STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of: )

JANET BIGELOW, et al., ) CASE NOS. 76-962

) thru 76-973

Petitioners. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in the above-captioned matters, after due notice, on August 25, 1976, at Tallahassee, Florida, before the undersigned Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: M. Stephen Turner

THOMPSON, WADSWORTH, MESSER, TURNER and RHODES

Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida

For the Ross A. McVoy

Department of Department of Environmental Regulation Environmental 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Regulation: Montgomery Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For the Mary Clark

Department of Department of Administration Administration: Division of Personnel

530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

ISSUE PRESENTED

Validity of Petitioner's reduction in pay pursuant to Chapter 22A-2, Florida Administrative Code.

These are appeals of 12 career service employees of the Department of Environmental Regulation to the Career Service Commission, pursuant to Section 110.061, Florida Statutes and Rule 22A-10.05, Florida Administrative Code.

The appeals were consolidated for purposes of hearing by Prehearing Conference Order, dated July 14, 1976, by reason of similar issues of law and fact. A list of the appellants is attached hereto and this order applies to all of the cases.

Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated to undisputed facts and contested issues of law. Although the Department of Administration objected to the relevancy of the facts and exhibits stipulated to in Paragraph I of the "Pretrial Stipulation", it is determined that such facts and exhibits are

relevant to these proceedings and the objection is overruled. (Composite Exhibit 1)

The stipulated facts and the exhibits referred to therein are as follow:

1. Stipulation of Facts

1. Petitioners are twelve (12) career service employees of the Department of Environmental Regulation. All have attained the requisite employment status for pursuing this action, and all jurisdictional requirements, including the proper and timely filing of appeals, have been met.

   
   

2. This cause arises from a reduction in Petitioners' pay which resulted from actions set forth below. Petitioners seek an order increasing their pay in an amount equal to the reduction, and retroactive reimbursement of the amount of the reduction for each month from January 26, 1976, the effective date of the reduction, plus reasonable attorneys fees and expenses.

   
   

3. The amount of reduction for each employee is set forth in Exhibit no. 1 attached hereto.

   
   

4. In accordance with Section 4(5), Chapter 75-22, Laws of Florida, the Department of Environmental Regulation collocated their Ft. Lauderdale district office with the Water Management District located in West Palm Beach. This action resulted in the physical relocation of the DER district office from Broward to Palm Beach County, a distance of approximately 40 miles. The Ft. Lauderdale office was closed on January 26, 1976 and all employees reported for work to West Palm Beach on January 27, 1976. No change in the working status of the employees pertinent to this appeal resulted from this move. Nine of the twelve employees continue to reside in or near Ft. Lauderdale. The remaining three employees moved to West Palm Beach after the relocation (collocation) of the district office.

   
   

5. The competitive geographical pay differential has also been known as the geographical special appointment rate (GAR). See F.S. s. 110.022 and F.A.C. s. 22A-2.04 & 2.06. This differential represented a salary adjustment for certain positions in areas where the statewide minimum salaries were not competitive with that of local government and subsequently other employers. Its purpose was to meet competition in a local area and act as an incentive to attract qualified employees to state positions. It was not a differential based on a Cost of Living study.

   
   

6. The manner in which the petitioners' reduction in pay was calculated by Respondents was:

   
   

   1. Subtract the statewide minimum salary for the employee's class, as found in the Classification and Pay Plan issued by the Department of Administration, Division of Personnel, from the minimum salary approved for the class for Broward County, as found in the Classification and Pay Plan.

      
      

   2. This amount is then subtracted from the employee's rate of pay to determine the new rate of pay.

      
      

   3. if a competitive geographical pay differential had been approved by the Division of Personnel for the class to which the employee was being assigned in Palm Beach County, subtract the statewide minimum salary for the class from the

      minimum salary approved for the class for Palm Beach County, as found in the Classification and Pay Plan.

      
      

   4. The amount in (3) would then be added to the employee's rate of pay as determined in (2) above to obtain the new rate of pay. Exhibit 1 attached hereto contains the competitive geographical pay differential (GAR) for each employee as computed in the manner above.

