The Issue Whether the Petitioner may withdraw from participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP)?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Henry Gohlke, is a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS), which is governed by Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2003). The Petitioner is employed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The Petitioner divorced his former spouse, Joanne Marie Gohlke, on October 29, 1997, and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered which provided that Joanne Marie Gohlke was the alternate payee of the Petitioner's retirement benefits. See Exhibit J-10. Under the terms of the QDRO, when the Petitioner retired, his future retirement benefits would be incorporated into alimony payable to Joanne Marie Gohlke, beginning with the first monthly retirement benefit payment made to the Petitioner. The payment was fixed based upon the value of the Petitioner's pension at the time, and Joanne Marie Gohlke would receive $552.05 per month. DROP is a program which permits an employee, who has qualified for retirement, to retire; draw his retirement benefit based upon the retirement option he selected; and have the money paid into a non-taxed, interest-drawing account for up to five years while the employee continues to work. At the end of the five years or such other shorter time the employee elects, the employee may cease working and receive all or a part of the money in a lump payment paying the income taxes due on the amount, or roll the money over into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or similar program without paying income taxes until the money is withdrawn from that account. The Petitioner testified that he queried Eddie Tanner, who at that time was a paralegal working with the Division of Retirement, about the effect of the QDRO on his DROP deposits. There is conflicting testimony about what the Petitioner was told; however, Tanner testified concerning his customary advice to persons subject to QDROs. The Petitioner was advised to seek clarification from the domestic relations court to be certain. The Petitioner elected to participate in the DROP program in March of 2003. He may continue to participate in DROP until March 28, 2008. See Exhibit J-7. When he began to receive retirement benefits, a letter was sent to him on June 25, 1998, advising him that Joanne Marie Gohlke would qualify for a $552.05 per month share of the Petitioner's accrued DROP benefit as provided in the QDRO. The letter also advised that, upon the Petitioner's ceasing to work, the moneys due Joanne Marie Gohlke would be paid to her together with the accrued interest. This letter was sent to the Petitioner's old address, and he did not receive the letter. Eventually, the Petitioner learned that his DROP payments would be subject to the allocation of $552.05 each month to his ex-wife pursuant to the QDRO. This money would be payable to his ex-wife at the same time the Petitioner accessed his DROP money. The Petitioner questioned this payment to his ex-wife. The status of DROP benefits has been litigated, and the courts have determined that DROP benefits are retirement benefits and subject to QDROs. See Ganzel v. Ganzel, 770 So. 2d 304, 306 (Fla 4th DCA 2000). Based upon this precedent, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's request not to pay the proceeds from DROP to Joanne Marie Gohlke. Upon learning that his ex-wife would receive a portion of his DROP account, the Petitioner sought to withdraw from his participation in the DROP. Although an employee may elect to continue to work at the end of five years with the permission and written concurrence of his employer, he or she would automatically lose his or her DROP moneys by continuing to work past the five-year mark.1/ There is no administrative mechanism for withdrawing from DROP which would be analogous to "un-retiring." The Respondent properly denied the Petitioner's request to withdraw from DROP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of January, 2004.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's deceased wife, Dorothy Bazzel, made a valid selection of retirement "option 1" instead of "option 2"; whether that apparent selection was a mistake and, consequently, whether the Petitioner should be allowed to receive retirement survivors benefits in accordance with "option 2", as provided for under section 121.091(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, is a resident of Blountstown, Florida, and is retired. His wife, now deceased, was Dorothy Bazzel. She was a longtime teacher in the Bay County school system, with more than 46 years continuous creditable service in the Florida Retirement System and as a teacher. She retired on July 1, 1988. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering and enforcing the statutes, embodied in Chapter 121, and related rules, by which operation of the Florida Retirement System, including determinations of entitlement to and payment of benefits, is accomplished. Mrs. Bazzel underwent surgery for breast cancer on January 11, 1987. She had been diagnosed by Dr. Dixon McCloy, of Panama City, with breast cancer sometime in January of that year. Her progress after surgery was satisfactory, and she kept all appointments, had required x-rays, examinations and mammograms thereafter, by which her physicians monitored her progress. She had expressed to several persons of her acquaintance a desire to retire by the end of the 1987-1988 school year. In order to prepare for that event, she contacted her brother-in-law, Ray Bazzel, who testified in this case, and asked him to contact the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee, Florida, to obtain an estimate of her expected retirement benefits. He made that request to Ms. Loreen Vause, an employee of the Division, on July 16, 1987, by telephone. The Division of Retirement has an ongoing program which automatically generates an estimate of benefits for members who have certain amounts of creditable service and are of a certain age. When Mr. Bazzel made his request for an estimate of benefits for Mrs. Bazzel, the Division was already in the process of preparing a benefit estimate for her through its routine program. That estimate was forwarded to Mrs. Bazzel on July 22, 1987, and it stated as follows: This is a routine audit of your account. Noting the many years of service you have, we are furnishing you an estimate of your benefits as if you terminate your employment on June 30, 1988, and retire effective July 1, 1988. This is furnished for informational purposes only. By means of that estimate, Mrs. Bazzel was informed as to the benefit amounts which she would receive under all four retirement options. See Respondent's exhibit 8 in evidence. Ray Bazzel would visit Mrs. Bazzel on occasion during his visits to Panama City. She was described by him in his testimony to be a very private person not given to talking much about her illness or the operation. She did discuss the possibility of her retirement on one occasion with him, sometime during the summer of 1987. They discussed all four retirement options, and he explained the options in detail to her. He advised her that she would have to make a decision as to which option she would take, but he was never advised by Mrs. Bazzel nor anyone else as to which option she had actually selected until after her death. He did not know that she had made application for retirement on January 14, 1988. Harold Bazzel is a nephew of the Petitioner. He testified that he did not know that Mrs. Bazzel had made an application for retirement and did not know what option she selected until after her death. Richard Locker was the personnel officer with the school board where she was employed and knew Mrs. Bazzel personally and professionally. He was the principal for six years at Cove Elementary School where both his wife, Nan Locker, and Mrs. Bazzel taught. Mr. Locker had a policy of discussing retirement issues with Florida Retirement Service members on his staff and advising them of correct procedures to follow, as to the paperwork involved, and as to the full retirement options which they could select. He advised all members who were employed at his school to call the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee for more information. He never advised anyone of which option they should take because each case is an individual case, and he did not feel comfortable advising an employee or friend which option to take and then later have that person accuse him of advising the wrong option. Mr. Locker saw Mrs. Bazzel after her surgery and stated that after the surgery, she appeared to be in good health. He saw her in May of 1988 and stated that she was very optimistic and appeared capable of teaching the next year. She did not seem moody or depressed in any way to him. He believed that she exhibited an attitude that her treatment had been a success and that her health had been restored. He discussed with her the possibility of her retiring at the end of the 1987-88 school year, and he believed that she would retire at that time. In two telephone calls, he and Mrs. Bazzel discussed the four different retirement options. She appeared to know what he was talking about and to understand those options. He felt that she understood that option 1 would pay the highest benefit amount to her of the four options. He, however, did not really know what option she had chosen until after the Petitioner, her husband, informed him after Mrs. Bazzel's death. Based upon the testimony of Ray and Harold Bazzel and that of Richard Locker, concerning their contact and discussions with and advice to Mrs. Bazzel, it is found that Mrs. Bazzel was aware of the four options and the differences between them. She was aware that option 1 provided the highest benefit to the retiring member for the lifetime of that member and that it would cease at the death of the member with no further benefits being payable to any person. On January 14, 1988, the Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, drove his wife to the offices of the school board, where she completed the forms necessary for her retirement. She talked with Vicky Poole, the records clerk, who helped teachers and administrators complete necessary retirement forms as part of her job duties. Ms. Poole had worked at the school board offices for approximately seven years and had an established procedure for informing prospective retirees of all information needed to process retirement applications. As part of her instructions to them, she would ask each potential retiree to inform her of the option they wanted to select, who their beneficiary would be and where the checks were to be sent. She would inform them when they would start receiving checks, would discuss with them their sick leave balance "payoff", and what steps they needed to take to obtain social security benefits. This discussion with prospective retirees would take up to one-half hour if the retirement form had not been partially completed before the retiree came into the office, or about 15 minutes if the form had already been