The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner was provided incorrect, inaccurate, and erroneous information, and, if so, if she may transfer to the Florida Retirement System (FRS) Pension Plan (Pension Plan) by paying a “buy-in” amount of $2,418.55, consistent with the amount quoted to Petitioner in January 2020.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Evangelisto has been continuously employed by an FRS- participating employer since August 2012. As a new employee of an FRS-participating employer, Ms. Evangelisto had a choice to enroll in one of two FRS retirement plans: the Pension Plan or the Investment Plan. The Pension Plan is administered by the Florida Division of Retirement (Division of Retirement), which is housed within the Department of Management Services. The Pension Plan is a defined benefit plan; the benefit is formula-based. The formula used for calculating a pension plan benefit is based on total years of creditable service at the time of retirement, membership class, and average final compensation. See § 121.091, Fla. Stat. The Investment Plan is administered by SBA. The Investment Plan is a defined contribution plan; the benefit is based on gains and losses due to market performance. On January 22, 2013, Ms. Evangelisto enrolled in the Investment Plan, with an effective date of February 1, 2013. This choice is considered Ms. Evangelisto’s initial election. Ms. Evangelisto is still enrolled in the Investment Plan. After making an initial election, an employee may make a “second election” if still employed with an FRS-participating employer, earning salary and service credit. Ms. Evangelisto may utilize a second election to move into the Pension Plan, but must pay a “buy-in” amount to do so. This sum is derived from an actuarial calculation conducted by the Division of Retirement. To effectuate a second election, Ms. Evangelisto must complete and submit a 2nd Election Retirement Plan Enrollment Form (2nd Election Form) to the Plan Choice Administrator. The 2nd Election Form may be obtained by calling the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line or through the MyFRS.com website. When completed, the form may be submitted by facsimile, mail, or by electronic submission through the MyFRS.com website. Respondent is required to provide FRS Investment Plan participants with educational services, including: disseminating educational materials; providing retirement planning education; explaining the Pension Plan and the Investment Plan; and offering financial planning guidance on matters such as investment diversification, investment risks, investment costs, and asset allocation. See § 121.4501(8)(b), Fla. Stat. Respondent provides these educational services through Ernst & Young (EY), a contracted third-party administrator. EY financial planners provide information to FRS employees via the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line. On multiple occasions over the years, going back to as early as July 2018, Ms. Evangelisto spoke to EY financial planners via the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line to request a calculation of her buy-in amount.2 In July 2018, Ms. Evangelisto contacted the MyFRS Guidance Line to request her buy-in amount. In August 2018, she received a comparison estimate. The comparison estimate provided the estimated buy-in amount, the current value of her Investment Plan, and the amount of out-of-pocket funds 2 Ms. Evangelisto testified that she made requests to determine her buy-in amount even prior to 2018. Ms. Evangelisto would have to pay to buy into the Pension Plan. This out-of- pocket sum is the result of the difference between the buy-in amount determined by the Division of Retirement and her Investment Plan account balance. The amounts contained in the comparison estimate are only valid for the calendar month in which they are issued. From July 2018, through March 2019, there were numerous communications between Petitioner and EY Financial Planners by telephone conversation, email, and through voice messages. Ms. Evangelisto made requests for buy-in amounts and received updated comparison estimates in November 2018 and March 2019. On January 13, 2020, Petitioner requested a calculation of her buy-in amount. On January 22, 2020, she received a comparison estimate which set forth an out-of-pocket cost of $2,418.55 to transfer to the Pension Plan. The estimate indicated that it was valid until January 31, 2020. On February 14, 2020, Petitioner requested another calculation of her buy-in amount. On March 12, 2020, she received a comparison estimate with an out-of-pocket cost of $7,198.64. The estimate indicated that it was valid until March 31, 2020. Ms. Evangelisto testified that she did not transfer to the Pension Plan, after being provided comparison estimates, because she did not have the funds to pay for the associated out-of-pocket cost. On June 24, 2020, Petitioner called the MyFRS Guidance Line to request yet another comparison estimate. During this conversation, Petitioner inquired about potential changes to the buy-in amount associated with becoming “vested.” The conversation was recorded and later transcribed by a court reporter: Ms. Evangelisto: Does the cost to buy into the pension change significantly once you would be vested at the eight years? EY financial planner: I actually don’t know if it would or not. Ms. Evangelisto: Okay. EY financial planner: I can try to find out. I don’t think it’s necessarily based on vesting, but more the years of service. Ms. Evangelisto: Okay. During the June 24, 2020, call, the EY financial planner told Ms. Evangelisto that she could expect the comparison estimate in three weeks. Ms. Evangelisto agreed to July 16, 2020, for a follow-up call. On July 9, 2020, Ms. Evangelisto received an email from EY, but the email did not contain the requested comparison report. On July 15, 2020, Ms. Evangelisto called the MyFRS Guidance Line to follow up on her June 24 request and to ask about the July 9 email. The EY financial planner calculated the buy-in costs for her over the phone. He provided a verbal, estimated out-of-pocket cost of $17,657.00 to buy into the Pension Plan. Surprised by this number, which was over $10,000 higher than the out-of-pocket estimate provided in March 2020, Ms. Evangelisto asked why the cost increased. This telephone call was also recorded and later transcribed by a court reporter. Relevant parts of the conversation are as follows: Ms. Evangelisto: Does it normally jump up heftily at eight years of service -- EY financial planner: No. No. Ms. Evangelisto: -- or like in a yearly increment? EY financial planner: No. Ms. Evangelisto: It doesn’t? EY financial planner: It -- okay, you have been watching in and monitoring it very closely, so you had in December, January, March, and now we are a July figure. If all of those other figures were consistent, while the increase due to the change in the underlying interest rate might have a negative impact, it shouldn’t be so much that it’s going to bump up the cost by another $10,000. The EY financial planner promised to look into the numbers to ensure they were not miscalculated. On the same day, the EY financial planner called Ms. Evangelisto back and left a voicemail. He stated that the out-of-pocket cost he provided on the earlier phone call was correct and that the number had substantially increased because Ms. Evangelisto hit the eight-year vesting mark.3 The previous calculations were based on having an unvested account balance. Ms. Evangelisto returned the EY financial planner’s call and he confirmed the information he provided in the voicemail. Ms. Evangelisto asked EY financial planners, on two occasions, if her buy-in amount (and resulting out-of-pocket costs) would increase upon becoming vested. On the first occasion, during the June 24 call, the EY financial planner told her that he “did not know” and would endeavor to provide her with an answer by July 16. Unfortunately for Ms. Evangelisto, the final date to make the switch to the Pension Plan before the substantial increase4 was June 30. Ms. Evangelisto reached out to the MyFRS Guidance Line on July 15, prior to her scheduled July 16 call. On this occasion, the EY financial planner provided incorrect information when he told her that buy-in amounts did not 3 In her Proposed Recommended Order, Ms. Evangelisto asserted that she became “vested” on July 1, 2020, after completing eight years of creditable service with FRS-participating employers. 