Findings Of Fact Petitioner retired under the provisions of the Florida Teacher Retirement System (TRS) on October 1, 1988. Prior to her retirement, Petitioner had been employed as an accounting instructor by Broward Community College (BCC). BCC is a tax-supported institution of higher learning in the State of Florida which participates in the Florida Retirement System. All instructional personnel at BCC are classified as "instructors". There is no job classification of "teacher" used by BCC. On December 14, 1988, Petitioner worked three hours as a substitute instructor at BCC and was paid $61.35. On March 17, 1989, Petitioner worked five hours as a substitute instructor at BCC and was paid $102.25. petitioner worked -as a substitute instructor at the request of personnel at BCC. Prior to agreeing to substitute on these two occasions, Petitioner had read and had relied on certain information provided by Respondent to retirees from the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and from the Florida TRS. That information was contained in a pamphlet published October 1987 entitled "Florida Retirement System - After You Retire" and the 1988 Supplement to that publication. Petitioner was aware that retirees from the TRS could not receive both a salary from a participant in the FRS and retirement benefits from TRS. Petitioner was aware that the pamphlet published October 1987 discussed two exceptions that did not apply to her situation. Petitioner construed a third exception, discussed in the 1988 Supplement, as authorizing her to be1 reemployed as a substitute instructor at BCC without that reemployment interfering with her retirement benefits. The 1988 Supplement discussed the third exception as follows: A third exception to the reemployment law was provided by 1988 legislation. After being retired and "off the payroll" for one calendar month, FRS and TRS retirees may work for 780 hours of the first 12 months as an hourly teacher on a noncontractual basis. The language from the 1988 Supplement which discusses the third exception to the reemployment law provided by 1988 legislation and upon which Petitioner relied fails to advise the retiree that the exception is limited to teachers employed by district school systems. This failure lead to Petitioner's misunderstanding as to the scope of the exception. Following an audit, Respondent advised Petitioner by letter dated September 21, 1989, that she was not entitled to payments of retirement benefits for the months of December 1988, January 1989, and March 1989, because she had been reemployed by BCC during those months. Respondent demanded that Petitioner repay the sum of $3,270.41 that she had received for those three months. On November 15, 1989, Respondent advised Petitioner by letter that it had revised its determination and that only the months of December 1988 and March 1989 were in dispute. Respondent demanded reimbursement of the sum of $2,173.54, the amount of the retirement benefits paid to Petitioner for the months of December 1988 and March 1989. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing to challenge Respondent's determinations in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order which finds that Petitioner received overpayment of retirement benefits for December 14, 1988, and for March 17, 1989, due to her reemployment by Broward Community College and which requires her to repay the retirement benefits she received for December 14, 1988, and for March 17, 1989. DONE AND ENTERED this 12 day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE 89-6853 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. end The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5-7 are rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Nellie E. Dry, pro se 1501 South Ocean Drive, M804 Hollywood, Florida 33019 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Department of Administration 2639 North Monroe Street Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Shirley Hoefer Broward Community College 225 East Las Olas Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner is "vested," as that term is defined in Subsection (45) of Section 121.021, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Prior to July of 2000, Petitioner worked on a permanent part-time basis as an adult education teacher for the Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board), accumulating 7.10 years of retirement credit. On Sunday, July 2, 2000, Petitioner was hospitalized because of a "blood disorder." Since his hospitalization on July 2, 2000, Petitioner has been under a doctor's care and has not been physically able to return, and therefore has not returned, to work. Petitioner was hospitalized again in 2001 and for a third time in 2002 for the same ailment. After each visit he has made to the doctor during the time he has been out of work, Petitioner has apprised the principal of the South Dade Adult Education Center (South Dade), where he had worked before his July 2, 2000, hospitalization, of his condition. It is now, and has been at all times following his July 2, 2000, hospitalization, Petitioner's intention "to return to work upon clearance from [his] doctor." Petitioner has not been paid by the School Board during the time he has been out of work. In April of 2001, Petitioner spoke separately with a representative of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and with a School Board staff member concerning his employment situation. The UTD representative advised Petitioner that Petitioner "was on an approved leave of absence." The School Board staff member told Petitioner that he "should be on an approved leave of absence"; however, she was unable to "find that authorization in the computer." She suggested that Petitioner go to School Board headquarters and inquire about the matter. Petitioner went to School Board headquarters, as the School Board staff member had suggested. The persons to whom he spoke "couldn't locate the [leave] authorization either." They suggested that Petitioner contact the principal of South Dade. Taking this advice, Petitioner wrote two letters to the principal inquiring about his employment status. He received no response to either letter. During the summer of 2001, Petitioner contacted the Division to ask about his eligibility to receive retirement benefits. Lisa Skovalia, a Benefits Specialist with the Division, responded to Respondent's inquiry by sending him the following letter, dated August 22, 2001: Our records indicate that you were neither actively employed (physically working and earning salary) as of July 1, 2001, nor on a school board approved leave of absence through that date. As such, you must return to active employment, to earn one additional year of service credit, before you will be vested in the Florida Retirement System and eligible for retirement benefits. I have enclosed a copy of the FRS Retirement Guide for the Regular Class for your information. Please call or write if you have any further questions. In February of 2002, Petitioner again made contact with School Board personnel and "was told that [his] name [had been] removed from the computer (school records)." In July of 2002, Petitioner wrote United States Senator Bob Graham "seeking [Senator Graham's] assistance in helping [Petitioner] get [his] retirement form Miami-Dade Public Schools." Petitioner's letter to Senator Graham was referred to the School Board's Superintendent of Schools, who responded by sending the following letter, dated August 29, 2002, to Petitioner: Your letter . . . to Senator Bob Graham was referred to me for response. A review of our records indicates that your earnings as a part-time teacher ended in July 2000. As a part-time employee, you were not eligible for a Board-approved leave of absence. You were notified by letter (copy attached) dated August 22, 2001 from Ms. Lisa Skovalia, Benefits Specialist, State of Florida, Division of Retirement, that because ". . . you were neither actively employed (physically working and earning salary) as of July 1, 2001, nor on a school board approved leave of absence through that date," you would have to return to active employment and earn one additional year of service credit