partially completed. If Mrs. Bazzel already understood the retirement options and had formed an opinion of what she wanted to do concerning retirement and the selection of an option, and if the form had already been partially completed, then the entire process on January 14, 1988 could have occurred in a few minutes. It was Ms. Poole's practice to sit next to the prospective retiree, obtain the necessary information, and type it on the retirement form at that time. She would then advise the member of the various options by referring to the back of the retirement form (Respondent's exhibit 12 in evidence) or to a pamphlet explaining the options issued by the Division of Retirement. Both of those documents contain a narrative description of the retirement options. Ms. Poole did not choose a retirement option or advise a prospective retiree of which option to choose. The retiree must choose his or her own option. Ms. Poole would never advise a person concerning which option to take and had been advised by the Division of Retirement never to give such advice on option selection. If Ms. Poole perceived that a prospective retiree was indecisive about option selection or did not appear to understand the options or the consequences of such election, she would advise that person to speak with someone else who was knowledgeable about the retirement system and about the retiree's financial situation, such as a friend or relative. If a prospective retiree was still indecisive or unsure of the meaning of options or which option to select, Ms. Poole would hold the form and not complete it without being sure in her own mind that the retiree understood the option and knew what it meant. In her standard procedure, she would go over each item on the form at least two and up to four times with a retiree. If they were very certain of the option they wanted to select, she would then finish the form and have the person sign it and give it to Ms. Bolinger to notarize. Ms. Poole realized that the choice of an option was an important decision and conducted her interview with the retiree accordingly. She testified in this regard as follows: If they said well I'm looking at 2 and 3, that's waivering. If they said I want option 1, I typed 1 in and I would say it several times as I typed it in. I mean I was very well aware that this selection was for the rest of their life and could affect someone else. I was very well aware of that. So, I would repeat it several times and when I was complete, when the form was complete, I'd give it back and go over it again, again reemphasizing the option. If they did waiver, I would briefly go over the options and there was time, I always mention, you know, there's time to do this, to choose your option, perhaps you want to talk to someone. I could not advise them. That's what I did. Ms. Poole remembered that Mrs. Bazzel came into the office but did not remember if the retirement forms had already been completed or partially completed prior to the visit. She testified that there was no doubt in her mind that Mrs. Bazzel chose option 1 and no doubt that she knew what option 1 meant. Ms. Bolinger began to work with the school board dealing with retirement applications in 1984. She is now the records clerk who handles retirement matters for teachers and school administrators. This is the same job that Ms. Poole performed in January of 1988. Ms. Bolinger notarized the retirement form of Mrs. Bazzel. Ms. Bolinger learned her job from Ms. Poole and testified that the retirement form was always completed in the office before a retirement clerk and was never sent to anyone. She stated that the clerk would ask the member if they understood each of the options, and the clerk would be sure that the member did understand them. It was the practice to ask such a retiring person if he or she was familiar with the options. If the retiree seemed the least bit confused, Ms. Bolinger testified that the clerk would discuss each option all over again with the prospective retiree, give him the form with the options listed on the back, and they would then discuss each one and make sure that the prospective retiree understood each option before continuing the process of executing the requisite forms. Thus, Ms. Poole and Ms. Bolinger or any school board clerk follows a routine practice of examining and discussing in detail each retirement option with a prospective retiree and makes sure that person understands the wording of the four options and what the four options mean before making a selection, answering any questions the prospective retiree might have and advising them to seek counsel from a qualified person if the prospective retiree remains unsure of which option to elect. After the forms are completed, the clerks, including Ms. Bolinger and Ms. Poole, when she was performing that function, examine the forms with the retiring member to make sure that all information is correct. "We wait until they check the whole thing and this is exactly what they want, and I watch them sign it." The signature is the last item which is placed on the retirement form. If the retiring member appears unsure about the options, Ms. Poole and Ms. Bolinger will ask them to go home and think about it and think it all through before they decide. Like Ms. Poole, Ms. Bolinger leaves the option selection up to the retiring member and does not attempt to advise persons about which option to select, merely giving them the information concerning the effect of selecting a particular option. In her capacity as a notary, Ms. Bolinger stated that if a person did not look like they knew what they were doing in executing the form, she would not notarize the form. If they did not appear to understand that they were applying for retirement, or which facet of it they were applying for, she would, likewise, not notarize the form. She would not notarize a signature after the fact of the signature being placed on the form. Ms. Bolinger was shown a copy of Petitioner's exhibit 7, in evidence, which is a copy of the retirement form that did not have her notary signature. She observed that her notary stamp was on that copy but that her name had merely been signed in the wrong place, possibly because she was new to those duties concerning retirement clerk matters. She testified, however, that her signature was correctly placed on the form, she believes, that same day. See pages 17 and 37 of Petitioner's exhibit 7, in evidence. On January 14, 1988, Mrs. Bazzel completed two forms: FR-11, "Application for Service Retirement", and FR-9, "Request for Audit", (see Respondent's exhibits 9 and 10, in evidence). Both of those forms contain Mrs. Bazzel's signature and are dated with the same date, January 14, 1988. The FR- 11 form had that date written on it in three places. The two forms were then filed with the Division of Retirement. They were acknowledged by the Division as being received on the next day, January 15, 1988, according to the form FST- 40C, "Acknowledgment of Retirement Application", which has January 15, 1988 as the received date. See Respondent's exhibit 11 and the testimony of Stanley Colvin, in evidence. The Petitioner testified that he believes the retirement application forms referenced above were suspect as to accuracy because, according to his testimony, he took his wife to the school board offices on a Friday to sign the forms after the end of the teaching day on either January 8th or January 15th, and states that generally he remembers that it was a Friday because that was the day they had the habit of leaving the Panama City area to visit relatives for the weekend. However, the forms are dated January 14, 1988 in several places. The forms in evidence and the testimony of Ms. Colvin establish that the application documents were received on January 15th in the offices of the Respondent agency. Thus, they could not have been signed on Friday, January 15th. If they had been signed on Friday, January 8th, the record leaves no explanation as to why all of the forms were dated January 14th. The Hearing Officer can only logically find that, indeed, the forms were signed by Mrs. Bazzel on January 14, 1988 and received in the offices of the Division in Tallahassee, Florida, on January 15, 1988. The date of January 20, 1988, appearing on the documents, was established to be the date they were received in the bureau within the department which actually performs benefit calculations, not the date it was first received by the department. The evidence establishes that Mrs. Bazzel selected option 1, the retirement option which provides no survivor's benefits. None of the exhibits in evidence can support a finding that she chose or intended to choose option 2, which provides survivor's benefits. The application for service retirement shows an election for option 1 and the acknowledgment of receipt of that retirement application, FST-40C, shows that option 1 was selected, as well as the letter that informed Mrs. Bazzel that she was being added to the retirement payroll in the category of option 1 benefits. On August 1, 1988, the day after the first retirement warrant would have been received by Mrs. Bazzel, Ray Bazzel called the offices of the Division of Retirement to state that Mrs. Bazzel had checked the wrong number of income tax exemptions and wanted to change them. In order to know how many exemptions she had, he would have had to see the stub from that first retirement warrant. The stub would have depicted the gross amount of the benefit, which was the same amount as that provided for option 1, and not the gross amount attributable to option 2. See FST-40C form, in evidence as Respondent's exhibit 8. Additionally, in a conversation with one of her closest friends, Nan Locker, Mrs. Bazzel led Ms. Locker and friends at school to believe that her surgery had alleviated her medical problem with cancer and that she was in good health. During a conversation they had approximately nine months before Mrs. Bazzel's death, Mrs. Bazzel, in talking about retirement with Ms. Locker, who was also contemplating retirement, made a comment as follows: "Well, I've got my retirement and Joe's got his." This comment was made sometime in the fall of 1989 before Mrs. Bazzel's death in July of 1990. Although the Petitioner introduced exhibits 1, 2 and 4 in an attempt to show that his wife meant to select option 2 and that some mistake was made by the school board or the Division in preparing and submitting the documentation setting up Mrs. Bazzel's retirement benefit situation; in reality, those exhibits merely show that Mrs. Bazzel possibly did some calculations as to the difference in monthly amounts between option 1 and option 2. The exhibits can only show that she may have been aware of the difference in monthly benefit amounts between the two options, but they do not show that she intended to select option 2. Indeed, the evidence and testimony, considered in its totality, shows that her selection of option 1 was a voluntary, knowing selection. The evidence also shows that Mrs. Bazzel was mentally and medically competent to make that selection, freely and voluntarily. Her visits with Dr. McCloy, her treating