4 It is important to note that the amount to buy into the Pension Plan increased every time Ms. Evangelisto requested a calculation, albeit not the sizeable jump that occurred when she became vested. substantially increase upon vesting. This proved to be inconsequential, however, as the increase to Ms. Evangelisto’s buy-in amount had occurred as of July 1, 2020, prior to the EY planner providing the incorrect information. An EY financial planner provided inaccurate information to Ms. Evangelisto when he indicated that no substantial jump would occur upon vesting. Nevertheless, Ms. Evangelisto is required to pay a buy-in amount as calculated by the Division of Retirement when she chooses to move forward with making the second election. Petitioner did not prove that she should be entitled to pay the buy-in amount calculated in January 2020. That amount was valid until January 31, 2020, and the document provided to Ms. Evangelisto clearly notified her of such. Ms. Evangelisto still has a one-time second election to move into the Pension Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Florida Retirement System Investment Plan Petition for Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Elisha Marie Evangelisto 4604 20th Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34209 Deborah Stephens Minnis, Esquire Ausley McMullen, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ash Williams, Executive Director & Chief Investment Officer State Board of Administration 1801 Hermitage Boulevard, Suite 100 Post Office Box 13300 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3300
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s amended petition on the grounds that Petitioner lacks standing to administratively challenge the Department’s decision not to disapprove Hensler’s proposed appointment to Sunniland’s board of directors and that the Department, having failed to act within the time frame prescribed by Rule 3C-100.0385, Florida Administrative Code, does not have the authority to reconsider its decision and issue a letter of disapproval, as requested by Petitioner.16 DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 April 1997
The Issue Whether Respondent, University of West Florida (Respondent or the University), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner, Jacqueline R. Pinkard (Petitioner), based upon Petitioner’s race or in retaliation for her participation in protected activity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public university within the Florida State University System. Petitioner was hired by the University in 1998 in the Office of University Budgets (Budget Office) as a Coordinator. In 2004, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Assistant Director of the Budget Office. She received a pay increase simultaneous with the promotion and another pay increase shortly thereafter. She has received several pay increases throughout her employment with the University. From 1998 through June 30, 2014, the Budget Office was a stand-alone department, headed by Valerie Moneyham. In January 2014, Ms. Moneyham was promoted to Assistant Vice President in the Business, Finance, and Facilities Division. Her duties included continued oversight of the Budget Office until June 30, 2014. On July 1, 2014 the Budget Office moved under and became a part of the University’s Financial Services department. There were three employees in the Budget Office: Petitioner, Assistant Director, who is African American/Black; Pam Cadem, Senior Budget Data Analyst, who is Caucasian; and Josie Warren, Coordinator, who is Caucasian (collectively, Budget Office employees). All three Budget Office employees retained their position titles and pay rates upon moving into the Financial Services department. There was another employee in the Budget Office prior to the move named Lourdes Stevens. Ms. Stevens was a Coordinator who began at the University in 2012. Ms. Stevens left the University before the Budget Office became a part of the Financial Services department. The Financial Services department was and is headed by Colleen Asmus, Associate Vice President and University Controller. In her Complaint, Petitioner alleges several bases for alleged race discrimination and retaliation. First, Petitioner alleges that the University discriminated against her based on her race and retaliated against her when Petitioner’s former supervisor, Ms. Valerie Moneyham, issued a “poor” performance evaluation of Petitioner for 2014. Next, Petitioner alleges that her current supervisor, Ms. Colleen Asmus, “accepted Ms. Moneyham’s false and retaliatory evaluation as a means to justifiably deny [Petitioner] an equitable pay increase, position reclassification or promotional opportunity.” And, finally, the Complaint alleges that the University discriminated against Petitioner based on her race when, on December 12, 2014, Ms. Asmus created a position with “very specific ‘preferred’ qualifications . . . as a way to essentially tailor the job to fit a preselected employee or applicant,” who she believed to be “a white male from Financial Services.” The findings of fact pertinent to these allegations are set forth under three separate headings, A. through C., below. Petitioner’s 2014 Performance Evaluation The subject of Petitioner’s first allegation is her performance evaluation covering the period from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014 (2014 evaluation). The evaluation cycle for University staff is from July 1 to June 30 each year. Prior to the University’s 2013 evaluations, a different cycle and scoring system was used for performance evaluations. Due to the change in cycling, there were no evaluations for University staff in 2012. The University’s performance evaluation system is electronic-based. The evaluation contains three main parts. The first part is a self-evaluation by the employee. The second part is the supervisor’s evaluation, and the third part is a goal-setting section for the following year. In the second part of the evaluation, supervisors provide numeric ratings on a five-point scale on a series of eight work-related categories, and they also provide narrative feedback on an employee’s strengths and areas for improvement. Since 2013, the numeric scores have been averaged and the resulting number is the employee’s overall evaluation rating. Since 2013, the overall numeric ratings have equated to the following Performance Standards: 1.0 to 1.4 –- “Below” - Not Acceptable 1.5 to 2.4 –- “Below” – Needs Improvement 2.5 to 3.4 –- “Satisfactory” 3.5 to 4.4 -- “Above” 4.5 to 5.0 -- “Superior” It is the University’s standard practice for the supervisor of University staff positions to be the individual who completes those staff position evaluations if he or she was the supervisor for the whole period covered by the evaluation. Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record for the Budget Office for the entire period covered by the July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, evaluation. Labratta Epting, Human Resources Specialist in the University’s Human Resources department, advised Ms. Moneyham by email dated October 24, 2014, to complete the 2014 performance evaluations for each one of the three Budget Office employees. Ms. Moneyham completed the supervisor’s evaluation portion of the 2014 performance evaluations for all three Budget Office employees because she was their supervisor during the period of time covered by the evaluation. In the electronic performance evaluation system, the evaluations are housed under the name of the current supervisor. In this case, that was Ms. Colleen Asmus, for all three Budget Office employees. For the 2014 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham provided the evaluation information for each of the three Budget Office employees to Ms. Asmus, who cut and pasted the information into the electronic evaluation system. Ms. Asmus completed the future goals section of the evaluation for each of the three Budget Office employees because she was the supervisor beginning on July 1, 2014, and on into the future. In the 2014 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham rated the Budget Office employees as follows: Petitioner received a numeric score of 3.3 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard; Ms. Cadem received a numeric score of 3.8 and an “Above” Performance Standard; and Ms. Warren received a numeric score of 3.0 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard. In the 2013 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham rated Petitioner with a numeric score of 3.2 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard, Ms. Cadem with a numeric score of 3.8 and an “Above” Performance Standard, and Ms. Warren with a numeric score of 3.0 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard. In the 2011 evaluation, under the old scoring system, Ms. Moneyham rated Petitioner with a numeric score of 42 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard, and Ms. Cadem with a numeric score of 46 and an “Above” Performance Rating. As previously noted, the numeric rating system was changed for all staff evaluations after the 2011 evaluation. Ms. Moneyham increased the numeric score of only one employee from the 2013 to the 2014 evaluation, and that employee was Petitioner. She increased Petitioner’s numeric rating from 3.2 in 2013 to 3.3 in 2014. Petitioner’s Performance Rating was at the “satisfactory” Performance Standard level in 2011, 2013, and 2014. Petitioner testified that Ms. Moneyham’s comments on page 7 of Petitioner’s 2014 performance evaluation under the heading of “Supervisor’s Comments” were not discriminatory and were not retaliatory. Ms. Asmus’ Acceptance of Petitioner’s 2014 Evaluation Ms. Asmus received a copy of the October 24, 2014, email sent by Ms. Epting to Ms. Moneyham directing Ms. Moneyham to complete the 2014 evaluations for Petitioner, Ms. Cadem, and Ms. Warren. When Ms. Asmus met with Petitioner to discuss Petitioner’s 2014 evaluation, Ms. Asmus stated that she believed that they (Petitioner and Ms. Asmus) had started with a clean slate, which began when Ms. Asmus became Petitioner’s supervisor on July 1, 2014. Petitioner’s letter dated December 15, 2014, to the EEOC acknowledges this, quoting Ms. Asmus as saying, “I hope we can move forward with a great working relationship.” No evidence was provided by Petitioner showing that Ms. Asmus used the evaluation scores provided by Ms. Moneyham in the 2014 evaluation to deny Petitioner any benefit of any kind. Denial of Position Reclassification and Promotional Opportunities Interim Promotion In the Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Ms. Asmus used the “poor evaluation” as a means to deny her a position reclassification or a promotional opportunity. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that she should have been made Interim Associate Budget Director, or a similar title, starting when Ms. Moneyham was no longer physically in the same building as the Budget Office employees, which she said was during “Spring 2014.” She also testified that the interim position should have lasted either until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor of the Budget Office employees (July 1, 2014) or, alternatively, until February 2, 2015, when Mr. Djerlek became the supervisor of the Budget Office employees. Ms. Moneyham became Assistant Vice President in January 2014. No evidence was offered stating a more specific date of when Ms. Moneyham moved to a different building than the Budget Office employees. Petitioner did not offer any comparators for this allegation. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any employee was made Interim Associate Budget Director (or similar title) in this situation. Petitioner admitted on cross-examination that Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record for the Budget Office employees until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor for the Budget Office employees. Ms. Rentz, the former University Associate Director for Human Resources, testified that there was no Interim Associate Budget Director or other position into which Petitioner could have been placed because Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record over the Budget Office employees until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor of record. That testimony is credited. 2. Reclassification In support of her allegation that she was denied a position reclassification, Petitioner submitted into evidence an email that she sent to her supervisor, Ms. Asmus, on December 11, 2014. In the email, Petitioner asked Ms. Asmus to reclassify all three Budget Office employees (Petitioner, Ms. Cadem, and Ms. Warren) and provide each of them with salary increases. On December 11, 2014, the three Budget Office employees had been under the supervision of Ms. Asmus for approximately five and one-half months. Petitioner’s email further stated that all three employees were well trained. Petitioner, however, provided no evidence either in the email or at the hearing that would reasonably provide a basis for reclassification or promotion of any of the three Budget Office employees. Petitioner did not offer any comparators for this allegation. No evidence was provided showing that there has been a position reclassification or promotion for any of the three Budget Office employees since being moved into the Financial Services department on July 1, 2014. The University provided credible testimony that seniority, or length of time in a position, is not, on its own, a basis for a promotion at the University of West Florida. Denial of Equitable Pay Increase Petitioner also alleged in the Complaint that Ms. Asmus used Ms. Moneyham’s “poor evaluation” as a means to deny Petitioner an equitable pay increase. At the hearing, Petitioner stated that she was denied an equitable pay increase when distributions were made to some staff under a 2013 Employee Pay