The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of or credit for $2,125.88 in employee contributions to the Florida Retirement System ("FRS").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division of Retirement is the state agency charged with the responsibility for administering the FRS. Section 121.031, Florida Statutes. Prior to 1975, the FRS was contributory, meaning that members paid a portion of their salaries into the Florida Retirement Trust Fund as a contribution toward their future retirement benefits. Members who have contributed to the trust fund may request a refund of those contributions at the time they leave their FRS-eligible employment. Receipt of such refunds constitutes cancellation of the right to service credit for the subject employment period. Mr. Helms worked for the Polk County Board of County Commissioners, and made contributions to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund. At the time of his termination in June 1974, Mr. Helms had accrued 6.3 years of service in the FRS, and was not vested in the system. In September 1974, the Division received a "Request for Refund" card bearing Mr. Helms' name, social security number, and address; and bearing what purported to be Mr. Helms' signature. It was not unusual at the time for non- vested members such as Mr. Helms to request refunds when they terminated their employment. The refund card was countersigned by Avlee Askew, the personnel clerk for the Polk County Board of County Commissioners, as the representative of Mr. Helms' last Florida employer. The Division diligently searched its records, but was unable to find the actual refund checks because they were destroyed by the Comptroller's Office. However, the Division's computer records indicate that the Comptroller issued two checks totaling $2,125.88 and sent them to Box 988, c/o Clerk's Office, Bartow, Florida 33830, in September 1974. The listed address was and still is the address of the Polk County Board of County Commissioners. At the time, it was standard practice for refund checks to be mailed to the Board's offices, where the former employees would pick them up. In July 2000, Mr. Helms began working for a Hillsborough County agency and began to make inquiries regarding credit for his prior 6.3 years of FRS-eligible employment. Mr. Helms contacted the Division requesting information regarding his retirement benefits and was advised by the Division that its records showed that his accumulated contributions of $2,125.88 were paid to him in 1974. Mr. Helms denied signing the "Request for Refund" card, and denied receiving either of the two refund checks. At the hearing, Mr. Helms contended that the signature on the refund card was a forgery. He introduced several samples of his signature in an effort to show that the signature on the refund card was not his. The "Request for Refund" card itself now exists only as a microfilm facsimile, and the poor quality of the reproduction does not permit a comparison of the signature on the refund card to those samples provided by Mr. Helms. Mr. Helms offered no other evidence to support his claim that he did not sign the card and did not receive the refund. The evidence presented in this case is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Helms is now entitled to a refund of or credit for contributions he made to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund prior to September 1974.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying the request of Milford Mack Helms for a refund of or credit for contributions he made to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund prior to September 1974. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 17th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Milford Mack Helms Post Office Box 261 Valrico, Florida 33595 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sojostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact The petitioner Petitioner, Huey G. Manges, was employed as a fire fighter by the Port Everglades Authority (the Port) in September 1961, and over the years rose through the ranks until in 1975 or 1976 he became Chief of the department. Petitioner served as Chief until 1988 or 1989, and was then promoted to Public Safety Director. As an employee of the Port, petitioner was a member of the Florida Retirement System. The Port's deferred compensation plan In 1983, the Port adopted a deferred compensation plan for all employees. The plan provided that employees could "make contributions into the fund in an amount not to exceed 33.3 [percent] of base salary, with a maximum cap of $7500." Under the plan, the Port, as the employer, made no contribution to the plan. In September 1984, the plan was amended to create a special provision for "key management persons," as an incentive to motivate them to perform in an outstanding manner and to encourage their continued commitment to the Port. At the time, it was observed that such employees have "extensive responsibilities," and "are not compensated for the many hours they work beyond the normal '40- hour' work week." As amended, the Port matched the qualified "key management person['s]" contribution on a dollar for dollar basis, not to exceed a maximum of 5 [percent] of base salary." The combined employer/employee contribution was limited to $7,500, annually. Among the positions designated as "key management persons" was the position of Fire Chief. Subsequently, at a date not apparent from the record, but at least 5 years before petitioner's retirement, the plan was amended to its current format, and further refined the classes of participants. For employees, such as petitioner, who had attained senior management Grade 9 or higher under the Port's management pay plan, and who elected to participate in the plan by executing a participation agreement, the Port agreed to contribute, on behalf of the employee, "an annual amount equal to the lesser of (i) $7,500 or (ii) 10 [percent] of such Employee's Compensation," regardless of whether they contribute to the plan. For employees below senior management Grade 9, and who elected to participate in the plan, the Port agreed to make "a matching contribution equal to 100 [percent] of the amount of a Participant's annual Deferred Compensation, up to an annual maximum matching contribution of 5 [percent] of the Participant's Compensation." According to petitioner, he participated in the plan from its inception, and "maxed it" each year. [Transcript, page 56]. By such testimony, it is concluded that the annual contribution to his deferred compensation account was $7,500, and that the Port's contribution varied, over the years, from a "dollar for dollar" match under the September 1984 amendment, to a full $7,500 contribution during the period that included, at least, petitioner's last five years of employment with the Port. Petitioner's retirement and subsequent events In or about June 1994, petitioner applied with respondent, Division of Retirement, for retirement under the Florida Retirement System, and his request was approved effective July 1, 1994. Since that date, petitioner has duly received his monthly retirement benefits, as calculated from the Division's records at the time of his retirement. On March 8, 1995, petitioner, through counsel, wrote to the Division and requested that his retirement benefits be recalculated predicated on an error he felt was committed by the Port in its contributions to the Florida Retirement System on his behalf. Such error, petitioner contended, was the Port's failure to treat the contributions it made to his deferred compensation account as retirement creditable wages, and to make the necessary contributions to the State Retirement Account. Essentially, petitioner wanted the Division to collect the contributions from the Port, and then recalculate his average final compensation to include the $7,500 annual contribution by the Port, and adjust his pension payments accordingly. 