STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RICHARD GLASS, )
vs. ) Case No. 98-2079FE
EILEEN MORAN, )
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Administrative Law Judge, Carolyn S. Holifield, held a formal hearing by videoconference on October 12 and 13, 1998, between Tallahassee and Miami, Florida. The parties, their counsel, witnesses, and the court reporter participated from Miami, Florida; the judge presided from Tallahassee, Florida.
For Petitioner: Charles R. Rowe, Esquire
1310 North Krome Avenue
Homestead, Florida 33030
For Respondent: Charles G. White, Esquire
2250 Southwest Third Avenue
Miami, Florida 33129
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs against Respondent and, if so, in what amount.
On or about August 7, 1996, Respondent, Eileen Moran, filed a complaint (Complaint) with the State of Florida, Commission on Ethics (Ethics Commission) against Petitioner, Richard Glass. Respondent filed amendments to the Complaint on November 1, 1996, and on May 19, 1997. The matters alleged in the Complaint and the amendments thereto were investigated. On January 27, 1998, the Ethics Commission issued a Public Report which found no probable cause to believe that Petitioner violated the Code of Ethics for Public Employees and Officers (Code of Ethics) and dismissed the Complaint as amended. On February 26, 1998, Petitioner filed a Petition for Costs and Attorney's Fees.
On or about April 29, 1998, the Ethics Commission forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the hearing and prepare a recommended order. A Notice of Hearing issued
June 12, 1998, set the final hearing for July 22, 1998. Subsequently, two unopposed motions by Respondent to continue the hearing were granted. Thereafter, the final hearing was conducted as noticed in the Notice of Hearing issued on September 10, 1998.
On September 24, 1998, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. At commencement of the final hearing, argument was heard on the Motion to Dismiss. A ruling on the Motion was reserved but is addressed below in this recommended order.
Prior to the final hearing, the parties stipulated to facts which were admitted and required no proof. At the hearing, Petitioner called eight witnesses: Respondent, Eileen Moran; Wayne Maxwell; Leroy Williams, Richard Glass; Jose Abreu; John Martinez; Paul Palmer; and Gus Pego. Petitioner had twenty exhibits received into evidence. Respondent testified on her own
behalf and called two witnesses, Jose Abreu and Maria Lopez. Respondent had one exhibit received into evidence.
On October 23, 1998, Petitioner, with the agreement of Respondent, requested an extension of time in which to file proposed recommended orders. The motion was granted and, thereafter, both parties filed proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Respondent also submitted written closing argument. The proceeding was recorded and transcript of the first and second day of the hearing were filed on November 23, 1998, and December 24, 1998, respectively, after post-hearing submittals were filed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In July 1995, Petitioner, Richard Glass, resigned as the Right-of-Way Administrator for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), District VI, in Miami, Florida. He immediately opened his own consulting firm called, Glass Land Acquisition Service Specialists, Inc. (Glass Acquisition, Inc.) and employed his mother, Josephine Glass, as a principal in the company.
2. In February or March 1996, FDOT awarded Glass Acquisition, Inc., a professional services contract (Contract), under which Petitioner's company would provide services related to the acquisition of property for FDOT. The Contract was executed in June 1996. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Glass Acquisition, Inc., would be assigned projects as they became available and at the discretion of FDOT, and up to a value of $500,000.00 without the necessity of any further bidding. Among the unsuccessful competitors for this contract were Kaiser Real Estate Services and Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc.
3. Bids or proposals submitted by competing consultants for the Contract were first reviewed by FDOT's technical review committee. Richard Lineberger was a member of that committee which reviewed the bids or proposals submitted by Glass Acquisition, Inc., Kaiser Real Estate Services, and Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. At the time that Lineberger served on the technical review committee, he was living with Martha Budney, but they were not married.
4. At the time the aforementioned bids or proposals were being reviewed and considered by FDOT, Martha Budney was a real estate appraiser who shared office space with Glass Acquisition, Inc. Ms. Budney was not associated with Glass Acquisition, Inc. However, Ms. Budney owned her own company and Richard Glass was a vice-president of Ms. Budney's company.
5. When the final decision at FDOT on the Contract award was made, Gus Pego was employed by FDOT as Director of Operations.
6. When the FDOT was reviewing bids or proposals relevant to the Contract, Gus Pego's brother was married to Richard Glass' sister.
7. During the first half of 1996, Richard Glass was hired by the Turnberry Group to represent them in negotiations with FDOT for the acquisition of certain properties. These negotiations required the services of an appraiser. Martha Budney was the appraiser selected or hired to represent the property owners. For providing these appraisal services, Ms. Budney was paid by FDOT. During these negotiations, Ms. Budney and Petitioner shared office space. Richard Lineberger represented FDOT in the negotiations between the Turnberry Group and FDOT. While these negotiations were taking place, Ms. Budney and Mr. Lineberger were living together.