Equity and Compression Program conducted by the University (Salary Study). Petitioner and the two other employees in the Budget Office did not receive a distribution under the 2013 Salary Study. The University provided credible evidence showing that approximately 25 percent of the staff received increases through the Salary Study, and that Petitioner’s salary was the only salary in the Budget Office that was above the benchmark for receiving an increase. On April 7, 2014, Petitioner filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC claiming that she was denied a distribution from the 2013 Salary Study based on race and retaliation. The EEOC found that the University did not violate discrimination statutes and issued Petitioner a “Right to Sue” letter on September 30, 2014. Petitioner did not file suit in connection with that EEOC discrimination charge. The University has not conducted any equity studies since 2013 and Petitioner has not been excluded from any staff pay increases since 2013. In May 2015, Ms. Asmus asked the Human Resources department to determine whether there was a pay inequity as to Ms. Warren’s salary. Ms. Warren’s position in the Budget Office was “Coordinator” and it remained “Coordinator” when she moved into the Financial Services office. Human Resources reviewed Ms. Warren’s salary against the other Coordinators in the Financial Services department. The Human Resources department determined that Ms. Warren was performing services similar to the Accounting Coordinators in the Financial Services department. The starting salary for an Accounting Coordinator in Financial Services is $45,000. Ms. Warren was earning $32,000 at the time. As a result, in May 2015, Ms. Warren’s salary was increased to $45,000, which is the level of the starting salary for Accounting Coordinators in the Financial Services department. No evidence was offered of a similar increase for Ms. Cadem. Petitioner’s current position is Assistant Director. Before she was promoted to Assistant Director, Petitioner’s position title was Coordinator. The position of Assistant Director is higher in rank than the Coordinator/Accounting Coordinator position occupied by Ms. Warren. Petitioner’s salary is approximately $15,000 higher than Ms. Warren’s salary at the increased level. There is no similar pay inequity in Petitioner’s position as there was with Ms. Warren. Petitioner’s salary is right at the midpoint of the five employees in the Financial Services department at the Assistant Controller/Assistant Director level. Petitioner is earning more than two of the Assistant Controllers and less than two of the Assistant Controllers. Petitioner did not allege or provide any evidence showing that her job duties were more complex than the two Assistant Controllers who have a higher salary than she does. Preferred Qualifications for Associate Controller Position During the fall 2014 semester, Ms. Asmus envisioned an improvement in the efficiency and consistency of the reporting functions carried out by the Financial Services department. She had noticed that there were overlaps and redundancies between the financial reporting area and the budget reporting area. She believed greater consistency in reporting could be achieved if these areas were merged. In November-December 2014, the Financial Services department began the recruitment process for an Associate Controller. The Associate Controller was to be over the reporting areas, which would include financial reporting (production of financial statements), budget reporting, and tax reporting. Florida’s State University System’s (SUS) minimum qualifications for an Associate Controller were posted as the minimum qualifications for the position. They are: Master’s degree in an appropriate area of specialization and four years of appropriate experience; or a Bachelor’s degree in an appropriate area of specialization and six years of appropriate experience. Although the SUS system allows additional requirements be added to the minimum qualifications, none were added in the posting of the Associate Controller position. The preferred qualifications for the position as advertised were: Master’s or Bachelor’s degree must be in an accounting related field. CPA License preferred. Experience with production of financial statements in a higher education setting preferred. Experience with tax accounting in a higher educational setting preferred. Familiarity with budget operations in a higher educational setting preferred. The preferred qualifications were all approved by Human Resources as being job-related before the position announcement was posted. After receiving an applicant pool from the first posting for the Associate Controller position, Human Resources for the University did not “certify” the applicant pool because the percentage of minority applicants was low. The position was posted again and was also advertised again in a publication geared to attract minority applicants. Although additional applicants applied, the percentage of minority applicants decreased. Nevertheless, because it determined that a good faith effort was made to recruit qualified female and minority applicants, Human Resources certified the pool after the second posting. Petitioner pointed out at the hearing that the January 2015 advertisement in the publication geared to attract minority applicants contained an application deadline of December 19, 2014, which was prior to the date of the advertisement. The University’s Associate Director of Human Resources provided credible testimony that the published application deadline was a mistake, and that she was unaware of the error when she certified the pool after the second posting. Ms. Asmus provided credible testimony explaining why each of the preferred qualifications for the Associate Controller position was job related. No contrary evidence as to any of the preferred qualifications was offered by Petitioner. Ms. Asmus advised the three Budget Office employees of the job posting and invited them to apply for the position. Petitioner met the minimum criteria for the position but did not apply for the position. All candidates who met the minimum qualifications for a position would have been considered for the position. Petitioner testified that she did not apply for the position because she did not meet the preferred qualifications. Petitioner explained that in 2012 she had applied for a position as an Executive Assistant in the University’s President’s Office, and she was not selected for the position because she did not have all the preferred qualifications. She said that she did not have event-planning experience. She said that based on that experience in 2012, she did not apply for the Associate Controller position posted in December 2014. Petitioner acknowledged on cross-examination that the Executive Assistant position that she applied for in 2012 was in the President’s Office and that the Financial Services department is in a different division of the University than the President’s Office. There were no limitations in the advertisement that would discourage an individual of any particular race from applying for the position. The advertisement stated on the bottom, “The University of West Florida (UWF) is an Equal Opportunity/Access/Affirmative Action Employer.” Mr. Djerlek was ultimately selected for the Associate Controller position. He is Caucasian and is outside of Petitioner’s protected class. Mr. Djerlek’s qualifications for the position were stronger than Petitioner’s. Mr. Djerlek had experience in all three of the areas that would be under the supervision of the Associate Controller: financial statements/reporting, budget reporting and tax reporting. Mr. Djerlek's background included a great deal of experience with financial statements, tax reporting, and budgeting, along with some budget reporting experience. He is licensed as a Certified Public Accountant. At the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that she did not have experience in two of three areas that the Associate Controller would be supervising: financial statements/reporting and tax reporting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 3rd day of May, 2016.