2/ Regarding petitioner's contention, the proof demonstrates that from the inception of the plan until May 1989, the Port, unbeknownst to the Division, had included the contribution it made to an employee's deferred compensation plan in calculating an employee's retirement creditable wages and Florida Retirement System (FRS) contributions. In May 1989, Mary Meynarez, the new director of finance for the Port, wrote to the Division concerning the propriety of such treatment. That letter was in response to a conversation the Port's CPA had with the Division, wherein he was advised that employer contributions to a deferred compensation plan were not subject to FRS contributions because gross or retirement creditable wages do not include matching contributions or fringe benefits. Ms. Meynarez's letter sought written confirmation of the Division's position. By letter of May 19, 1989, the Division advised Ms. Meynarez, consistent with its long established interpretation of the retirement laws, that such was the Division's position. Thereafter, the Port made no further contributions to the FRS based on its contribution to an employee's deferred compensation plan, and it submitted and received from the Division a credit adjustment for the erroneous payments for prior periods. Given the Division's interpretation of the retirement laws, it concluded that the Port properly excluded the contributions it made to his deferred compensation account when calculating FRS contributions, and by letter of July 5, 1995, advised petitioner that his retirement benefits had been correctly calculated and no adjustment would be made. Such letter further advised petitioner of his right to a section 120.57 hearing if he disagreed with the Division's decision. Petitioner timely filed such a request, and this proceeding duly followed. Pertinent legislation and the Division's interpretation Section 121.021(24), Florida Statutes, defines "average final compensation," as that term is used in deriving a members retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System, to mean: [T]he average of the 5 highest fiscal years of compensation for creditable service prior to retirement, termination, or death . . . The payment for . . . bonuses, whether paid as salary or otherwise, shall not be used in the calculation of the average final compensation. Prior to 1989, section 121.021(22) defined "compensation," as that term is used in the Florida Retirement System, as follows: (22) "Compensation" means the monthly salary paid a member, including overtime payments and bonuses paid from a salary fund, as reported by the employer on the wage and tax statement (Internal Revenue Service form W-2) or any similar form. When a member's compensation is derived from fees set by statute, compens- ation shall be the total cash remuneration received from such fees. Under no circum- stances shall compensation include fees paid professional persons for special or particular services. During the course of the 1989 Legislative session, proposals were made to amend the provisions of section 121.021(22). The reason for amendment was twofold. First, pursuant to subsection 121.021(22) and (24) bonuses were included in the definition of "compensation" but excluded when calculating "average final compensation." This resulted in a conflict because retirement contributions were due on bonuses, but bonuses could not be used in calculating a member's "average final compensation." Second, the definition of "compensation" was silent with regard to the treatment of salaries paid to employees who participated in a deferred compensation, salary reduction, or tax- sheltered annuity program. Consequently, although the Division had consistently interpreted the subsection to so provide, it was felt appropriate to amend the statute to clearly provide that an employee's election to defer a portion of his salary to a deferred compensation plan did not reduce his retirement creditable wages. As a consequence, pursuant to Chapter 89-126, Section 1, Laws of Florida (1989), subsection 121.021(22), effective June 26, 1989, was amended to read as follows: "Compensation" means the monthly salary paid a member by his or her employer for work per- formed arising from that employment, including overtime payments paid from a salary fund. Under no circumstances shall compensation in- clude fees paid professional persons for special or particular services or include salary payments made from a faculty practice plan operated by rule of the Board of Regents for eligible clinical faculty at the Univer- sity of Florida and the University of South Florida. [For all purposes under this chapter, the compensation or gross compensation of any member participating in any salary reduction, deferred compensation, or tax-sheltered annuity program authorized under the Internal Revenue Code shall be deemed to have been the compen- sation or gross compensation which the member would have received if he or she were not participating in such program] [Emphasis added]. Here, while recognizing that the contributions made by the Port to petitioner's deferred compensation plan may be part of a management package designed to encourage employment fidelity, the Division considers such payments fringe benefits, similar to employer paid health and life insurance, and not "compensation," as defined by subsection 121.021(22) for retirement purposes. In reaching such conclusion, the Division first points to the provision of subsection 121.021(22), as amended, which provides that "[f]or all purposes under this chapter, the compensation or gross compensation of any member participating in any salary reduction, deferred compensation, or tax- sheltered annuity program . . . shall be deemed to have been the compensation or gross compensation which the member would have received if he or she were not participating in such program." Since petitioner would not have received the $7,500 Port contribution had he not elected to participate in the Plan, the literal application of the statutory language would exclude such payments from the definition of "compensation or gross compensation" for retirement purposes. In contrast, petitioner points out that the amendment to subsection 121.021(22) relied upon by the Division was not occasioned to address the peculiarities of his situation, but was designed to clarify that the portion of the employee's salary he elected to defer would not reduce his retirement benefits. Such issue is distinct, according to petitioner, from the issue of whether employer contributions to a deferred compensation plan are "compensation" for retirement purposes. While petitioner may be correct as to the purpose of the amendment to subsection 121.021(22), such does not compel the conclusion that the Division's literal application of that subsection, as excluding employer contributions from the calculation of retirement creditable wages, was not consistent with the Legislature's intent. In concluding that the Division's interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the purpose and intent of subsection 121.021(22), it is observed that under that subsection "compensation" is defined to mean "the monthly salary paid a member by his . . . employer for work performed." "Monthly salary," as observed by the Division, is commonly understood and reasonably read to refer to the fixed compensation for services paid to the employee on a regular basis or, as in petitioner's case, his fixed monthly salary under the Port's management pay plan, and does not include fringe benefits, such as employer matching payments or contributions to a deferred compensation plan. 3/ Consequently, the Division's decision to exclude such benefits from the calculation of petitioner's retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System was reasonable. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing petitioner's petition for formal hearing, and denying his request for additional retirement benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, as a surviving spouse, is entitled to the monthly benefits of his deceased wife pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (1995). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1995) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Betty Thomas began participation in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS") on December 19, 1970, when the public school system that employed her as a teacher converted its retirement program from the Florida Teachers Retirement Program to the FRS. At the time, Mrs. Thomas had approximately six years of previous service for which she received credit in the FRS. The designated beneficiaries of Mrs. Thomas in 1970 were Mr. Johnny Brown, her husband at the time, and the couple's dependent children, Shauna Jackson, Peguena Brown, and Romina Brown. The three daughters were born, respectively, in 1961, 1962, and 1969. The FRS did not become noncontributory until 1975. By 1972, Mrs. Thomas had received $2,322.75 in three separate refunds representing part of the personal contributions and accrued interest that she made prior to 1975. Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Brown divorced in 1972. Mrs. Thomas met Petitioner sometime in 1975, and the two married in 1990. They remained together until Mrs. Thomas died on September 21, 1996. At the time of her death, Mrs. Thomas was actively employed as an assistant principal with 28.2 years of creditable service in the FRS. If her creditable service had not been reduced by previous refunds of personal contributions, Mrs. Thomas would have held 31.8 years of creditable service. On May 31, 1992, Mrs. Thomas changed her designated beneficiary. She deleted Mr. Johnny Brown, her former husband, and designated her three adult daughters as her beneficiaries using the From M-10 (the "M-10") required by Respondent for such purposes. Mrs. Thomas did not designate Petitioner as a beneficiary. From the time Mrs. Thomas executed the M-10 on May 31, 1992, and thereafter, none of the daughters of Mrs. Thomas qualified as a "joint annuitant" or a "dependent beneficiary" within the meaning of Section 121.021(28). None of the daughters was under age 25, physically or mentally disabled or incapable of self-support, or otherwise financially dependent on Mrs. Thomas for at least one-half of their support. From the time Petitioner married Mrs. Thomas in 1990, Petitioner qualified as a "joint annuitant" within the meaning of Section 121.021(28)(a). He was the spouse of a member of the FRS and is now the surviving spouse. Shortly after the death of