   
   

7. No employee's salary prior to reduction (Broward County) would have exceeded the maximum pay scale for Palm Beach County set forth in the Classification and Pay Plan as shown in Exhibit no. 2 attached hereto.

   
   

8. The employees were advised by letter of January 8, 1976, copies of which are attached as composite Exhibit no. 3.

   
   

9. The Department of Environmental Regulation opposed the reductions in pay of Petitioner employees as well as others not parties to this action. This opposition included a letter, attached as Exhibit no. 4, to Lt. Governor Williams requesting no reductions be made and a conference on the subject between Mr. Steven Wilkerson, Director, Division of Administration for the Department and Mr. William H. Wilder, Chief, Bureau of Classification and Pay, Division of Personnel, Department of Administration. The Ltd. Governor's response is attached as Exhibit no. 5. Competitive geographical pay differentials became a matter of concern between the Division of Personnel and the Department in September of 1975. Mr. Gene Witkowski of the Division of Personnel (DOA) referred to the memorandum of Mr. William H. Wilder of October 1972 as governing the situation. The Department requested a copy of the memorandum. Mr. Witkowski stated the opinion that the Department was bound to follow the guidelines of the October 1972 memorandum, attached as Exhibit 6. This conversation was followed by a letter attached as Exhibit no. 7 from Mr. Conley Kennison, State Personnel Director, essentially reaffirming Mr. Witkowski's remarks. On December 18, 1976, Ms. Yates requested guidance as to whether affected employees could appeal their salary reductions. That letter is attached as Exhibit no. 8. Mr. Kennison, by letter of January 5, 1976, attached as Exhibit 9, stated these reductions were not appealable. The Department processed the reduction in pay pursuant to the October 1972 memorandum of Mr. William H. Wilder. The reductions were effective January 26, 1976. The monthly reduction for each employee is shown by Exhibit no. 1. The Department of Administration objects to the relevancy of the facts and Exhibits stipulated to in this paragraph I, but does not contest the factual truth of the matters or the authenticity of the Exhibits.

   
   

10. The Petitioners in this cause are as follows:

1. Patricia A. Murphy was employed June 17, 1974 as Clerk Typist III. She attained permanent status December 17, 1974. She was a Clerk Typist III at the time of her pay reduction January 26, 1976. Her position remained the same after the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

   
   

2. Faye W. Stone was employed July 17, 1974 as a Clerk Typist II. She received several promotions and was a Secretary III at the time of her pay reduction January 26, 1976. She achieved permanent status as a Secretary III. Her position remained the same after the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

   
   

3. Ruth Seward was employed July 21, 1972 as a Secretary III. She attained permanent status January 21, 1973. She was a Secretary III at the time

   of her pay reduction January 26, 1976. Her position remained the same after the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

   
   

4. Janet Bigelow was employed March 8, 1971 as a Secretary III. On September 29, 1973, she attained permanent status as an Administrative Assistant I (promotion). Her position remained the same after the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

   
   

5. Patricia K. Galyon was employed by the state on January 11, 1971 and was transferred to the Department of Pollution Control (now DER) on January 28, 1974 as a Secretary II. At the time of her pay reduction on January 26, 1976, she had achieved permanent status as an Engineering Technician III (promotion). Her position remained the same after the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

   
   

6. Clifford S Rohlke was employed May 21, 1974 on OPS, and then on September 6, 1974 received an original appointment as an Engineering Technician

   IV. At the time of his pay reduction January 26, 1976, he had achieved permanent status as an Engineering Technician IV. His position remained the same after the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

   
   

7. Patricia Valkenaar was employed May 15, 1974. She attained permanent status as an Engineering Technician IV November 6, 1975. Her position remained the same after the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

   
   

8. Albert W. Townsend was employed January 18, 1971 as an Engineering Technician II. He achieved permanent status as an Engineer I April l, 1975 (promotion). His position remained the same after the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

   
   

9. Michael R. Fawley was employed October 16, 1972 as an Engineering Technician II. He was promoted to Engineering Technician III January 4, 1973, prior to attaining permanent status as an Engineering Technician II, and achieved permanent status in that class December 2, 1975. He received several promotions and was a trainee Engineer III as of January 26, 1976. His position remained the same at the time of the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach. He is presently a probationary Engineer III.