before being vested in the Florida Retirement System. The State of Florida Division of Retirement is solely responsible for developing rules and procedures for implementing changes in the retirement law. If you disagree with their determination, you may request an administrative hearing by sending a written request to the Bureau of Retirement Calculations, Cedars Executive Center, 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. On September 12, 2002, Petitioner sent a letter to the Division's Bureau of Retirement Calculations (Bureau) "seeking [its] assistance in helping [him] get [his] retirement from Miami-Dade Public Schools." The Bureau responded to Petitioner's letter by providing him with the following Statement of Account, dated September 20, 2002: We audited your retirement account and you have 7.10 years of service through 07/2000. Please note that the vesting requirement for FRS members has been changed to 6 years of creditable service effective July 1, 2001 for those members who were actively employed on that date or on a board approved leave of absence. Former members with 6 years, but less than 10 years of creditable service who were not employed with a participating FRS employer on July 1, 2001, must return to covered employment for one year to become eligible for the six-year vesting provision. Per Maria Perez at the Miami-Dade County School Board you were not on a board approved leave of absence on July 1, 2001, nor were you eligible for a board approved leave of absence due to your position as a part time adult school instructor. Although your school may have allowed you to take a leave of absence, only board approved leaves fulfill the vesting requirements required by law. On November 15, 2002, Petitioner sent the Bureau a letter expressing the view that it was not "fair that, after all [his] efforts as a teacher, [he] should lose out [on his] retirement" and requesting "an administrative hearing concerning [his] efforts to get retirement benefits from Miami-Dade Public Schools." The State Retirement Director responded to Petitioner's letter by sending him the following letter, dated December 18, 2002: This is in response to your recent letter concerning your vesting and eligibility for retirement benefits. You currently have 7.10 years of retirement credit through July 2000, your last month of employment in a Florida Retirement System (FRS) covered position. [Section] 121.021(45)(b)1, F.S., states that "Any member employed in a regularly established position on July 1, 2001, who completes or has completed a total of 6 years of creditable service shall be considered vested. . ." An FRS employer (Dade School Board) last employed you in a regularly established position in July 2000 and you were not granted a leave of absence to continue the employment relationship. Dade School Board has informed us that as a part-time teacher, you were not eligible for an approved leave of absence. Therefore, you do not meet the statutory requirement for coverage under the six year vesting provision. [Section] 121.021(45)(b)2, F.S., provides the vesting requirement for members who were not employed on July 1, 2001, as follows: "Any member not employed in a regularly established position on July 1, 2001, shall be deemed vested upon completion of 6 years of creditable service, provided that such member is employed in a covered position for at least 1 work year after July 1, 2001 (emphasis supplied). It is certainly unfortunate that you had to leave your employment because of your illness, but the current retirement law requires that you must return to covered employment and earn one year of service credit to be vested and eligible for retirement benefits. This letter constitutes final agency action. If you do not agree with this decision and wish to appeal this action, you must file a formal petition for review in accordance with the enclosed Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) within 21 days of receipt of this letter. Your petition should be filed with the Division of Retirement at the above address. Upon receipt of the petition, you will be notified by the Division or the Administrative Law Judge of all future proceedings and hearings. If you do not file an appeal within the 21-day period, you will waive your right to request a hearing or mediation in this matter in accordance with Rule 28-106.111, F.A.C. By letter dated January 2, 2003, Petitioner "appeal[ed]" the "final agency action" announced in the State Retirement Director's December 18, 2002, letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order finding that Petitioner is not "vested," as that term is defined in Subsection (45) of Section 121.021, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 31st day of March, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was convicted of specified criminal offenses, requiring the forfeiture of all his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System, except for the return of accumulated contributions.
Findings Of Fact From 1999 until 2017, Bautista was an employee of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools (“MDPS”). On August 24, 2017, Bautista resigned from his position as principal of the Miami Jackson Adult Education Center, an office he had held since 2011. Bautista departed shortly after being arrested on charges of organized fraud, official misconduct, and grand theft. In the criminal Information leading to Bautista’s arrest, the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit alleged, in summary, that Bautista had used his position as principal to misappropriate between $20,000.00 and $50,000.00 of MDPS’s funds for personal expenses, and had destroyed official payroll records to cover his tracks. On or about July 10, 2019, Bautista pleaded nolo contendere in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court to one count of official misconduct, a felony of the third degree pursuant to section 838.022, Florida Statutes, and to one count of grand theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes, also a third- degree felony. The court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed Bautista on community control, to be followed by probation. In addition, Bautista was ordered to pay restitution to MDPS in the amount of $41,798.22. SBA is an agency of the state of Florida whose jurisdiction includes the administration of the Florida Retirement System Investment Plan (the “Plan”). By letter dated August 14, 2019, SBA notified Bautista that his rights and benefits under the Plan are forfeit as a result of his pleas of no contest to the aforementioned criminal charges, which had arisen from acts allegedly committed by Bautista as an MDPS employee. SBA offered Bautista an opportunity to request a formal administrative proceeding to contest the determination, and Bautista timely requested a hearing. As grounds for opposing the forfeiture, Bautista claims that his former employer, MDPS, failed to provide him due process of law during the run-up to his forced resignation. He complains, as well, that “procedural irregularities” in the criminal prosecution likewise deprived him of due process. Next, Bautista notes that he never admitted guilt and insists that he is, in fact, innocent of the charges to which he pleaded no contest. Finally, Bautista argues that he was not “convicted” for purposes of forfeiture of retirement benefits, because the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the criminal charges against him. To be sure, if Bautista was not afforded due process or was otherwise victimized by prosecutorial abuse or inadequate legal representation, as he alleges, then Bautista might have suffered an injury for which the law affords redress. But this proceeding is not the vehicle, and DOAH is not the forum, for hearing such disputes. It does not minimize the seriousness of Bautista’s allegations to recognize that, even if true, none of them changes the undisputed facts that he pleaded nolo contendere to the crimes of official misconduct and grand theft, each of which is a “specified offense” under section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Conviction of a specified offense results in the forfeiture of retirement benefits pursuant to the plain language of section 112.3173(3).1 Thus, the MDPS investigation and any “irregularities” in the criminal prosecution are irrelevant to the issues at hand, and the undersigned declines to make findings of fact concerning Bautista’s allegations in this regard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a final order determining that Joey Bautista forfeited all his rights and benefits under the Plan, except for the return of any accumulated contributions, when he pleaded nolo contendere to “specified offenses” committed prior to his retirement from public service. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 7th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Soeurette Michel, Esquire The Michel Law Firm, LLC Post Office Box 245131 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024 (eServed) Rex D. Ware, Esquire Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A. 3500 Financial Plaza, Suite 330 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Jonathon W. Taylor, Esquire Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A. Trade Center South, Suite 930 100 West Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 (eServed) Ash Williams, Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer State Board of Administration 1801 Hermitage Boulevard, Suite 100 Post Office Box 13300 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3300
Findings Of Fact The petitioner, Leo A. Price, was a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) at the time of his retirement in June, 1979. He became an FRS member on January 1, 1979, by transferring from the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). Mr. Price was appointed to a teaching position for the 1950-51 school year on June 8, 1950, by the Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Florida. He performed some limited duties for the Board of Public Instruction at the beginning of the 1950-51 school year, but his service was cut short as a result of illness. He received no salary payments for this service. Mr. Price recovered from his illness and began teaching in Dade County on January 31, 1951. He enrolled in the Teachers' Retirement System in February, 1951, and represented on his enrollment blank that he began service on January 31, 1951, and that he had not taught in Florida in prior years. Enrollment forms are required prior to membership in TRS. Mr. Price taught continuously from January 31, 1951, through June 30, 1979. On June 20, 1979, the School Board of Dade County retroactively approved a leave of absence for Mr. Price for the period from September, 1950, through January 30, 1951. No leave of absence had been authorized by the School Board prior to this retroactive authorization. Ruth Sansom, Assistant Bureau Chief, Bureau of Benefits, Division of Retirement, testified that she has worked with TRS and FRS in a supervisory capacity since 1963. In these seventeen years, no member has been allowed a service credit for a leave of absence that was retroactively granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner, Leo A. Price, seeking a service credit for the period of time from September, 1950, through January, 1951, be denied. It is further RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner, Leo A. Price, for interest on all uncashed benefit warrants, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 19 day of September, 1980. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo A. Price 1000 N. E. 96th Street Miami Shores, Florida 33138 Diane R. Keisling, Esquire Suite 207C, Box 81 Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, correctly excluded Petitioner from participation in the Florida Retirement System from August 18, 1995, through November 17, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Dixie County on August 18, 1995, to work the roll-off site in Jena, Dixie County, Florida. At the time of his hiring, Petitioner's position was described as "Temporary Roll-Off Site Fill In." A roll-off site is where people take their garbage which is then transferred to the main facility for disposal. A "Temporary Roll-Off Site Fill In" is defined as someone who is called to work as needed. According to the Dixie County Payroll Records, Petitioner was employed as a "Temporary Roll-Off Site Fill In" from August 19, 1995, until November 18, 1996, when he became a "Part-Time Fill In Roll-Off" with an 80-hour biweekly schedule, until a permanent position could be filled. In July 1998, Petitioner's position became classified as permanent and his position description was changed to "Full Time Roll-Off Site." Testimony from Howard Reid, the road superintendent who was Petitioner's supervisor at the Jena roll-off site during the time period of August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996, was that Petitioner was employed to fill the full-time position of Houston O. ("Hugh") Markham who had been fired from his employment with Dixie County in August 1995. Mr. Reid testified that Petitioner was employed in a regularly established position during this time period. No documentation was produced to substantiate the claim that Petitioner worked in a regularly established position from August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996. Respondent's records show that Houston O. Markham was employed by Dixie County during the period of August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996. Houston Markham was paid by Dixie County until December 1, 1996. December 1, 1996 is the pay date for the period beginning November 18, 1996. Based upon the payroll records, Petitioner began working 80 hours, biweekly, on November 18, 1996. This date coincides with Respondent's records for the last pay date of Houston Markham. The only time records in evidence for Petitioner are for the time period of November 3, 1996, to July 26, 1998. For the pay date of November 3, 1996, Petitioner was paid for 42 hours of work. For the pay date of November 17, 1996, Petitioner was paid for 53 hours of work. Thereafter, for the next 43 pay periods, Petitioner was paid for 80 hours of work biweekly (with one exception, the pay date of July 13, 1997, for which he was paid 76 hours). Petitioner's other witnesses, Joseph Ruth and Arthur Bellot, were not in a supervisory position over Petitioner from August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996, and could not attest to Petitioner's employment during that time. Membership in the Florida Retirement System is compulsory for any person who fills a regularly established position, as defined by statute. A person filling a temporary position, as defined by statute, is not eligible to participate in the FRS. The agency would not report the temporary employee's work to Respondent. The first time Dixie County ever reported Petitioner for retirement purposes was in January 1998. After review, Respondent found that Petitioner was eligible to participate in the FRS effective November 18, 1996, based upon a Payroll Change Notice from Dixie County. The number of hours a state employee works is not dispositive of the issue of whether he or she is an employee in a regularly established position. An employee who works only two days a week, for example, would be a participant in the FRS if employed in a regularly established position. Based upon the documentation in its possession, Respondent enrolled Petitioner in the FRS effective November 18, 1996. Respondent requested that Petitioner submit tax documentation to demonstrate that he had worked full-time for Dixie County during the August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996, period, as he claimed. Respondent submitted no documentation to support his claim to have been either a full-time employee or an employee in a regularly established position.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for participation in the Florida Retirement System for the period of August 18, 1995, through November 17, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 30th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Spencer Kraemer, Assistant General Counsel Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Joseph Lander, Esquire Lander & Lander, Attorneys at Law Post Office Box 2007 Cross City, Florida 32628 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner's rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System are subject to forfeiture.