physician, in the first half of 1988, to monitor her health situation after the cancer surgery, were normal and showed nothing unusual as far as any recurrence of cancer was concerned. Her chest x-rays were negative for recurrent cancer. On June 3, 1988, she was diagnosed as having a small duodenal ulcer, but no indication of recurrent cancer was present. Dr. McCloy treated her for the ulcer with medication; and by August 10, 1988, her symptoms attributable thereto had largely been alleviated. Her visits to Dr. McCloy were routine for the remainder of 1988 and 1989, with normal results. It was not until March of 1990 that she was diagnosed with a spot on the left rib, which proved to be recurrent cancer, probably attributable to the original breast cancer. She deceased as a result of this condition on July 9, 1990. Dr. McCloy testified that he never advised Mrs. Bazzel that her cancer was terminal because he believed that it had been successfully treated after the surgery and for a long period of time thereafter he had no evidence of its recurrence. Therefore, he had not advised her that she was terminally ill during the period of time she was making the retirement decisions, applying for and receiving her first retirement check during essentially the first half of 1988. Dr. McCloy's testimony further establishes, without doubt, that Mrs. Bazzel was alert, possessed her full intelligence and faculties, and understood the significance of his medical instructions, and understood his advice as to her health status. Accordingly, it has been established that Mrs. Bazzel did not have a recurrence of cancer until it was diagnosed in March of 1990, long after she had made the relevant retirement decisions pertinent hereto, and that she knew and was fully aware of her medical condition during the process of applying for her retirement benefits. She, therefore, understood the steps she took for retirement application and benefit receipt purposes, and was not medically or mentally impaired to make those decisions. It was established that she began her teaching career as a member of the Teacher Retirement System, pursuant to Chapter 238, Florida Statutes. She subsequently transferred into the Florida Retirement System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, during an open enrollment period. While a member of the Teacher Retirement System, she paid $12,870.33 in total contributions, plus interest, which accumulated on those contributions in the amount of $8,561.97, for a total on deposit in her account of $21,432.30. During the period of her retirement before her death, Mrs. Bazzel received total benefits in the amount of $49,551.95. She, therefore, received $28,119.65 more in benefits than she had paid into the Teacher Retirement System in contributions, plus accumulated interest. It was proven that the distance to the residence or places of business of the deponents, whose depositions were admitted into evidence, comports with the standard of Rule 1.330, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the locations of the deponents as potential witnesses accorded with the 100 mile standard, their depositions were admitted in lieu of live testimony.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Division of Retirement determining that the Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, is not entitled to have the retirement option selected by Dorothy Bazzel changed from option 1 to option 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 15th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5774 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Rejected as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 6. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive. 7-11. Rejected as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-25. Accepted. 26-30. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Mr. Larry Strong Acting Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Joe Bazzel P.O. Box 46 Blountstown, FL 32424 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Respondent agreed to the following facts: On November 23, 1975, Herschel and Audi Motes, a deputy sheriff with the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, died of a heart attack while arresting an individual who struggled with the arresting Louise Motes, Petitioner in this cause, was married to Herschel Audi Motes at the time of his death, thereby becoming his widow. Mrs. Motes remains unmarried to date and is qualified as to her status for all of the rights and benefits granted January 21, 1976, Sheriff E.W. Pellicer wrote a letter to the Department of Administration, Division of Personnel and Retirement, furnishing the Department with the record of Mr. Motes' salary, contributions to the retirement fund, together with the dates of his employment. The letter concluded by stating, "I would appreciate hearing from you at an early date and if anything further is needed, please advise." The letter was signed by E.W. Pellicer, Sheriff, Putnam County, Florida. On March 10, 1976, Mrs. Motes received a letter from Marjorie B. Smith, Retirement Benefits Specialist, with the letter showing a copy to Mr. E.W. Pellicer. The letter stated as follows: "As the designated beneficiary and surviving spouse of Herschel A. Motes, who died November 23, 1975, you are entitled to the refund of the accumulated retirement contributions which amount to $4,325.69 or the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit. If you desire the refund of the contributions, you should execute a request for refund, form . . . which must be completed in the personnel office of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department If you prefer the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit, which has been computed to be $125.29 based on 18.30 years of service, you should execute the enclosed form FST-11b on which a single beneficiary must be designated and send your personal remittance in the amount of $1,089.23 made payable to the Florida Retirement System. This payment is necessary to allow credit for four years of military service, service rendered from April through August 1963, and complete payment of the necessary contributions for the 1963-64 and 1964-65 years. This monthly benefit, if elected instead of the refund, is a lifetime income which will continue even though you should remarry. In the event of your death prior to receiving in monthly benefits an amount equal to the total accumulated retirement contributions, any contribution on deposit in excess of the total monthly benefits paid will be refunded to your beneficiary. Please let us know if we may be of further assistance." (emphasis added). Enclosed with this letter was form FST-11b which is an "Application of Beneficiary for Monthly Benefits." The form. Joint Exhibit I, contained no reference whatsoever to any rights or benefits under Section 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes (the death in the line of duty benefits). Either the Division of Retirement or a Mrs. Key, with the Sheriff's Office of Putnam County, had filled in the blank portions of the first sentence of the form by writing "121" and "3" in the blanks where the form states "Chapter 121, Option 3." The remainder of the form is typed in except for the signature of Louise A. Motes. After filing the "application" through the Putnam County Sheriff's Office, and receiving her first benefit check, Mrs. Motes had a conversation with a Mr. Ronald Clark of Palatka, Florida, about workmens' compensation comprehension benefits. As a result of that conversation, she went to an attorney, who filed a workmens' compensation claim for her. Sometime thereafter, Mrs. Motes was going through some of her husband's papers, which were contained in a filing cabinet at the Sheriff's Office, which her sons brought home. In those papers, she found a newspaper article that Mr. Motes had cut out and saved which told about the death in the line of duty benefits, a copy of the newspaper articles is attached to and made part of Joint Exhibit K. In response thereto, Mrs. Motes went back to the attorney who had filed her workmens' compensation claim and inquired about the "death in the line of duty retirement benefits" of Section 121.091(7)(c), Florida Statutes. At no time prior to or during her filing out the "application" from the State of Florida, Bureau of Retirement, was she informed by anyone that she might possibly entitled to higher benefits because of the manner in which her husband died. At no time prior to filling out the retirement "application" did she have any actual knowledge that the State paid benefits other than those benefits which had been presented to her which were listed on said application. At no time did the Sheriff's Office inform her that she had any possibility of benefits other than the benefits listed on the above stated State of Florida, Bureau of Retirement, application form. By letter of November 7, 1977, Steven S. Mathues, Assistant Division Attorney for the Division of Retirement, Department of Administration, informed Ms. Jill Brown (the attorney for Mrs. Motes who began the original inquiry as to obtaining the "death in the line of duty benefits"), that " . . . it is this Division's position that all retirement benefits and options become fixed when the first warrant is cashed. However, it would appear that under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, your client would have a right to challenge this position . . . . As I see it, the issue would be whether Mrs. Motes' notarized application . . . and continued acceptance of benefits would estop her from now attempting to change the benefit " Thereafter, Mrs. Motes' case was referred to Mr. Maynard, who after several conferences with Mr. Mathues, the attorney for the Division of Retirement, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing on Mrs. Motes' behalf, alleging, among other things, that Herschel Audi Motes was killed in the line of duty within the meaning of Section 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes. The petition also alleged that the Division's "policy" that as of the moment Mrs. Motes had cashed one of her benefit checks her retirement benefits had vested and could not be changed by her subsequent to that event was within the definition of a rule as defined by Section 120.54(14), Florida Statutes, and that the Division of Retirement had never promulgated such a rule in accord with the procedures required by Chapter 120. Depositions were taken in Daytona, Palatka, and Tallahassee on the issue of whether or not Mr. Motes had been "killed in the line of duty." Subsequent to those depositions, Mr. Mathues informed Petitioner that the Division of Retirement no longer wanted to contest the in line of duty issue. Thereafter, Mr. Mathues and Mr. Maynard, attorney for Petitioner, executed a "Joint Motion for Continuance" which states as follows: "1. The parties have settled all of the questions which relate to the issue of whether Herschel Audi Motes, his widow, to the in line of duty death benefits provided in Chapter121, Florida Statues. The only remaining issue in dispute is whether or not