The Issue Whether petitioner should be removed from the Florida Retirement System, as of July 1, 1979, on grounds of ineligibility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a licensed attorney, practices law in Clewiston, Hendry County, Florida. Since at least September 1, 1970, he has continuously engaged in the private practice of law in Clewiston. On September 1, 1970, the Glades County School Board ("School Board" or "Board") hired him as the School Board attorney, a position which he continues to hold. This is a part-time position, since the Board has no need for a full-time attorney. The School Board is headquartered at Moore Haven, 16 miles northwest of Clewiston, in neighboring Glades County. The terms and conditions of petitioner's employment with the School Board have remained virtually unchanged since he was originally hired. Each year, the School Board sets his salary consisting of a monthly retainer or salary, plus a fixed amount per hour for any additional professional services or litigation required by the School Board. For the 1979-80 school year, the Board set his salary or retainer--terms which the School Board used interchangeably-- as shown by the Minutes of the July 11, 1979, meeting: 3. SALARY/SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY - 1979-80 Chairman Hilliard opened the floor for discussion on the salary for the school board attorney for the 1979-80 school year. After some discussion between the board and Mr. Potter, the board proposed a retainer of $750.00 per month. (annual salary of $9,000.00) plus $50.00 per hour for additional pro fessional services or litigation required by the board. ON MOTION by Sapp, seconded by Johnson, the board approved this pro- posal for school board attorney for the 1979-80 school year. (Vote: Arnold, yes; Johnson, yes; Taylor, yes; Sapp, yes; Hilliard, yes.) His salary is paid from the School Board's regular employee salary account. But as the School Board's attorney, unlike other School Board employees, he does not accrue annual leave, sick leave, or pay during vacations, holidays or illness, though when he is sick or on vacation, there is no adjustment to his salary. He is reimbursed for work-related travel and meals at the rates provided by Section 112.061, Florida Statutes (1983), and is covered by the School Board's group health and life insurance, and Workers' Compensation. Since 1970, the Board has withheld his Social Security contributions from his fixed monthly salary payments; has paid the employer's Social Security contributions on his salary payments; and has annually reported his monthly salary payments on Internal Revenue Service Form W-2. To this extent, the School Board considered him an employee and treated him the same as it treated its other employees. The legal services which he furnished the School Board are described in his employment agreement and the School Board's job description for the position: TYPICAL DUTIES: Attend all regular Board meetings and such special meetings as deemed advisable by Board Chairman or Superintendent. Be available for routine telephone or personal consultations with Board Chairman, Superintendent and Staff members. Perform legal research. Prepare or approve leases or agreements prior to execution by Board. Prepare and prosecute law suits in behalf of Board and defend law suits against Board, including any actions against Superintendent, Staff or other school district employees allegedly arising etc., unless special counsel is deemed necessary by Board Attorney with Board's concurrence. Attend the quarterly seminars/meetings of Florida School Board Attorneys Association; and any other approved by Board. Represent Board and/or Superintendent in personnel matters where appropriate, as well as student discipline matters. School Board meetings, held monthly, last approximately one and one-half hours. Litigation, although described as a typical duty, is considered extra work, and an hourly rate is charged over and above the monthly salary. Petitioner agrees that he would not knowingly accept any new clients which would cause a conflict of interest with his School Board employment. Although he has been free to turn down work assigned by the School Board, he never has--at least through 1976. As explained by Mr. Strope, Superintendent of Schools from 1968 to 1976, although petitioner was free to turn down work, he "shouldn't have." Petitioner is not required to maintain any set office hours, and his monthly salary does not vary with the number of hours' work. He is not furnished office space by the School Board. The majority of his legal work for the Board is performed at his private law office, in Clewiston. The cost of operating his law office is not a budget item in the School Board's budget. Under his employment arrangement with the School Board, he furnishes all personnel, equipment, and facilities needed to perform his services. He is responsible for supervising the secretaries who work in his private office. Occasionally, when he is at School Board headquarters in Moore Haven he will ask a School Board employee to type a document. At his request, however, the School Board will furnish him pencils, legal pads, legal periodicals and stationery. It also pays for his travel; for per diem expenses incurred while attending legal seminars or meetings; and for long distance telephone calls made in connection with his School Board employment. He is neither responsible for, nor supervises, any employee of the School Board. The School Board does not furnish him any legal secretaries or part-time attorney assistants. He has not shown what percentage, or amount, of his working hours are devoted to performing legal services for the School Board, as opposed to legal services which he performs for his other clients. Other than assigning specific legal tasks, the School Board exercises no more control over the means, methods, and manner by which petitioner performs the legal work given him than is ordinarily exercised by any client over an attorney. Because of ethical constraints and the nature of legal work, petitioner must exercise independent professional judgment. Since September 1, 1970 2/, petitioner has been enrolled in the FRS. This was accomplished by his filling out a prescribed form which the School Board then filed with the Division. The Board then began reporting him on its employee rolls. There is no evidence that the initial FRS entry form, filed with the Division, described petitioner's work duties or the nature of his employment with the School Board. Both the Board and the Division enrolled him in the FRS, believing that he was eligible for membership. The Division did not question or investigate the nature of his employment relationship with the Board until 1983. From his initial enrollment until