IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH
REPORTABLE
CASE NO: P131/2003
DATE HEARD: 22/3/2005
DATE DELIVERED: 23/3/2005
In the matter between
THANDIWE CYNTHIA STOKWE APPLICANT
and
THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 1ST RESPONDENT
MR D JACOBS 2ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY
THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE PILLAY
PILLAY D, J
[1] The applicant applied for promotion to the post of principal at
Despatch Primary School on 8 March 2001. She was interviewed
by the Interviewing Committee (IC) in terms of paragraph 3.3 of
Chapter "B" of the Personnel Administration Measures ("PAM").
She and D Jacobs, the second respondent, were two of the four
candidates who were interviewed. The applicant and the second
respondent scored equally during the interview. As there was a tie,
the chairperson of the IC, Mr Wannies, urged the members to make
a final choice. He adjourned the meeting so that the IC could
consider its decision. During the adjournment the record of each
candidate in relation to their previous interest in the community was
considered as the involvement of the community in the shortlisting
process was very important.
[2] Mr Wannies testified that the applicant was better qualified in
psychology than the second respondent. This resulted in the
1
applicant being preferred by the IC over the second respondent.
The IC ranked the applicant first, the second respondent second
and the acting principal, Mr Mattrass, third and forwarded the list to
the School Governing Body (SGB) for it to make a recommendation
in terms of paragraph 3.3(i) of Chapter B of the PAM to the first
respondent. The SGB, which is established in terms of section
16(1) of the South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996, (SASA)
included the members of the IC. It held an emergency meeting on
23 April 2001 to consider the preference list.
[3] Mr Wannies, the sole witness for the respondent, conceded that a
delay of six weeks from 8 March 2001, when the IC submitted its
list to the date when the SGB made a recommendation, was
unusual. From Mr Wannies's evidence it emerged that during those
six weeks the SGB had great difficulty in convening. The teacher
representative on the IC disclosed to other staff that the applicant
was the preferred candidate. The staff were opposed to her
appointment. They preferred Mr Mattrass. The teachers staged a
boycott of the SGB meeting. A meeting was held with parents to
galvanise support to resist the recommendation of the applicant for
the post.
[4] On seeing that the applicant bore an African name, members of the
SGB raised their own concern about her ability to speak Afrikaans.
According to Mr Wannies, he allayed their fears in this regard.
[5] The reason the SGB changed the preference order so that the
applicant ranked second and the second respondent was placed
first was allegedly because a "handson" person was better suited
to the needs of the position than one who was more qualified in
psychology.
[6] This reason does not appear anywhere in the minutes of the SGB's
meeting of 23 April 2001. Contrary to Mr Wannies's evidence, the
meeting of 23 April 2001. Contrary to Mr Wannies's evidence, the
minutes recorded that the motivation for the change was the
language question ("taalkwessie").
[7] The applicant in the meantime waited to be informed about the
outcome of the application for promotion. About June 2001, she
called the school and learnt that there was a problem with the filling
of the post. She was directed to the Department. She eventually
spoke to Mr Kani, the district manager. In the meantime, Mr Kani
had written to the Acting Regional Director recording his rejection of
the recommendation of the second respondent as it amounted to
discrimination based on language.
[8] Mr Ngamlana, an education development officer (EDO) employed
by the Department informed the applicant that an independent
panel had been established to review the recommendation of the
SGB. The applicant was by this stage desperate. Her workplace at
the time was in Patensie and her home was in Magxaki, a distance
of some 35 kilometres from each other, connected by gravel and
unserviced roads. She had two young daughters to return home to
every day. When she was invited to an interview by the review
panel she reluctantly acquiesced simply to expedite the
appointment process. She was also assured that the panel would
be independent of the Department and the SGB. The interview
itself, she was told, would deal with ways of addressing the specific
problems of a school which had been without a principal for a long
time.
[9] The SGB on the other hand initially agreed to support the
establishment of the review panel. However, on further
consideration, it withdrew its support as it realised that there was no
statutory basis for such a procedure.