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert T. Lacey (Lacey), was employed as the Director of the Criminal Justice Institute, Broward Community College, Broward County, Florida, from at least January 1, 1985, until his resignation in March 1986. At all times pertinent to this case, Broward Community College (BCC) was an employer which participated in the Florida Retirement System, and petitioner, while employed by BCC, was a member of the Florida Retirement System. On February 4, 1987, a Grand Jury impaneled in Broward County, Florida, returned a fourteen (14) count true bill of indictment against Lacey. The matter was ultimately assigned Case No. 87-2056CFA, Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida. Pertinent to this case are Counts I-XII of the indictment, one count for each of the calendar months of 1985 (January through December 1985). Each count charges that Lacey did, while employed by BCC that year, commit the following acts each month: . . . unlawfully and knowingly obtain or endeavor to obtain the property of Broward Community College, to wit: United States Currency, services and/or material, of a value of one hundred dollars ($100.00) or more, with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive Broward Community College of a right to the property or a benefit thereof, or to appropriate the property to his own use or the use of any person not entitled thereto, contrary to F.S. 812.014(1)(a)., and (1)(b)., and F.S. 812.014(2)(b). The gravamen of such charges was the assertion that while employed as director of the Criminal Justice Institute, an entity within Broward Community College, Lacy used materials, time and personnel to benefit him personally in his consulting business. On February 25, 1988, following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of grand theft, as alleged in Counts I-XII of the indictment, and not guilty as to Counts XIII and XIV of the indictment. Although found guilty by a verdict of the jury, the court withheld adjudication as to each count, placed Lacey on probation for a period of three years, ordered Lacey to pay $3,000 in restitution to BCC, and ordered Lacey to perform 200 hours of community service. Lacey's post trial motions for arrest of judgment, new trial, and renewed motion for judgment of acquittal were denied by the court. Following the true bill of indictment that issued February 4, 1987, Lacey was also charged by direct information filed April 21, 1987, in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, Case No.87-6744CFA, with two counts of official misconduct (Counts I and III), one count of petit theft (Count II), and one count of grand theft (Count IV). Pertinent to this case, Count I of the information charged that on or about September 5, 1985, Lacey did, while a public servant, to wit: . . . an employee of Broward Community College . . . did then and there unlawfully and knowingly falsify, or cause another to falsify, an official record or official document, to-wit: a Broward Community College form entitled "STAFF AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COURSE APPROVAL FORM," with the corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for himself . . . or another, to-wit: for the benefit of JACINDA LYNN FANNIN, contrary to F.S. 839.25(1)(b). Counts III and IV of the information charged Lacey with official misconduct and grand theft, respectively; however, that portion of the information which would have set forth the factual basis for Counts III and IV is not of record, and no conclusion can be drawn as to whether or not the basis for those charges related to Lacey's employment with BCC. In response to the information in Case No. 87-6744 CFA, and following the resolution of Case No. 87-2056CFA, Lacey entered a plea of nolo contendere to all counts. The Court, by order of November 28, 1988, withheld adjudication of guilt, and placed Lacey on probation for three years with regard to Counts I, III and IV and six months as to Court II. All probationary terms were to run concurrent and coterminous with those imposed in Case No.87-2056CFA. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered forfeituring the rights and benefits of petitioner, Robert T. Lacey, under the Florida Retirement System, except for the return of his accumulated contributions. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of March 1994. 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 25th day of March 1994.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to retirement service credit for the time period in which he was not employed with the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Management Services (DMS) is responsible for the administration of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is an agency of the State of Florida whose employees qualify for membership in FRS. Petitioner Richard L. Duley is an honorably discharged veteran. He began employment with DOT in 1991. At the same time, he became a member of FRS. Prior to 2001, then-Governor Jeb Bush directed state agencies to reduce their workforce by 25 percent over a five- year period beginning in 2001. The directive was known as the "Service First Initiative." In response to the Governor’s directive, DOT developed an Agency Organizational Efficiency Plan. On January 18, 2005, Petitioner was notified that his position was designated to be deleted under the Agency’s Organizational Efficiency Plan; his position was abolished on June 30, 2005. As a result, Petitioner was dismissed from state employment and was no longer receiving retirement service credit for FRS. However, Petitioner did not receive a clear point of entry to challenge either his termination or whether he was entitled to a veteran's preference by DOT. After his dismissal, Petitioner was hired by a private firm who had contracted with the State to perform the functions that Mr. Duley had previously provided as an employee of the state. The contract terminated in June or July of 2007, and was not renewed. As such, Mr. Duley became unemployed. On July 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) alleging that DOT had denied him veteran’s preference in retention during the 2005 layoff. The DVA found that Petitioner's complaint had merit. On November 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), which held an evidentiary hearing on the complaint. PERC is the administrative body that has jurisdiction to determine issues and remedies under the veteran's preference statute. In its Final Order issued April 8, 2007, PERC found that Petitioner was an honorably discharged veteran and was entitled to preferential treatment in employment. PERC also found that DOT violated the veteran’s preference law by not affording Petitioner special consideration in finding alternative employment after the layoff. As a remedy for its violation of the veteran's preference law, PERC ordered DOT to make Petitioner an offer of employment to an existing position comparable to that which he held prior to his layoff. PERC also awarded Petitioner attorneys’ fees and costs. However, and most importantly, PERC did not reinstate Petitioner to his former position because it had been abolished. Similarly, PERC did not rescind Petitioner's termination. Finally, PERC did not award back pay or benefits to Petitioner. As a consequence of the Final Order, neither Petitioner nor DOT paid contributions towards the Retirement Systems Trust Fund for the period that Petitioner was not employed with the State. Additionally, Petitioner was offered and hired into a new position by DOT and again began to accrue retirement service credit in FRS when he was hired by DOT in May of 2008. The PERC Final Order was not appealed and became res judicata on the issues litigated therein. Therefore, since Petitioner's termination was not rescinded and Petitioner was not reinstated by PERC and did not pay contributions into FRS, he is not entitled to receive credit for the time he was not employed by the State and this action should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order dismissing this action. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Duley 5432 Pinderton Way Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kristin M. Klein, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 19B-14.001, 19B- 14.002, and 19B-14.003 (collectively the “Rules”), are each an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the State Agency which administers the Stanley G. Tate Florida Prepaid College Program (Florida Prepaid College Plan) set forth in section 1009.98, Florida Statutes, and the Florida College Savings Program (Florida 529 Plan) set forth in section 1009.981, collectively known as the Plans. Intuition is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Intuition provides services to customers nationwide, including college savings and prepaid record keeping administration services. It is the largest third- party contractor in the country providing prepaid record keeping administrative services. The Board and Intuition have entered into a series of contracts over the past 25 years. The parties entered their last contract on July 1, 2019, which called for Intuition to provide customer services and records administration services to the Board. Witnesses for both parties testified about the possibility of an upcoming contract dispute involving $700,000.00. This issue prompted the rule challenge. The dispute resolution paragraph in the July 1, 2019, contract provides the following in pertinent part: 33. INTERPRETATION, VENUE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION * * * B. The sole and exclusive manner of resolution of all claims, disputes or controversies related to or arising under or from this Contract shall be pursuant to Rules 19B-14.001, 19B-14.002, and 19B-14.003, Florida Administrative Code, as amended from time to time. 5. Rules 19B-14.001, 19B-14.002, and 19B-14.003, were effective as “New” on June 20, 1996. Rule 19B-14.001, the only rule that has been amended since 1996,4 currently provides: 19B-14.001 Scope These rules shall apply to the resolution of all claims, disputes or controversies related to or arising from contracts, including any extensions of contracts, entered by the Florida Prepaid College Board on or after the effective date of these rules. These rules shall constitute the sole procedure for the resolution of all claims under all such contracts. These rules do not apply to advance payment contracts for the prepayment of Registration Fees, Local Fees, the Tuition Differential Fee and dormitory fees. Rulemaking Authority 1009.971(1), (4), (6) FS. Law Implemented 1009.971[5] FS. History–New 6-20-96, Amended 10-18-10.[6] Rule 19B-14.001 identifies the “Rulemaking Authority” as section 1009.971(1), (4), and (6), and the “Law Implemented” as section 1009.971. 4 The rule was amended in the following ways: the name was changed from Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expenses Board to Florida Prepaid College Board; the word “postsecondary” was deleted before “Registration Fees”; the word “registration” was deleted after the word “dormitory”; “Registration Fees” was capitalized; and the phrase “Local Fees, the Tuition Differential Fee” was added. 5 Although section 1009.971 is cited as the “Law Implemented,” these three statutory subsections: (2) Florida Prepaid College Board; Membership; (3) Florida Prepaid College Board; Elections; Meetings; and (5) Florida Prepaid College Board; Contractual Services, are not applicable to the challenged rules. 6 These history notes are not completely accurate. This rule was amended in 2010 and the citations are accurate for 2010. Florida Administrative Code Rule 1-1.012, Legal Citations and History Notes, provides the specific method to record legal citations and history notes. Section 1009.971(1), (4), and (6) state in pertinent part: FLORIDA PREPAID COLLEGE BOARD; CREATION.—The Florida Prepaid College Board is hereby created as a body corporate with all the powers of a body corporate for the purposes delineated in this section. The board shall administer the prepaid program and the savings program, and shall perform essential governmental functions as provided in ss. 1009.97-1009.988.[7] For the purposes of s. 6, Art. IV of the State Constitution, the board shall be assigned to and administratively housed within the State Board of Administration, but it shall independently exercise the powers and duties specified in ss. 1009.97- 1009.988. * * * (4) FLORIDA PREPAID COLLEGE BOARD; POWERS AND DUTIES.—The board shall have the powers and duties necessary or proper to carry out the provisions of ss. 1009.97-1009.988, including, but not limited to, the power and duty to: Appoint an executive director to serve as the chief administrative and operational officer of the board and to perform other duties assigned to him or her by the board. Adopt an official seal and rules. Sue and be sued. Make and execute contracts and other necessary instruments. Establish agreements or other transactions with federal, state, and local agencies, including state universities and Florida College System institutions. 7 In 1996, the statutes addressing the Plans ended at section 1009.984. Sections 1009.985 through 1009.988 were added in 2015; but those additions do not affect the issue herein. Further reference to these additional sections 1009.985 through 1009.988 will not be noted. Administer the trust fund in a manner that is sufficiently actuarially sound to defray the obligations of the prepaid program and the savings program, considering the separate purposes and objectives of each program. The board shall annually evaluate or cause to be evaluated the actuarial soundness of the prepaid fund. If the board perceives a need for additional assets in order to preserve actuarial soundness of the prepaid program, the board may adjust the terms of subsequent advance payment contracts to ensure such soundness. Invest funds not required for immediate disbursement. Appear in its own behalf before boards, commissions, or other governmental agencies. Hold, buy, and sell any instruments, obligations, securities, and property determined appropriate by the board. Require a reasonable length of state residence for qualified beneficiaries. Segregate contributions and payments to the trust fund into the appropriate fund. Procure and contract for goods and services, employ personnel, and engage the services of private consultants, actuaries, managers, legal counsel, and auditors in a manner determined to be necessary and appropriate by the board. Solicit and accept gifts, grants, loans, and other aids from any source or participate in any other way in any government program to carry out the purposes of ss. 1009.97-1009.988. Require and collect administrative fees and charges in connection with any transaction and impose reasonable penalties, including default, for delinquent payments or for entering into an advance payment contract or a participation agreement on a fraudulent basis. Procure insurance against any loss in connection with the property, assets, and activities of the trust fund or the board. Impose reasonable time limits on use of the benefits provided by the prepaid program or savings program. However, any such limitations shall be specified within the advance payment contract or the participation agreement, respectively. Delineate the terms and conditions under which payments may be withdrawn from the trust fund and impose reasonable fees and charges for such withdrawal. Such terms and conditions shall be specified within the advance payment contract or the participation agreement. Provide for the receipt of contributions in lump sums or installment payments. Require that purchasers of advance payment contracts or benefactors of participation agreements verify, under oath, any requests for contract conversions, substitutions, transfers, cancellations, refund requests, or contract changes of any nature. Verification shall be accomplished as authorized and provided for in s. 92.525(1)(a). Delegate responsibility for administration of one or both of the comprehensive investment plans required in s. 1009.973 to persons the board determines to be qualified. Such persons shall be compensated by the board. Endorse