Mrs. Thomas on September 21, 1996, Petitioner requested the monthly benefits of his deceased wife. By letter dated November 1, 1996, Respondent advised Petitioner that the "only benefit" available was a refund of personal contributions. In relevant part, the letter stated: Unless one of the beneficiaries qualified as a joint annuitant of the member at the time of death . . ., a refund of retirement contributions is the only benefit payable from this account. (emphasis supplied) Each beneficiary is entitled to an equal portion of the $2,354.05 on deposit and should complete Form FST-11g, APPLICATION OF BENEFICIARY FOR REFUND. (emphasis not supplied) If all the designated beneficiaries wish to disclaim interest in this account, you, as the surviving spouse would qualify as a joint annuitant. You would be eligible to receive the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit. The monthly benefit would be payable for your lifetime and is estimated to be $1,617.95 effective October 1, 1996. (emphasis supplied) For you to receive this benefit, we need the following (emphasis supplied): Forms DIS-1 completed by Shauna B. Jackson, Peguena Brown, and Romina Brown. Disclaimer forms must be filed and recorded in Circuit Court within two years of the member's date of death. . . . The daughters of Mrs. Thomas did not disclaim their interest in the personal contributions that remained in the FRS account of their deceased mother. Rather, they applied for a refund. On December 9, 1997, Respondent refunded the remaining personal contributions of Mrs. Thomas to her three daughters. Petitioner continued his attempts to obtain the monthly benefits of his deceased wife. By letters dated January 30 and May 2, 1997, Respondent provided Petitioner with responses substantially the same as the response contained in the letter dated November 1, 1996. On July 17, 1998, Petitioner filed an Application of Beneficiary for Retirement Benefits. Respondent advised Petitioner that the "benefits" had already been paid to the three daughters of Mrs. Thomas, and Respondent requested an administrative hearing. The purpose of the M-10 signed by Mrs. Thomas was to designate beneficiaries of the retirement benefits earned by Mrs. Thomas during her years of service. The M-10 executed by Mrs. Thomas on May 31, 1992, stated, in relevant part: . . . I CHOOSE TO HAVE BENEFITS PAID . . . AS FOLLOWS . . . 3. . . . JOINTLY . . . BENEFITS SHALL BE DIVIDED AND PAYABLE AS INDICATED BELOW. . . . Shauna Brown Jackson Daughter 11/15/61 F Peguena Brown Daughter 12/10/61 F Romina Brown Daughter 3/9/69 F The term "benefits" is not defined in Section 121.021. However, Respondent's own rule, in relevant part, defines the term to mean a "monthly payment." Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-6.001(10). (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.) After Mrs. Thomas died on September 21, 1996, Respondent did not pay "benefits" to anyone, as Respondent defines the term "benefit" in Rule 60S-6.001(10). On December 9, 1997, Respondent distributed three lump sum payments totaling $2,354.05, to the designated beneficiaries who were entitled to the personal contributions of Mrs. Thomas pursuant to Section 121.091(7)(b)2. Respondent distributed one lump sum payment of $784.69 to Ms. Romina Brown and two equal lump sum payments of $784.68 to Ms. Peguena Brown and Ms. Shauna Brown. Section 121.091(7)(b)2 authorizes Respondent to pay only the personal contributions of Mrs. Thomas to her designated beneficiaries who do not qualify as joint annuitants within the meaning of Section 121.021(28). However, nothing in Chapter 121 or the evidence of record requires Respondent to withhold monthly benefits from a surviving spouse who is entitled in Section 121.091(8) to receive retirement benefits. The attempt by Mrs. Thomas to designate beneficiaries on the M-10 was, in part, effective and, in part, ineffective. It was an effective attempt to designate the beneficiaries entitled to a refund of her personal contributions. However, it was an ineffective attempt to name a beneficiary entitled to the monthly benefits that accrued independently of any personal contributions. An ineffective attempt to designate a beneficiary who is entitled to monthly benefits fails to name a beneficiary entitled to those benefits. When no beneficiary is named, Petitioner, as the surviving spouse, is the beneficiary designated in Section 121.091(8) who is entitled to the monthly benefits. When Respondent refunded $2,322.75 in personal contributions to Mrs. Thomas in 1972, the refund reduced the monthly benefit from $1,617.95 to $1,279.54. The refund resulted in a reduction in monthly benefit of approximately $338.41. There is no evidence that a $2,354.05 refund of the remaining contributions in 1997 should have any different effect on the monthly benefit. In the absence of some legal reason not to do so, a refund of $2,354.05 in 1997 should reduce the monthly benefit in the same proportion that the previous refunds in 1972 reduced the monthly benefit. The $2,354.05 refund in 1997 should reduce the monthly benefit of $1,279.54, by $341.79, to $937.75. Sections 121.091(7)(e) and (f) authorize a surviving spouse to modify monthly benefits by repaying contributions refunded to the member. Petitioner can restore the monthly benefit either to $1,279.54 or to $1,617.95 by electing to pay either $2,354.05 or $4,676.05 in personal contributions previously refunded plus accrued interest at the statutorily prescribed rate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order awarding to Petitioner, for the remainder of his life, the monthly benefits earned by Mrs. Thomas during 31.8 years of service in an amount that may range from $937.75 to $1,617.95, depending on the amount of personal contributions repaid by Petitioner, and shall include a lump sum payment of all monthly benefits plus accrued interest from October 1, 1996, to the date of the first payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 29th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Button, Senior Attorney Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Granville E. Petrie, Esquire 1105 North Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue The central issue for determination is whether the Petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits which she claims as surviving spouse. Although she does not provide evidence that her husband earned sufficient creditable service to vest in the system, Petitioner claims entitlement based on two alternate theories: that approximately 480 hours of sick leave accrued at the time of her husband's death should be added to his creditable service to meet the ten-year requirement; and her husband should have been eligible for disability retirement prior to his death, but was prevented by his employer from making a timely application.
Findings Of Fact Robert L. Carruthers was a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) at the time of his death on May 26, 1988. His membership commenced on September 13, 1979, when he was employed by the Brevard County District School Board. On June 30, 1980, he transferred to the Orange County District School Board and remained in that employment until his death. Joy Ruth Carruthers is the surviving spouse of Robert L. Carruthers. During his employment with the two school boards, Mr. Carruthers earned 8.75 years of creditable service in the FRS. Mrs. Carruthers is unaware of any other employment which might be credited as service. The Division of Retirement has no information of other employment which might be credited as service in the FRS. As the result of a complaint by Carol Stearns, the mother of Joy Carruthers, Robert Carruthers was placed on "relief of duty, with full pay and benefits" as of February 18, 1988, by the Orange County School Board. Prior to that time he had worked as an ROTC instructor at Evans High school. He was on the "relief" status at the time of his death. Sometime in late February 1988, Robert Carruthers became paralyzed from the waist down, and could not walk, as the result of a progressive illness. He had formerly walked with a cane. He had worked at the school up through the day he was given his "relief from duty" papers. Mrs. Carruthers claims that when he was placed on relief status, her husband was forbidden to go anywhere near the school or school board offices and was thus prevented from filing an application for retirement disability benefits. No witness substantiated that claim, and the letter from Dennis Reussow, Assistant to the Superintendent for Employee Relations and Administrative Services, to Mr. Carruthers states, ". . . . During this time you are directed to remain away from the Evans High School campus and to avoid contact with students assigned to the school. . . ." (Petitioner's exhibit #4.) This prohibition appears to be limited to the school and would not include the administrative offices. In early May the school board received a statement from Robert Carruthers' doctor that he would not be able to return to work indefinitely. Shortly thereafter, John B. Hawco, the Orange County School Board Administrator for Employee Relations, went to Carruthers' home with insurance forms. They were able to communicate and Carruthers signed some forms. It is not clear from the record whether a disability retirement application was completed on that occasion, but at some point a scribbled, illegible signature for Robert Carruthers was obtained on an FRS application for disability retirement. The application is dated May 25, 1988. The employer's statement of disability attached to the application was completed by John B. Hawco on May 26, 1988. When he completed the form, John Hawco did not know that Robert Carruthers had died the same day. The application form was date-stamped at the Division of Retirement on May 31, 1988. The employer's statement of disability is stamped June 6, 1988. (Petitioner's composite exhibit #3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter its Final Order denying Petitioner's request for benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joy R. Carruthers Post Office Box 680-151 Orlando, Florida 32858 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Office of General Counsel 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Should Petitioner Alma Slocum receive either the Option 3 or Option 4 retirement benefits retroactive to the death of Clyde Slocum in March 1975?