Louise Motes has waived her rights to the in line of duty death benefits provided in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, because she has been cashing her benefit checks since 1975. The remaining issue is solely a legal issue and does not require any testimony by witnesses, with the possible exception of testimony by Mrs. Motes and/or affidavits from Mrs. Motes and the Putnam County Sheriff's Office if the parties cannot agree to a stipulation of facts. Therefore, this issue can be argued by the undersigned attorneys for the parties in Tallahassee, Florida, at the time and place stated above." The Joint Motion was signed by both Mr. Maynard and Mr. Mathues. In response to that Motion, the hearing officer promulgated an Order entitled "Order of Continuance" which stated: "The parties in the above styled cause have filed a Joint Motion for Continuance of the hearing from February 15, 1979, at 1:00 p.m. in Palatka, Florida, to February 26, 1979, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 103, Collins Building, in Tallahassee, Florida. The Motion is granted. Done and Ordered this 12th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida." With the Division of Retirement, Department of Administration, no longer contesting the in line of duty issue, a final hearing was held on February 26, 1979, on the only remaining issue in dispute which is whether or not Louise Motes has waived her rights to the in line of duty death benefits provided by Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, because she has been cashing retirement benefit checks since 1975. The issue as to whether Petitioner's husband died in such a manner as to entitle her to in-line-of-duty death benefits has been settled by agreement of the parties in Petitioner's favor. This Administrative Hearing was held to resolve the issue of whether Petitioner waived her right to the in-line-of-duty death benefits provided in Section 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes, inasmuch as she has been cashing benefit checks awarded her pursuant to Section 121.091(6)(a)(3). Inquiry to the Respondent as to subject retirement claim was made by Petitioner, Louise Motes, when she became aware of the possibility of her entitlement to in-line-of-duty death benefits. No rules have been promulgated in relation to Section 121.091(7) Death benefits, although Rule 22B-4.10(5) was promulgated in 1972 (amended 1974) under authority of Section 212.091(6), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Deny the request of Petitioner to change the retirement benefits she now receives to in-line-of-duty death benefits provided in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Division of Retirement Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Zollie M. Maynard, Esquire 502 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 1716 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF RETIREMENT LOUISE MOTES, Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case NO. 78-2105 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On July 30, 1984, Richard Herring, the Petitioner, became a member of the Senior Management Service Personnel System within the State of Florida. He remained in that personnel system until March 2, 1987. His employer while a senior manager was the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Respondent in this cause. Petitioner determined to leave the position held with the Respondent based upon a concern that he might be dismissed from that position by the incoming secretary to the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In fact, the new secretary deemed it appropriate to make some personnel change in senior managers within his agency in the early part of 1987. On March 3, 1987, Petitioner undertook his new employment with the Florida House of Representatives. With this timing, Petitioner effectively transferred from one state agency to another. The new employer, the Florida House of Representatives, operated under a separate personnel system from that associated with senior managers. This meant that the treatment of annual leave credits by the Respondent agency and as addressed by the Florida House of Representatives was unique to those employers and that Petitioner, if he was entitled to the payment for any annual leave hours within his account upon his resignation from Senior Management with the Respondent, must be paid by the Respondent. Conversely, any annual leave hours which he transferred to an account with the Florida House of Representatives must be in accordance with that agency's personnel rules or policies. From the inception of his association with the Senior Management Service, Petitioner saw the annual leave hours he earned and the flexibility afforded him in their use as an important factor in his employment circumstance. When Respondent recruited the Petitioner he was led to believe that as many as 480 annual leave hours could be converted into payment upon the resignation from the Senior Management Service, without regard for whether that resignation led to a transfer to another state agency or the outright termination as a state employee. In confirmation of his understanding when recruited, a letter was addressed to the Petitioner on August 3, 1984, referring to the ability to cash- in accrued annual leave that did not exceed 480 hours. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. It is addressed to Petitioner from Vivian Pyle, the central personnel officer for the Respondent. The remarks made to him in the recruitment phase and as confirmed in the correspondence are a correct depiction of the rights which the Petitioner had at the beginning of his employment as a senior manager. These rights were established in Rule 22SM-1.112(3), Florida Administrative Code. That rule became effective on March 16, 1981. It called for the payment of unused annual leave upon separation, not to exceed the amount of 480 hours. Separation meant the resignation from the position of a senior manager to transfer to another state agency or to terminate from state government entirely. At the time that the Petitioner took his appointment as a senior manager, the rule pertaining to attendance and leave while still employed by the Respondent agency was Rule 22SM-1.09, Florida Administrative Code. It called for the accumulation of 176 hours per year of annual leave upon the appointment and upon each anniversary date beyond that initial appointment. It also described the retention and credit of leave brought with the new appointee at the time of appointment, subject to the approval by the employer or agency head. It allowed for the payment of the leave time which the new appointee brought into the system when the ultimate decision was made by that employee to terminate from Senior Management. Termination in this instance refers to leaving Senior Management, not leaving state government. In accordance with Rule 22SM-1.09, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner was allowed to bring into the system a balance of 205 annual leave credits and was assigned 176 additional annual leave credits on July 30, 1984, giving him a total of 381 annual leave hours at that point in time. On his anniversary date of July 30, 1985, he received an additional 176 hours which brought his total annual leave hours at that point to 470. In those instances wherein the annual leave hours had been granted to the Petitioner upon his appointment, existing hours brought with him had been credited and upon the first anniversary date of his employment as a senior manager, additional hours had been granted, those annual leave credit hours were available for use by the Petitioner from that date forward or as a cash holding that could be exercised upon his separation from Senior Management. On May 29, 1986, the personnel rules of the State of Florida, Department of Administration, as described in the preceding paragraphs, changed. A new Chapter 22SM-3, Florida Administrative Code, did not carry forward provisions which allowed for the payment upon separation of leave brought into Senior Management and leave earned while a senior manager. This finding pertains to those senior managers, like the Petitioner, who were already employed with the advent of the change in rules on May 29, 1986. The new rule chapter did continue to allow for the accumulation of 176 hours of annual leave upon the anniversary date of an appointment, pertaining to existing senior managers at the point at which the new rule became effective. The new rule chapter by its language described a circumstance pertaining to appointees who came into the position of senior manager upon the effective date of the new rule chapter or thereafter, discussing the payment for an annual leave balance above 240 hours which had been transferred to the Career Service. This speaks to a transfer from Senior Management to Career Service and the idea of transferring 240 hours to the Career Service Personnel System and paying for the balance of annual leave over 240 hours. It also called for the proration of this payment of annual leave upon appropriate accrual rates for Career Service. It spoke to the payment of annual leave upon termination of a senior manager who had come into the System on May 29, 1986, or thereafter, termination meaning someone who had left the state payroll for at least 31 calendar days following separation from the Senior Management Service. See Rule 22SM- 3.007(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code (May 29, 1986). By contrast, Chapter 22SM-3 effective May 29, 1986 does not describe in any fashion what happens to annual leave credits for those persons who had been senior managers prior to the effective date of the rules chapter when the senior manager decides to separate from Senior Management Service. The Petitioner had 371.5 annual leave hours upon his anniversary date of July 30, 1986, and was given an additional 176 hours of annual leave credit as contemplated by Rule 22SM-3.007(2), Florida Administrative Code (May 29, 1986). On February 1, 1987, amendments to Chapter 22SM-3, Florida Administrative Code, were enacted. Unlike the May 29, 1986, version of this chapter, the amended rule specifically addressed the circumstance of all Senior Management employees, those who were in that personnel system before February 1, 1987, and those who would be appointed from that date forward. This speaks to the issue of disposition of annual leave credits held by senior managers upon their separation from employment as a senior manager. At Section 22SM-3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), senior managers who transfer to a state government position outside of the Senior Management Service were not entitled to be paid for annual leave credits, they could only transfer those hours subject to the rules governing the system into which the member may transfer. In addition, that provision indicated that the transfer of annual leave credits would be prorated dating back to the most recent anniversary date for service. A companion section, Rule 22SM-3.007(6), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), indicated that if the