attended counseling with his wife at Associated Psychiatric Services in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. As late as April 13, 2005, counseling continued. The counseling was ordered and paid for by the Volusia School District. In January 2005, the school board punished Mr. Negedly by suspending him for five days without pay. As a result of Mr. Negedly's lack of judgment, he was taken from his classroom at Heritage and transferred to the district headquarters; his wife had to obtain a transfer to another school; Mrs. Negedly and her child were the subject of incorrect and hurtful conversations by students, faculty, and others; and Mr. Negedly, who sincerely loved teaching, lost his career.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 4th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joan Stewart, Esquire FEA Legal Services 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-14.0411 (“challenged rule”) is an “invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority” for the reasons alleged in the Amended Petition to Invalidate Rule (“Amended Petition”) filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties agreed to the following findings of facts in the Prehearing Stipulation: Petitioner, United Faculty of Florida, is structurally a voluntary, unincorporated association. The UFF is the registered employee organization under section 447.305, and is the certified collective bargaining agent under section 447.307, for several bargaining units of public employees employed by the college district boards of trustees regulated by the challenged rule. UFF is legally obligated to represent the members of these bargaining units with respect to the determination of their wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment pursuant to section 447.309(1). The State Board is the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida, and is required to focus on high-level policy decisions. The State Board has the authority to adopt rules to implement the provisions of law conferring duties upon it for the improvement of the state system to the extent compliant with the rulemaking authority standards set forth in the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. The Florida College System comprises the Florida College institutions, which are each governed by a local Board of Trustees. Each Board of Trustees is responsible for cost- effective policy decisions appropriate to the Florida College System institution?s mission, and the implementation of high- quality education programs within law and the rules of the State Board. Each Board of Trustees may adopt rules to supplement those prescribed by the State Board, and is specifically authorized to adopt rules and policies related to governance, personnel, conditions of employment, recruitment and selection, standards for performance and conduct, evaluation, promotion, assignment, demotion, and transfer, subject to the rulemaking authority standards set forth in the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. A “continuing contract” is a contract between a Florida college and a member of the college?s faculty which entitles the faculty member to continue in his or her respective full-time faculty position at the college without the necessity for annual nomination or reappointment. A faculty member who does not have a continuing contract has no assurance that he or she will be employed by the college in the next academic year. A continuing contract is similar to tenure, and is viewed by some as a form of tenure. A predecessor of the continuing contract rule has existed since at least 1979. The 1979 edition of the rule was amended in 2004; and the 2004 edition was not changed until April 23, 2013. There were no changes to Florida Statutes enacted since the adoption of the 2004 edition of the rule which mandated an increase from three to five years of satisfactory service for college instructors to qualify for a continuing contract; mandate that colleges develop criteria to measure students? success; mandate the creation of full-time college faculty positions that are not eligible for continuing-contract status; or mention the creation of full-time college faculty positions that are not eligible for continuing contract status. On April 27, 2012, the State Board published a Notice of Development of Rulemaking for the Rule, which scheduled a rule development workshop for June 5, 2012. The Notice stated that, “[t]he purpose of this rule development is to review the current process of issuing contracts to determine necessary changes. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes.” On August 17, 2012, the State Board published a second Notice of Development of Rulemaking for the Rule. The second Notice stated, “[t]he purpose and effect of the rule change is to update the current process of issuing continuing contracts. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes.” The Notice scheduled a rule-development workshop for August 31, 2012, but that workshop was cancelled. On November 13, 2012, the State Board published a third Notice of Development of Rulemaking, which included proposed language to amend the Rule. The third Notice stated: “[t]he purpose and effect of the rule change is to update the current process of issuing continuing contracts. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes.” The State board held a rule-development workshop on November 29, 2012, at Seminole State College of Florida. On February 21, 2013, the State Board published a Notice of Proposed Rule to amend the Rule. The “Purpose and effect” section of Notice stated: The purpose of the rule development is to revise the current process and criteria for issuing continuing contracts. In addition, criteria for post-award performance reviews are added, and grounds for termination of continuing contracts are revised to include failure to meet the post-award performance criteria. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes. The 2004 version of the rule did not have to be changed in 2013 in order to be aligned with any particular statute(s). The State Board held a rule adoption hearing on March 19, 2013, in Tallahassee, Florida. At the March 19, 2013, State Board meeting, the State Board unanimously adopted the proposed amendments to the Rule. The amended version of the rule became effective on April 23, 2013.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is therefore ORDERED THAT: The Petition filed by Petitioner pursuant to section 120.56(3) seeking an administrative determination that Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-14.0411 is an “invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority,” as defined in section 120.52(8) is hereby DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2013.