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Clyde Slocum (Slocum), deceased, was a member of the State and County Officers Retirement System (SCOERS) under Chapter 122, Florida Statutes. Slocum was employed by the Suwannee County School Board as a school bus driver until he became physically unable to work in June 1970. Slocum married Alma Sanchez in October 1934, and was continuously married to her until his death on March 30. 1975. By letter dated May 6, 1968, Slocum made an inquiry to the Division regarding the benefits he would be eligible for if he retired from his employment as a school bus driver with the Suwannee County School Board. Slocum noted in the letter that he was not ready to quit work but wanted to know what benefits would be available, if and when he retired. The Division, by letter dated June 20, 1968, notified Slocum of the amount of his contributions on file and the benefits he would be eligible for under Options 1 through 4. It was pointed out that Options 3 and 4 would provide a smaller monthly benefit. However, these options would provide survivor benefits for his wife. It was also stated that proof of age for Slocum and his wife, Alma Slocum, would be required, if he selected Option 3 or 4. The following information was provided to Slocum: (a) Option 1 would provide $43.60 a month, but upon his death, no further benefits would be paid; (b) Option 2 would be 13 cents lower at $43.47, but in the event he died, his beneficiary would receive any balance of the amount of his contribution ($1,006.81) not paid; (c) Option 3 would provide a reduced monthly payment of $35.58 and one-half of that amount ($17.79) to his wife upon his death; and (d) Option 4 would provide for a payment of $30.08 and the same benefit to the wife upon his death. By letter dated August 5, 1970, Lavada Reuthinger, daughter of Slocum, sought information on the three different ways that Slocum could receive his retirement benefits. By letter dated August 7, 1970, Elizabeth Smith, Supervisor, Benefits Section, notified Slocum of the availability of an option election that would provide benefits for his wife after his death. The letter also notified Slocum that proof of his age was required, and if he chose benefits for his wife, then proof of her age was required as well. An estimate, dated September 22, 1970, of benefit amounts, similar to the estimate sent to Slocum in 1968, was prepared by the Division, and sent to Slocum. This estimate of benefits was for Options 1 an 2 only, and did not set forth a benefit amount for Options 3 and 4. The letter stated: "Only the first two options apply in your case." Apparently, the Division assumed that Slocum was retiring under disability. By letter dated October 2, 1970, the Division was notified by Dr. G. L. Emmel that Slocum was disabled and was not able to work. Elizabeth Smith notified Dr. Emmel of the statutory language requirement for an application for disability. Using a form provided by the Division, Slocum, on October 10. 1970, also under the assumption that he was retiring on disability, elected to receive benefits under Option 2. At this point, Slocum had been advised by the Division that neither Option 3 or Option 4 were available to him. Dr. Emmel provided the Department with the requested documentation that Slocum was permanently disabled. On October 26, 1970, Elizabeth Smith requested that Slocum submit proof of his age. By letter dated November 13, 1970, Elizabeth Smith advised Slocum that he had failed to furnish proof of his age, but instead he had furnished his wife's birth certificate. Slocum's wife's birth certificate was returned by letter dated November 13, 1970. By letter dated November 21, 1970, Elizabeth Smith advised Slocum that he could not retire under disability because he had reached normal retirement age, but that he could retire under Option 3 or Option 4 which would provide monthly payments to his wife upon his death, if he accepted a reduction in the amount of benefits. Smith further advised Slocum that he would need to furnish proof of his wife's age if he selected Option 3 or Option 4. Smith further stated that: "It was thought you were retiring under disability when proof [of your wife's age] was returned to you." Smith also advised Slocum that if he waited until June 30, 1970, he would receive the five-year average. The letter does not indicate what the payment amounts would be for the four different options, and the letter does not indicate that a option election form was included with the letter. Furthermore, the letter does not refer to the Option 2 selection form that Slocum had previously submitted to the Division. Slocum responded to Smith's letter on November 30, 1970, and enclosed a copy of his wife's birth certificate. Slocum also requested "the necessary forms concerning his retirement." Additionally, he notified the Division that since he had not worked since June 1970 he wanted retirement benefits to be paid as soon as possible. The Division did not comply with Slocum's request for the "necessary forms concerning his retirement." A warrant was mailed to Slocum on December 31, 1970, for retirement benefits from July 1, 1970, through December 31, 1970, at $59.17 a month. This benefit amount was the Option 2 retirement benefit amount furnished to Slocum on September 22, 1970, by the Division when it was assumed that he was retiring under disability. No explanation was given to Slocum if, or that, the Division was using Option 2 benefit selection that Slocum had signed and submitted to the Division on October 1970, prior to the time the Division had notified Slocum that he could choose Option 3 or Option 4. Slocum and his wife were both under the impression that since Slocum had furnished the Division a copy of his wife's birth certificate that she would receive retirement benefits after his death. Slocum died on March 30, 1975, five years after he retired. The Division advised Alma Slocum by letter dated May 19, 1975, that her husband had retired under Option 2 and, therefore, no benefits would be paid to her. A copy of his option election and the computation of his monthly benefits were enclosed in the May 19, 1975, letter from the Division. Thereafter, Petitioner repeatedly inquired of the Division why she was not entitled to retirement benefits as Slocum's widow. These inquires were made from the time of Slocum's death in 1975 through the present. In response to each inquiry the Division replied that Slocum had selected Option 2, and no benefits were payable to Petitioner under that option. In February 1999, Petitioner and her granddaughter, Theresa L. Crosby, visited the Division's office in Tallahassee, Florida and reviewed Slocum's file. After they reviewed the file, it was their position that Petitioner was entitled to receive survivor benefits and made a demand on the Division for Petitioner to receive those benefits. At no time prior to February 1999, had the Division advised Petitioner that she was entitled to a formal hearing on the matter. A final agency action letter dated March 26, 1999, was mailed to Petitioner which pointed out that her husband elected and received Option 2 benefits from 1970 until his death in March 1975 and there was no provision under SCOERS, Chapter 122, Florida Statutes, to change the option choice at this time. This letter is the first written notice to Petitioner that she was entitled to request a formal hearing if she disagreed with the Division's decision. A Petition for Formal hearing contesting the Division's denial of a survivor's benefit for Petitioner was received by the Division on April 19, 1999. When Slocum made the selection for Option 2 retirement benefits he did so because he was advised by the Division that only Option 1 or Option 2 were available to him since he was retiring under disability. Once Slocum became aware that his wife could receive retirement benefits after his death, it is clear that he intended to select an option which would provide his wife with benefits after his death. Furthermore, after it was determined that he could not retire under disability, which had limited his options, the Division failed to give Clyde Slocum an opportunity to make a selection of the options offered for retirement benefits, either initially in writing or verbally by telephone with a follow-up written option, notwithstanding any testimony to the contrary which, lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division enter a final order finding Alma Slocum eligible to receive retirement benefits under Option 3 retroactive to Clyde Slocum's death on March 30, 1975, making adjustments for the higher rate paid Clyde Slocum during the years 1970 through his death in 1975, and any adjustments for interest that may be applicable to the benefits paid Clyde Slocum or those benefits that should have been paid to Alma Slocum. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra E. Allen, Esquire 314 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is eligible to purchase out-of-state creditable service under the Florida Retirement System (FRS), for employment in September and October 1973, with the Maryland State Teachers Retirement System (MSTRS), in accordance with Section 121.1115, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Richard P. Balezentis, is a vested member of the Florida Retirement System. He has a total of 29.80 years of creditable service as of August 1, 2004, according to the FRS. That creditable service includes 4.8 years of creditable out-of-state past service with the Maryland State Teachers Retirement System. The Petitioner is seeking to add .20 years of creditable service (2 months) representing employment under the MSTRS for the months of September and October 1973. It is undisputed that the Petitioner became employed by the Harford County Public School System on August 28, 1973. The evidence shows that he was not actually enrolled in the MSTRS however, until November 1, 1973. The reason for the two-month gap in his enrollment in the retirement system, when he was clearly employed and in an eligible position with the Harford County Public School System is unknown at this time. The Petitioner was not required to pay retirement contributions, and contributions on his behalf were not made for those two months, however. If the Petitioner receives .2 years creditable service for employment under the MSTRS for the months of September and October 1973, he would have 30 years of service established as of August 1, 2004, which would become his "normal retirement date." Therefore, he would be able to commence participating in the deferred retirement option plan (DROP) effective that date. The Division determined, however, that Mr. Balezentis was ineligible to receive retirement credit for his employment with the MSTRS in Harford County Maryland Public Schools for the months of September and October 1973. Therefore, his "normal retirement date" when he may begin participating in DROP is October 1, 2004, according to the Division's position. The Division determined that October 1, 2004, should be his "normal retirement date" because, although employed as a teacher for the Maryland School System involved (since August 28, 1973), he was not a participating member of the MSTRS during the two months in question. His enrollment and participation in the MSTRS did not begin until November 1, 1973. The Petitioner could have purchased credit for the months of September and October 1973 under the MSTRS, during his employment in Maryland with the Harford County School System but he failed to do so. Although the Petitioner's failure to be recorded as a member of the MSTRS for the two months in question may have been a clerical error of the MSTRS or his Maryland employer, the Petitioner had an opportunity to cure the error by purchase of credit for those two months before he left the MSTRS retirement plan but he failed to do so. See letter of Audrey Simpson, supervisor of benefits of the MSTRS, in evidence as Respondent Exhibit 5.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, denying the Petitioner's request to purchase out-of-state service credit for the months of September and October 1973. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 2nd day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard P. Balezentis 1126 Ward Place Jacksonville, Florida 32259 Richard B. Button, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9000 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9000 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Division of Retirement Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9000
The Issue Whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Respondent was a participant in Petitioner’s retirement benefits fund. The retirement fund qualifies as a public retirement system. Respondent was hired by Petitioner on February 16, 1998, and at the time of his termination from employment he worked as a sewer operations team leader in Petitioner’s wastewater collections department. According to the Notice of Disciplinary Action dated July 8, 2010, Respondent’s employment with the City of Tampa was terminated based on the following: During the course of an investigation by the Tampa Police Department, report #2010-900187, you admitted to the following violations of City of Tampa policy: Using a City issued cellular phone for non- City related phone calls which furthered illegal activity; and using a City issued vehicle to participate in activities not related to your employment; both of which are violations of City of Tampa Personnel Manual, Discipline Administration, B28.2,3(c)(9), Neglect of Duty, Use of City equipment, including vehicles, for any unauthorized purpose. Wearing a City issued uniform while conducting unauthorized and illegal activities, violating City of Tampa Personnel Manual, Discipline Administration, B28.2,3(b)(8), Insubordination, Inappropriate use of City identification, including uniforms. Further, your behaviors as revealed in the investigation by the Tampa Police Department, are incompatible with the moral and ethical standards expected of City of Tampa employees and these behaviors are violations of City of Tampa Personnel Manual, Discipline Administration, B28.2,3(d)(9), Moral Turpitude, Engaging in any employment, activity or enterprise which is illegal, incompatible or in technical conflict with the employee’s duties and responsibilities as a City employee. The instant proceeding, as noted in Petitioner’s PRO, does not focus on whether Respondent’s conduct violated the City of Tampa’s “moral and ethical standards,” but instead focuses on whether Respondent, during the course of an investigation by the Tampa Police Department, admitted to wearing his city-issued uniform, and using his city vehicle and cell phone in furtherance of illegal activity.1/ Background In 2010, Detective Korey Diener of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, was involved in a long-term investigation involving counterfeit checks. As part of the investigation, Detective Diener was monitoring a suspect by the name of Shannon Edwards (Edwards). During a circuit court probation hearing on February 24, 2010, Edwards, who was acquainted with Respondent because they hung out in the same neighborhood, presented a State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Public Service Hours form, which indicated that he (Edwards) had completed his court-ordered community service hours. Another detective, who was also involved with the case, was present in the courtroom and knew that the form was falsified based, in part, on a surveillance conversation he heard between Edwards and his girlfriend, Chelsea Niles (Niles). During the surveilled conversation, Edwards asked Niles to contact Respondent so that he could secure for Edwards a form showing that Edwards had performed the required community service hours, when in actuality he (Edwards) had not. According to Petitioner, Edwards, while using Niles as his agent, reached out to Respondent because Respondent, as a city employee, “knew somebody” who could prepare the needed community service form. Mr. Edwards did not testify during the disputed-fact hearing, and his statement is not being accepted for the truth of the matter stated therein. Ross Fabian (Fabian) was Respondent’s contact person for securing the fraudulent form. Respondent’s undisputed, credible testimony is that he knew Fabian because as a juvenile, Respondent had gotten into trouble and performed his ordered community service hours under Fabian’s supervision. Respondent maintained a relationship with Fabian throughout the years, but there is no evidence that the relationship between the two was in any way connected to Respondent’s employment with the city. Petitioner seeks to infer from Edwards’ statement that Respondent was a “city employee that knows somebody,” the existence of a nexus between Respondent’s employment and the securing of the fraudulent form. The evidence is insufficient to support such an inference. Police Interview The predicate for the instant action lies in that portion of the Notice of Disciplinary Action which provides that during the course of an investigation by the Tampa Police Department, Respondent “admitted” to “[u]sing a City issued phone for non-City related phone calls which furthered illegal activity, using a City issued vehicle to participate