employee terminated from state government, that is the employee was not on any state payroll for at least 31 calendar days following the separation from Senior Management Service, then the annual leave credit held at the point of separation would be cashed. At Rule 22SM-3.007(3), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), the language was to the effect that upon the appointment and on each anniversary date after that time there was an increase in credit hours assigned to each Senior Management employee from 176 hours to 240 hours per annum. When the Petitioner determined to leave his position, he had prepared material pertaining to his termination, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. In the form authorization for disposition of his annual leave was called for by K. Davis, the Deputy Assistant Secretary within the Respondent agency. This form indicates the election on the part of the Petitioner to gain payment for all unused annual leave, excepting 24 hours. A subsequent audit of his employment records revealed that the Petitioner had 432 hours of annual leave upon his separation from Senior Management, without regard for any proration of the July 30, 1986 - 176 annual leave hours installment. Payment for annual leave hours was not forthcoming and after making some attempts at ascertaining the reason why and gaining no satisfaction in these discussions, the Petitioner wrote to Vivian Pyle, the director of the central personnel services for the Respondent agency, on April 23, 1987 to inquire about this matter. A copy of that letter may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. In the course of the correspondence the Petitioner indicates that his new employer, the Florida House of Representatives, had given him a computer print-out effective April 17, 1987, in which it was indicated that a substantial number of hours had been transferred to the Florida House of Representatives as opposed to having been paid to the Petitioner as he requested. By way of response, Ms. Pyle wrote to the Petitioner on April 28, 1987, and she referenced Rule 22SM- 3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), pertaining to the fact that the Respondent did not believe that the Petitioner was entitled to be paid for his annual leave and that the leave could be transferred subject to the rules within the receiving agency. In this instance, that refers to the Florida House of Representatives. Having been disappointed in the attempt to gain the payment for his annual leave credits, excepting the 24 hours which he wanted to have transferred, the Petitioner filed a petition for formal administrative hearing with the Respondent agency, received by the Respondent on May 15, 1987. That case was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of the hearing which has led to the entry of this recommended order. The Petitioner also challenged rules within Chapter 22SM-3, Florida Administrative Code, in its May 29, 1986 language and its February 1, 1987 language. See DOAH Case No. 87-2172R supra. The outcome of that challenge was to the effect that the language within Rule 22SM-3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), which prohibits the payment for annual leave credits upon the transfer from Senior Management Service to another position in state government was stricken as an invalid enactment. The State of Florida, Department of Administration has appealed that decision. The State of Florida, Department of Administration has also enacted a Rule 22SM-3.0l3(1), Florida Administrative Code, which corresponds to the most recent amendments to Chapter 225M-3, Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987). Rule 22SM-3.013, Florida Administrative Code, indicates that Senior Management Service employees who were on board on January 31, 1987 will keep their anniversary dates and shall be credited additional amount of annual leave credits, as well as sick leave credits. The rate of that annual leave credit is 5.333 hours monthly or 2.46 hours biweekly for each pay period or portion thereof. When the July 30, 1986 annual leave credits are prorated for the partial service year completed by the Petitioner in the full months of August, 1986 through February, 1987 and the portions of July, 1986 and March, 1987, as envisioned by Rule 22SM-3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), they total 141.85 annual leave credits. When the prorated formula described in Rule 22SM-3.013(1), Florida Administrative Code, is applied for the full month of February, 1987 and the two days within March, 1987 during which time the Petitioner was still employed an additional 5.505 annual leave credits are assigned. With these adjustments, that makes the annual leave credit balance for the Petitioner upon his transfer 403.355 annual leave hours. Within this figure, of the credits assigned on July 30, 1986, Petitioner's anniversary date, following the proration adjustment, there remained only 26.35 hours which had not been used as annual leave during the period July 30, 1986 through March 2, 1987.
The Issue The issue is whether petitioner's average final compensation and retirement service credit were properly calculated.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Dr. Michael Kasha, is a former professor in the School of Arts and Sciences at Florida State University. His most recent stint of employment occurred during school year 1995-96 when he was employed in the Institute of Molecular Biophysics. He retired at the end of December 1995, and counting several years of out-of-state service, he had a total of 50.58 years of creditable service. In November 1995, petitioner contacted respondent, Division of Retirement (DOR), for the purpose of determining his Average Final Compensation (AFC) for retirement purposes. That agency has the statutory responsibility of performing all retirement related calculations. In making its calculations, DOR determined petitioner's service credit for his last fiscal year of service (1995-96) by using a nine-month work year divided by six months of actual service (July-December 1995), or a .67 service credit. When this factor was applied to his compensation received for the six months of service, it produced a much lower annualized salary for ranking purposes than petitioner expected. Contending that a twelve-month work year should have been used, rather than the nine months used by DOR, petitioner filed a request for a hearing to contest DOR's action. During petitioner's last fiscal year of service, he was contracted to work from July 1 to July 28, 1995, by a Summer Supplemental Employment Contract. In addition, he was employed under a Nine Month Employment Contract from August 8, 1995, to May 6, 1996. On January 23, 1996, however, this contract was mutually revised by the parties to provide that petitioner's employment would terminate on December 29, 1995. Between July 1, 1995, and December 29, 1995, the parties agree that petitioner received $67,290.22 in total compensation from the university. To determine a member's appropriate service credit, DOR rule 60S- 2.002(4)(a) provides that if a member earns service credit for fewer months than comprise his work year, he shall receive a fraction of a year of service credit, such fraction to be determined by dividing the number of months and fractions thereof of service earned by the number of months in the approved work year. Since petitioner worked only six months during his last work year, the rule requires that this period of time be divided by "the number of months in the approved work year" to calculate his appropriate service credit. Members of the retirement system are employed for either nine, ten or twelve months each fiscal year, depending on the nature of their jobs. As to university instructional/academic members, such as petitioner, DOR rule 60S- 2.002(4)(b) defines the work year to be the number of months in the full contract year or nine months, whichever is greater, as specified by the contract between the employee and the school system. Because university faculty members normally work under a nine-month contract, DOR used that time period to establish petitioner's work year. In doing so, DOR excluded petitioner's Supplemental Summer School Contract on the theory it was "supplemental to (his) regular 9 month contract." That is to say, petitioner earned a maximum full year of creditable service during the nine months, and the three months in the supplemental contract would not add any additional creditable service. This determination is in conformity with the rule. Since petitioner's actual service credit for fiscal year 1995-96 was six months, that is, he worked full-time from July 1 through December 29, 1995, the computation under rule 60S-2.002(4)(a) produced a service credit of .67. Petitioner's compensation of $67,290.22 was then divided by the .67 factor and resulted in an annualized salary for ranking purposes of $100,433.16. Since the salary was not one of petitioner's highest fiscal years of salary, it was excluded from his AFC. Petitioner contends, however, that his work year is actually twelve months, rather than nine, if his Supplemental Summer School Contract is included. He points out that the university has always required that he and other science professors be on campus twelve months a year, unlike most other faculty members. Despite this requirement, the university has never used a twelve-month contract for this group of professors. Instead, it has relied on a combination of regular and supplemental contracts. If a twelve month work year had been used for petitioner's last fiscal year, this would have produced a service credit of .50, which if applied to his compensation, would have produced an annualized salary for ranking purposes of $134,580.44. This in turn would increase petitioner's retirement benefits by more than $1,200 per year. There is no provision in the DOR's rules which permits the use of a twelve-month work year in calculating the service credit for any person who is employed under a nine-month contract. While this may be unfair to members who find themselves in petitioner's circumstances, until the rule is changed, it must be uniformly applied. Therefore, the request should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying petitioner's request to have his retirement benefit calculated using a twelve- month work year for his last fiscal year of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Michael Kasha 3260 Longleaf Road Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement 2639-C North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times material to these proceedings, Petitioner Rodriguez has been employed by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners as the Director of the Department of Emergency Support Services. This position is exempt from the Hillsborough County Civil Service Act because it is a managerial/executive position under the jurisdiction of the County Administrator. Petitioner's employment with the County allows him to participate in the Florida Retirement System administered by the Division. On January 1, 1988, the County implemented a classification