insurance coverage written exclusively for the purpose of protecting advance payment contracts, and participation agreements, and the purchasers, benefactors, and beneficiaries thereof, including group life policies and group disability policies, which are exempt from the provisions of part V of chapter 627. Form strategic alliances with public and private entities to provide benefits to the prepaid program, savings program, and participants of either or both programs. Solicit proposals and contract, pursuant to s. 287.057, for the marketing of the prepaid program or the savings program, or both together. Any materials produced for the purpose of marketing the prepaid program or the savings program shall be submitted to the board for review. No such materials shall be made available to the public before the materials are approved by the board. Any educational institution may distribute marketing materials produced for the prepaid program or the savings program; however, all such materials shall be approved by the board prior to distribution. Neither the state nor the board shall be liable for misrepresentation of the prepaid program or the savings program by a marketing agent. Establish other policies, procedures, and criteria to implement and administer the provisions of ss. 1009.97-1009.988. Adopt procedures to govern contract dispute proceedings between the board and its vendors. Amend board contracts to provide Florida ABLE, Inc., or the Florida ABLE program with contractual services. (aa) Adopt rules relating to the purchase and use of a prepaid college plan authorized under s. 1009.98 or a college savings plan authorized under s. 1009.981 for the Gardiner Scholarship Program pursuant to s. 1002.385, which may include, but need not be limited to: * * * (6) QUALIFIED TUITION PROGRAM STATUS.— Notwithstanding any other provision of ss. 1009.97- 1009.984, the board may adopt rules necessary for the prepaid program and the savings program each to retain its status as a “qualified tuition program” in order to maintain its tax-exempt status or other similar status of the program, purchasers, and qualified beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code. The board shall inform participants in the prepaid program and the savings program of changes to the tax or securities status of advance purchase contracts and participation agreements. Rule 19B-14.001 provides, in plain language, “[t]hese rules shall apply to the resolution of all claims, disputes or controversies related to or arising from contracts” and “shall constitute the sole procedure for the resolution of all claims under all such contracts.” The term “shall” is defined as “directives to express what is mandatory.” See Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shall). Rule 19B-14.002 provides the following: 19B-14.002 Initiating Proceedings Related to Contracts with the Board. Any person or firm that has entered into a contract with the Board and has been adversely affected by a decision of the Board or its employees concerning such contract shall file a written petition to contest the decision with the Board within 21 days of the date of the receipt by such person or firm of the decision. The notice of the decision shall be provided in writing to the person or firm by the Executive Director. The date of receipt of the notice shall be either the date on which the notice is received by the person or firm if the notice is sent by registered mail or by other means of delivery which results in a receipt for delivery or the date of the decision plus five days if the notice is sent by regular mail. Any person or firm who receives such written notice of the decision and who fails to request a hearing within twenty-one days, shall have waived his right subsequently to request a hearing on such matters. The petition shall include the following: The name and business address of the person or firm which claims to be adversely affected by a decision of the Board or its employees; A concise statement of the ultimate facts upon which the claim arose; The date and subject of the contract under which the claim arose; A statement of all disputed issues of material fact upon which the claim is based or, if there are none, the petition shall so indicate; A concise statement which explains how the substantial interests of the person or firm are affected by the decision of the Board or the Board’s employees; A concise statement of the provisions of the contract together with any fed., state and local laws, ordinances or code requirements or customary practices and usages in the industry asserted to be applicable to the questions presented by the claim; The demand for relief sought by the claimant; The date of the occurrence of the event or events which gave rise to the claim and the date and manner of the Contractor’s compliance with the contract; and Any other material information the person or firm contends is material to its claim. The written petition shall be printed, typewritten or otherwise duplicated in legible form. The petition shall include copies of all documents which support the claim. Rulemaking Authority 1009.971(1), (4), (6) FS. Law Implemented 1009.971 FS. History–New 6-20- 96.[8] Rule 19B-14.002(1) clearly states that any person or firm (vendor) “shall file a written petition to contest the decision with the Board within 21 days of the date of the receipt by such person or firm of the decision.” The next sentence provides the method by which the specific date of receipt of the notice is determined, and when the clock starts ticking for the affected vendor to file a written petition. However, the rule fails to establish a time frame in which Respondent must issue the notice once the adverse decision is made. Further, there are no specific requirements for the content of the written notice, such as explaining the basis for the adverse decision. Although Mr. Thompson asserted that any affected vendor could file a written petition to contest any adverse decision by the Board or a Board employee, there is no such language in the rule, the “sole procedure” for a vendor to do so. Rule 19B-14.002(2) provides specific requirements for the written petition. Although a vendor may be able to include some of the required information for the written petition, the requirement that the vendor “shall” provide a “concise statement of the ultimate facts upon which the claim arose”; a “statement of all disputed issues of material fact upon which the claim is based ...”; and a “concise statement which explains how the substantial interest of the person or firm are affected by the decision of the Board or the Board’s employees” is impossible without specific information from Respondent as to the circumstances giving rise to the adverse decision. Mr. Thompson testified there was nothing to preclude an affected vendor from filing a public records request seeking the information desired. 8 These citations are not accurate. In 1996, Respondent listed sections 120.53(1) and 240.551(5), Florida. Statutes (1995), as the “Specific Authority” and section 240.551 as the “Law Implemented.” Rule 1-1.012, Legal Citations and History Notes, provides the specific method to record legal citations and history notes. However, this is contrary to the specific language of the rule, which neither requires the Board to explain the basis for their adverse decision nor provides any procedure for an adversely affected vendor to obtain the information necessary to file a written petition. There is no such language in the rule, the “sole procedure” for a vendor to do so. Rule 19B-14.003 provides the following: 19B-14.003 Resolution of Claims. Upon receipt of a formal written petition, the Executive Director shall attempt to resolve the matters that are the subject of the petition by mutual agreement within fifteen (15) days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. If the petition is not resolved by mutual agreement within fifteen (15) days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, the Executive Director shall deliver, within forty-five (45) days from the date such petition was filed, to the person or firm that filed the petition a determination that indicates the Board’s written