in activities not related to your employment, and [w]earing a City issued uniform while conducting unauthorized and illegal activities.” The evidence of record does not establish that Respondent admitted to the conduct as alleged. On June 16, 2010, Respondent was interviewed by Detective Mike Victor of the Tampa Police Department and Detective Korey Diener of the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office. A transcript of the audio recording was admitted into evidence. During the interview, Respondent was asked about the phone that he used when speaking with Edwards about the fraudulent community service hours. In response to the question, Respondent informed the detectives that he used his personal phone when speaking with Edwards. At no point during his interview with law enforcement did Respondent admit to using a city-issued cell phone as part of the transactions related to the fraudulent form. Furthermore, in reviewing the transcript of audio recording, Respondent was never asked if he used his city truck or was wearing his city-issued uniform while interacting with Edwards, Fabian, Niles, or anyone else who may have been involved with the execution of the fraudulent community service form. Succinctly stated, the transcript of Respondent’s recorded interview does not in any way indicate that Respondent admitted to using his city truck, or to wearing his city-issued uniform while completing the transactions related to the execution of the fraudulent community service form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund enter a final order: Finding that there is no nexus between Respondent’s conduct and his public employment; Finding that forfeiture of Respondent’s benefits under the retirement plan is not authorized pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes; and Dismissing the petition for forfeiture, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 8th day of February, 2017.
The Issue The sole issue in this cause is whether or not the payments received from Gadsden County by Petitioner, as set forth on pages 4 through 8 of her Amended Petition, for services rendered as Official Court Reporter pursuant to Chapter 29, Florida Statutes, constitute "compensation" within the meaning of that term in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 27 and May 1, 1992, respectively, the Respondent and the Petitioner submitted to the Hearing Officer their Proposed Recommended Orders including proposed Findings of Fact. In the Appendix to Recommended Order, the Hearing Officer submitted recommended rulings thereon. The following constitutes the rulings in this Final Order on those proposed Findings of Fact. The Petitioner's and Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, are hereby accepted and adopted in that they track the stipulated facts contained in the PREHEARING STIPULATION dated and filed March 30, 1992. The Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11, are hereby rejected in that they are conclusions of law and were not contained within the stipulated facts contained within the PREHEARING STIPULATION, and are, therefore, not based upon competent substantial evidence. The actual employment position held by the Petitioner as an employee of the judicial branch of the State of Florida is clearly identified on Florida Retirement System Form FR-11, which was executed by the Petitioner on January 24, 1990, and certified by the Chief Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit (Exhibit 6 attached to the PREHEARING STIPULATION), whereon the "Title of Position held" is stated to have been "Official Court Reporter, Second Judicial Circuit of Florida assigned to Gadsden County." The supplemental salary that was paid to the Petitioner by the County required paper work identifying her as a county employee for payroll purposes only; but, as a matter of law, she held her State position as an official court reporter solely at the pleasure of the Judges of the Second Judicial Circuit pursuant to Section 29.01, Florida Statutes. In the Conclusions of Law in this Final Order, this issue shall be fully analyzed. RULINGS ON HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 1 is hereby accepted as a proper statement of applicable law. Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 2 is hereby accepted as a correct statement of applicable law. Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 3 is hereby rejected in that it erroneously concludes that the Petitioner's salary and fees were authorized and set by statute, when, they had to have been authorized and set pursuant to Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. The conclusion of the Hearing Officer is incorrect because under Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the compensation of, and the fees in question to be charged by, court reporters are authorized and set by such judicial rule. Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, adopted generally by reference the annual salary for court reporters set forth in Section 29.04, Florida Statutes, for a 60-hour work month. That judicial rule then goes on to provide for overtime at the rate of $10.00 per hour. That Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, also provides that the fees in question (for transcripts and depositions) to be charged by court reporters should be set in each circuit by administrative order, and, in the absence of such order, as provided by law. Such court reporters' fees, therefore, are set pursuant to said judicial Rule 2.070, which authorizes the charging of such fees in accordance with a circuit administrative order, and, in its absence, as provided by law. The setting of such fees and the authorization to charge same arise from said judicial Rule 2.070, and not from Chapter 29, Florida Statutes. The fee schedule set forth in Chapter 29, Florida Statutes, derives its legal efficacy not from its legislative enactment alone, but from its judicial approval in said Rule 2.070 in the event that a local circuit administrative order setting such fees has not been entered. In such instance, the fees are not set by statute, but by judicial approval of a statutory fee schedule. The judicial branch has set such fees, not the legislative. Thus, any such fees were not set by statute. The citations by the Hearing Officer in recommended Conclusion of Law No. 4 of Rules 22B-1.004(4)(b)1., and 22B-6.001(49), Florida Administrative Code, are rejected as being inapplicable to the proceeding at bar inasmuch as the Petitioner as an Official Court Reporter appointed pursuant to Section 29.01, Florida Statutes, was an employee of the State of Florida and was not an employee of Gadsden County. Under said Section 29.01 all official court reporters are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Chief Judge and a majority of the Judges of the Court in which the reporter is serving. Provision is made in Section 29.04, Florida Statutes, for the respective counties to provide funds necessary to pay the cost of reporting in criminal cases as necessary to provide competent reporters in such proceedings, but any such monies paid to such official court reporters would be paid to state employees. The judicial branch of government in Florida is a State court system. Official Court Reporters are hired and retained by the State Judges in a Circuit, and their employment is not determined or continued to any extent whatsoever by any Board of County Commissioners. Under Section 29.04(3), Florida Statutes, provision is made for the counties to supplement the funds necessary to pay the cost of reporting in criminal cases as necessary to provide competent reporters in such proceedings. The counties are a source of funding, and are not employers of the Official Court Reporters. In the case of Matter of Compensation of Hunter, 635 P.2d 1371 (Or. App. 1981), the Court of Appeals of Oregon held that where court reporters are appointed and hold their offices at the pleasure of the Judges, and are officers of the Court subject to the direction and control of the Judges, those court reporters are employees of the State of Oregon and not of the counties. At page 1373 of 635 P.2d the Court held: "The right to control is also important from a policy standpoint. The judges of the State of Oregon benefit directly from the services of the court reporters. They not only perform reporting duties in court, but are also the judges' official secretaries. See ORS 8.330. The State benefits most directly from court reporters' services, and it should be responsible for providing their workers' compensation insurance." Recommended Conclusion of Law of No. 5 is hereby rejected as a conclusion of law in that is a recitation of the relative positions of the parties and is not of any recommended holding or ruling by the Hearing Officer. Upon the reasoning and authorities set forth in Paragraph No. (3), above, recommended Conclusion of Law No. 6 is hereby rejected in that the fees in question were not authorized or set by legislative statute but were, in fact, authorized and set pursuant to judicial Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. The first three sentences of recommended Conclusion of Law No. 7 are hereby rejected in that they misconstrue the first sentence of Section 