8. In light of Petitioner's recent employment with the FDOT, the professional relationship of Petitioner and Ms. Budney, the personal relationship of Ms. Budney and Mr. Lineberger, and the "in-law" relationship between Gus Pego and Petitioner, some former and current FDOT employees were concerned that the Contract award to Glass Acquisition, Inc., was improper. They believed that these various relationships created a conflict of interest.
9. In July 1996, after the Contract was awarded to Glass Acquisition, Inc., Jackie Yanks Gonzalez, a former FDOT employee and an employee of Kaiser Real Estate Services, contacted Maria Lopez, an acquisitions agent for FDOT who was working on the Turnberry Group Project. Ms. Gonzalez told Ms. Lopez that her employer was concerned because of the appearance of nepotism in the award of the $500,000.00 Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc.
10. Moreover, after the Contract was awarded, an anonymous telephone call was made to FDOT to complain about the Contract award. An inquiry into the matter by the FDOT in Tallahassee, Florida concluded that there was no impropriety in the awarding of the Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc.
11. Notwithstanding the finding of the FDOT that there was no impropriety in the awarding of the Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc., several individuals, both former and current FDOT employees (the Group) remained concerned that the award of the Contract was improper. Although some of these individuals, particularly current FDOT employees, believed or suspected that there was some impropriety in the Contract award, they declined to press forward with the matter for fear of retaliation.
12. One member of the Group, Maria Lopez, eventually became acquainted with Respondent, Eileen Moran. At that time and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an investigator with the Real Estate Section of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). Prior to Respondent's employment with DBPR, she had been employed by the FDOT. Respondent's employment with the FDOT terminated in March 1992, after she was fired. Subsequently, Respondent filed a civil action in federal court against FDOT. Respondent prevailed in that matter.
13. Ms. Lopez and other members of the Group approached Respondent for assistance in filing complaints with the Ethics Commission against several former and current FDOT employees. Ms. Lopez provided Respondent with information Lopez thought was relevant to the Group's belief that the Contract award to Glass Acquisition, Inc., was improper. At the time Ms. Lopez provided this information to Respondent, Ms. Lopez believed it was true, either based on her personal knowledge of its truth or on her belief that she obtained the information from reliable sources. That information included:
(a) That Richard Lineberger was living with Martha Budney.
(b) That Martha Budney was sharing office space with Richard Glass.
(c) That Petitioner was an officer in Martha Budney's corporation.
(d) That Petitioner had hired Martha Budney to do appraisal work with the Turnberry Group.
(e) That Richard Lineberger was representing FDOT in the Turnberry Group negotiation process.
(f) That Gus Pego was an "in-law" of Richard Glass.
(g) That Gus Pego's "in-law" relationship with Petitioner made Petitioner's mother, Josephine Glass, Gus Pego's mother-in-law. (Respondent interpreted the "in-law" relationship between Gus Pego and Petitioner as meaning Gus Pego was married to Glass' sister.)
(h) That Petitioner was asked by Jose Abreu to resign from FDOT because of his actions in spreading a rumor about an alleged affair between Mr. Abreu and Ms. Lopez.
14. Relying upon the above information provided by Maria Lopez and others, Respondent drafted and sent a letter to Bonnie Williams, the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, requesting an investigation into these alleged conflicts of interest and nepotism. In the process, she repeated the above representations of fact made by Maria Lopez and others in the Group.
15. In the letter dated July 31, 1996, to Ms. Williams, Respondent specifically requested that the Ethics Commission investigate the Contract award by FDOT to Glass Acquisition, Inc. Respondent noted that Richard Glass was formerly employed by FDOT as District Right-of-Way Administrator, but had been asked to resign from that position in July 1995. Respondent's letter stated that she was a former FDOT employee, having left FDOT in March 1992. According to Respondent's letter, "It is my understanding from individuals who were also employed by FDOT at the time that Petitioner was asked to resign due to malfeasance." Moreover, in the letter, Respondent stated that she believed the Contract was wrongfully awarded to Richard Glass and such award was in violation of Sections 112.3135, 112.3185(6), Florida Statutes.
16. Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes, addresses the employment of relatives by public agencies; Section 112.3185(6), Florida Statutes, prohibits agency employees from procuring contractual services for his agency from any business entity of which a relative is an officer, partner, director or proprietor or in which such officer or employee or his or her spouse or child, or any combination of them, has a material interest.
