The Issue Whether the purported selection of Option 2 for payment of Florida Retirement System disability retirement benefits to Lon Emory Sweely, now deceased, and his beneficiary, the Petitioner, Richard A. Castillo, Jr., was valid and effective.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 20, 1990, Lon Emory Sweely executed a Division of Retirement Form FR-13 Florida Retirement System Application for Disability Retirement. The application indicated that Sweely's disability resulted from AIDS-related conditions. It selected Option 1, which the application designates as the "Maximum Benefit" and describes as follows: Full benefits payable to the member for his lifetime. If death occurs before the total benefits paid to member equals the contributions made, the difference, if any, is refunded to beneficiary in a lump sum payment. In so doing, Sweely rejected Option 2, which the application designates as "Ten Years Certain," and describes: Lifetime benefit to member, but not less than 120 monthly payments to someone. A decreased retirement benefit payable to a member during his lifetime, and in the event of his death with a period of ten (10) years after his retirement, the same monthly amount shall be payable for the balance of such ten (10) year period to his beneficiary, or in case the beneficiary is deceased, in accordance with Section 121.091(3), Florida Statutes, as though no beneficiary has been named. The application, also designated the Petitioner, Richard A. Castillo, Jr., as Sweely's sole beneficiary. (Sweely previously had designated the Petitioner as his beneficiary, with the Petitioner's mother as the first contingent beneficiary, on a Division of Retirement Personal History Record Form FRS-M10 (Revised 3/89) executed by Sweely on January 25, 1990.) At the time of Sweely's application for disability retirement, Sweely knew that he had full-blown AIDS and that his life expectancy would have to be estimated at approximately two years or less. There also is evidence that Eulah Lee McWilliams, the principal at the elementary school where Sweely taught, counseled Sweely on his options and advised Sweely to select the "Ten Years Certain" option. It is clear that Sweely wanted the Petitioner, and no one else, to be his sole beneficiary and to be provided for after his death in the manner and to the extent to which he decided. McWilliams believed that Sweely wanted the Petitioner to have the benefits of the "Ten Year Certain" Option 2. Based on their conversations, McWilliams believed that Sweely concurred with her recommendation in order to provide the maximum possible benefit to the Petitioner upon Sweely's death. But, in the face of Sweely's knowledge and McWilliams's advice and understanding, the application indicates that Sweely selected Option 1. There was evidence that the Petitioner was present and assisting Sweely when the Form FR-13 was executed and that the Petitioner filled out part of the form at Sweely's direction, as writing was inconvenient and difficult for Sweely at the time. But there was no evidence that Sweely was unable to make informed decisions when he executed Division of Retirement Form FR-13 on or about June 20, 1990. The evidence also did not prove that Sweely's choice of Option 1 was inadvertent error. At that point in time, Sweely may have wanted to be optimistic and to be able to enjoy and share with the Petitioner the maximum possible monthly benefit for as long as Sweely lived. McWilliams testified that, at the time, Sweely was trying to remain "up-beat" concerning his illness, in part thinking that this might extend his lifetime. A decision to choose Option 1, contrary to McWilliams's recommendation, also would not have been inconsistent with an earlier decision by Sweely in April, 1990, (this time in conformance with McWilliams's recommendation) to postpone applying for retirement benefits until he exhausted all of his accumulated fully-paid sick leave. Had Sweely died while on sick leave, the Petitioner would not have received the additional retirement benefits he is seeking in this case. (It is not clear from the record exactly what the benefits would have been, but it seems that the Petitioner would not have been entitled to any of the additional retirement benefits he is seeking in this case. Cf. Section 121.091(7), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1990); F.A.C. Rule 60S-4.008.) A little over a month later, Sweely's condition worsened, and on or about August 14, 1990, he had to be hospitalized again (as already had happened from time to time during Sweely's full-blown AIDS.) On or about August 15, 1990, the Division of Retirement approved Sweely's application for disability retirement, effective July 1, 1990. On the same date, the Division of Retirement also sent Sweely a Division of Retirement Form FST-40c (R5/89) Acknowledgement of Retirement Application and a blank FRS- 11o "Option Selection Form for FRS Members." The Form FST-40c (R5/89) requested that Sweely "review carefully how the option one and two are paid to your beneficiary." The descriptions of the options in the Form FRS-11o were somewhat different from those in the Form FR-13 application. Option 1 was not called the "Maximum Benefit," and it was described as follows: A monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. Upon my death, the monthy benefit will stop and my beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributionss I have paid which are in excess of the amount I have received in benefits. This option does not provide a continuing benefit to my beneficiary. (Emphasis in the original.) Option 2 was not called "Ten Years Certain," and it was described as follows: A reduced monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. If I die before receiving 120 monthly benefit payments, my designated beneficiary will receive a monthly benefit payment in the same amount as I was receiving until the monthly benefit payments to both me and my beneficiary equal 120 monthly payments. No further benefits are then payable. The FRS-11o "Option Selection Form for FRS Members" also stated in bold and underlined upper case type: "MEMBER MUST SIGN AND DATE IN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC." Whenever Sweely was hospitalized, the emotional strain on the Petitioner increased, and the time spent with Sweely in the hospital left the Petitioner less time to accomplish normal household tasks. The Petitioner's life and home usually became disorganized during Sweely's hospitalizations, and the Petitioner often allowed mail to pile up at their home at these times. The Petitioner testified that, notwithstanding Sweely's hospitalization and its disruptive effect on his life and habits, he happened to collect and read the mail on August 16, 1990. He testified that among the items of mail he read that day was the envelope postmarked the day before in Tallahassee, Florida, containing the Division of Retirement Form FST-40c (R5/89) Acknowledgement of Retirement Application and the blank FRS-11o "Option Selection Form for FRS Members." The Petitioner testified that he telephoned McWilliams to discuss the forms with her, and she asked him to bring them to the hospital. He testified, and she confirmed, that she met with the Petitioner at the hospital, looked at the forms, and explained them to the Petitioner. Believing, based on the conversations she had with Sweely before June 20, 1990, that Option 2 was Sweely's actual choice, McWilliams advised the Petitioner to choose Option 2. McWilliams testified that she discussed the matter with Sweely and with the Petitioner in Sweely's presence on August 16, 1990. (It certainly is possible that, had they