response to the claims or such person or firm. Unless the person or firm who filed the petition agrees to the determination of the Board and a consent order adopting the determination is entered within thirty (30) days from the receipt by the person or firm of the Board’s determination, the Executive Director, if no disputed issues of material fact are involved, shall designate a hearing officer who shall conduct an informal proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(2), F.S., and applicable Board rules. The hearing officer designated by the Executive Director shall be either a person who is a member in good standing of the Florida Bar or a person knowledgeable by virtue of education or practical experience with the subject matter of similar contracts involving state agencies. If there is a disputed issue of material fact, the Executive Director shall refer the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services for proceedings under Section 120.57(1), F.S. Once the Executive Director has referred the dispute to a hearing officer pursuant to subsection (3) or (4), no further information or amendment of the claims shall be permitted. The statements, facts, documents and materials contained in the petition filed pursuant to Rule 19B-14.002, F.A.C., or which are submitted to and received by the Executive Director prior to the determination made pursuant to subsection 19B- 14.003(2), F.A.C., shall constitute the entire factual record submitted by a person or firm on which a claim against the Board may be sustained in any hearing under this rule. A person or firm making a claim against the Board shall not be allowed to submit to a hearing officer any statements, facts, documents or materials to support any claim against the Board which were not submitted to the Executive Director by the person or firm making the claim prior to the Executive Director’s determination pursuant to subsection 19B- 14.003(2), F.A.C. The Board may submit statements, facts, documents or materials in response to the factual record submitted by a person or firm making a claim against the Board or to sustain the decision of the Executive Director which was made pursuant to subsection 19B- 14.003(2), F.A.C. The filing of a petition by a person or firm pursuant to the provisions of this rule shall not affect the duty or obligation of the person or firm pursuant to the contract under which the claim or dispute arose. Any person or firm which files a petition pursuant to the provisions of this rule expressly agrees that it shall continue to proceed with all scheduled work as determined under any prior existing schedule pursuant to such contract unless otherwise agreed in writing between the person or firm and the Board. Rulemaking Authority 1009.971(1), (4), (6) FS. Law Implemented 1009.971 FS. History–New 6-20- 96.[9] Rule 19B-14.003(1) adds the word “formal” before “written petition” in the first sentence. The addition of this one word, without any definition and without any previous mention in rule 19B-14.001 (the “sole procedure”), imposes another requirement on vendors. Yet, there is no direction provided as to what that “formal written petition” includes. Respondent aptly states in its PFO: “A rule may be vague if it does not define important terms or standards.” Such is the case when a word is inserted and not defined. The remainder of rule 19B-14.003(1) places a duty on the Board’s Executive Director to attempt a resolution of the “formal written petition” within 15 business days of its receipt. Rule 19B-14.003(3) establishes that if no resolution is reached, the matter is referred to a hearing officer designated by the Board’s Executive Director for a hearing not involving disputed issues of fact (formerly and commonly referred to as an “informal hearing”). This informal hearing is to be conducted pursuant to section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. Rule 19B-14.003(4) establishes that if no resolution is reached, the matter is referred to DOAH for a hearing involving disputed issues of fact (formerly and commonly referred to as a “formal hearing”), “for proceedings under section 120.57(1),F.S.” However, rule 19B-14.003(5) provides that regardless of which referral is made (either rule 19B-14.003(3) or (4)), “no further information or amendment of the claims shall be permitted.” This, in effect, precludes the discovery process at DOAH, and purports to cut off the authority of the presiding administrative law judge to grant leave to amend the petition. 9 See Footnote 8 above. Rule 19B-14.003(6) then proceeds to place further restrictions on how either hearing (informal or formal) must proceed. Subsection (6) restricts what “shall constitute the entire factual record” to the “statements, facts, documents and materials contained in the petition,” and that which is “submitted to and received by the Executive Director prior to the determination made pursuant to subsection Rule 19B-14.003(2), F.A.C.” This phrase is emphasized again with the following statement: “[A] person or firm making a claim against the Board shall not be allowed to submit to a hearing officer any statements, facts, documents or materials to support any claim against the Board which were not submitted ... prior to the Executive Director’s determination.” (Emphasis added). However, the Board, itself, “may submit statements, facts, documents or materials in response to the factual record submitted by person or firm making a claim against the Board, or to sustain the decision of the Executive Director which was made pursuant to subsection 19B-14.003(2), F.A.C.” Overall, these three rules set forth the procedures, in either informal or formal proceedings, to adjudicate contractual disputes. To prohibit the adversely affected party from fully prosecuting their claim, while allowing the Board to submit additional material to the trier of fact is not fair, and is contrary to the procedures in place at DOAH, contrary to several statutory provisions found in sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), and the discovery permitted at DOAH under the Florida Rules. of Civil. Procedures. The phrase “judge, jury, and executioner” may not be an incorrect analogy. Each rule cites as its “Rulemaking Authority” section 1009.97(1), (4), and (6). The Board is a creature of the Florida Statutes, created by section 1009.971(1), “with all the powers of a body corporate,” yet subsection (1) does not provide any rulemaking authority. Further, nowhere does this section grant the Board the ability to adopt rules to bind another state agency, that is governed by different statutes and rules. Section 1009.971(6) allows the Board to “adopt rules necessary for the prepaid program and the savings program... to maintain its tax-exempt status or other similar status of the program,” but does not specifically provide that the Board may impose its rules on another state agency. Section 1009.971(4)(b) grants the Board the “power and duty to… (a)dopt an official seal and rules.” This subsection does not expound on what the rules may impart, and thus does not grant the specific authority to do more. Section 1009.971(4)(y) grants the Board the “power and duty to… “(a)dopt procedures to govern contract dispute proceedings between the board and its vendors.” Although the Board has the ability to adopt rules, that authority does not grant the Board the ability to impose its “procedures” on another state agency that is governed by different statutes and rules. The term “procedures” is not defined in the statute. The common definition of procedures is “a particular way of accomplishing something.” See Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/procedure). In the legal arena, the term “procedure” is defined as “[T]hat which regulates the formal steps in an action or other judicial proceeding; a form, manner, and order of conducting suits or prosecutions.