[10] The review panel interviewed the applicant on 7 August 2001. The
panel consisted of three White male Afrikaans speaking principals
from other primary schools around the area. They were J C Nortier,
A F Vosloo and J H Bester. The panel may have been sufficiently
independent of the Department in the sense that they were
institution and not office based educators. It may also have been
independent of the SGB for Despatch Primary School as the
panellists did not serve on that structure. However, as the interview
progressed it became clear that the panel was far from impartial.
progressed it became clear that the panel was far from impartial.
[11] From the outset, the panellists fostered a tense and hostile
atmosphere by insisting that the interview proceed in Afrikaans. The
applicant refused to speak Afrikaans. She maintained that it was
her constitutional right to conduct the interview in one of the official
languages. She could choose to speak in Xhosa if she wanted to,
but in order to meet the panellists halfway, she had agreed to speak
in English. She was asked to translate "continuous evaluation" into
Afrikaans. She refused to do so pointing out that she was advised
3
to prepare herself for an interview that would deal with ways of
addressing problems at the school. The panel persisted that the
school was an Afrikaans medium school, she should therefore not
have applied for the position if she could not speak Afrikaans.
[12] The applicant replied that being an Afrikaans medium school meant
that Afrikaans was the medium of instruction in the subjects taught
at the school. It was not the medium of management of the school.
She spoke Afrikaans well enough having been born in the
predominantly Afrikaans speaking town of GraaffReinet, having
taught Afrikaans, having evaluated grade 12 orals and scripts for
the district, having taught in Cockscomb, a rural English/Afrikaans
medium school which had both Coloured and African learners
and having studied at Fort Hare and passed Afrikaans 1. She was
reluctant to be interviewed in Afrikaans because she felt that the
panel might use technical terminology which she may not grasp and
would thereby disadvantage herself. Eventually the panel continued
the interview in English.
[13] She was challenged about how she, as a woman, would cope if she
were to compete against a man and whether she was bold enough
to do so. These questions infuriated her. She was told that 50% of
the staff wanted her and the other 50% did not want her. That
information was, in her opinion, irrelevant to the purpose of the
interview and biased against her seeking the appointment. The
more than one hour long interview left her feeling abused.
[14] She was crossexamined about why she did not object to the
composition of the panel and walk out during the proceedings. She
responded that she simply wanted to cooperate to complete the
process. She was desperate and not in any position to bargain
about the composition of the panel.
about the composition of the panel.
[15] It was prudent of the applicant not to walk out of the
interview because if she had done so, she would have had difficulty
in challenging the decision of the panel. The panel could have
taken refuge under cover of the fact that the applicant, by walking
out, deprived herself of the opportunity of presenting her case fully
to them. It could have absolved itself of any shortcomings in its
decisions.
[16] The applicant heard that Mr Jacobs was subjected to an interview
by the review panel. However, there was no direct evidence about
this and the content of his interview.
[17] The applicant proceeded to lodge a complaint about the interview to
Mr Kani. Mr Kani advised her to put it in writing and submit it before
08:00 the next morning. She did so. The applicant detailed her
complaints against the review panel under the broad headings of
the very tense atmosphere at the interview, discrimination in terms
of gender, sex and colour, the questions being too biased and the
unrepresentative composition of the review panel. She submitted
the letter timeously. To date she still awaits a response.
[18] She also awaits a written response to her application for promotion
advising her in terms of paragraph 3.4 of Chapter "B" of the PAM
that she was unsuccessful.
[19] Unknown to the applicant at the time, Mr Kani wrote on 27 August
2001 to the Acting Regional Director in the following terms:
"Kindly receive final recommendation for the
principal's post at Despatch Primary School.
The language problem has been resolved
much as it is not in the satisfaction of
everybody. Also attached please find a letter
from a neutral committee that we requested
to assist us in this regard." ( Sic)
[20] The applicant had no knowledge of the language problem being
resolved. Nor was she aware of the contents of the letter from the
"neutral committee", that is the review panel.
[21] The review panel's letter merely declares Mr Jacobs to be the more
suitable candidate for Despatch Primary School with its unique
problems and parent community. It gives no reasons for this
conclusion.
[22] That, in essence, is the sequence of events that led to the
launching of this application.
[23] The second respondent did not oppose the claim. The applicant
testified on her own behalf. The second respondent called only one
testified on her own behalf. The second respondent called only one
witness. Despite indicating earlier in the proceedings that it may call
5
a total of about three witnesses, no one but Mr Wannies was called.