discussed the matter with Sweely on August 16, 1990, Sweely might have chosen Option 2 at that time.) But the Petitioner testified that they did not discuss the matter with Sweely on August 16, 1990. The Petitioner explained that, although Sweely was oriented and physically able to write his name and, from time to time, was mentally lucid on that day, the Petitioner did not think that Sweely was in a position to give full consideration to the matter at the time they were discussing the forms because he was on morphine, was lethargic, and was having difficulty breathing without a non-rebreather mask. The Petitioner also did not think it was necessary to trouble Sweely with the matter, since the Petitioner believed that the selection of Option 2 on the Form FRS-11o was redundant and also that he was authorized to execute the form for Sweely as his attorney-in-fact under a purported durable power of attorney which Sweely executed on or about February 28, 1990, authorizing the Petitoner to act in Sweely's behalf in all matters. Under the circumstances on the afternoon of August 16, 1990, the Petitioner did not think that Sweely would have wanted to be troubled with the matter unnecessarily. He checked Option 2 and signed Sweely's name to the Form FRS-11o. On numerous previous occasions, the Petitioner had signed Sweely's name on Sweely's personal checks to pay Sweely's bills. In doing so, the Petitioner believed that he was acting properly under the authority of the purported durable power of attorney, and the bank always honored the checks the Petitioner signed this way. But on June 13, 1990, a physician insisted that the Petitioner sign a Division of Retirement medical records release form FR-13b in his own name as attorney-in-fact for Sweely. Himself not thinking well or clearly under the circumstances, the Petitioner assumed that his signature on the Form FRS-11o was valid. The Petitioner testified that it did not occur to him that there were notary services available for his use at the hospital. He testified that, after checking Option 2 and signing the Form FRS-11o, he telephoned his father, who was a notary, and asked him to come to the hospital to notarize something for him. The Petitioner's father confirmed this and also confirmed the Petitioner's testimony that they met in the hallway outside Sweely's hospital room, where the Petitioner gave his father the signed form and asked him to notarize it. Both testified that they did not discuss the form in any detail before the Petitioner returned to Sweely's hospital room. The Petitioner's father testified that he notarized the form thinking that Sweely had signed it. Sweely died two days later on August 18, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order: (1) that the purported selection, on the Form FRS-11o dated August 16, 1990, of Option 2 for payment of Florida Retirement System disability retirement benefits to Lon Emory Sweely, now deceased, and his beneficiary, the Petitioner, Richard A. Castillo, Jr., was invalid and ineffective; and (2) that the previous selection of Option 1 on the Form FR-13 executed on or about June 20, 1990, is valid and shall be given effect. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as subordinate to facts not proven and as hearsay insufficient in itself to support a finding. (Taking as true that Sweely made such a statement to the Petitioner, his actions were not in accordance with the statement.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 12.-14. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as subordinate to facts not proven and as hearsay insufficient in itself to support a finding. (Taking as true that Sweely made such a statement to McWilliams, his actions were not in accordance with the statement, and McWilliams also testified that Sweely tried to remain "up-beat," thinking that this might extend his lifetime.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Specifically, it was clear that Sweely wanted the Petitioner, and no one else, to be his sole beneficiary and to be provided for after his death in the manner and to the extent to which he decided.) Last sentence, not proven (as to expression of "clear and unqualified acknowledgment and understanding); also rejected as subordinate to facts not proven and as hearsay insufficient in itself to support a finding. (Taking as true that Sweely made such a statement to McWilliams, his actions were not in accordance with the statement, and McWilliams also testified that Sweely tried to remain "up-beat," thinking that this might extend his lifetime.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Specifically, it was clear that Sweely wanted the Petitioner, and no one else, to be his sole beneficiary and to be provided for after his death in the manner and to the extent to which he decided.) 17.-30. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 31. "Substantially," rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 32.-35. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-7. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Ultimate and penultimate sentences, rejected in part as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was that the Patient Care Technician Records were prepared near the beginning of each nursing shift and reflected conditions at that time. Meanwhile, there was evidence that the patient's mental state would "wax" and "wane." When the patient "waned" and was lethargic, it was difficult to communicate with him. Changes during the course of a shift may or may not be noted in the Progress Notes. While the Patient Care Technician Records indicate that the patient was both oriented and lethargic, the 8 a.m. progress notes indicate "lethargic at times." The progress notes also indicate that, earlier in the day, the patient had difficulty breathing without the non-rebreather mask and that, by 2 p.m., he was wearing the mask continuously. Even disregarding the possibility that the morphine dosage was enough to affect his judgment, the patient's lethargy and his difficulty breathing without the mask probably would have made it difficult for him to communicate on legal matters on the afternoon of August 16, 1990.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Ultimate and penultimate sentences, rejected in part as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. (He did not allege that Sweely could not communicate or write his name. He testified that he did not think Sweely would have been able to think clearly or want to be troubled with the form unnecessarily. He did not think he had to discuss it with Sweely or have Sweely sign it.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, Dr. Breen's curt medical evaluation of Sweely's general medical condition on August 16, 1990, was not for the purpose of evaluating whether it was possible or prudent to have him considering legal documents and making important legal judgments. In addition, Dr. Breen saw the patient early in the morning and would not have seen changes during the course of the day. 11.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that Castillo, Jr., "insist[ed] that Sweely was incompetent, unable to provide or receive meaningful communication on August 16--and could not execute the form himself . . .." (Rather, he testified that he did not think Sweely would have been able to think clearly or want to be troubled with the form unnecessarily.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith F. Roberts, Esquire 201 North MacDill Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 Robert B. Button, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
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.