121.021(22), Florida Statutes, that states: "`Compensation', means the monthly salary paid a member, including overtime payments paid from a salary fund, as reported by the employer on the wage and tax statement (Internal Revenue Service form W-2) or any similar form." [Emphasis supplied] A form 1099 is not a form on which an employer reports salary paid from a salary fund to an employee, but, rather is a form utilized to report payments of income to an independent contractor. The "similar form" in that statute refers to an employer's wage and tax statement, which may be a form W-2, which is not the equivalent to a form 1099. As hereinafter discussed in Conclusions of Law Nos. (11), (12), and (13) of this Final Order, Official Court Reporters are "professional persons" within the meaning of that term in Section 121.021(22), Florida Statutes. The recommended Conclusion of Law of the Hearing Officer that the transcribing of criminal proceedings do not constitute "special or particular services" does not comport with either judicial Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, or a 1957 Opinion of the Attorney General of Florida. Under said judicial Rule 2.070 the basic salary for a court reporter is set in subsection (g) together with provision for the payment of overtime for hours in excess of 60 worked per month. In subsection (e) of Rule 2.070, provision is made for fees for what would constitute special or particular services by a court reporter, and the fees that may be charged for same. In a 1957 Opinion of the Attorney General of Florida (1957 0p. Att'y. Gen. Fla. 057- 109 (April 26, 1957)), the Attorney General of Florida analyzed Section 122.02, Florida Statutes, the predecessor to Section 121.021(22), Florida Statutes, as to what constituted compensation under the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (SCOERS). The opinion of the Attorney General was that hourly wages plus overtime would be included within the monthly compensation. But, at the end of that opinion the Attorney General concluded: "We conclude that in the case mentioned in the question the employing authority has prescribed the formula for fixing the monthly compensation or salary. It may vary depending upon the hours employed in discharging the routine work of the employment but the formula is fixed and applicable mathematically. This is not a situation where fees are paid for special or particular services. It is a regular retainer made depending upon the actual hours engaged in performing the month by month routine duties as School Board Attorney. It has no reference to fees for handing special items such as bond validation or other litigation." Under Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, official court reporters are paid their basic salary and overtime for their court appearances in reporting the proceedings. But, if they are to furnish transcripts of proceedings or depositions, which work would be done after their regular working hours, then the fees for such special or particular services are to be set by local circuit administrative order, or in the absence of same, as provided by law. These special or particular services that the court reporters are performing for such additional fees are not performed during their regular working hours, which by said Rule 2.070, is limited to 60 hours per month. And the last sentence of Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 7 that the Petitioner was a county employee is hereby rejected upon the grounds and reasoning set forth in Paragraph No. (4) above. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 8 (misnumbered as "7") is hereby rejected upon the grounds and for the reasons set forth in Paragraph Nos. (3) through (7) set forth above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent enter a final order approving petitioner's request for additional retirement benefits by including in the calculation of average final compensation those fees received by petitioner between January 1973 and February 1990 as set forth on pages 4 through 8 of her amended petition. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3168 Petitioner: Accepted in finding of fact 1. Accepted in finding of fact 2. 3-4. Accepted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Accepted in finding of fact 4. 7. Accepted in finding of fact 5. 8-11. Accepted in finding of fact 3. Respondent: Accepted in finding of fact 1. Covered in preliminary statement and in finding of fact 2. 3-4. Accepted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Accepted in finding of fact 4. 7. Accepted in finding of fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1500 Edgar Lee Elzie, Esquire P. O. Box 82 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Burton M. Michaels, Esquire Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2630 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive supplemental compensation under the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been employed as a firefighter with the City of Deland Fire Department. By submitting course transcripts on September 18 and 20, 1989, Petitioner applied to the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, Division of the State Fire Marshall, Department of Insurance for additional compensation under the Firefighter Supplemental Compensation Program. The course transcripts were from Brevard Community College and Valencia Community College. The Brevard transcript showed that, over a four-year period ending September 13, 1989, Petitioner had earned 69 semester credit hours, for which he was awarded an associate in arts degree in August, 1988. (All credit hours reported below are semester credit hours.) The courses for which Petitioner earned credits at Brevard are as follows (three credit hours for each course unless indicated otherwise in parentheses): general psychology, general chemistry I and II, general chemistry lab I and II (each 1), engineering graphics (4), college algebra, weight training (1), communications I and II, stage band (1), archery (1), fundamentals of speech communication, swimming (1), college trigonometry, first aid and safety (2), organic chemistry I and II, organic chemistry lab I and II (each 1), academic/career planning, U.S. history I and II, oceanography, introduction to physical geology, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (1), tennis (1), survey of American literature, contemporary humanities of the 20th century, and--following the receipt of the degree-- developmental psychology. After earning his associate in arts degree, petitioner took ten credit hours at Valencia Community College during the second session of the 1988-89 school year. The courses and their credit hours are: fundamentals of emergency medical technology (4), fundamentals of emergency medical technology practice (3), and emergency medical technician clinical practicum (3) By notice dated October 18, 1989, the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, Division of the State Fire Marshall, Department of Insurance informed Petitioner that the information that he had submitted for entry into the Supplemental Compensation Program was not acceptable. The notice explains that Petitioner "does not have 18 hours fire science within degree transcript." The notice advises at the bottom: "When you have all of the appropriate paperwork properly filled out, please resubmit." By letter dated November 8, 1989, Frederick C. Stark, Chief of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, informed Petitioner that his transcripts failed to disclose a "major study concentration area" to qualify for supplemental compensation. The letter quotes Rule 4A-37.071(2), Florida Administrative Code: The major study concentration area, at least 18 semester hours or 27 quarter hours, must be readily identifiable and applicable as fire-related. Those major study concentration areas specifically identified in Rule 4A-37.073 are considered by the Division to be readily identifiable and applicable as fire-related. The letter advises Petitioner of his right to a hearing. Following some communications from Petitioner, Mr. Stark wrote another letter to Petitioner dated November 27, 1989. The letter states in its entirety: After further review of your transcript from Valencia Junior College, may I suggest that you take the necessary courses needed to get an Emergency Medical Technology degree. I feel that this would be the best way to go since you already have courses in this area. If I can be of any further assistance please call me at [number omitted]. Petitioner re-enrolled in Brevard Community College for the second semester starting January 8, 1990. He completed a three-credit hour course in statistics and a two-credit hour course in medical terminology. He also received credit, through a CLEP examination, for four credit hours in general biology. On June 18, 1990, Petitioner resubmitted the transcript materials showing the additional coursework at Brevard Community College. By letter dated July 10, 1990, Mr. Stark informed Petitioner that his application for entry into the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program had been denied for noncompliance with Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code. The letter quotes Rule 