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1368 (4th ed. 1968). Another characterization of the term “procedure” is the structure for carrying on a lawsuit, including the pleadings, discovery process, evidence, and practice. The Division10 provides independent administrative law judges to conduct hearings pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), and other laws. Section 120.569 sets forth the type of proceedings to be conducted: “Decisions which affect substantial interests.” The petition for a hearing is 10 The Division operates two distinct programs: the adjudication of administrative cases by administrative law judges (ALJs); and the adjudication of workers’ compensation claims by the judges of compensation claims. In this instance, the Division employs ALJs to conduct hearings in which the substantial interests of a person or entity are determined by an agency and involve a disputed issue of material fact. filed with the affected agency, which in turn has 15 days to notify DOAH, although the parties may attempt to resolve the dispute and a delay in sending the case to DOAH occurs. Once the case is at DOAH, an ALJ is assigned and the affected agency is mandated to “take no further action with respect to the proceeding ... except as a party litigant, as long as the division has jurisdiction over the proceeding under s. 120.57(1).” The “presiding officer has the power to swear witnesses and take their testimony under oath, to issue subpoenas, and to effect discovery on the written request of any party by any means available to the courts ” See § 120.569(2)(f), Fla. Stat. Further, the presiding officer shall exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence, while allowing “all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs ” See § 120.569(2)(g), Fla. Stat. The Florida Administration Commission, composed of the Governor and Cabinet, adopted the hearing procedures that DOAH utilizes, commonly referred to as the Uniform Rules. See §§ 14.202 and 120.54(5), Fla. Stat. Chapter 28-106, Part I, sets forth the general provisions that apply to “all proceedings in which the substantial interest of a party are determined by the agency and shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding.” Part II sets forth those processes for hearings involving disputed issues of material fact, which are at specific odds with rule 19B-14.003.11 Section 120.54(5)(a)2. provides that an “agency may seek exceptions to the uniform rules of procedure by filing a petition with the Administration Commission.” The Board provided no evidence that it has sought and received an exception that would authorize the challenged rules. 11 Chapter 28-106, Part III, provides the uniform procedures for proceedings and hearings not involving disputed issues of material fact; Part IV provides the uniform procedures for mediations; Part V provides the process for emergency actions; and Part VI provides conflict direction. It is true that the Board can adopt procedures to govern contract dispute proceedings. However, the challenged rules, read separately and as a whole, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to return his retirement contributions and be reinstated in the Florida Retirement System so that he can apply for disability benefits from the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a thirty-four year old man, having left high school in the eleventh grade in order to get married, but later took the GED test to qualify as a high school graduate. Some years later he was informed by an Ophthalmologist that he had fallen into the bracket of being legally blind, a status which categorizes a person who has ten percent (10%) or less vision. Petitioner can and does read. He worked for a bakery which entailed work with machinery and required extensive reading, but was advised by the ophthalmologist to find a job where he would not be required to work with machinery and which did not require extensive reading. Petitioner began participating in the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System on July 1, 1969, when he became a partner in a blind vending stand. He elected to become a member of the Florida Retirement System on December 1, 1970. Petitioner attended two (2) agency meetings at which retirement was discussed. He stated that he had changed from the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (Chapter 122, Florida Statutes) to the Florida Retirement System (Chapter 121, Florida Statutes), and was prompted to make the change because a senior partner in the business who had been there for many years said that it was a good idea for him and for the younger partner to sign into the new system. He stated that there probably was a discussion relative to the merits of the new retirement system but that he did not remember anything about it. He did, however, sign the card to change retirement systems. On June 1, 1971, Petitioner suffered some type of injury to his back which was subsequently diagnosed as a sprain. Petitioner received medical treatment and returned to work where he continued to work for the Bureau of Blind Services for approximately three years, resigning November 11, 1974. On March 5, 1975, Petitioner obtained a lump sum as a settlement for this disputed claim under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. Petitioner went on leave February 5, 1974, after supplying his supervisor, Mr. Eurgil G. Crawford, Administrative Vending Stand Section, Bureau of Blind Services, with a letter from the physician stating that Petitioner had a "nervous condition." In a letter of October 10, 1974, Mr. Crawford advised Petitioner to either return to work or to contact them if it was not possible. He also stated that the Petitioner would have sixty (60) days in which he might come back to work if he so desired, but that after that time his position would have to be filled permanently by another employee. Petitioner had had some employment problems with the other two (2) members of the three (3) man working team. The problems involved the work at the stand, cleanliness and the lifting necessary to operate the stand. He stated that he and the other two (2) members just could not get together as far as working as a team was concerned. After termination of employment, which was voluntary on the part of Petitioner, Petitioner contacted the supervisor, Mr. Crawford, and asked whether he was entitled to benefits he had contributed and was told that he was. Thereupon, Mr. Crawford sent him the necessary forms to apply for a refund. A refund was made after Petitioner had signed the proper forms and returned them to Mr. Crawford. Two (2) state warrants were issued to Petitioner, one on December 19, 1974, and a subsequent one to close out his account. Petitioner did not work after leaving the Blind Services and has not attempted to find work but receives disability benefits from Social Security based on a 15 percent permanent partial disability rating. He stated that "I have come up with a couple of not so advantageous jobs, you know, its a possibility of getting hurt and one thing and another, I haven't done anything." Subsequently, Petitioner requested information from the Respondent and, after receiving literature from them in 1976, tendered a sum of money equal to the refund he had received so he could apply for disability retirement benefits. The tender of the repayment of his contributions was denied. Petitioner applied for this administrative hearing. Petitioner contends: That he was unaware of a choice to apply for a disability rating when he signed the waiver to obtain a refund. That the supervisor owed Petitioner a special duty to inform him of the possibility of applying for disability benefits before requesting a return of his contributions. Respondent contends: That Petitioner was present at meetings at which the retirement system was discussed; he had information that caused him to transfer to the Florida Retirement System; that he knew of eligibility requirements under the Florida Retirement System and that requirements for eligibility were written in a booklet he had obtained from an employee of the retirement system and that he testified he knew of the five year eligibility requirement. That Petitioner voluntarily signed the waiver, that he had due notice and that the tender of the refund was properly denied.
Recommendation Deny the Petition. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Townsend, Esquire Albritton, Sessums & Di Dio 100 Madison Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida