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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dr. Juan C. Costa, is a physician who is currently retired because of a physical disability involving emphysema and arthritis. Before retiring, he- worked for a period of time as a physician at the Department of Corrections' Marion Correctional Institution near Ocala, Florida. His last day of actual work was December 15, 1984, but he remained on the payroll after that time because of vacation and sick leave time accrued. His actual termfnation date was some time in January, 1985. Dr. Costa is disabled. His disability is classified as a regular disability - not "in line of duty." Feeling that the provisions of the disability and survivor benefit program of the Florida Retirement System applied to him, on March 5, 1985, he applied to the State of Florida for disability retirement. Submitted with his application were statements from his employer and two physician reports indicating that he was, in fact, disabled. His application and the supporting documents submitted therewith were prepared in accordance with the terms of a letter Dr. Costa received from the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, which told him what must be submitted. In addition to the above, he also submitted a copy of a form submitted to the Social Security Administration for completion by that agency and return to the Division of Retirement which was a "Report of Confidential Social Security Benefit Information." This form, when filled out, was submitted to the Division of Retirement as support for Petitioner's application for retirement benefits. In addition to the above, Dr. Costa also submitted a letter which he received from Teresa Bender, Medical Examiner for Respondent's Disability Determination Section which indicates that it is unable to process his application because of an insufficiency of information regarding his social security credits. Dr. Costa was born on May 12, 1912. When he terminated his service with the Department of Corrections, he was 72 years old. He had been receiving Social Security Retirement benefits since age 70. However, he never applied for nor received Social Security Disability Benefits and would not have been awarded them had he applied for them after attaining age 65. Once an individual has reached age 65, he is no longer eligible for disability retirement benefits under the Social Security program. He may continue to earn money without limit at age 70, regardless of whether he is disabled or not. The issue of disability goes not to the issue of earnings but to the issue of the ability to work. If an individual under the age of 65, who is retired on disability benefits, goes back to work, those disability benefits may be lost. However, an individual who is disabled, but is age 70 or beyond, would not lose benefits because benefits after age 65 are based not on disability but on retirement and at age 70, the limitation on amount earned is removed. His Social Security Retirement Benefits checks began arriving in January, 1983. Because of his age, he continued to work without penalty after his benefits began. By deposition, Waymen D. Sewell, the District Manager for the Social Security Administration in Tallahassee, Florida indicated that the benefits received by an individual on the basis of disability will, upon that individual's reaching the age of "retirement," age 65, be converted automatically from disability benefits to retirement benefits. There will be no reduction in the amount of benefit received. The only change will be that the money forming the source of the payment will stop coming from the Disability Trust Fund and start coming from the Retirement Trust Fund. As far as the recipient is concerned, nothing changes. There is an additional qualification for disability retirement. An individual, in order to claim and receive disability retirement under social security, in addition to being fully insured, must have 20 quarters of work credit out of the 10 year period up to the quarter in which the onset of disability was established. Here, Petitioner is retired and receiving retirement benefits from Social Security. He initially filed for retirement benefits in January of 1981 and was paid retroactively to April, 1980. At the time, he had 24 quarters of credit. Since based on his birth date, he needed 24 quarters of enrollment, he had exactly what he needed and retired at the earliest possible time. Had Dr. Costa been under 65 at the time he retired, he would have needed 20 quarters within the last 10 year period prior to retirement in order to qualify for disability. According to the records on Petitioner, he did not have 20 quarters of credit during that period. The 24 quarters he had was over a period greater than 10 years and a part of it was earned after he became age 65. The quarters he earned after age 65 did not count toward the 20 quarter retirement because once an applicant turns 65, he is paid strictly on the basis of retirement and not disability. In substance, Dr. Costa was never eligible for disability retirement under Social Security until after he became age 65 at which point he became eligible for retirement benefits which would eliminate any entitlement to disability benefits. According to David Ragsdale, who works with Division of Retirement, under the Florida Retirement System statute there are two types of disability retirement (1) "in line of duty," and (2) "regular" retirement." "In line of duty" does not require more than one day service. "Regular" retirement initially required five years service prior to July 1, 1980. However, in July, 1980, the law was amended to add an alternative 10 year total service criteria as well as an exception from these criteria for those not drawing or eligible to draw Social Security disability. It is the policy of the Division of Retirement, as to the Social Security exception, that if an individual can get a Social Security benefit, he cannot secure retirement benefits from the State under the Social Security exemption. This is interpreted by the Division of Retirement to mean either Social Security type benefit - either retirement or disability and the receipt of either one disqualifies an individual from State disability retirement eligibility under the Social Security exception. Though some people receive State disability retirement while drawing Social Security benefits, they were not qualified for their State retirement under the Social Security exception. They had either worked more than five years as of July 1, 1980 or had 10 years total service. Dr. Costa's application was received by the Division of Retirement, but no determination as to his qualification for disability retirement from a medical standpoint was made. His application was not accepted because, on the face of it, he did not meet the service requirement in that he had neither 5 years service by July 1, 1980, nor 10 years service overall. He was also disqualified because he was receiving a Social Security benefit, albeit the benefit was the retirement benefit and not the disability benefit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, accept and process Petitioner's application for regular disability retirement benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of November,1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November,1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Donohoe, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 906 Gainesville, FL 32602 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 N. Monroe Street Suite 207 - Building C Tallahassee, FL 32303 Gilda Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact John Wallace began service as a Sumter County school board member on January 1, 1959. (Joint Stipulation). On or about January 1, 1959, he completed a blue-top computer enrollment card (Petitioner's Exhibit 1), which also designated his wife Effie as his first beneficiary of his retirement benefits and his daughter, Mrs. Kindle Johnson, as the second beneficiary. (Joint Stipulation). Effie Wallace died January 22, 1963. (Joint Stipulation) John Wallace married Estell Loudin June 9, 1964. (Joint Stipulation). John Wallace executed an election to transfer to the Florida Retirement System, effective December 1, 1970. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). (Joint Stipulation). John Wallace died September 8, 1975. (Joint Stipulation). On November 12, 1975, Betty Carruthers, an employee of the Sumter County School Board, notified the Division of Retirement of Mr. Wallace's death. Margie Smith in the Division of Retirement completed a form (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) setting forth the information she received from Betty Carruthers in the November 12, 1975, telephone conversation. Not having any beneficiary designation form in the School Board file, Carruthers simply advised Smith that petitioner was Wallace's second wife, his first wife, Effie, having predeceased him. Smith's quick check of the Division of Retirement records management section did not uncover Wallace's designation of beneficiary form. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, 5). On March 9, 1977, the Division of Retirement received petitioner's FR- 11, an application (albeit on the incorrect form) for her deceased husband's benefits, along with certain supporting documents. In an April 13, 1977, letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) sent out over David Ragsdale's name but written and signed by a benefits calculation specialist trainee, petitioner was erroneously informed that she was the beneficiary of her husband's benefits, since he had designated his first wife Effie, who had predeceased him. But after the letter went out, it came to the attention of Marjorie Smith that the April 13, 1977 letter was incorrect since Wallace's original January 1, 1959 designation of beneficiary form designated Wallace's daughter, Mrs. Kindle [sic] Johnson, who is still living, as Wallace's second beneficiary. In a June 5, 1977, latter (Petitioner's Exhibit 7), again sent out over David Ragsdale's name but dictated by Marjorie Smith and signed by Ragsdale's secretary, petitioner was informed that respondent had located the designation of beneficiary card, signed by Mr. Wallace, designating his daughter, Mrs. Kindle [sic] Johnson, as his second beneficiary. On June 20, 1977, Randall Thornton, petitioner's attorney at the time, wrote a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) to David Ragsdale, seeking a copy of the beneficiary card upon which the respondent based its decision in the June 15, 1977, letter to petitioner. On July 12, 1977, Mr. Thornton sent another letter to the respondent, attention Mrs. Ferguson (Petitioner's Exhibit 9), asking again for a copy of the beneficiary designation upon which its decision was based awarding Mr. Wallace's retirement benefits to his daughter. On the same date, respondent sent Mr. Thornton a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 10), enclosing a copy of the original enrollment card. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Thornton's secretary called petitioner into the office on July 15, 1977, the day after Thornton received and reviewed respondents' July 12, 1977 letter. Petitioner looked at the copy of Wallace's designation of beneficiary form and stated that she did not believe her husband had written both his first wife's name and his daughter's name as first and second beneficiaries, respectively, at the same time. She did not, however, prove this at final hearing. Petitioner did not prove that there is or ever was another designation of beneficiary executed by Mr. Wallace other than Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Prior to 1972, if a member of the Florida Retirement System or any pension plan in existence prior to December 1, 1970, wanted to change his designated beneficiary, he would complete another blue-top enrollment card. In 1972, a new enrollment form, FRS-M10, was instituted consisting of three identical parts. If a member of the Florida Retirement System completed the form, the original would be sent to the respondent, with a copy to the agency employing the individual and a copy to the individual. (Carruthers deposition, p.4). Respondent has searched its records and has found no other designation of beneficiary form signed by Mr. Wallace apart from Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The files at the Sumter County School Board have been searched and no designation of beneficiary signed by Mr. Wallace found. (Carruthers deposition, p.3). Petitioner's attorney Randall Thornton has searched his files and found no designation of beneficiary signed by Mr. Wallace other than Petitioner's Exhibit (Thornton deposition, p.18)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying petitioner's request for benefits on the ground that she is not, in law and fact, entitled to benefits resulting from the death of her husband, John Wallace. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1984.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of retirement contributions for the period from February 1, 1960, through January 1975.