4A-37.085(2) as follows: "To be eligible to receive the Supplemental Compensation provided for by Section 633.382(3), Florida Statutes, the following requirements must be met: Possess an eligible Associate or Bachelors Degree." Prior to advising of a right to a hearing, the letter concludes: "it has been determined that your Degree is not readily identifiable and applicable as fire-related, per Rule 4A- 37.084. By letter dated July 17, 1990, to the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The letter states that Petitioner had at least 18 semester hours readily identifiable and applicable as fire-related. In the July 17 letter, Petitioner asserts that he had called Mr. Stark prior to taking the additional courses and had been told that he needed only six additional semester hours, because he had 12 semester hours in approved courses. The letter claims that Mr. Stark had approved specific courses prior to Petitioner's taking them and had said it was unnecessary to confirm anything in writing. Petitioner complains in the letter that he was only lately told that he could meet the 18 semester-hour requirement only by earning a new associate degree. To earn an associate in arts or associate in science degree from Brevard Community College, a student must satisfy various requirements, such as completing a "prescribed course of study which includes at least 64 semester hours of credit," according to the college catalog. The associate in arts degree offers no opportunity to declare a major. 1/ The associate in science degree offers various majors. The associate in science technical program offers a major in fire technology that is designed to "qualify fire personnel for career advancement." The coursework described in this program represents strong evidence of the kind of courses that are fire- related. The coursework for the associate in science degree with a major in fire technology requires, among other things, the following courses and credit hours: two English courses (3 each), one physical science course (3), one chemistry course (3), one algebra course (3), two government courses (3 each), one human relations course (3), and two physical education courses (1 each). Although Petitioner did not take the identical courses required for the associate in science degree with a major in fire technology, he took comparable courses that, in each case, were more difficult than those required for the associate in science degree. The courses that Petitioner took that correspond in subject matter and credit hours to the Brevard requirements for a major in fire technology are: general psychology (3), general chemistry I (3), college algebra (3), communications I (3), fundamentals of speech communication (3), weight training and swimming (2), and U.S. history I and II (6). Other fire-related courses are first aid and safety (2) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (1). Petitioner thus earned, prior to receiving his associate in arts degree, 26 hours in courses that are readily identifiable and applicable as fire-related. Valencia Community College is similar to Brevard Community College in offering no majors within the associate in arts degree. Valencia's associate in science degree with a major in fire science requires the following courses and credit hours: composition (3), U.S. government (3), psychology in business and industry (3), business math (3), fundamentals of speech (3), technical communication (3), introduction to general chemistry (4), introduction to sociology (3), and humanities (3). when measured against the requirements of Valencia Community College for a major in fire science, in terms of subject matter and credit hours, Petitioner earned a total of 25 or 28 credit hours in fire-related courses. Adding the first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation courses, Petitioner earned, in this comparison to the Valencia requirements, between 28 and 31 credit hours in courses that are clearly fire-related and within a major study concentration area that is fire-related. Neither an associate nor bachelor degree is required for Petitioner's present job as a firefighter. His job responsibilities include preventing and extinguishing fires, maintaining firefighting equipment, and conducting life support activities. His specific responsibilities include raising and climbing ladders, using chemical extinguishers, performing rescue activities, conducting fire education, performing life-support activities, and attending training courses to learn more about fire prevention and protection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance, Division of State Fire Marshall, issue an amended final order determining that Petitioner is eligible to receive supplemental compensation of $50 monthly commencing no later than the first full calendar month following the date of the initial final order entered in this case. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Attorney Lisa S. Santucci Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Peter T. Campbell, III 445 Clarewood Boulevard Titusville, FL 32796
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Heike Stoll (f/k/a Heike Bybee), has standing to assert a claim or right to any portion of her former husband’s Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) benefits as an “innocent spouse” pursuant to Article II, Section 8(d) of the Florida Constitution, and section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2017).1/
Findings Of Fact Mr. Bybee is a member of the FRS Investment Plan by virtue of his former employment as a deputy with the Sarasota County Sheriff, an FRS participating employer. On October 6, 2017, in Sarasota County Circuit Court Case Number 2017CF001018, Mr. Bybee was found guilty by jury verdict of the following felonies under Florida law: Kidnap- Commit or Facilitate Commission of Felony; Crimes Against Person-Exploitation Elderly or Disabled Adult $20,000 to $100,000 dollars; Fraudulent Use of Personal Identifying Information (8 counts); and Computer Crime to Defraud or Obtain Property (3 Counts) (referred to collectively as the “felony convictions”). On October 6, 2017, judgment was entered against Mr. Bybee adjudicating him guilty of the felony convictions. The SBA notified Mr. Bybee that his felony convictions required forfeiture of his FRS benefits under section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Mr. Bybee did not file a petition for hearing to challenge the Notice of Forfeiture or otherwise assert that his felony convictions did not warrant forfeiture of his FRS benefits under the forfeiture statute. Mr. Bybee’s interest in his FRS benefits is subject to forfeiture due to his commission of the crimes, and his felony convictions. Ms. Stoll was married to Mr. Bybee on August 27, 1994. On or about May 9, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Manatee County (Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067) asserting her interest in, inter alia, Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits. On December 8, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed an “FRS Investment Plan Petition for Hearing” asserting her claim of entitlement to her spousal share of Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits as an “innocent spouse.” On February 26, 2018, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll executed a Marital Settlement Agreement. As to retirement accounts, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll agreed to the following: Retirement Accounts/Pension. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, all retirement accounts and/or pensions in the Husband’s sole name, in the joint name of the parties, and/or in the Wife’s sole name, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Specifically, Husband has a pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, in said pension and/or retirement account, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Further, Husband assigns, transfers, and relinquishes any legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies of any nature against the pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida; and Husband shall fully cooperate with Wife in any and all respects as necessary for Wife to pursue any such legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies related any manner said pension and/or retirement account. Ms. Stoll was not charged with or convicted of any crimes related to Mr. Bybee’s felony convictions. Ms. Stoll’s testimony was credible that she was unaware of Mr. Bybee’s crimes, and had not benefited from them in any fashion. On April 16, 2018, a Final Judgement of Dissolution of Marriage was entered in Manatee County Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067 that “approved, ratified and incorporated” the marital settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration issue a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to her former husband’s retirement benefits, because he was a public employee convicted of specified offenses; and pursuant to section 112.3173, he forfeited all of his rights and benefits in his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account upon committing the crimes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 May, 2018.