January 1, 1975, when FRS became a non-contributory system, petitioner contributed one-half of the the required FRS contribution, while the School Board contributed the other half. Since January 1, 1975, the School Board has contributed 100 percent of his contributions to FRS. During the 1970s petitioner's membership in the FRS prevented him from participating in any other tax sheltered retirement plan. 3/ Since July 1, 1979, the Division has, by rule, given notice that consultants and other professional persons contracting with public employers are, ordinarily, ineligible for membership in the FRS. All public employers, including the School Board, have been asked to remove such persons from their retirement payrolls. Since at least July 8, 1981, petitioner was on notice that his status as an employee, and his eligibility for continued membership in the FRS, were in question. Both the parties stipulate that part-time electricians, plumbers, painters, combustion engine mechanics, air conditioning mechanics, janitors or sewage plant operators (and even other occupations) employed in 1983 by the Glades County School Board on a year-round salary basis (i.e., at least 10 consecutive months), and paid out of the School Board's regular salary and wage account, would be mandatory members of FRS by statute. (Prehearing Stip., para. E. 6)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter an order removing petitioner from membership in the Florida Retirement System, as of July 1, 1979; and That the Division return to petitioner and the School Board their respective FRS contributions, mistakenly made to his account. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 14th day of February, 1984.
The Issue Whether Petitioner willfully violated Section 106.021(3), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a candidate from making an expenditure except through the campaign treasurer on 66 separate occasions, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony, documentary evidence, entire record of the proceedings, and facts admitted to in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Alan Schreiber, was the incumbent candidate for Public Defender, 17th Judicial Circuit, in the 2000 election. Petitioner was unopposed for reelection when qualifying ended on July 21, 2000. Petitioner is an experienced politician serving his seventh term as Public Defender. During the 2000 campaign qualifying period, Petitioner made sixty-six expenditures for which he submitted receipts and received reimbursement from his campaign account. The expenditures for which Petitioner was reimbursed are as follows: Date Merchant Amount 05-01-00 Andrew's Tallahassee $261.00 04-04-00 Andrew's Tallahassee $225.61 12-13-99 Bar Amici/ Cathode Ray $50.40 10-29-99 Bar at Embassy Suite $51.41 06-30-00 Big Louie's $265.01 06-20-00 Big Louie's $145.72 06-27-00 Bimini Boatyard $64.82 05-31-00 Bimini Boatyard $316.49 05-21-00 Bimini Boatyard $70.08 05-18-00 Bimini Boatyard $43.26 12-08-99 Bimini Boatyard $71.66 10-20-99 Bimini Boatyard $47.92 05-04-00 Bravo Italiano $63.86 02-24-00 Bravo Italiano $232.43 02-15-00 Bravo Italiano $52.79 01-31-00 Bravo Italiano $62.86 01-27-00 Bravo Italiano $86.83 06-19-00 Café de Paris $113.34 05-24-00 Café de Paris $70.04 05-16-00 Café de Paris $154.99 05-12-00 Café de Paris $160.94 05-06-00 Café de Paris $136.11 04-13-00 Café de Paris $146.65 03-18-00 Café de Paris $113.09 03-04-00 Café de Paris $144.47 02-23-00 Café de Paris $280.10 02-07-00 Café de Paris $73.27 01-17-00 Café de Paris $193.51 12-27-99 Café de Paris $66.47 11-29-99 Café de Paris $145.60 11-26-99 Café de Paris $230.51 11-24-99 Café de Paris $133.57 11-15-99 Café de Paris $183.97 10-31-99 Café de Paris $105.68 10-22-99 Café de Paris $99.43 10-19-99 Café de Paris $130.76 03-31-00 Café de Paris $182.64 03-15-00 Costco Wholesale $140.96 12-14-99 Costco Wholesale $267.61 10-27-99 Costco Wholesale $231.02 Costco Wholesale $256.87 05-23-00 French Quarter $499.24 11-09-99 French Quarter $81.25 11-09-99 French Quarter $85.02 06-08-00 Georgio's Food and Spirits $193.14 05-11-00 Greek Islands $89.73 06-03-00 Greek Islands $75.25 01-04-00 Greek Islands $70.49 10-29-99 Heavenly Ham $349.66 03-22-00 Houston's $75.54 10-28-99 Mayhue's Liquors $70.02 06-14-00 Mezzanot $102.02 12-01-99 Padrino's Restaurant $61.21 03-17-00 Publix $235.32 12-16-99 Publix $235.32 10-29-99 Publix $212.00 Publix $149.41 05-07-00 Restaurante Botin $146.39 01-04-00 Sage $79.85 12-28-99 Sage $107.89 10-29-99 Salute-Embassy Suites $211.26 03-01-00 TGI Fridays $47.08 05-25-00 Things Remembered $79.49 05-24-00 Things Remembered $296.69 05-21-00 Things Remembered $386.22 01-03-00 Wolfgang Puck Café $138.87 While Petitioner's personal decision to "wine and dine potential donors, supporters and campaign volunteers" at upscale restaurants may have been the genesis of the complaint that caused the Commission's investigation, no evidence was offered that suggested this to be an inappropriate expenditure of campaign funds. Sixteen checks were written by the campaign treasurer from the campaign account to Petitioner to reimburse him for the above expenditures. The campaign treasurer acknowledged that he had misdated one of the sixteen checks. Each check was written on the campaign accounts, was dated, was made payable to Petitioner, and each check listed that the purpose of the expenditure was to reimburse for non- specific campaign expense(s) as follows: Date Check No. Purpose Amount 10-29-99 1003 Reimb.-Campaign party expenses 11-02-99 1004 Reimb.-misc. campaign lunches 11-16-99 1005 Reimb.-misc. campaign lunches $968.38 $536.68 $350.24 11-30-99 1006 Reimb.-misc. campaign dinners 01-06-00 1008 Reimb.-camp. party expenses $509.68 $502.93 01-07-00 1009 Reimb.-misc. camp. dinners $496.50 03-03-00 1015 Reimb.-misc. camp. dinners $566.81 04-04-00 1019 Reimb.-camp. meeting expenses $565.32 04-11-00 1020 Reimb.-camp. party exp. $376.28 04-27-00 1021 Reimb.-misc. camp. dinners $799.23 5-16-00 1023 Reimb.-misc. camp. dinners $679.69 5-18-00 1024 Reimb.- misc. camp. lunches $462.58 5-22-00 1025 Reimb.-novelty items $368.22 5-24-00 1051 Reimb.-misc. camp. lunches $612.58 5-26-16 1054 Reimb.-camp. novelty items $376.16 06-09-00 1055 Reimb.-camp. meals/lunches $386.53 Each of the above-noted reimbursements to Petitioner was listed as an expenditure on Petitioner's campaign treasurer's reports filed with the Division of Elections as follows: Date Name and Address of Purpose Amount Person Receiving Reimbursement 10-29-99 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement for campaign party expenses $968.38 11-02-99 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign lunches $536.68 11-16-99 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign lunches $320.24 11-30-99 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign dinners $509.68 01-06-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement for campaign party expenses $502.93 01-07-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign dinners $496.50 03-03-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign dinners $566.81 04-04-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement campaign meeting expenses $565.32 04-11-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement for campaign party expenses $376.28 04-27-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign dinners $799.23 05-16-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign dinners $697.69 05-18-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign lunches $462.58 05-22-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement campaign novelty items $386.22 05-24-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign lunches $612.58 05-26-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign novelty dinners $376.16 06-09-00 Alan H. Schreiber 855 Orchid Drive Plantation, FL 33317 Reimbursement misc. campaign lunches $386.53 While the campaign treasurer's report accurately reports reimbursements to Petitioner, because the reimbursements are non-specific and aggregated, it is impossible to determine the actual expense for which reimbursement is made. Stephen Michaelson served as the campaign treasurer for Petitioner's 2000 reelection campaign and had served as deputy treasurer of Petitioner's 1996 campaign. Mr. Michaelson has served a number of candidates in a similar fashion. Prior to filing papers to open the 2000 reelection campaign account, Mr. Michaelson and Petitioner discussed whether it was permissible under Florida law for a candidate to be reimbursed from his campaign account for legitimate, campaign-related expenditures made by him personally in the course of the campaign. Petitioner had experienced difficulty writing campaign checks at restaurants during the 1996 campaign. After the 1996 campaign, Mr. Michaelson had researched the issue and informed Petitioner that he had discovered a "reimbursement statute." Mr. Michaelson also found a 1994 Division of Elections opinion that he believed "to be right on all fours," i.e., the opinion dealt specifically with the issue. The 1994 Division of Elections opinion [DE 94-07] referred to by Mr. Michaelson provides, in pertinent part, as follows: It is also permissible for a candidate to make a purchase with his own personal check or currency if the candidate intends to seek reimbursement from his campaign. However, the purchase does not become a campaign expenditure until such time as the reimbursement is made by campaign check or petty cash through the candidate's campaign treasurer. In 1999, prior to opening his campaign account, Petitioner and Mr. Michaelson again discussed the "reimbursement issue." Mr. Michaelson checked Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, that had been in effect when the 1994 Division of Elections opinion [DE 94-07] had been issued and noted no changes in the statute. In addition, he did a computer search on Florida Statutes Annotated of District and Supreme Court cases and found nothing dealing with the subject that, in his opinion, would warrant a change in the Division of Elections opinion. He checked the Division of Elections website to see if the 1994 opinion was still there and concluded that it was. He did a computer check to see if there were any subsequent Division of Elections opinions that referred to expenditures; finding none, he concluded that the 1994 opinion was still in effect. Based on his review, he advised Petitioner that Petitioner could seek reimbursement from the campaign account for legitimate campaign expenditures that he paid with personal funds. Mr. Michaelson has been a campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer on seven occasions, has, himself, been a candidate, is a lawyer who has practiced criminal defense law for 23 years, and, during his testimony at this formal hearing, demonstrated competency and understanding of the Florida election law/campaign financing law. He gave Petitioner advice on Florida election law/campaign financing law knowing that Petitioner would rely on his advice. Petitioner's reliance on Mr. Micahelson's advice was warranted. In the same general time period during which he opened his reelection campaign account, Petitioner spoke to David Bogenschutz, an attorney in Fort Lauderdale, and asked whether a candidate could incur campaign expenses and then seek reimbursement from his campaign account. Mr. Bogenschutz is a lawyer who has known Petitioner since 1971, whose practice is devoted largely to criminal defense, who had previously advised and represented candidates and public officials in proceedings related to the Florida's election law/campaign financing law, had himself been a candidate, and was believed by Petitioner to be knowledgeable regarding Florida election law/campaign financing law. While Mr. Bogenschutz was reluctant to acknowledge that he was an "expert" in Florida election law, his testimony at this formal hearing demonstrated a satisfactory working knowledge of Florida election law/campaign financing law; it was appropriate for Petitioner to seek his counsel and to be guided by his advice. Mr. Boganschutz advised Petitioner that he saw nothing wrong with his reimbursing himself from his campaign treasury for authorized campaign expenses. He further advised that he would research the matter and advise if he saw anything wrong. Mr. Boganschutz reviewed Section 106.021(3) and Subsection 106.07(4)(a)7, Florida Statutes, and Florida Statutes Annotated. He concluded that Subsection 106.07(4)(a)7, Florida Statutes, permitted a candidate to be reimbursed for authorized campaign expenditures from the campaign account and so advised Petitioner. In giving his advise, he did not review Division of Elections Opinion DE 94-07 or a later opinion, DE 97-06, because, while other Division of Elections opinions are found in Florida Statutes Annotated, neither of the referenced opinions is listed in Florida Statutes Annotated. In addition, he felt that the statute regarding reimbursement was so clear that there was no need to do further research. In addition to his discussions with Mr. Michaelson and Mr Bogenschutz, Petitioner conducted his own research and concluded that it was appropriate to pay vendors personally for campaign-related expenses and then be reimbursed from his campaign account for those campaign-related expenses. The qualifying period ended on July 21, 2000, with Petitioner having drawn no opposition. At about the same time, a local newspaper article questioned Petitioner's campaign spending habits and quoted a Division of Elections official saying Petitioner should have been using campaign checks. After reading the newspaper article, Mr. Michaelson called the local Supervisor of Elections who advised him that Division of Elections opinion DE 94-07 had been rescinded by Division of Elections opinion DE 97-06. This caused Mr. Michaelson obvious concern; the qualifying period had ended and, for Petitioner, the election was over. It appeared that he had incorrectly advised Petitioner regarding the propriety of paying campaign-related expenses personally and then seeking reimbursement. Mr. Michaelson then checked his research in an effort to understand how he had missed the rescission of Division of Elections opinion DE 94-07 and discovered that the Division of Elections website did not indicate that opinion DE 94-07 had been rescinded. The Division of Elections, Department of State, maintains a website which includes "Formal Opinions of the Division of Elections." This website lists all opinions from 1987-2000. Intermittently throughout the list of opinions is the notation "rescinded" in highlighted type, indicating that the particular opinion has been rescinded. No such notation appeared in reference to opinion DE 94-07. The 1997 Division of Elections opinion DE 97-06 indicates "Rescinding DE 76-16, 78-2, 88-32, 90-16, and 94-7." This is presented in the same type as the rest of the text and is not highlighted. Mr. Michaelson then used his web browser to search the Division of Elections website that lists these advisory opinions for the words "expenditure" or "reimbursement," the website did not direct him to the 1997 opinion DE 97-06. Division of Elections opinion DE 97-06, which, in part, rescinds Division of Elections opinion DE 94-07, provides in pertinent part, as follows: We held that candidates could make unlimited purchases by personal check as long as they intended for such expenditures to be reported as in-kind contributions. The opinion also stated that the "candidate cannot make such purchases as a campaign expenditure except by means of a campaign check . . . made through the candidate's campaign treasurer." This reasoning has resulted in some confusion as to when and under what circumstances a campaign expenditure or in-kind contribution occurs. Therefore, we rescind DE 94-07. Except for petty cash expenditures allowed under section 106.12, Florida statutes (1995), the only way that a candidate may make a campaign expenditure is by means of bank check drawn on the primary campaign depository, pursuant to section 106.