   
   

10. David J. Karsmarski was employed as a federal employee/ state assignee June 1972 in the capacity of Engineer. (GB-9 or Engineer II). He was sequently employed by the state as an Engineer III where he achieved permanent status.

    His position remained the same at the time of the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

    
    

11. Julian A. Bucklin, Jr. was employed November 29, 1974 as an Engineer

    III. He has achieved permanent status. His position remained the same at the time of the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

    
    

12. Dennis M. Stotts was employed August 23, 1974 as a Pollution Control Specialist II. He requested a voluntary demotion and transfer to Chemist I, a lower position, from the Northeast region to Southeast due to marriage, and attained permanent status in that position on May 29, 1975. His position remained the same at the time of the relocation of the district office to West Palm Beach.

    
    

    An addendum stipulation provides as follows:

    "The legislative language was understood by Department of Environmental Regulation to be more than just a simple request to study collocation. It was understood to mean if practicable any Department of Environmental Regulation Office should be collocated with a Water Management District Office.

    
    

    The Fort Lauderdale Office was collocated for several reasons. Rent in Fort Lauderdale was $30,000 a year. Rent in the West Palm Beach Central and Southern District Office is $1.00. The Water Management District owned the building which is a multimillion dollar complex with excellent accessibility to the local airport and major transportation arteries.

    
    

    Collocation allowed for fewer meetings for applicants who had to travel between Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Greater permit coordination was achieved in terms of Chapter 403 and 373, Florida Statutes, as well as surface water management. The delegation of certain water quality responsibilities was also made possible.

    
    

    Since Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties have local programs the move to West Palm Beach was not considered inconvenient to Palm Beach and other counties in the northern end of the district.

    
    

    The Department knew in advance of collocation there might be salary problems because of the interpretation that might be placed on the GAR by the Department of Administration.

    
    

    In addition to Composite Exhibit 1 (Pretrial Stipulation) and the exhibits attached thereto, the following additional exhibits were received in evidence.

    
    

    Composite Exhibit 2 - Employment status forms

    
    

    Exhibit 3 - Recommendations to the Administration Commission for changes in the personnel rules and regulations.

    
    

    Exhibit 4 - Classification and Pay Plan, effective, July 1, 1974. Composite Exhibit 5 - Attorney's affidavits and attorney's fees.

    Exhibit 6 - DER Staff Legal Opinion concerning geographic pay differentials, DER, February 10, 1976.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

    1. Section 110.061, Florida Statutes, as implemented by Rule 22A-10.05, Florida Administrative Code, provides that a state employee who has permanent status in the Career Service has the right to appeal to the Career Service Commission any reduction in pay effected by the employing agency. All petitioners herein are permanent Career Service employees and lodge their appeals against reductions in pay by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), in accordance with the procedural requirements of the above statutory and regulatory provisions.

       
       

    2. Section 216.251(2)(a), F.S. provides that, as a part of the budget making process, the salaries for each position not specifically indicated in the appropriations acts shall be as provided in the classification and pay plan as provided for in Chapter 110. Section 216.011 (1)(w) defines "pay plan" as "a document which formally describes the philosophy, methods, procedures and the salary schedule for compensating employees for work performed."

    3. Pursuant to Section 110.041(2)(e), the Administration Commission has adopted personnel rules and regulations of the Career Service System. Such rules include 22A-2.02, which provides that the pay plan shall consist of the official schedule of pay ranges, the official salary schedule and the rules and regulations governing the administration of the pay plan. Under this authority, the State Personnel Director promulgated the official classification and pay plan, effective July 1, 1974, setting forth competitive geographic pay differentials in effect in Broward and Palm Beach County as of that date.