and compensation system for all positions under the jurisdiction of the County Administrator that are exempt from the Civil Service Act. This system is known as the Hillsborough County Exempt Service Classification and Compensation Plan (the Plan). As an incumbent employee, Petitioner's salary was not reviewed or subjected to the compensation structure set forth in the Plan until October 1, 1988. Effective October 1, 1988, Petitioner's compensation with the County was structured according to the Plan, as revised May 1988. During his performance rating prepared December 12, 1988, Petitioner's job performance from October 1, 1987 through September 30, 1988 was found to exceed standards. Under the Plan, this meant that his current annual salary could be increased. The salary action permitted by the Plan was a combination of salary adjustment "merit increase" and a one-year "performance pay" increase. The salary adjustment under the "merit increase" category became part of Petitioner's adjusted base salary. The "performance pay" was an increase created for a one- year term. It was not part of Petitioner's base salary. This method of creating a pay increase applied to Petitioner because his pay was already above the midpoint of the pay grade the Plan dictated the County was willing to pay for the performance of his particular job when completed to the required standard. The division of salary increases above the midpoint into two separate categories was placed into the Plan in order to balance two distinct County interests. The first was to keep the maximum salary range in a pay grade aligned with the competitive salary indicators in the geographical area for the same type of work. The second was to annually reward each employee whose performance exceeded standards over the past year and to motivate continued high performance on a personalized basis. The compensation approved for Petitioner for October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1989, was a "merit increase" of three percent of his current annual salary along with a one-year "performance payment" of eight percent of his current annual salary. This created an annual salary of $58,177,00 base pay with a one-year performance increase of $4,514.00. Petitioner's total compensation for the time period was $62,691.00. The pay increase approved for Petitioner for October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990, was a five percent "merit increase" and a four percent "performance payment" of his current salary. This gave Petitioner a new base pay of $61,090.00 with a one-year performance increase of $2,330.00. Petitioner's total compensation for the time period was $63,419.00. From October 1, 1990 through September 30, 1991, Petitioner had the same base pay and one year performance increase as the year before. So did every other employee subject to the Plan. This salary designation violated the Plan because a "merit increase" was required before a one year "performance pay" increase could occur. However, "performance pay" was still classified in the usual manner and was not pledged by the County as a payment that would be reoccurring. From October 1, 1991 to September 30, 1992, Petitioner's base salary is $66,020.42. The County no longer pays the "performance pay" previously in effect under the Plan. Instead, the part of Petitioner's salary designated as "performance pay" the year before was added into his base salary. As a result, retirement benefits are earned on Petitioner's entire salary in this pay period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's "performance pay" received from October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1991, should be excluded from the calculation of his "average final compensation" by the Division. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Reestablished each year. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #5, #6 and #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Evidence is rejected because calculations are incorrect. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: GILBERT M RODRIGUEZ 18506 TURTLE DR LUTZ FL 33549 STANLEY M DANEK ESQ DIVISION OF RETIREMENT CEDARS EXECUTIVE CENTER/BLDG C 2639 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1560 A J McMULLIAN III DIRECTOR DIVISION OF RETIREMENT CEDARS EXECUTIVE CENTER/BLDG C 2639 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1560 AUGUSTUS AIKENS ESQ JOHN PIENO GENERAL COUNSEL SECRETARY OF ADMINISTRATION DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION 435 CARLTON BLDG 435 CARLTON BLDG TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1560 TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1560
The Issue Should Petitioner Alma Slocum receive either the Option 3 or Option 4 retirement benefits retroactive to the death of Clyde Slocum in March 1975?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Clyde Slocum (Slocum), deceased, was a member of the State and County Officers Retirement System (SCOERS) under Chapter 122, Florida Statutes. Slocum was employed by the Suwannee County School Board as a school bus driver until he became physically unable to work in June 1970. Slocum married Alma Sanchez in October 1934, and was continuously married to her until his death on March 30. 1975. By letter dated May 6, 1968, Slocum made an inquiry to the Division regarding the benefits he would be eligible for if he retired from his employment as a school bus driver with the Suwannee County School Board. Slocum noted in the letter that he was not ready to quit work but wanted to know what benefits would be available, if and when he retired. The Division, by letter dated June 20, 1968, notified Slocum of the amount of his contributions on file and the benefits he would be eligible for under Options 1 through 4. It was pointed out that Options 3 and 4 would provide a smaller monthly benefit. However, these options would provide survivor benefits for his wife. It was also stated that proof of age for Slocum and his wife, Alma Slocum, would be required, if he selected Option 3 or 4. The following information was provided to Slocum: (a) Option 1 would provide $43.60 a month, but upon his death, no further benefits would be paid; (b) Option 2 would be 13 cents lower at $43.47, but in the event he died, his beneficiary would receive any balance of the amount of his contribution ($1,006.81) not paid; (c) Option 3 would provide a reduced monthly payment of $35.58 and one-half of that amount ($17.79) to his wife upon his death; and (d) Option 4 would provide for a payment of $30.08 and the same benefit to the wife upon his death. By letter dated August 5, 1970, Lavada Reuthinger, daughter of Slocum, sought information on the three different ways that Slocum could receive his retirement benefits. By letter dated August 7, 1970, Elizabeth Smith, Supervisor, Benefits Section, notified Slocum of the availability of an option election that would provide benefits for his wife after his death. The letter also notified Slocum that proof of his age was required, and if he chose benefits for his wife, then proof of her age was required as well. An estimate, dated September 22, 1970, of benefit amounts, similar to the estimate sent to Slocum in 1968, was prepared by the Division, and sent to Slocum. This estimate of benefits was for Options 1 an 2 only, and did not set forth a benefit amount for Options 3 and 4. The letter stated: "Only the first two options apply in your case." Apparently, the Division assumed that Slocum was retiring under disability. By letter dated October 2, 1970, the Division was notified by Dr. G. L. Emmel that Slocum was disabled and was not able to work. Elizabeth Smith notified Dr. Emmel of the statutory language requirement for an application for disability. Using a form provided by the Division, Slocum, on October 10. 1970, also under the assumption that he was retiring on disability, elected to receive benefits under Option 2. At this point, Slocum had been advised by the Division that neither Option 3 or Option 4 were available to him. Dr. Emmel provided the Department with the requested documentation that Slocum was permanently disabled. On October 26, 1970, Elizabeth Smith requested that Slocum submit proof of his age. By letter dated November 13, 1970, Elizabeth Smith advised Slocum that he had failed to furnish proof of his age, but instead he had furnished his wife's birth certificate. Slocum's wife's birth certificate was returned by letter dated November 13, 1970. By letter dated November 21, 1970, Elizabeth Smith advised Slocum that he could not retire under disability because he had reached normal retirement age, but that he could retire under Option 3 or Option 4 which would provide monthly payments to his wife upon his death, if he accepted a reduction in the amount of benefits. Smith further advised Slocum that he would need to furnish proof of his wife's age if he selected Option 3 or Option 4. Smith further stated that: "It was thought you were retiring under disability when proof [of your wife's age] was returned to you." Smith also advised Slocum that if he waited until June 30, 1970, he would receive the five-year average. The letter does not indicate what the payment amounts would be for the four different options, and the letter does not indicate that a option election form was included with the letter. Furthermore, the letter does not refer to the Option 2 selection form that Slocum had previously submitted to the Division. Slocum responded to Smith's letter on November 30, 1970, and enclosed a copy of his wife's birth certificate. Slocum also requested "the necessary forms concerning his retirement." Additionally, he notified the Division that since he had not worked since June 1970 he wanted retirement benefits to be paid as soon as possible. The Division did not comply with Slocum's request for the "necessary forms concerning his retirement." A warrant was mailed to Slocum on December 31, 1970, for retirement benefits from July 1, 1970, through December 31, 1970, at $59.17 a month. This benefit amount was the Option 2 retirement benefit amount furnished to Slocum on September 22, 1970, by the Division when it was assumed that he was retiring under disability. No explanation was given to Slocum if, or that, the Division was using Option 2 benefit selection that Slocum had signed and submitted to the Division on October 1970, prior to the time the Division had notified Slocum that he could choose Option 3 or Option 4. Slocum and his wife were both under the impression that since Slocum had furnished the Division a copy of his wife's birth certificate that she would receive retirement benefits after his death. Slocum died on March 30, 1975, five years after he retired. The Division advised Alma Slocum by letter dated May 19, 1975, that her husband had retired under Option 2 and, therefore, no benefits would be paid to her. A copy of his option election and the computation of his monthly benefits were enclosed in the May 19, 1975, letter from the Division. Thereafter, Petitioner repeatedly inquired of the Division why she was not entitled to retirement benefits as Slocum's widow. These