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995). Having said this, we recognize the applicability of section 106.07(4)(a)7, Florida Statutes (1995), which requires that candidates report any reimbursements of authorized expenses from the campaign accounts to themselves. We believe that the purpose of this provision is to cover rare occurrences where the campaign must make an expenditure, but the campaign check book is not available. Such a situation could occur when a bill must be paid and the campaign has not received its first order of checks from the bank, or where, during the course of campaign travel, tolls or other miscellaneous expenses must be paid in cash and the candidate has failed to take the money out of his petty cash fund for such purposes. During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Michaelson maintained possession of the campaign checkbook which was usually kept at his home. On occasion, he would have one or two campaign checks on his person. If Petitioner asked for a campaign check, and Mr. Michaelson had one on his person, he would give it to Petitioner. On occasion, Petitioner would return a campaign check to Mr. Michaelson, indicating that the check was not accepted by a particular vendor. Most of the reimbursements at issue are a result of Petitioner's not having a campaign check with him at the time of a transaction or the vendor's unwillingness to accept a check or campaign check. In most instances the transaction involved purchases by Petitioner at restaurants. TGI Friday's located in Plantation, Florida, does not accept checks. Petitioner made one campaign-related purchase at TGI Friday's for which he was reimbursed from the campaign account. Bimini Boatyard does not generally permit patrons to pay with checks, although exceptions have been made. Petitioner made six campaign related-purchases at Bimini Boatyard for which he was reimbursed from the campaign account. During his 1996 campaign, Petitioner wrote 15 checks directly to Bimini Boatyard for campaign expenditures from the campaign account. Café de Paris and French Quarter have a policy of not accepting checks except when personally approved by the owner or for a special party. The owner indicated he would not accept a campaign check. Petitioner made 20 campaign related-purchases at Café de Paris and three campaign-related purchases at French Quarter for which he was reimbursed from the campaign account. The Sage Restaurant accepts only cash, MasterCard and Visa from restaurant patrons; checks are accepted for catering. The owner opined that had Petitioner called ahead and advised that campaign laws required him to pay by campaign check, she would accept that form of payment. Petitioner made two campaign-related purchases at Sage Restaurant for which he was reimbursed from the campaign account. Bar Amici and Cathode Ray do not accept checks; however, if a candidate advised that the law required payment by campaign check, a check would be reluctantly accepted. Petitioner made one campaign-related purchase at Bar Amici and Cathode Ray for which he was reimbursed from the campaign account. Greek Island Taverna does not accept checks. Petitioner sought reimbursement for three campaign-related expenditures at Greek Island Taverna for which he was reimbursed from the campaign account. Padrino's Restaurant does not accept checks. The owner, who is seldom at the restaurant, indicated that he would accept Petitioner's check. Petitioner made one campaign-related purchase at the Padrino's Restaurant for which he was reimbursed from the campaign account. Andrew's, a Tallahassee restaurant, does not accept checks from restaurant patrons. The manager opined that, if prior arrangements were made, a campaign check might possibly be accepted, but an out-of-town campaign check made it more problematic. Petitioner made two campaign-related expenditures at Andrew's for which he was reimbursed from the campaign account. Connie Evans, Chief, Bureau of Election Records, Division of Elections, Department of State, who has been employed by Division of Elections for 22 years and a bureau chief for five years, was qualified as an expert witness "in the area of Chapter 106 of Florida Statutes," without objection. She opined that Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, requires full disclosure of all contributions and expenditures for the public benefit. Ms. Evans further opined that Division of Elections advisory opinions are only binding on the candidate or organization who sought the opinion. Ms. Evans further opined that the Division of Elections, in applying Division of Elections opinion DE 97-06, considers that it is appropriate for a candidate to seek reimbursement for personal payment of a campaign-related expense at a restaurant when the restaurant refuses to take a check, but that the candidate should not return to the same restaurant knowing that the restaurant will not accept a campaign check in payment. She acknowledged that there is no statutory authority in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, for this opinion. Ms. Evans further acknowledged that Division of Elections opinion DE 97-06 refers to Subsection 106.07(4)(a)(7), Florida Statutes (which allows reimbursement for campaign- related expenses), and that both DE 97-06 and DE 94-07 advise that it is permissible for candidate to reimburse himself for campaign-related expenses. Ms. Evans opined that the Division of Elections website should have indicated that Division of Elections opinion DE 94-07 had been rescinded in bold type, as is done with the other rescinded opinions. Ms. Evans further opined that, if a candidate were to reimburse himself or another person for authorized campaign- related expenses, it is the position of the Division of Elections that the reimbursement must be made by a campaign check, must be reported on the campaign treasurer's report as an expenditure, and the amount, date, and the purpose of the expenditure must be reported.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Alan Schreiber, did not violate the Florida Campaign Financing Law as alleged and dismissing the Order of Probable Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 19th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herron, Esquire Mark Herron, P.A. Post Office Box 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1701 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