17. Respondent's letter to the Ethics Commission stated that her allegation that the Contract had been wrongfully awarded to Glass was based on the following facts:
(a) The principals of Glass Land Acquisition Service Specialist, Inc., include Richard Glass and his mother Josephine Glass. They employ Martha Budney, who was also formerly employed by FDOT at District VI in Miami.
(b) Richard Lineberger, who was employed by FDOT as Deputy Right-of-Way Administrator, sat on the Selection Committee which evaluated on which submitted bids on this contract. Mr. Lineberger has been romantically involved with Martha Budney for quite some time.
(c) Gustavo Pego, who is currently employed by FDOT as Director of Operations, awarded this contract to Glass Land Acquisition Service Specialist, Inc. Mr. Pego is married to Richard Glass' sister. Richard Glass is his brother-in-law and Josephine Glass is his mother-in-law.
18. Respondent sent copies of the original Complaint regarding Richard Glass to Kaiser Real Estate Services; Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; and, Sandra Gonzalez Levy, an Ethics Commissioner. The reason Eileen Moran provided copies to the aforementioned firms was that she considered them "interested parties." At the time Respondent sent the letters to Kaiser Real Estate Services and Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., she was unaware that the Complaint was confidential.
19. After receiving Respondent's letter, the Ethics Commission propounded seven written questions to Eileen Moran requesting more details about the various allegations involving Petitioner. Respondent answered each question as best she knew and based on information provided to her by Maria Lopez and others in the Group.
20. Three of the seven questions propounded to Respondent by the Ethics Commission involved the issue of nepotism. These questions asked whether any of Richard Glass' relatives had been appointed, hired, promoted, and advanced at FDOT during the time Petitioner worked there; if such appointments, hires, promotions or advancements occurred, whether Petitioner had the authority to make such hires or promotions and whether Glass actually appointed, hired, promoted or advanced his relatives; and, if Glass had no such authority, did he have the authority to recommend such appointment, hiring, promotion, or advancement of his relatives and, if so, did he exercise the "recommending authority" in regard to his relatives.
21. In a letter to the Ethics Commission dated October 21, 1996, Respondent answered the questions described in paragraph 20 above. In her response, Respondent indicated that both Linda Glass, Richard's sister, and Jean Polacek, Richard's mother-in-law, were promoted during his tenure at FDOT and that Richard Glass did not have the direct authority to promote these relatives, but was in a position to recommend that these relatives be promoted. Respondent wrote that, "The individual providing this information believes that [Petitioner] recommended these promotions, but did not observe him making said recommendation."
22. Wayne Maxwell was authorized to investigate the allegations in the Complaint on behalf of the Ethics Commission. Mr. Maxwell considered the issue relating to the conditions of Richard Glass' termination from FDOT to be irrelevant to his inquiry and made no inquiries on this issue.
23. During the course of the Ethics Commission investigation, Wayne Maxwell determined that it was Gus Pego's brother, not Gus Pego, who was married to Richard Glass' sister.
24. Wayne Maxwell was told by FDOT management that the $500,000.00 Contract had not been in existence at the time that Richard Glass was the Right-of-Way Administrator at FDOT, District VI. Moreover, it was found that Mr. Glass had not been involved in the development of the Contract during his employment with FDOT.
25. Wayne Maxwell found no conflict of interest or violations of the anti-nepotism law because none of the relationships between Gus Pego, Richard Glass, Richard Lineberger, and Martha Budney qualified as "relatives" under Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes.
26. Wayne Maxwell incorporated his factual findings in a report, which was forwarded to the Advocate. Based on these findings, the Commission's Advocate recommended that there was no probable cause to support any of the allegations brought by Respondent. This recommendation was accepted by the Ethics Commission.
27. The Ethics Commission did not find conflicts of interest between Richard Glass, Gus Pego, Richard Lineberger, and Martha Budney in the award of the $500,000.00 Contract or the negotiations with the Turnberry Group.
28. Mr. Glass contends that Respondent's Complaint contained the following four false statements: (1) Mr. Glass had been asked to resign for malfeasance; (2) Mr. Glass promoted or aided in the promotion of his sister, Susan Glass; (3) Mr. Glass' sister was married to Gus Pego, an FDOT employee; and, (4) Josephine Glass, Richard Glass' mother, was the mother-in-law of Gus Pego. Petitioner does not challenge the Respondent's statement that Gus Pego awarded this Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc.