       
       

    4. Geographic pay differentials are authorized by Section 110.022(1)(d). Which provides that the Department of Administration (DOA) through the Division of Personnel, has the power and duty in connection with personnel matters to adopt and amend necessary rules and regulations which shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of geographic differential pay rates for selected positions in the career service. This law is implemented by Rules 22A-2.04 and

       1. that provide pertinently as follow: 22A-2.04 Employment Rates

          1. An employee who is given an original appointment in accordance with Section 22A-7.03 shall be paid at the minimum rate for the class which appointed unless:

       4. The employee is being appointed to

       a class located in a geographic area of the state where a special appointment rate has been approved for that class by the State Personnel Director. In such cases, the employee shall be appointed at the approved special appointment rate, unless other provisions of this chapter apply.

       
       

       22A-2.06 Salary Increases

       
       

       C. Upward Pay Adjustments

       2. Where experience has shown that recruitment of qualified applicants for a class has not

       been possible in a given geographic area of the state, the State Personnel Director may approve a special appointment rate for that area. When a special appointment rate is approved, the following rules for granting

       pay adjustments shall apply, unless a different method of implementation is required by the State Personnel Director:

       (b) If a lower special appointment rate

       is in effect, all employees shall have their

       pay adjusted in an amount equal to the difference between the old special appointment rate and

       the new special appointment rate, provided the pay adjustment does not place the salary above the approved maximum rate of the pay range for the class."

       
       

    5. Section 110.042 sets forth definitions for the following terms within the State Career Service System:

       110.042 Definitions.

       
       

       (2) "Position" means the work, consisting

       of duties and responsibilities, assigned to be performed by an officer or employee.

       
       

       (5) "Class of Positions" means all positions which are sufficiently similar to kind or subject matter of work, level of difficulty or responsi bilities, and qualification requirements of the work to warrant the same treatment as to title, pay range, and other personnel transactions.

       
       

       (12) "Salary Schedule" means an official document which contains a complete list of classes and their assigned salary ranges.

       
       

       1. Transfer means moving an employee from one geographic location of the state

          to a different geographic location in excess of 50 miles from the employee's current

          work location.

          
          

       2. "Reassignment" means moving an employee from a position in one class to a different position in the same class or a different class having the same degree of responsibility and the same maximum salary.

       
       

    6. The sole question for determination in these cases is whether Respondent DER acted properly and within its legal authority in reducing the pay of Petitioners in the amounts set forth in Exhibits No. 1 & 2, Composite Exhibit 1, when their job location was moved from Ft. Lauderdale to West Palm Beach in January, 1976.

       
       

    7. Petitioners contend that DER acted without legal authority in effecting such reductions because there was no statute or rule governing the situation. They further claim that the operative directive under which the reductions were required, i.e., the memorandum of William H. Wilder, Chief of Classification and Pay, Division of Personnel, DOA, to all personnel officers, dated October 25, 1972, is inapplicable since it does not address the precise question in issue and, in any event, is not a binding administrative rule because it was not promulgated in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

       
       

    8. DER avers that it resisted the directions of the DOA to reduce pay in cases of this nature and, in fact, questioned the existence of legal authority for such action. However, after having been directed to do so by the State Personnel Director and the Head of the Department of Administration, it felt that it had no discretion in the matter and consequently reduced the pay of the Petitioners.

       
       

    9. DOA asserts that the action was in accordance with Rule 22A-2.06C2,

       F.A.C and that the Wilder memorandum was merely an interpretation of the rule and not a rule itself. It concedes that subparagraph C of the rule is inartfully titled "Upward Pay Adjustments" when, in fact, the language

       thereunder deals with both upward and downward adjustments in various instances. It further admits that subparagraph C2(b) is ambiguous, but nevertheless broad enough to encompass the instant situation. It maintains that the rule could not possibly cover the myriad of situations that might arise when dealing with the subject of pay, particularly in such an unusual situation as here. It also asserts that if, in fact, a specific rule is required in order to effect a reduction in pay in this wise, and it is determined that no such rule exists, the action taken would not be invalid because it was within the sound discretion of that agency to make provisions for such contingencies.