As the chairperson of the IC and the SGB, Mr Wannies had direct
knowledge about decisions taken within those structures. He did
not have any direct knowledge about the decision taken by the
Head of Department. No evidence was led about what information
was placed before the Head of Department and how or why the
decision to appoint Mr Jacobs was made.
[24] The applicant challenges her nonpromotion substantively on the
ground that she was discriminated and procedurally on several
grounds. The constitutional grounds on which the applicant's case
was argued was based on sections 9, 23(1) and 195(1)(j) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act No. 108 of 1996.
Section 23(1) is linked to the residual unfair labour practice
provisions relating to unfair discrimination and failure to promote
prior to the 2002 amendment. Section 195 refers to the basic
values and principles governing public administration. When
making appointments of educators, Heads of Department must
have regard to subsection (1)(j) to develop an administration that is
broadly representative of South Africans. 1
Discrimination
[25] An applicant, who alleges discrimination must prove the fact of the
discrimination. The onus then shifts to the respondent to prove that
the discrimination is fair. 2 If the discrimination is on a specified
ground then unfairness is assumed. 3 Thereafter it rests on the
respondent to justify the unfair discrimination. 4 It is common cause
that a Coloured male was preferred over the applicant, an African
female. Whether such preference has the purgorative element of
discrimination, must be determined from an analysis of all the facts.
discrimination, must be determined from an analysis of all the facts.
[26] The issue of language did not arise during the processes leading up
to the IC's decision to nominate the applicant as the preferred
candidate on the list. The advertisement for the post merely stated
that Despatch Primary School was an Afrikaans medium school.
1 Section 7 of EEA.
2Leonard Dingler Employee Representative Council v Leonard Dingler (Pty)
Ltd & Others 1997 (19) ILJ 285 (LC).
3 Harksen v Lane NO & Others 1997 (11) BCLR 1489 (CC) at para 53(b)(1).
4 Dupper, O & Garbers, Christopher Employment Discrimination: A
Commentary in SALL - edited by Thompson & Benjamin at CC 1-30.
Afrikaans was not prescribed as a qualifying requirement for
appointment. Contrary to the practice in nonappointment disputes,
the advertisement for the post was not produced to the court. The
court therefore had to rely on the evidence of the applicant in this
regard, which was not seriously challenged. The IC was satisfied
about her proficiency in Afrikaans.
[27] The issue of language reared its head at the SGB only when the
members realised that an African was being appointed. Mr
Wannies's evidence is that he succeeded in assuaging their
concerns about the applicant's proficiency in Afrikaans is not
supported by the minutes of the SGB meeting. The minutes clearly
record that the motive for the change in the preference list
submitted by the IC was "die taalkwessie". Wannies's evidence that
the true reason for the change, namely that the SGB preferred a
handson principal to one who was better qualified in
psychology, does not feature anywhere in the minutes. Wannies
could not explain this omission of the most important part of the
decision i.e. the reason for the appointment of the second
respondent and the non appointment of the applicant.
[28] Also not minuted was the fact that there was a vote and what the
results of it were. On the probabilities, I am of the view that
language and race motivated the decision of the SGB. Mr Wannies,
as chairperson of the SGB, struck me as being sufficiently
experienced and knowledgeable to realise that pegging the
language as a reason for the nonpromotion of the applicant could
be discriminatory. Hence his valiant but weak attempts at
constructing a version for the court.
[29] On Mr Wannies's own version, the applicant was proficient in
Afrikaans. The SGB had assumed that, as an African she would not
Afrikaans. The SGB had assumed that, as an African she would not
be proficient in Afrikaans. Such stereotyping is an obvious
manifestation of bias and prejudice and is a typical form of unlawful
discrimination.
[30] Reference is also made in the minutes to the various meetings
between the SGB, the parents and the teachers. Mr Wannies
denied that these meetings had any impact on the SGB's decision.
He himself did not feel pressured by the parents’ and teachers’
resistance to the promotion of the applicant.
7
[31] Even if I accept his evidence, the decision of the SGB is not his
alone. As none of the members of the SGB testified, there is no
evidence of what motivated the other members of the SGB.
MrWannies's evidence stands uncorroborated on a material issue.