inquires were made from the time of Slocum's death in 1975 through the present. In response to each inquiry the Division replied that Slocum had selected Option 2, and no benefits were payable to Petitioner under that option. In February 1999, Petitioner and her granddaughter, Theresa L. Crosby, visited the Division's office in Tallahassee, Florida and reviewed Slocum's file. After they reviewed the file, it was their position that Petitioner was entitled to receive survivor benefits and made a demand on the Division for Petitioner to receive those benefits. At no time prior to February 1999, had the Division advised Petitioner that she was entitled to a formal hearing on the matter. A final agency action letter dated March 26, 1999, was mailed to Petitioner which pointed out that her husband elected and received Option 2 benefits from 1970 until his death in March 1975 and there was no provision under SCOERS, Chapter 122, Florida Statutes, to change the option choice at this time. This letter is the first written notice to Petitioner that she was entitled to request a formal hearing if she disagreed with the Division's decision. A Petition for Formal hearing contesting the Division's denial of a survivor's benefit for Petitioner was received by the Division on April 19, 1999. When Slocum made the selection for Option 2 retirement benefits he did so because he was advised by the Division that only Option 1 or Option 2 were available to him since he was retiring under disability. Once Slocum became aware that his wife could receive retirement benefits after his death, it is clear that he intended to select an option which would provide his wife with benefits after his death. Furthermore, after it was determined that he could not retire under disability, which had limited his options, the Division failed to give Clyde Slocum an opportunity to make a selection of the options offered for retirement benefits, either initially in writing or verbally by telephone with a follow-up written option, notwithstanding any testimony to the contrary which, lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division enter a final order finding Alma Slocum eligible to receive retirement benefits under Option 3 retroactive to Clyde Slocum's death on March 30, 1975, making adjustments for the higher rate paid Clyde Slocum during the years 1970 through his death in 1975, and any adjustments for interest that may be applicable to the benefits paid Clyde Slocum or those benefits that should have been paid to Alma Slocum. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra E. Allen, Esquire 314 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The general issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to modify her deceased husband's retirement benefit option by changing from "Option 1" to "Option 3". Embodied within that issue is the question of whether the Petitioner's deceased husband was competent to effect a change in his retirement option from service retirement "Option 3" to disability retirement "Option 1."
Findings Of Fact The decedent, Elijah B. Hutchinson, was a teacher of math and science for the Calhoun County school district for some 31 years. In the early 1980's, his health had deteriorated significantly due primarily to diabetes mellitus, which caused a number of associated complications necessitating several hospitalizations during the early 1980's. In consideration of his deteriorating health, the decedent elected to retire in the spring of 1983. He filed an application dated May 27, 1983, seeking regular retirement benefits from the Florida Retirement System. See Exhibit 1 in evidence. In response to his application, the decedent received information from the Division advising him of his retirement benefits under the different retirement options he was entitled to select. On or about June 24, 1983, the decedent elected retirement Option 3. Option 3 retirement benefits include the retiree's entitlement to a reduced monthly retirement benefit during his lifetime with the same monthly retirement benefit being paid, after his death, to his "joint annuitant", in this case, his surviving spouse, the Petitioner. Thereafter, and before he received any benefit check from his initially-selected Option 3 retirement, the decedent appeared at the Division's offices and requested to change his type of retirement or option. On August 12, 1983, therefore, the decedent requested to change his type of retirement benefit from regular retirement to disability retirement. On that date, he requested to change his option selection from Option 3 to Option 1. See Exhibit 4 in evidence. An explanation of the benefits to be provided and the differences in the two options as to his benefits was given to the decedent by an employee of the Division. See Exhibit 4 in evidence. The decedent thereupon changed his option selection from Option 3 to Option 1. In 1983, a retirement system member receiving retirement benefits as the result of a disability could only receive benefits in accordance with either Option 1 or Option 2, if he chose to elect disability retirement. On September 16, 1983, the decedent was mailed a letter from the Division advising him that his application for disability retirement benefits had been approved by the State Retirement Director and acknowledging that he had elected Option 1 for disability retirement. Thereafter, the decedent received and cashed a number of State warrants representing payment of those retirement benefits under Option 1. See Exhibit 10 in evidence. The decedent died on March 8, 1991. The Petitioner had been unaware that he had changed from Option 3 benefits to Option 1 benefits, as delineated above. Upon learning of this, after the decedent's death, the Petitioner, on April 30, 1991, requested the Division to modify the benefits option selected by the decedent to Option 3 benefits. Her basis for requesting this change was that the decedent had not been mentally or physically competent to make an informed selection at the time he changed his Option 3 retirement benefits election to Option 1 and that, therefore, she should be allowed to modify and reinstitute his retirement election to Option 3 benefits, which would provide her the death benefits permitted under the Option 3 election. This request was denied by the Division by its "final agency action letter" dated May 21, 1991, by which the Division advised the Petitioner that based upon its records, the decedent, who had requested Option 1 retirement benefits, was added to the retirement payroll in that category for September, 1983 and that he had received benefit payments and negotiated the checks, so that, under the provisions of Rule 22B-4.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, the selection of the option could no longer be altered. The Petitioner's testimony and that of Phillip H. Hutchinson indicates that sometime in 1983, the decedent suffered a cerebral-vascular incident or "stroke". This testimony is borne out by the medical records in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, which, however, does not indicate when the stroke occurred. The Petitioner and her son maintain in their testimony that the stroke resulted in a deterioration in the decedent's mental faculties such that he could no longer manage his business affairs, pay bills, and handle financial matters in general. They maintain that this was evidenced also by a marked personality change whereby the decedent became extravagant with money, as evidenced by impulsively ordering and purchasing items which he observed advertised on television, sending money to television evangelists, and otherwise being free with donations. This was entirely different from his character and personality before he suffered the stroke, whereby he was known to be miserly with the family funds and very careful about not spending money unnecessarily. As a result of his stroke, he was no longer able to handle his business affairs; and his spouse, the Petitioner, had to assume the duties of paying family bills and otherwise handling financial and business matters for the family. When the decedent first decided to retire, he had explained to the Petitioner that he would select a retirement option which would give her something after he "passed"; and he showed her the retirement system booklet of allowable retirement options in discussing the matter with her. He never mentioned to her that he decided to or did change his option to Option 1 disability retirement. Although the Petitioner may have established that due to the stroke he suffered, the decedent may have, indeed, had difficulty attending to financial matters and overseeing and managing the family finances, the Petitioner failed to establish that at the time he made the election to select Option 1 retirement benefit, he did not possess the mental capacity to make a knowing and intelligent selection of that option and to waive his previously-selected Option 3 benefits. The evidence shows that he appeared at the Division's offices and, after an explanation of the option he chose to select, he freely and voluntarily selected that option and signed the pertinent documents attesting to it. It has simply not been demonstrated by substantial evidence that at the time the decedent made the second retirement option election, he did not understand the nature and consequences of that election, especially since it was not established by the Petitioner when he actually suffered the stroke, other than that it occurred sometime in 1983. As found above, the decedent made the election to chose Option 1 retirement benefits in August, 1983. Consequently, due to insufficient evidence, it cannot be found that the Petitioner's decedent was incompetent to knowingly and intelligently elect to receive Option 1 retirement benefits at the time he made the election.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Division denying the request of the Petitioner to modify the retirement benefits elected by the decedent from Option 1 retirement benefits entitlement to Option 3 retirement benefits entitlement. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrativ 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 24 day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-3870 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted, except that the evidence does not support that the stroke actually occurred in mid 1983. 3-4. Accepted. Rejected, as not being demonstrated by the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-14. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Phillip H. Hutchinson 4115 Tanglewood S., Apt. 570 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Larry D. Scott, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Albert F. Cook, had a relationship with the Department of Corrections (DOC) at any time during the month of April, 1993, and if so, whether he was eligible to receive a retirement benefit for that month, as well.