Findings Of Fact Until January 1975, the Florida Retirement System and its predecessor, the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (SCOERS), were contributory retirement plans, in which state employees contributed a portion of their wages toward their retirement benefits. In January 1975, FRS became a non-contributory retirement plan, in which the employer paid all contributions to the plan. On February 1, 1960, Petitioner, who was then known as Rebecca Jamis or James Lee, began her state employment at Florida State Hospital (FSH), located in Chattahoochee, Florida. During her employment, Petitioner was enrolled in the state’s retirement plan and contributed $2,188.01 to that plan. In 1980, Petitioner was convicted of a felony offense and was sentenced to prison. She began serving her sentence in state prison in June 1980. Due to her imprisonment, Petitioner’s employment at FSH terminated on July 29, 1980. At some unknown date, Respondent received form FRS-M81 requesting a refund of Petitioner's contributions to the state’s retirement plan. Pursuant to the state's document retention policy, the original form was destroyed many years ago with a microfilmed copy of the front of the form retained by DMS. The microfilmed copy of this form does not reflect the date the form was signed. Additionally, except for the agency number and various signatures, information contained in the refund request form was typed in. The date of termination of Petitioner’s employment was also typed on the form, indicating the form was completed after Petitioner was imprisoned. More importantly, the form was purportedly signed by Petitioner with the name she used at the time. However, the address on the request was not Petitioner’s residence but was the 1980 address of Florida State Hospital Credit Union. At the time, Petitioner had a loan at the credit union, although she denies having an account there. Petitioner also did not hear any more from the Credit Union about her loan and does not know what happened to it. The regularly kept records of the Division indicate that on November 4, 1980, pursuant to this request for refund, Respondent issued Warrant No. 264829 in the amount due Petitioner for a refund of her retirement contributions. The warrant was issued to Petitioner and mailed as instructed to the address of the credit union. Again due to the passage of time, a copy of this warrant is no longer available. Moreover, the credit union records are not available. However, Charlene Fansler performed a search of un- cashed state warrants for Warrant No. 264829. The warrant was not on the list of warrants that remained outstanding. Further, the warrant had not escheated to the State as abandoned property. As such, the evidence demonstrated that the warrant was paid by the State. In 1990, at the age of 60 and several years after her release from prison, Petitioner requested a refund of her retirement contributions. On May 24, 1990, Respondent denied Petitioner’s request based on the 1980 refund of those contributions. At the time, Respondent did not advise Petitioner of her chapter 120 hearing rights; and therefore, did not provide Petitioner with a clear point of entry for an administrative hearing. However, Petitioner was clearly aware that DMS claimed that she had been issued a refund of her contributions and was, therefore, not entitled to a further refund. Petitioner took no action in 1990 even though she did not personally receive the 1980 refund because and claimed to not have signed the refund request form. In 2012, 32 years after the 1980 warrant was issued and 22 years after the 1990 denial of her request for refund, Petitioner, at the age of 82, again requested a refund of her retirement contributions based on her claim that she did not sign the 1980 refund request form and the fact that she did not personally receive the refund warrant. Respondent submitted the microfilmed copy of the signed refund request form and known handwriting exemplars of Petitioner's signature to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) laboratory for analysis. Kesha White, a handwriting analyst with FDLE, analyzed the documents and concluded that they were more likely than not signed by the same person. Her finding was not conclusive due to the limits of analyzing signed documents preserved on microfilm. Indeed, the signatures on the refund form and the known handwriting samples of Petitioner's signature are very similar and appear to be by the same person. In this case, the better evidence demonstrates that Petitioner signed the 1980 refund request form and, due to the passage of time, has simply forgotten that she did so. By signing that form, Petitioner instructed Respondent to issue and mail the warrant to the address for the credit union listed on the form. Respondent complied with that request. Given these facts, Petitioner is not entitled to another refund of her retirement contributions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner was issued a refund of retirement contributions for the period from February 1960, through January 1975, and dismissing Petitioner's request for hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2013, 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 21st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Rebecca Thomas 1929 Hamilton Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dan Drake, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Jason Dimitris, General Counsel Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to the retirement benefits of her late husband, Frederick Griffith.