His evidence as a whole is unconvincing about the reasons for the
SGB changing the IC's preference list.
[32] Turning to the decision of the Head of Department to appoint Mr
Jacobs, I must, in the absence of any reasons advanced by the first
respondent, find that the first respondent failed to discharge the
onus of justifying the appointment of Mr Jacobs and thereby
avoiding the unfair discrimination claim.
[33] The first respondent must have used the recommendation of the
review panel in arriving at its decision to appoint Mr Jacobs since it
commissioned its establishment. Its decision is also consistent with
the panel's recommendation.
[34] From the uncontroverted, clear evidence of the applicant, I must
accept that the review panellists were prejudiced against her
because of her race, sex, gender, colour and language preference.
They discriminated against her on these grounds. Their conduct
was unprofessional, appalling and wholly discordant with the values
of a democratic constitutional order.
Procedures
[35] Mr Randall, for the applicant, conceded that the SGB could change
the preference list of the IC. I agree. The function of recommending
to the HOD the appointment of educators at the school vests in the
SGB.5 IC’s are established in the PAM to assist the SGB in
shortlisting and interviewing candidates for appointment. 6 The
SASA does not define powers of the SGB’s. Consequently, it is also
silent about their power to delegate their functions. As the
establishment of the IC is obviously for practical reasons, 7 the
establishment of the IC is obviously for practical reasons, 7 the
delegation by the SGB to the IC of its function is effectively
administrative deconcentration 8 or the IC acts as the agent of the
5 Section 20(1)(j) of SASA.
6 Para 3.3 of Chapter B of PAM.
7De Ville at 145.
8 Wiechers, Marinus: Administrative Law; Butterworth Publishers, 1985 at 54
SGB.9 The IC is accountable to the SGB who retains the authority
to make a recommendation to the HOD. 10 As such, the SGB must
exercise its discretion rationally and objectively. Unjustified
discrimination, which I have found above, is not a rational basis to
change the decision of the IC. In the absence of a valid basis for
changing the preference list of the IC, I agree with Mr Randall, that
the SGB could not change the list.
[36] Mr Randall also suggested that the SGB did not have the benefit of
interviewing the candidates and therefore was not in as good a
position to assess their suitability. Insofar as this suggestion implies
that the SGB should also interview candidates in every case where
it intends to change the decision of the IC, I disagree.
[37] The members of the IC also serve on the SGB. They can share
their experiences with those members of the SGB who did not have
the benefit of having attended the interview. This is the procedure
contemplated in paragraph 3.3 of Chapter "B" of the PAM. It is also
a necessary, practical approach to ensure that the appoinment
process is not duplicated and protracted and that posts are filled
expeditiously.
[38] Whether an SGB conducts an interview of the candidates
recommended by the IC depends on the information it has and
whether further information is then required. It may not warrant the
interview of all the candidates, but only those candidates who can
provide the additional information.
[39] Having found as I did that the SGB's reason for changing the list
was a veneer for its prejudice, interviewing the applicant would not
have cured their defective reasoning. If the members of the SGB
were genuinely concerned about who was objectively the best
candidate for the post, they could have interviewed the second
respondent and the applicant themselves instead of allowing their
respondent and the applicant themselves instead of allowing their
discretion to be fettered by the Department.
[40] It was common cause that there is no legislative support for the
establishment of the review panel. The Department appears to have
conceived it as a deadlock breaking mechanism. On receipt of a
9 De Ville, JR: Judicial Review of Administrative Action in South Africa ;
Butterworths at 142.
10 Para 3.3(i) of Chapter B of PAM.
9
recommendation for promotion from the SGB, the Department must
satisfy itself that the agreed upon procedures were followed and
that its decision complies with the Employment of Educators Act
No. 76 of 1998, (EEA), the SASA and the Labour Relations Act No.
66 of 1995 (LRA). The Department may decline the
recommendation of the SGB in certain circumstances. These
circumstances are identified in section 6(3)(b) of the EEA to include:
"(i) any procedure collectively agreed upon
or determined by the Minister for the
appointment, promotion or transfer has not
been followed;
(iv) sufficient proof exists that the recom
mendation of the said governing body or
council, as the case may be, was based on
undue influence; or
(v) the recommendation of the said governing
body or council, as the case may be, did
not have regard to the democratic values
and principles deposed to in section 7(1)."