       
       

    10. The relocation of the Ft. Lauderdale DER district office to West Palm Beach was brought about as a result of statutory guidance in the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1975 for purposes of economy and efficiency. All of the Petitioners remained in their same jobs and merely transferred their place of work from one city to the other. Because West Palm Beach was only 40 miles distant from Fort Lauderdale, there was no transfer involved, nor was there a reassignment because the employees remained in their same basic classifications. The practical results were that they were forced either to move their residences to West Palm Beach or to commute from Ft. Lauderdale daily. Eight of the employees lost the geographic differential pay rate received at Ft. Lauderdale and four employees were paid a new differential rate in lesser amounts than previously received.

        
        

    11. Inasmuch as Section 110.22 requires the Division of Personnel to adopt necessary rules and regulations with regard to the "establishment and maintenance" of geographic differential pay rates, the threshold question is whether or not it has done so. Certainly, Rule 22A-2.06(C)(2) must be considered as complying generally with the statutory mandate. There is no statutory requirement that a rule concerning termination of such pay be promulgated. DOA's contention that 22A-2.06C2(b) provides for downward adjustments in geographic pay differential is not well taken. That provision, although admittedly confusing in language, relates only to a situation where an employee who is drawing a specified special appointment rate at a particular locale becomes entitled to an upward adjustment if a higher special appointment rate is put into effect there. That the DOA recognized the desirability of clarification in those situations where an employee loses his geographic pay differential is indicated by the recommendations to the Administration Commission for changes in personnel rules and regulations which leaves 2(b) essentially intact, but would add a new subparagraph (d) to read as follows:

        
        

        "(d) If an employee is placed in a position for which a competitive area differential is approved, the employee shall be granted

        a pay adjustment equal to the difference between the differential band the statewide minimum salary for the class. If an employee leaves a position for which a competitive area differential is approved, regardless of whether the action is

        a reassignment, promotion, demotion, transfer, or any other reason, the employee's salary shall be reduced by an amount equal to the difference between the current differential and current statewide minimum salary for the class."

        
        

        The above language would simply incorporate the policy currently stated in the 1972 Wilder memorandum.

    12. Although there was no showing that the Wilder memorandum which purported to control the question herein had been promulgated as a rule in the manner required by Chapter 120, either at the time of its publication or thereafter, it is certainly apparent that that memorandum is an "agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy..." within the definition of the term "Rule", as set forth in Section 120.52(14) of the Administrative Procedure Act. This is so aside from any consideration of Petitioners' claim that the memorandum would not be controlling by its terms in that it deals with loss of geographic pay in situations where an employee "leaves a position" for which such pay is approved. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the employees in question did not "leave" their positions. DOA asserted at the hearing that the hearing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the question of whether a rule exists or does not exists. This claim is rejected because such a determination does not require a judgment as to the validity of an existing rule, but merely the ascertainment of applicable authority upon which to base a conclusion. Accordingly, the Wilder memorandum is considered to be a rule and its validity is presumed for the purpose of this hearing, it not having been questioned in a rule challenge under Section 120.56. It is further concluded that that portion of the memorandum which provides for loss of geographic pay when an employee leaves a position for which such pay has been approved covers the situation at hand in that the Petitioners no longer hold positions for which the Ft. Lauderdale rate can be paid.

        
        

    13. It is patent that when an employee is being paid a competitive differential designed to attract individuals to state employment in a particular locale, the reason for paying such differential ceases to exist when the employee leaves that locale. Petitioners are of the opinion that because such geographic pay is termed a "special appointment rate", it should follow them and continue to be paid even when they leave the particular area and move on to another office in a different location. They buttress this upon the theory that the State is not only interested in attracting them to state government, but also in retaining them, and that it would be counterproductive to lessen their pay. This argument is fallacious not only for obvious reasons as aforesaid, but also because it would be manifestly unfair to employees holding similar positions in the new location who would not draw the increased pay.