Findings Of Fact Frederick Griffith was employed with the Broward County School System from January 4, 1971, until his death on June 9, 1996. Frederick Griffith was enrolled with the State of Florida Retirement System at the time of his death. Frederick Griffith separated from his first wife, Ruth Griffith, in 1976, and they were divorced on October 25, 1989. Frederick Griffith and Petitioner, Joyce Griffith, were married on November 25, 1989, after having been together for approximately 12 years. Joyce and Frederick Griffith were married at the time of his death. Joyce Griffith applied for her husband's benefits as the surviving spouse. The Respondent, Division of Retirement (Division), denied Joyce Griffith benefits as surviving spouse, stating that the beneficiary of record was Ruth Griffith. The Division advised Joyce Griffith that they would recognize her as surviving spouse and pay her a monthly benefit if Ruth Griffith would disclaim her rights as the designated beneficiary. Ruth Griffith refused to disclaim her rights and applied for the benefits as the designated beneficiary. The Division paid her $4,373.94. Because Ruth Griffith was not dependent on Frederick Griffith at the time of his death, she was entitled only to the lump sum amount that Mr. Griffith had paid into the retirement system. On February 2, 1992, Mr. Griffith submitted Retirement Information Request, Form FR-9, to the Division for a calculation of total years of creditable service and the amount due to purchase his creditable military service. On June 15, 1995, the Division replied to the FR-9 request by issuing Form FRS-40, Estimate of Retirement Benefits. The information provided to Mr. Griffith was calculated based on the assumption that Mr. Griffith would retire with a retirement effective date of February, 1997. The Estimate of Retirement Benefits advised Mr. Griffith that there was an apparent discrepancy with the beneficiary listed on his FR-9 and his named beneficiary listed in the Division's official records. Specifically, Mr. Griffith was advised: The spouse listed on the Retirement Information Request, FR-9, and used for this estimate is not your primary beneficiary. If you intend to change your beneficiary designation, please complete a personal history record, FRS-M10, in your personnel office. Mr. Griffith did not file a revised FRS-M10 in response to the advice given by the Division in the June 15, 1995, FRS-40. After Mr. Griffith received the FRS-40, Joyce Griffith insisted that he call the Broward County School Board to verify that she was the designated beneficiary. Joyce Griffith gave her husband the number to call. The school board personnel assured Mr. Griffith that Joyce Griffith was his beneficiary. Apparently, Mr. Griffith called the department which dealt with life insurance benefits and not retirement benefits. Joyce Griffith was the beneficiary of her husband's employer-provided life insurance policy for $150,000. Mr. Griffith had designated her as his beneficiary on a change of beneficiary form dated August, 1990. Mr. Griffith had completed a form entitled Application for Service Retirement designating Joyce Griffith as his primary beneficiary. The form was notarized on November 25, 1995. Mr. Griffith did not indicate a retirement date on the form and never filed the form with either the Division or his employer. After Mr. Griffith's death, Joyce Griffith found an employee copy of a FRS-10 form among Mr. Griffith's military papers. The form was dated November 19, 1991, and signed by Mr. Griffith. The form was not filed with either the School Board of Broward County or the Division. Neither the school board nor the Division have any record of the form being filed. The form was not correctly completed. In the area of the form entitled Designation of Beneficiaries, the employee is supposed to complete only one of three sections. On the form signed by Mr. Griffith, the first section was checked, and the other two sections were filled out with the names of Joyce Griffith and the children of Mr. Griffith.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's request for the retirement benefits of Frederick T. Griffith. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Connie L. Hiaasen, Esquire Regina S. Bushkin, Esquire SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1997. 707 Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 2639-C North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was convicted of specified criminal offenses, requiring the forfeiture of all of her rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System, except for the return of accumulated contributions.
Findings Of Fact At the time of her arrest in March 2002 on criminal charges relating to the alleged acceptance of a bribe, Petitioner Martha G. Byrd ("Byrd") was employed as a clerk in the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office. As a public employee, she became a member of the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), which is administered by Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division"). All told, Byrd earned approximately 21 years of creditable service in the FRS. On March 8, 2004, Byrd pleaded nolo contendere in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, to three crimes, namely: solicitation or acceptance of unlawful compensation for an official act as proscribed in Section 838.016, Florida Statutes (2002); solicitation or acceptance of a bribe, as prohibited under Section 838.015, Florida Statutes (2002); and grand theft of the third degree, as proscribed in Section 812.014(c), Florida Statutes (2002). Based on the plea, the court found that Byrd had committed the crimes charged and sentenced her to probation with special conditions; adjudication of guilt was withheld, however, with regard to each charge. The Division learned about the criminal prosecution of Byrd upon receiving notice thereof from the Commission on Ethics. After reviewing the court file, the Division determined that Byrd had been convicted of "specified offenses" (a legal term that will be discussed below) and concluded that, consequently, she must forfeit all her rights and benefits as a member of the FRS. By letter dated August 22, 2007, the Division notified Byrd of its preliminary decision regarding the forfeiture of her retirement benefits and offered her an opportunity to request a formal administrative proceeding to contest the determination. Byrd timely requested a hearing. Byrd maintains her innocence of the crimes for which she was sentenced. She insists that she was a good employee who never took any money in exchange for a corrupt act. Byrd pleaded no contest to the criminal charges, she says, because she had no way of proving that the government's principal piece of evidence against her——a tape recording made by an undercover agent——had been altered; thus, she feared being convicted at trial, on the strength of the surreptitious recording, and sent to prison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order determining that Ms. Byrd forfeited all her rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System, except for the return of any accumulated contributions, when she pleaded no contest to "specified offenses" committed prior to her retirement from public service. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 2008.
The Issue Whether the Petition has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System (FRS) as a result of a guilty plea in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, for acts committed in connection with Petitioner's employment with the Broward County Sheriff's Department.
Findings Of Fact From the Joint Stipulation of Facts: The Florida Retirement System (FRS) is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS on behalf of the Department of Management Services. Petitioner was employed as an Assistant State Attorney by the State Attorney's Office from December 1972 to January 1974. During this time, Petitioner was a member of the FRS and this service is credited as service under the FRS. Petitioner was employed as Executive Director of the Broward County Charter Commission from January 1974 to November 1974. During this time, Petitioner was a member of the FRS and this service is credited as service under the FRS. Petitioner was employed by the Broward County Board of County Commissioners from March 1975 to November 1978. During this time, Petitioner was a member of the FRS, and this service is credited as service under the FRS. In November 1978, Petitioner was elected to serve as a member of the Florida Legislature; he continued to serve as a state legislator for approximately 18 years. As a state legislator, Petitioner was a member of the FRS class of State Elected Officers, and this service is credited service under the FRS. Most recently, Petitioner was the elected Sheriff of Broward County. By reason of his service as Sheriff, Petitioner was a member of the FRS. Petitioner was initially appointed Sheriff in January 1998 by then-Governor Lawton Chiles. Petitioner was subsequently elected Sheriff in 1998 and reelected in 2000 and 2004. As