29. All of the statements in paragraph (28) above, alleged to be false, were, in fact, found to be incorrect. With regard to the circumstances of Petitioner's leaving his employment with FDOT, there is no evidence that Petitioner was forced to resign for malfeasance. Rather, Petitioner's official personnel file reflects a positive employment record and excellent ratings during his twelve-year tenure with FDOT. Neither Ms. Lopez nor Respondent ever reviewed Mr. Glass' personnel file. However, based on Ms. Lopez's personal conversations with FDOT, Mr. Abreu and others, and a confidential memo written to Ms. Lopez, she believed that Petitioner had been forced to resign because of malfeasance. Ms. Lopez conveyed this belief to Respondent, who in turn, included this information in her letter to the Ethics Commission. However, in reporting this information in her Complaint, Respondent stated that she was not employed at FDOT when Petitioner resigned and that she obtained this information from other individuals.
30. Next, although it was established that Mr. Glass' sister was employed by FDOT, it was determined that her name was Linda Glass, not Susan Glass as Respondent had stated in her Complaint. More significantly, the investigation revealed that while Linda Glass had been promoted while at FDOT, Richard Glass had not advocated her for such promotions.
31. The other statements in Respondent's Complaint, alleged to be false relate to the in-law relationship between Petitioner and Gus Pego. In the Complaint, it was alleged that Josephine Glass was Gus Pego's mother-in-law by virtue of his being married to Richard Glass' sister. The Ethics Commission's investigation revealed that this was not the case. Instead it was Gus Pego's brother who was married to Richard Glass' sister. Thus, Josephine Glass was not Gus Pego's mother-in-law. Nonetheless, there was, in fact, a remote "in-law" relationship between the individuals.
32. Respondent believed that the existence of any familial relationship created a potential conflict of interest in the awarding of the Contract. On the contrary, the investigator for the Ethics Commission viewed these relationships as too remote to consider them relatives under the applicable law.
33. While each of the statements in paragraph 28 above and contained in Respondent's Complaint were determined to be incorrect, the statements were not known to be incorrect or false when made by Respondent. Rather, the statements were made in reliance on information conveyed to Respondent by Ms. Lopez and others whom Respondent deemed to be reliable.
34. Petitioner consulted with Charles Rowe, an attorney, at his office shortly after receiving the Complaint and the amendments thereto. During this consultation, Mr. Rowe recommended that Respondent represent himself. Petitioner took Mr. Rowe's advice and during all proceedings before the Ethics Commission, Petitioner appeared pro se. No attorney filed an appearance to defend Petitioner nor did any attorney contact Wayne Maxwell or any other member of the staff of the Ethics Commission involved in the investigation in order to discuss testimony, evidence, witnesses or legal issues raised during the investigation.
35. However, Petitioner and Mr. Rowe collaborated on a letter that Petitioner planned to send to Kaiser Real Estate Services and Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., regarding Respondent's July 31, 1996, letter to the Ethics Commission. Petitioner later decided not to send the letter. Moreover, although Petitioner was representing himself in this matter, he consulted with Mr. Rowe before each meeting with Wayne Maxwell and in regard to the hearing in Tallahassee, Florida, before the Ethics Commission.
36. Sometime after the determination by the Ethics Commission that no probable cause existed based upon its investigation of Eileen Moran's complaints, Mr. Rowe presented Petitioner with a bill for $700.00 for legal services rendered. Richard Glass has never paid this bill.
37. Richard Glass attended the January 22, 1998, Ethics Commission meeting in Tallahassee, Florida, which considered the Advocate's recommendation of no probable cause. Although he had been invited to attend prior to going to the meeting, Petitioner knew that a no probable cause recommendation would be made before the Ethics Commission.
38. Nonetheless, Petitioner attended the meeting and in doing so, incurred the following costs: $240.00 for an airline ticket to Tallahassee; $12.50 for parking; $38.68 for a rental car; and, $10.49 for lunch.
39. Mr. Glass testified that he had expended sixty-five hours of his own time to defend this matter and stated that he is entitled to be paid $83.07 per hour, his current hourly rate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
40. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
41. Pertinent to this proceeding are Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 34-5.0291, Florida Administrative Code. Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
In any case in which the commission determines that a person has filed a complaint against a public officer or employee with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of such officer or employee by filing the complaint with knowledge that the complaint contains one or more false allegations or with reckless disregard for whether the complaint contains false allegations of fact material to a violation of this part, the complainant shall be liable for costs plus reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the defense of the person complained against, including the costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in proving entitlement to and the amount of costs and fees. . . .
42. Rule 34-5.0291(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides:
(1) If the Commission determines that a person has filed a complaint against a public officer or employee with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of such officer or employee by filing the complaint with knowledge that the complaint contains one or more false allegations or with reckless disregard for whether the complaint contains false allegations of fact material to a violation of the Code of Ethics, the complainant shall be liable for costs plus reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the defense of the person complained against.