[41] If the department rejects the recommendation of the SGB, it must
refer the matter back to the SGB for a fresh recommendation.
[42] In Highfeld District Council v Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation & Arbitration 11 it was held that procedural fairness must
be judged by what has actually been done and not necessarily by
what the terms of a contract of employment, or a code of conduct
might contain. 12 The Public Service, however, is far more
regimented. The obvious reason for this is that public authorities
are also regulated by administrative law. (Contrast with the High
Court decision of DANIELS, J, in Feinberg v African Bank Ltd &
Another13 who held that a disciplinary inquiry conducted in the
private sector was also reviewable). Where a procedure and
remedy is prescribed either by legislation or collective agreement in
the public service, the public authority has to apply it. Conversely, if
the public service, the public authority has to apply it. Conversely, if
there is a vacuum, the public authority may devise an appropriate
procedure or remedy. In this case, there was no procedural or
11 (2003) 24 ILJ 517 (LAC).
12 Contrast with Denel v Vorster (2004) 25 ILJ 659 SCA.
13 (2004) 10 BLLR 1039 (T)
remedial vacuum. The procedure it should have followed was to
refer the matter back to the SGB for another recommendation.
[43] Devising ad hoc procedures for individual cases also has inherent
risks. Having regard to the emphasis in paragraph 3.4 of Chapter
"B" of the PAM to “agreed upon procedures” and in section 6(3)(b)
(1) of the EEA to “collectively agreed upon procedures”, a public
authority should as far as possible implement procedures only after
having endeavoured to collectively agree on them. The emphasis is
on "collective" because if agreements are reached with individuals,
the public authority will have to justify its decision to enter into such
an agreement on objective grounds. It must also be willing and able
to act consistently in all such cases. This is not easy to accomplish,
not least because even within a single public entity, authority may
be exercised by different individuals. These agreements, when
published, create certainty and predictability of the rules, practices,
procedures and remedies that govern the public authority.
[44] The court has no evidence as to what information was placed
before the Head of Department on the basis of which a decision
was taken to appoint Mr Jacobs. But paragraph 3.5 of Chapter "B"
of the PAM requires the employer to ensure that accurate records
are kept of proceedings dealing with the interviews, decisions and
motivations relating to the preference list submitted by school
governing bodies and other structures.
[45] The employer is not defined in the PAM, but the EEA defines it as
follows:
"’Employer’ in relation to any provision of
Chapter 4, 5 or 7 which applies to or is
connected with
(b) an educator in the service of the
provincial department of education,
means the Head of Department."
[46] The Head of Department must therefore have been seized with all
[46] The Head of Department must therefore have been seized with all
the records of the interviews, decisions and motivations relating to
the preference list submitted by the SGB. In any event, if it made a
decision without these records, its decision would be manifestly
irregular.
11
[47] On studying the record, the Head of Department should have
realised that subsection (i), (iv) and (v) of section 6(3)(b) of the
EEA (quoted above) applied. The review panel was not a
collectively agreed upon procedure. As is manifest from the SGB's
minutes there might have been undue influence exerted by the
teachers and parents that resulted in the SGB changing the list.
The minutes of the IC and the SGB reveals that neither of these
structures had regard to the democratic values and principles
contemplated in section 195(1) of the Constitution. There was no
evidence at all that either structure considered the need to redress
the imbalances of the past in order to achieve broad
representation.14 In those circumstances the Department could not
have satisfied itself in terms of paragraph 3.4 of Chapter "B" of the
PAM. Its remedy was therefore to decline to make the
recommendation and request the SGB to make another
recommendation in terms of section 6(3)(c) of the EEA.
[48] In the circumstances, the Department had no basis in law or
fairness to appoint the review panel or to defer its decision making
to it. The filling of the post was procedurally and substantively
unlawful and unfair.
Remedy
[49] The order that the applicant sought in the Notice of Motion was in
the following terms:
"6.1 Directing the respondent's decision
to appoint the said Jacobs to the
post of principal of the Despatch
Primary School be reviewed and set
aside as irregular and discriminatory.
6.2.1 Directing the respondent to consider
the appointment of the principal's
post at the Despatch Primary School
afresh.
6.2.2 Directing that the respondent appoint
the applicant as principal of the
Despatch Primary School."
the applicant as principal of the
Despatch Primary School."
[50] My concern about directing the first respondent to consider the
filling of the principal's post afresh is firstly, the delay that would
14 Section 7(1)(b) of the EEA
ensue in finalising the appointment. The first Respondent would
have to request the SGB to make a fresh recommendation.
Secondly, I am not convinced that the applicant's candidature would
be considered fairly, objectively and dispassionately by the SGB.
[51] Thirdly, the options open to the court were to either uphold the
decision of the IC as the SGB had no rational basis for changing it.
Or, the court could substitute the decision of the SGB if it was
satisfied that the SGB was unlikely to bring an independent mind to
bear on the matter if it was called upon to consider the application
afresh.15 Either option would mean that Mr Jacobs, the third party,
who was not responsible for the flawed process, might have to be
removed from his post. That could also cause disruption at the
school.
[52] I expressed these reservations to the parties after the matter was
argued and invited them to get a fresh mandate on an apropriate
remedy that would avoid involving the SGB again, if I were to grant
an order in terms of paragraph 6.1 of the relief sought. The parties
returned the following morning to inform me that the matter had
been settled. They asked that the settlement be made an order of
the court. The terms of the settlement were as follows:
"The parties agree that the matter be
settled on the following terms:
1. That the applicant be appointed to a
post level 4 position within the
Nelson Mandela Metropole in terms
of the Employment of Educators Act.
2. That the first respondent implement
this settlement within 60 days as
from date hereof.
3. That the first respondent pay the
applicant's costs.
[53] In devising this settlement the parties relied on section 8(1)(c) of the
EEA relating to the transfer of educators. The settlement was
EEA relating to the transfer of educators. The settlement was
reached in order to address the difficulty of devising an appropriate
order. I gathered from the settlement that the respondent was
equally keen to dispose of the dispute finally.
15 Baxter 681-684; De Ville pg 337 fn 352.
13
[54] The court was prepared to record that the matter was settled but it
was not convinced that it could make such a settlement an order.
The legislation for the appointment of educators and the filling of
posts is meticulously detailed and has been consistently enforced
by the courts. The process involves the advertising of the post,
shortlisting, interviews and selection of the preferred candidates.
Any employee who covets the position to which the applicant is to
be transferred, may legitimately object if the post is filled without the
procedures being followed.
[55] Section 8(1)(c) of the EEA provides as follows:
"1. Subject to the provisions of this
chapter
(c) the Head of Department may
transfer any educator in the
service of the Provincial
Department of Education to
any other post in that
department.”
(My underlining)
[56] Sections 6 and 7 of the EEA relating to powers of the employer and
the appointment and filling of posts respectively fall within the same
chapter as section 8 of the EEA.
[57] The representatives for the parties persisted in chambers that
section 8 must cater for the transfer of educators in exceptional
circumstances. I am persuaded that that must be so. Section 8(1)
(c) must exist for a reason. The plain meaning of the word “transfer”
in the section does not exclude the movement of educators on
promotion by order of the court. However, it was necessary to set
out fully the facts, circumstances, submissions and reasons for my
findings in this case, for neither section 8(1)(c) nor this judgment
should be construed as a licence for remedying every unlawful or
unfair promotion effected in the public service.
[58] An order of court escapes the limitations of section 8(1)(c). The
exceptional circumstances I find in this case is that the IC did
exceptional circumstances I find in this case is that the IC did
identify the applicant as the best candidate for the job. But for the
discrimination, she would have been promoted.
[59] Accordingly the order that I grant, which is by agreement of the
parties, is in the following terms:
1. The applicant is to be appointed to a post level 4
position within the Nelson Mandela Metropole in terms
of the Employment of Educators Act.
2. The first respondent is directed to implement paragraph 1
of the order within 60 days as from date hereof.
3. The appointment in terms of paragraph 1 hereof shall be
effected in terms of section 8 of the Employment of
Educators Act No. 76 of 1998.
4. The first respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.
___________
Pillay D, J
FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. M Randell
INSTRUCTED BY: Michael Randell Incorporated
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
INSTRUCTED BY: State Attorney
15