Sheriff of Broward County, Petitioner was Broward County's chief law enforcement officer and was responsible for directing the Broward County Sheriff's Office ("BSO"), a law enforcement agency that currently employs over 6,000 employees. The office of Sheriff is a constitutional office established under Article VIII, Section 1(d), Constitution of Florida. Upon assuming his duties as Sheriff of Broward County, Petitioner took an oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and the State of Florida and to faithfully perform the duties of sheriff pursuant to Article II, Section 5(b), Constitution of Florida. On or about September 4, 2007, Petitioner wrote a letter to Governor Charlie Crist notifying him of his resignation from the office of Sheriff of Broward County. By reply letter of the same date, Governor Crist accepted Petitioner's resignation. Petitioner is not retired from the FRS and currently does not receive FRS retirement benefits. On or about September 4, 2007, Petitioner was charged, by information, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in case number 0:07-cr-60209-WPB, with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, and three counts of filing a false tax return, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1). The same four-count information is filed in U.S. District Court (S.D. Fla.) case number 0:07-cr- 60209-WPB as document 1. At all times relevant to the information, Petitioner was the Sheriff of Broward County. The section of the information entitled "General Allegations" contains numerous references to Petitioner's service as Sheriff of Broward County and the power and authority vested in that position. The "Objects of the Conspiracy" contained in count one of the information states: An object of the conspiracy was for JENNE to unlawfully enrich himself by obtaining monies from P.P. and L.N., who were Broward Sheriff's Office vendors, by making false representations, omitting to state material facts, and concealing material facts concerning, among other things, the ultimate destination of monies that JENNE asked P.P. and L.N. to give to his secretaries, A.V. and M.Y. It was further an object of the scheme for JENNE to perpetuate and conceal the scheme and the actions taken in furtherance of it by, among other things, making false, misleading, and incomplete statements in public filings and to investigators. The "Manner and Means of the Conspiracy" contained in count one of the information states: JENNE and M.Y. arranged for JENNE to receive $20,000 from P.P. by having the money transferred from P.P. through JENNE's secretary, M.Y., to JENNE. JENNE and M.Y. did this in order to conceal that JENNE was the true recipient of the funds. JENNE provided L.N. with access to off- duty Broward Sheriff's Office deputies, who L.N. hired to do work for his companies. On two different occasions, in exchange for the access to the deputies, JENNE instructed L.N. to pay money to JENNE's secretary, A.V., purportedly to compensate A.V. for work done for L.N. JENNE instructed A.V. to cash checks given to her by L.N. and to have the cash deposited into JENNE's bank account. JENNE and A.V. did this in order to conceal that JENNE was the true recipient of the funds, which totaled $5,500. JENNE perpetuated this fraud and attempted to prevent its detection by mailing incomplete and misleading annual financial disclosure forms, which did not list his receipt of the payments from P.P. and L.N., to the Florida Commission on Ethics. On or about September 5, 2007, after being advised of the nature of the charges against him, the above-referenced information, and of his rights, Petitioner waived in open court prosecution by indictment and consented to proceeding by information. The same waiver of indictment is filed in U.S. District Court (S.D. Fla.) case number 0:07-cr-60209-WPB as document 13. On or about September 5, 2007, Petitioner entered into an agreement with the United States of America to plead guilty as charged in the four-count information. The same plea agreement is filed in U.S. District Court (S.D. Fla.) case number 0:07-cr-60209-WPB as document 3. Paragraph 7.c. of the plea agreement provides: 7. The United States and the defendant agree that, although not binding on the probation office or the court, they will jointly recommend that the court make the following findings and conclusions as to the sentence to be imposed: * * * c. Advisory sentencing range on the conspiracy to commit mail fraud count: That, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1, the applicable guideline to be used in calculating the defendant's advisory sentencing range on the conspiracy to commit mail fraud count is § 2B1.1; that under § 2B1.1(a)(1), the Base Offense Level is 7; that under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C), four levels are added because the loss was between $10,000 and $30,000; that under § 3B1.3, two levels are added because of the defendant's abuse of his position of public trust; and that under § 3E1.1(b), two levels are subtracted for acceptance of responsibility . . . The United States Sentencing Guide, Section 3B1.3, referenced in paragraph 7.c of the plea agreement, provides in relevant part that "[i]f the defendant abused a position of public . . . trust . . . in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels." USSG § 3B1.3. Paragraphs 10. and 12. of the plea agreement provide: 10. The defendant confirms that he is guilty of the offenses to which he is pleading guilty; that his decision to plead guilty is the decision that he has made; and that nobody has forced, threatened, or coerced him into pleading guilty. The defendant affirms that he has discussed this matter thoroughly with his attorneys. The defendant further affirms that his discussions with his attorneys have included discussion of possible defenses that he may raise if the case were to go to trial, as well as possible issues and arguments that he may raise at sentencing. The defendant additionally affirms that he is satisfied with the representation provided by his attorneys. The defendant accordingly affirms that he is entering into this agreement knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and with the benefit of full, complete, and effective assistance by his attorneys. * * * 12. This is the entire agreement and understanding between the United States and the defendant. There are no other agreements, promises, representations, or understandings. On or about September 5, 2007, Petitioner entered a statement of factual basis for guilty plea with the United States of America (hereinafter "factual proffer"), wherein he agreed that, if the case went to trial, the government would have been able to establish the facts recited therein beyond a reasonable doubt. The same factual proffer is filed in U.S. District Court (S.D. Fla.) case number 0:07-cr-60209-WPB as document 8. On or about September 5, 2007, a hearing was held in which Petitioner pled guilty as charged in the information. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted to committing the acts set forth in the charges and to which he pled guilty. In addition, at the hearing Petitioner admitted to the following facts and to committing the following actions: At no point in time did Petitioner ever disclose to the public that he received an $8,130 benefit from P.P. in November 2001 in connection with the demolition of a house he owned in Lake Worth, Florida. Within P.P.'s internal accounting system, the $8,130 check was attributed to the "HIDTA project" (i.e., a lease committing BSO and HIDTA as tenants of an office building owned by P.P.). Petitioner never reported the $8,130 benefit on any of his state ethics disclosure forms, nor did he ever make a disclosure in any other fashion. At no point in time did Petitioner ever disclose to the public that, in September 2002, he had received $10,000 from P.P. as a reward for his work concerning a new company called SuperTech Products, Inc. Petitioner never reported the $10,000 payment on any of his state ethics disclosure forms, nor did he ever make a disclosure in any other fashion. Prior to becoming Sheriff, Petitioner was a partner in Conrad, Scherer & Jenne, a law firm located in Fort Lauderdale. Petitioner was with the firm from 1992 through the beginning of 1998, when he left to become Sheriff. While Petitioner was at the firm, he, like some other partners, drove a car paid for by the firm's investment arm, CSJ Investments. In October, 1997, at Petitioner's request, the law firm, through CSJ Investments, bought a used 1994 Mercedes E320 convertible for Petitioner to drive. The price of the Mercedes was $61,297. Rather than pay for the car all at once, the firm financed the car with a 60-month loan. When Petitioner left the firm in early 1998 following his appointment as Sheriff, he took the Mercedes with him. Despite the fact that Petitioner no longer worked for the firm, the firm continued to pay off the Mercedes loan for the balance of the loan term, making the final payment in 2003. The loan payments were $1,320 per month, resulting in a total eventual cost to the firm of approximately $79,234 in loan payments, all but approximately $1,320, of which were made after Petitioner had already left the firm to become Sheriff. In addition, after Petitioner left the law firm, the firm continued to pay for the insurance on the Mercedes. The insurance payments continued even unto September 2007. At that time, the firm had made a total of approximately $30,961 in insurance payments on Petitioner's behalf, all but approximately $880, of which were made after Petitioner had already left the firm to become Sheriff. Petitioner never disclosed any of the loan payments or insurance payments made by the firm on his behalf on any state ethics filing. During the time that Petitioner was receiving these undisclosed payments from Conrad, Scherer, the firm was billing BCSO for legal work that it was doing on its behalf. At the hearing, Petitioner did not take any exception or make any objections to the facts as summarized in the factual proffer. In fact, with the exception of one non-substantive addition, Petitioner accepted the factual proffer as indicated. On or about November 16, 2007, a judgment was entered on the aforesaid guilty plea, wherein Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of all counts charged in the four-count information. The same judgment is filed in U.S. District Court (S.D. Fla.) in case number 0:07-cr-60209-WPB as document 59. By certified letter dated January 24, 2008, Petitioner was notified of Respondent's proposed action to forfeit his FRS rights and benefits as a result of the aforesaid guilty plea. The notice set forth the basis for the Division's decision and informed Petitioner of his right to an administrative hearing. Petitioner, by and through counsel, timely requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge said proposed agency action. [End of Stipulated Facts] The parties agreed that the following exhibits would be considered in this cause: Petitioner's resignation letter dated September 4, 2007; Governor Crist's letter accepting Petitioner's resignation dated September 4, 2007; The Information filed against Petitioner on September 4, 2007, in United States of America v. Kenneth C. Jenne, Case No. 0:07-cr-60209-WPB, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; The Plea Agreement offered in United States of America v. Kenneth C. Jenne, Case No. 0:07-cr-60209-WPB, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; The Statement of Factual Basis for Guilty Plea of Defendant Kenneth C. Jenne in United States of America v. Kenneth C. Jenne, Case No. 0:07-cr-60209-WPB, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; The Transcript of the Plea of Guilty before the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, U.S. District Judge, United States of America v. Kenneth C. Jenne, Case No. 0:07-cr-60209- WPB, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; The Waiver of Indictment from United States of America v. Kenneth C. Jenne, Case No. 0:07-cr-60209-WPB, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; The Judgment in a Criminal Case from United States of America v. Kenneth C. Jenne, Case No. 0:07-cr-60209-WPB, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; The Agency Action letter dated January 24, 2008; Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests 2001 (with attachments and amendments), Ken Jenne, Sheriff, Broward County, Elected Constitutional Officer, June 27, 2002; Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests 2002 (with attachments), Ken Jenne, Sheriff, Broward County, Elected Constitutional Officer, July 7, 2003; and Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests 2004 (with attachments), Ken Jenne, Sheriff, Broward County, Elected Constitutional Officer, July 1, 2005. Petitioner did not have a trial on the merits of the charges against him. Instead, he voluntarily accepted and admitted to the factual allegations set forth in the charging and plea documents. The factual statements set forth in those documents are not subject to interpretation or conjecture. They must be considered facts of this case based upon the stipulation of the parties. Petitioner was notified of the Department's preliminary decision to forfeit the FRS benefits and rights and Petitioner timely challenged that decision.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Petitioner was convicted of crimes that require the forfeiture of his rights and benefits under the FRS, pursuant to Florida law. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 3rd day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Mark Herron, Esquire Thomas M. Findley, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Post Office Box 15579 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5579 Clifford A. Taylor, Esquire Barbara M. Crosier, Esquire Geoffrey M. Christian, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160D Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether payment of Petitioner's retirement benefits should have commenced after the filing of an application to retire with the Division of Retirement, with an effective date of April 1, 2004, or be retroactively changed to the date of his termination of employment, July 1, 2003.
Findings Of Fact On July 19, 1995, Petitioner applied for membership in the Special Risk Division of the Elected Officers' Class of the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"). On August 14, 1995, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter admitting him into FRS. On September 6, 1995, Sarabeth Snuggs, Chief of the Bureau of Enrollment and Contributions for Respondent, sent Petitioner a letter revoking his membership in FRS. On December 17, 1996, Petitioner wrote to Sarabeth Snuggs responding to Respondent's decision to revoke his membership in FRS. Petitioner cited Section 121.052(2)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that membership in FRS includes "any constitutional county elected officer assuming office after July 1, 1981, including any sheriff." The Consolidated City of Jacksonville was created by the Florida Legislature with the enactment of Chapter 67-1320, Laws of Florida. Section 1.01 of the Jacksonville Charter provides that the county government of Duval County and the municipal government of the City of Jacksonville are consolidated into a single body politic. The Charter further provides that the consolidated government succeeds to and possesses all of the properties of the former government. After being denied membership in FRS, Petitioner and other members of the consolidated government and its instrumentalities worked diligently to convince Respondent to admit Petitioner into FRS. During Petitioner's attempts to be included in FRS, Respondent repeatedly took the position that Duval County did not exist as a county agency. In a letter to Petitioner dated January 15, 1997, Ms. Snuggs wrote that the consolidated Duval County government "chose to consolidate as a 'city' government." Mr. Keane worked with the Duval County Legislative Delegation to amend Chapter 121 to specifically clarify the fact that the Duval County Sheriff and Clerk of Court are constitutional officers entitled to participate in FRS. In 2002, the Florida Legislature adopted language to clarify the Duval County Sheriff and Clerk of Court's status with respect to FRS. In a letter dated June 24, 2002, Petitioner thanked Ms. Snuggs for recognizing his right to elect membership in FRS. Petitioner observed that, since he was in the last year of his second term as Sheriff (Duval County allows only two consecutive terms), he wanted confirmation of his "right to connect the previous seven (7) years of service as Sheriff." The June 24, 2002, letter also asked for "guidance" from Respondent. The purpose of the June 24, 2002, letter was for Petitioner to learn how Respondent intended to treat his first six years of service. Petitioner sought to avoid any problems since his retirement date was rapidly approaching. On October 10, 2002, Petitioner and Mr. George Dandelake, the Chief of the Budget and Management Division of the Sheriff's Office, wrote to Ms. Snuggs requesting a calculation of the amount of employer contributions required on Petitioner's behalf. The October 10 letter also requested that Respondent "identify what documents are required, in addition to the contribution amount which will be paid by the City, that must be supplied to the Florida Retirement System." Petitioner re-applied for membership in FRS, which was granted on June 1, 2002, after the effective date of the legislation designed to specifically admit the Duval County Sheriff and Clerk of Court into FRS. On June 18, 2003, twelve days before the expiration of his term of office, still not having received confirmation of the status of his prior service, Petitioner sent a letter to Ms. Snuggs advising that FRS had not recognized his service from 1995 through 2002. Petitioner again stated in the letter that he was terminating his position as Sheriff on June 30, 2003. Less than a week prior to the termination of his term, Petitioner received two "Statement[s] of Account" dated June 24, 2003, indicating that "you have until