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed at times pertinent hereto by the Department of Corrections (DOC) at its Baker Correctional Institution facility. On February 19, 1993, he was notified of his transfer to the Florida State Prison, purportedly for disciplinary reasons. Upon learning of this eventuality, the Petitioner immediately went on sick leave. He maintains that it was duly- approved sick leave. No medical evidence to that effect was presented, but the Petitioner suggested that his illness might be of a psychiatric nature. He clearly was disgusted with the action taken by the DOC to transfer him. Subsequently thereto, he decided to apply for retirement, effective March 31, 1993. Shortly thereafter, he sought to have his retirement request rescinded or withdrawn; however, that request was denied. He was thereupon removed from the DOC payroll, effective March 31, 1993, essentially as a termination action. He received a retirement benefit check for the period of April 1-30, 1993 in the amount of $2,324.53 from the Division of Retirement. The Petitioner appealed the DOC employment action to the Public Employees Relations Commission and an administrative proceeding ensued. Ultimately, a settlement agreement was reached in that case which resulted in the Petitioner being allowed to resign, effective April 16, 1993, rather than suffer termination effective March 31, 1993. That agreement entered into by the parties in that case specifically stated that "the agency [DOC] will take whatever action is necessary to return the employee [Cook] to the payroll for the period between March 31, 1993 and April 16, 1993". The Division of Retirement was, of course, not a party to that agreement since it was not a party to the litigation involved. The agreement was incorporated into a Final Order issued by the Public Employees Relations Commission in Case No. CF-93-196, entered June 7, 1993. The Petitioner sent a letter to E.I. Perrin, the Superintendent of Florida State Prison, dated April 12, 1993, in which he stated "that if I am still on the payroll, I hereby resign my position with the Florida Department of Corrections effective April 16, 1993 . . .". According to attendance and leave reports signed by both the Petitioner and Marion Bronson, the Personnel Director of Florida State Prison, the Petitioner was on sick leave for the payroll period of March 26, 1993 through April 8, 1993. While the date of the Petitioner's signature on the relevant time sheet was April 8, 1993, the end of the pay period, the Petitioner testified that the time sheets had actually been submitted earlier. Attendance and leave reports for the following pay period indicated that the Petitioner continued on sick leave status through April 16, 1993. The time sheets for the latter period were not signed by the Petitioner but were signed by Marion Bronson. DOC ordered a manual payroll made up to record payment and to pay the Petitioner through April 16, 1993. He received a salary warrant for $1,234.43 for that period from April 1-16, 1993. That salary check and warrant reflects that retirement contributions were paid as to that April payroll period salary. Because he received additional retirement service credit and a new average final compensation as a result of being in a payroll status and being paid for the period of time in April 1993, the Petitioner's monthly retirement benefits actually now exceed what he would receive as retirement benefit payments had he not been compensated as an employee for his service through April 16, 1993. The Petitioner testified at hearing that he was terminated on March 31, 1993 and not re-hired. He further testified that he neither wanted nor expected payment from DOC for the period of March 31, 1993 through April 16, 1993 and that he "merely wanted to clear his name". Nevertheless, he entered into the settlement agreement which provided for him to be compensated and on payroll status through April 16, 1993, when he entered into the settlement with DOC in the proceeding before the Public Employees Relations Commission. He is presumed to have full knowledge of the content of that settlement agreement, and it reflects that he freely and voluntarily entered into it, as does his testimony. According to Mr. Bronson's testimony, during the relevant period from March 31, 1993 through April 16, 1993, the Petitioner was occupying an authorized and established employment position with DOC. His employment relationship continued with the Department, as a result of the settlement agreement, until April 16, 1993. Because Mr. Bronson and DOC are not parties to the present proceeding and have no financial interest in the outcome of this litigation, Mr. Bronson's testimony is deemed credible and is accepted insofar as it may differ from that of the Petitioner. The Respondent agency learned that a payroll had been prepared for the period of time in April of 1993 in question and that a salary warrant was issued on the basis of the settlement agreement extending the Petitioner's employment with DOC through April 16, 1993. The Division of Retirement thus temporarily reduced the Petitioner's retirement benefits to recover the amount of the resulting, unauthorized April retirement check. It was unauthorized because he remained employed for the period of time in April and was paid as though he were employed, as a result of the settlement agreement. Consequently, he was not entitled to retirement benefits for that period of time in April 1993 ending on April 16, 1993. Mr. Snuggs testified that every retirement applicant, such as the Petitioner, receives a form FRS-TAR, entitled "Retirement System Termination and Re-Employment". The Petitioner did not deny receiving that form (Respondent's Exhibit 4) which advises prospective retirees of their rights and obligations in terms of retirement and retirement benefits as it relates to re- employment.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, temporarily reducing the Petitioner's retirement benefits, in the manner already proposed by that agency, until such time as his April 1993 retirement benefit, paid to him previously, has been reimbursed to the agency. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 30th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2292 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert F. Cook Post Office Box 782 Sneads, Florida 32460 Robert B. Button, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Ste. 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Petitioner received a salary overpayment from the Respondent for leave usage to which she was not entitled, as set forth in amended correspondence dated October 2, 2009, and, if so, the amount of any overpayment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Ms. Anderson was employed by the Department as a full- time Career Service employee until her separation on August 11, 2009. She had one year and four months' service with the State of Florida. As an employee of the Department, Ms. Anderson was paid biweekly. Based on her years of service, Ms. Anderson accrued four hours of annual leave and four hours of sick leave each biweekly pay period. Ms. Anderson used the People First System to complete her timesheets, request approval of leave, and review her leave balances. At issue is the amount of annual and sick leave used by Ms. Anderson during the pay period beginning February 6, 2009 and ending February 19, 2009. Ms. Anderson entered her time in the computerized People First timesheet as follows: February 6, 2009 8 hours' worked February 9, 2009 8 hours' sick leave February 10, 2009 8 hours' sick leave February 11, 2009 3.25 hours' sick leave 4.75 hours' annual leave February 12, 2009 8 hours' personal holiday February 13, 2009 8 hours' annual leave February 16, 2009 7.25 hours' annual leave February 17, 2009 8 hours' worked February 18, 2009 8.75 hours' worked February 19, 2009 4 hours' sick leave 4 hours' annual leave The Pay Period Overview in the People First System for the pertinent time period reflected the following: Beginning balance 2/06/09: 0 hours' annual leave 0 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Accrual 2/19/09: 4 hours' annual leave 4 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Used N/A : (24.00) hours' annual leave (23.25) hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Ending Balance 2/19/09: 0 hours' annual leave 0 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday The Department's Policies and Procedures for Attendance and Leave provides in pertinent part: III. Standards and Procedures * * * Annual Leave Method of Earning Annual Leave * * * Bureau of Personnel 1. Annual leave earned during any period shall be credited to the employee on the last day of that pay period or, in the case of separation, on the last day the employee is on the payroll. * * * Use of Earned Annual Leave Employee 1. Use of annual leave shall not be authorized prior to the time it is earned and credited and shall only be used with the prior approval of the proper authority. * * * Sick Leave Method of Earning Sick Leave * * * Employee * * * 4. Sick leave earned during any pay period shall be credited to the employee on the last day of that pay period, or in the case of separation, on the last day the employee is on the payroll. * * * Use of Earned Sick Leave Employee 1. Use of sick leave shall not be authorized prior to the time it is earned and credited to the employee and shall only be used with the approval of the proper authority. The Department keeps an official record of an employee's leave balances and accruals for each pay period, and it conducts audits of an employee's leave upon separation. The Department performed an audit of Ms. Anderson's leave and created an Employee Leave Record setting out annual and sick leave earned and used by Ms. Anderson up to her date of separation in August 2009. The audit revealed that Ms. Anderson had 20 hours of annual leave and 19.25 of sick leave available as of January 6, 2009, and that she accrued 4 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave on February 19, 2009, which could be used beginning February 20, 2009. As shown on the People's First timesheet prepared by Ms. Anderson and set out above, Ms. Anderson used 24 hours of annual leave and 23.25 hours of sick leave during the pay period beginning February 6, 2009, and ending February 19, 2009. Ms. Anderson, therefore, used four hours of annual leave and four hours of sick leave to which she was not entitled during the pay period extending from February 6, 2009, to February 19, 2009, and she was paid for these hours in the salary warrant issued February 27, 2009. In calculating the amount of the salary overpayment to Ms. Anderson, the Department made allowance for the one hour's annual leave balance Ms. Anderson had when she separated from the Department. The Department, therefore, calculated the salary overpayment based on seven non-compensable hours, and the balance owed by Ms. Anderson to the Department for the salary overpayment is $66.65.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order requiring Lillian Anderson to remit to the Department of Juvenile Justice the amount of $66.65. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lillian Anderson 3617 Carambola Circle North Coconut, Florida 33066 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