        
        

    14. It having been determined that a rule providing for termination of geographic pay differential upon the movement of an employee to another location is not required under the statutory mandate that rules and regulations be promulgated for the establishment and maintenance of such rates, one need not have been issued. However, since the Wilder memorandum constitutes a rule governing loss of pay differential, it cannot be dismissed as mere surplusage. It is axiomatic that an agency must follow its own rules. In this case, it did so and accordingly, these appeals are not considered meritorious. It should be noted, however, that if the rule were to be declared invalid in a rule proceeding, as would probably be the case, Petitioners still would not prevail in their appeals because, absent any rule, the action of the agency in effecting the pay reductions was based on adequate justification.

        
        

    15. In view of the foregoing, it is considered unnecessary to consider the question of reasonable attorney's fees and expenses for the appeals.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Petitioner's appeal be denied.

Done and Entered this 22nd day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

THOMAS C. OLDHAM

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ross A. McVoy, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental

Regulation

2562 Executive Center Circle, E. Montgomery Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

M. Stephen Turner, Esquire THOMPSON, WADSWORTH, MESSER,

TURNER AND RHODES

131 N. Gadsden Street

P.O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida

Mr. Conley M. Kennison State Personnel Director

Department of Administration Division of Personnel Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator

Division of Personnel & Retirement Department of Administration

530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

APPENDIX

LIST OF CLAIMANTS

D.O.A.H. Case No. 76-962 - Patricia Galyon

1. - Clifford S. Rohlke

2. - Patricia Ann Murphy

3. - Dennis Stotts

4. - Julian Bucklin

5. - Faye Stone

6. - Michael R. Fawley

7. - Ruth G. Seward

8. - David Karsmarski

9. - Patricia C. Valkenaar

10. - Albert Townsend

11. - Janet Bigelow

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

BEFORE THE SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE APPEAL OF:

JANET C. BIGELOW, et al.

against REDUCTION IN PAY DOCKET NOS. 76-16, 76-17,

and 76-19 thru 76-28

by the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

Chairman Catherine W. Chapin and members Clare C. Leiby and Edwin

G. Fraser participating.

/

FINAL ORDER

The Commission having reviewed and considered the record in this case, the Recommended Order prepared by the Division of Administrative Hearings Hearing Officer, dated September 22, 1976, Exceptions filed by all parties, and having heard oral arguments on May 11, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida, finds as follows:

The Commission adopts and incorporates by reference the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, with the following clarifications and changes.

The final sentence of Point 13, Conclusions of Law, is rejected and the Commission takes notice that the Department of Environmental Regulation has in good faith attempted to retain its employees and afford them every benefit.

Furthermore, the Commission acknowledges the Stipulation made November 10, 1976, between the Department of Administration and the Appellants, in which it was agreed and admitted by both parties that the Wilder memorandum was not a formally promulgated rule in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

Subsequent to the Hearing Officer's Order, the First District Court of Appeal has issued various decisions relative to office memoranda and with special regard to State of Florida, Department of Administration v. J. Richard Stevens

344 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the Commission fully recognizes the Wilder memorandum to be unenforceable as an administrative rule. Thus, the Commission rejects those portions of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order referring to the Wilder memorandum as a rule and specifically rejects Conclusion 12 as being superceded by the parties' joint stipulation and the Stevens decision.

The Commission concurs and adopts the Hearing Officer's conclusions that the action of the Agency in effecting pay reductions was based on adequate justification.

Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the action of the Agency be, and the same is, hereby sustained.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of June, A.D., 1977.

CATHERINE W. CHAPIN, Chairman

Career Service Commission

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copy of the foregoing Order was furnished by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. M. Stephen Turner, Attorney at Law, Suite 701, Lewis State Bank Building, Post Office Box 1876, Tallahassee, Florida 32302, Mr. Terry Cole, Attorney, Department of Environmental Regulation, 2562 Executive Center Circle, East, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, and Ms. Mary Clark, Attorney, Department of Administration, Room 530, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, and by regular U.S.A mail to Mr. Thomas C. Oldham, Hearing Officer, Room 530, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, this 10th day of June, A.D., 1977.

CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION

BY: Susan Turnbull

Docket for Case No: 76-000962

Orders for Case No: 76-000962