retirement to pay the amount due on your account." The statements further indicated that "when you become vested for monthly benefits, we will provide you an estimate of benefits with and without this service." According to the first Statement of Account, Petitioner was entitled to purchase prior service at the 1.6 percent multiplier rate for the FRS regular class. According to the second Statement of Account, Petitioner was entitled to purchase prior service at the 2.0 percent multiplier rate for the FRS special risk class. Neither Statement of Account was correct, as both failed to permit Petitioner to purchase service at the 3.0 percent rate for special risk, despite the fact that Petitioner had served a continuous and uninterrupted term as Sheriff. The Statement of Account did not advise Petitioner that he must submit a separate retirement application, Form FR-11, in order to preserve his retirement date. The statement did advise Petitioner that interest would be assessed at a rate of 6.5 percent. This warning appeared in bold face on the Statement of Account. The June 24, 2003, statements were the first time that Petitioner was supplied with the amount due to purchase service credit. Since neither statement applied the correct multiplier rate (3.0 percent) for all eight years of Petitioner's service as Sheriff, neither statement was correct. Recognizing that only six days remained prior to the expiration of Petitioner's term as Sheriff, Mr. Keane advised Petitioner to submit payment to Respondent on an expedited basis. After receiving the June 24, 2003, Statements of Account, Petitioner prepared a letter dated June 26, 2003, to Cal Ray, the Director of the Department of Administration and Finance for the Consolidated City of Jacksonville. In this letter, Petitioner requested an employer contribution in the amount of $163,554.32 to purchase his prior service. Petitioner further requested an expedited preparation of the check to ensure delivery to Respondent by July 1, 2003. The letter to Mr. Ray requested payment of the amounts that would have been periodically contributed by the City of Jacksonville if Respondent had been acknowledged as a participant in FRS in 1995. On June 27, 2003, three days prior to the expiration of his term of office, Petitioner drove from Jacksonville to Tallahassee to meet with Respondent's representatives, including Ms. Snuggs, regarding Petitioner's retirement. Mr. Dandelake accompanied Petitioner on this trip. At the June 27, 2003, meeting, Petitioner personally delivered a check to Respondent in the amount of $163,554.32. Respondent accepted the check and issued a written receipt signed by Sarabeth Snuggs. Petitioner was never told during the June 27, 2003, meeting with Respondent that he would forfeit benefits if he failed to complete an application. Respondent knew that Petitioner was leaving office on June 30, 2003. Respondent never discussed the filing of an application for retirement benefits at any time during the course of its conversations and correspondence with Petitioner. Petitioner was never told by Respondent to complete any forms to protect his rights to the 2.0 percent multiplier during the pendency of his dispute with Respondent. Petitioner was never provided any handbook, notice, statutes, or rules indicating he would forfeit benefits under any circumstances. When Petitioner left the June 27, 2003, meeting, both he and Mr. Dandelake understood that he was still engaged in a dispute with Respondent over his entitlement to the 3.0 percent multiplier. Petitioner knew that he was required to file an application in order to receive retirement benefits. Petitioner testified that if he had left the June 27 meeting with any indication that he would forfeit benefits by not filing an application, he would have filed something, with advice of counsel, to preserve his rights. Petitioner received an Estimate of Benefits via fax from Respondent on June 27, 2003, reflecting an annual benefit of $23,105.90. This statement valued 6.92 years of Petitioner's uninterrupted special risk service as Sheriff using the 2.0 percent multiplier, and 1.08 years of service as Sheriff using the 3.0 percent multiplier. The June 27, 2003, statement lists Petitioner's retirement date as July 1, 2003. The estimate does not warn Petitioner that he must do anything in order to preserve his July 2003 retirement date. The estimate states only that it is subject to "final verification of all factors." Petitioner's term of office as elected Sheriff ended on June 30, 2003. Petitioner's employment terminated when his term expired on that date. Respondent was aware of the dates of the expiration of Petitioner's term of office as well as his employment termination date. When Petitioner's employment terminated on June 30, 2003, it was unclear whether he would be credited with the 3.0 percent multiplier for his eight years of special risk service. Petitioner was not notified by Respondent prior to the expiration of his term as Sheriff on June 30, 2003, that he needed to submit a retirement application. The first time Petitioner was advised by Respondent of the need to file an application for retirement benefits was in the comment section of the Estimate of Retirement Benefits provided to him by letter dated March 4, 2004. The warning was printed in bold face type. The Estimate of Retirement Benefits dated June 27, 2003, did not include the bold face warning to file an application. Respondent was not provided with a Division of Retirement publication entitled "Preparing to Retire" prior to his leaving service on June 30, 2003. In fact, the copy of the publication offered into evidence by Respondent is dated "July 2003," subsequent to Petitioner's retirement. As the only member of FRS in his office in Jacksonville, Petitioner had no staff or employees trained in FRS or Florida retirement benefits. Petitioner was provided with a "Preparing to Retire" booklet in March 2004. On November 3, 2003, Florida Attorney General Opinion 2003-46 confirmed that Petitioner, as the elected Sheriff, was eligible for membership in the Elected Officer's Class of the Florida Retirement System. On December 31, 2003, and on January 16, 2004, Petitioner's counsel attempted to obtain clarification from Respondent regarding Petitioner's retirement benefits. The December 31, 2003, letter noted that the "extraordinary delay" in resolving the issue of Petitioner's benefits was at no time due to fault on the part of Petitioner. Respondent never refuted or disputed this statement. By letter dated March 4, 2004, Petitioner was finally advised by Respondent that he was entitled to be credited with the higher 3.0 percent multiplier for all eight years of his service as Sheriff. Petitioner noted that the March 4, 2004, Statement of Account, while properly applying the 3.0 percent multiplier, now had changed Petitioner's retirement date to April 2004 from the previous estimates showing a retirement date of July 2003. The March 4, 2004, statement included the bold face notice to Petitioner that he must file an application for retirement benefits. No prior notices or correspondence from Respondent had informed Petitioner that he must file Form FR-11 in order to retain his retirement date of July 1, 2003. After formally being notified that he would receive the 3.0 percent multiplier for all eight of his years of service as Sheriff, and after having received the notice that he must file Form FR-11, Petitioner submitted the form in April 2004. Respondent is a fiduciary charged with acting in the best interest of participants in FRS. Andy Snuggs, who travels around the state educating employers and employees in FRS, acknowledged that Petitioner was not responsible for the delay by Respondent in recognizing Petitioner's entitlement to the 3.0 percent multiplier. Mr. Snuggs acknowledged that he does not tell employees that they will forfeit benefits if they delay the filing of their applications. Petitioner received his first retirement check in May 2004 which was based upon the benefit established in March 2004 of $32,624.58 annually, not the $23,105.90 previously established by Respondent in June 2003. Petitioner has received no retroactive benefits for the period of July 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004. In a letter dated May 6, 2004, Petitioner stated that his acceptance of the first retirement check was not to be construed by Respondent of a waiver of his rights to retroactive benefits from July 1, 2003, forward.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be awarded retirement benefits at the rate of 3.0 percent per year for his eight years of Elected Officer's Class of service, retroactive to July 1, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2005, 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 21st day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Klausner, Esquire Klausner & Kaufman, P.A. 10059 Northwest 1st Court Plantation, Florida 33324 Robert B. Button, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 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 Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9000