43. According to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 34-5.0291, Florida Administrative Code, the award of attorney's fees requires that the Petitioner show that the Complaint was filed with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of such officers or employees with knowledge that the Complaint contains one or more false allegations or with reckless disregard for whether the Complaint contains false allegations of fact material to a violation of the Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (Code of Ethics).
44. In this proceeding, Petitioner has the burden of proving the grounds for an award of costs and attorney's fees by a preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing. Rule 34-5.0291(4), Florida Administrative Code.
45. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof in the case.
46. Notwithstanding Petitioner's assertions to the contrary, the evidence did not establish that Respondent filed the Complaint against Petitioner to injure his reputation by filing the Complaint with knowledge that the Complaint contained one or more false allegations or with reckless disregard for whether the Complaint contained false allegations material to a violation of the Code of Ethics.
47. Here, Respondent filed the Complaint based on perceptions or appearances of impropriety in the award of the Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc. The allegations contained in the Complaint were conveyed to Respondent by individuals employed at FDOT who believed that the award was improper and in violation of anti-nepotism laws.
48. The Ethics Commission determined the Complaint to be legally sufficient and assigned an investigator. Following the investigation, the Ethics Commission concluded that there was no probable cause found that Petitioner had violated the Code of Ethics. However, that finding in and of itself does not demonstrate that the Complaint was filed with knowledge that the allegations were false or with reckless disregard for whether the Complaint contained false allegations of material fact to a violation of the Code of Ethics.
49. In the instant case, it is significant that the allegations in the Complaint were based on information Respondent received from individuals she thought to be reliable. Most of these individuals were current FDOT employees who feared retaliation if they actually filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission.
50. One statement in the Complaint found to be inaccurate was that Petitioner had been asked to resign from FDOT for malfeasance. However, the statement regarding the circumstances under which Petitioner left FDOT were deemed by the investigator to be irrelevant to the Complaint. Furthermore, even if relevant, the evidence does not establish that Respondent made these statements with the knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were false. Again, in making this statement, Respondent relied on information conveyed to her by others and indicated such reliance in her letter of complaint.
51. The evidence established that the Ethics Commission determined that certain factual allegations, alleged herein to be false, were inaccurate. For example, while there was an "in-law" relationship between Gus Pego and Richard Glass, the investigator found that it was Gus Pego's brother, not Gus Pego, who was married to Richard Glass' sister. Thus, Josephine Glass, Petitioner's mother, was not Gus Pego's mother-in-law.
52. Although the investigation found no conflict of interest or violation of the anti-nepotism law, Petitioner failed to establish that much of the information conveyed to Respondent was inaccurate.
53. For example, it was found that Martha Budney lived with and was the girlfriend of Richard Lineberger; that Petitioner and Martha Budney shared office space; and, that Petitioner was an officer in Ms. Budney's company. Moreover, it was undisputed that Richard Lineberger was on a committee that considered Petitioner's bid and that Gus Pego was involved in awarding the Contract. Finally, the investigator determined that there was a family relationship between Gus Pego and Petitioner, though not the precise one articulated in the Complaint.
54. Based on the facts as they understood and thought them to be, Respondent and others reasonably believed that a conflict of interest may have existed and that the Contract award to Glass Acquisition, Inc., was improper.
55. In the instant case, Petitioner has failed to establish that the Complaint was filed against him with a malicious intent to injure his reputation by filing the Complaint with knowledge that the Complaint contained one of more false allegations or with reckless disregard for whether the Complaint contained false allegations of fact material to a violation of the Code of Ethics. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs in this case.
56. Petitioner has not met the threshold requirements for an award of attorney's fees and costs. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address the array of issues raised by Petitioner regarding his entitlement to fees and costs for work he personally did on the case, as well as attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of Petitioner's consulting with an attorney who never represented him in defense of the underlying Complaint.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent, Eileen Moran, is not liable for attorney's fees and costs and dismissing the Petition for Attorney's Fees.
DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD
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
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this 4th day of January, 1999.
Charles R. Rowe, Esquire
1310 North Krome Avenue
Homestead, Florida 33030
Charles G. White, Esquire
2250 Southwest Third Avenue
Miami, Florida 33129
Eric Scott, Esquire
Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol, Plaza Level 01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Phil Claypool, General Counsel
Commission on Ethics
2822 Remington Green Circle
Post Office Drawer 15709
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Kerrie Stillman, Complaint Coordinator
Commission on Ethics
2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101
Post Office Box 15709
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.