Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, C. DEAN LEWIS, was first employed on March 4, 1966 by the Lafayette County School Board and remained employed by that agency until September 1, 1975. From the time of his employment with that agency, Mr. Lewis was enrolled in the agency retirement system. On September 1, 1975, Petitioner was employed as County Attorney by Suwannee County, Florida. From the time of enrollment in 1966 until such time as the retirement system became non- contributory, sums were withheld from his salary for payment into the retirement fund. When Petitioner became County Attorney for Suwannee County in September 1975, he continued his enrollment in the Florida Retirement System. The evidence presented in the form of enrollment cards fails to show the exact date of enrollment or for what position of employment he was enrolled. However, it is quite clear that Petitioner was enrolled in the Florida Retirement System or its predecessor system continuously since the inception of his employment by a governmental agency. On July 1, 1979, the Division of Retirement issued new rules regarding membership in the Florida Retirement System contained in Section 22B-1.04(5)(6), Florida Administrative Code. On September 15, 1979, the Division of Retirement promulgated its Memorandum No. 79-20, to all Florida Retirement System reporting agencies outlining the new guidelines for enrollment. This memorandum specifically referred to attorneys and encouraged the agency to examine the employment status of attorneys to determine whether that individual was an employee of the agency or merely a contractor. Thereafter on February 26, 1981, the Division of Retirement sent out another memorandum, Number 81-38, again to all retirement system reporting units, which placed specific emphasis on those situations involving employees versus consultants/contractors. This situation clearly pertains to the situation of the Petitioner here. When these memoranda were received by Suwannee County, at least one was inserted in Petitioner's personnel file. At no time, however, was any consideration given to the Petitioner's situation nor was any mention made by the County to the Petitioner regarding these memoranda. In addition, at no time did any representative of the Florida Retirement System or the Division of Retirement have any contact with Petitioner either in person or through correspondence to advise him that his status was under reconsideration and that he had an obligation to clarify his standing to the satisfaction of the Division. In early 1984 the Division of Retirement forwarded an employment relationship questionnaire to the Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners requesting that it complete the questionnaire as it pertained to Petitioner, the County Attorney. This questionnaire was completed by Jerry A. Scarborough, Clerk of the Circuit Court, who was responsible for maintaining the personnel records of Petitioner and most other county employees. On the basis of Mr. Scarborough's answers to various questions, the Division of Retirement on May 14, 1984, advised Petitioner of its intention to disenroll him from the Florida Retirement System. The Division listed some seven areas wherein Mr. Scarborough's answers indicated that Petitioner was a "consultant or other professional person" as defined in Rule 22B-6.01(12), rather than a true employee of the county. As such, Mr. Tom F. Wooten, Chief, Bureau of Enrollment and Contributions, Division of Retirement, concluded that Petitioner was, therefore, not eligible to participate as a member of the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Wooten further indicated the Division's intent to remove him from membership as of July 1, 1979. Thereafter, as was stated previously, on July 6, 1984, Mr. A. J. McMullian, III, State Retirement Director, by letter, advised Petitioner that he had considered his response to the original letter of intent but nonetheless, continued to conclude that he was not eligible to participate as a member of the Florida Retirement System. The July 6, 1984 letter by Mr. McMullian indicated the finality of the Division's decision. It is not now the Division's intention to disenroll Petitioner from the Florida Retirement System effective in 1979. Based on a recent decision of the Florida District Court of Appeals, the Division recognizes that it can reasonably disenroll him no earlier than the date he was first advised of the Division's concern regarding his status. That date is May 14, 1984, the date of the Division's initial letter of intent. The decision by the Division of Retirement to remove Petitioner and other professional contractors from the retirement system is based on its contention that the Petitioner and these other individuals are not bona fide employees of the agency under whose auspices they are enrolled in the system. It is not the position of the Division that only full-time employees can be enrolled. To the contrary, the agency is quite willing to accept that part-time employees are eligible for enrollment providing they meet the other criteria. With regard to the Petitioner and other professionals, primarily attorneys and physicians, it is the Division's contention that they are not true employees of the county but are independent-contractors or consultants who are not eligible for membership in the system. The factors leading to the conclusion drawn by the Division include such things as: Petitioner was not trained or schooled by the county in the professional work he performs; That he is not given instructions as to how the work is to be done; That he is not required to maintain regular office hours established by the county; That the county does not provide him with materials, tools, or equipment to perform his duties; That he is available to provide identical professional services to others in the county and in furtherance of that pursuit, maintains a business listing in the telephone book, and a trade journal to that effect as well as maintaining a private office for the practice of his profession; That he hires, pays, and supervises assistants who assist him in the performance of his law firm duties as well as those duties performed for the county; and That he is not eligible for annual or sick leave from the county. The Petitioner is hired by the county to advise the Board of County Commissioners, constitutional officers, and citizens of the county having business with the county referred to him by the Board. His private law firm also does additional work for the county in other areas for which it is compensated independently. Petitioner's yearly salary, which was recently increased from $6,000.00 to $8,000.00 per year is related solely to his performance of duties as county attorney. In that capacity he does not get involved in the county's litigation. His firm, as well as other firms in the area, is hired by the county separately for that function. Petitioner vehemently denies that any partner of his or any employee substituted or acted for him at meetings of the Board of County Commissioners in his capacity as county attorney. Whenever such partners or employees addressed the Board, they did so on work they were doing for the firm separately from that related to his position as county attorney. Petitioner contends that he spends an average of 10 hours per month on county business of which 80 percent is accomplished at the county courthouse. In addition to these 10 hours per month, citizens of the county, the press, and county officials contact him at home and at other places at all hours of the day and night regarding county business. He is not furnished an office in the county courthouse or any other county building. Though he contended that his seat in the county commission room is his office and the place where he accomplished most of his county related work, and though this contention was supported by the Clerk of Court, Mr. Scarborough, it is clear that in reality, Petitioner does not have an office furnished him by the county, and such work as he accomplished on the county's behalf is done primarily in the office of the official requesting it. It is also most likely that substantial correspondence and other clerical work is accomplished for the county by the petitioner in his private office and is accomplished by his own law firm employees. The county supplies him with some books and manuals including copies of various ordinances, codes, and attorney general opinions. The outside work which he does for the county, including, for example, such things as plat examinations, is billed to the county at a rate of $75.00 per hour. The amount he receives, however, never exceeds the amount received by the county for this service. In 1975, prior to his becoming county attorney, he discussed the potential for assuming this position with his predecessor and law partner, Mr. Airth. One of the major factors convincing him to accept the position of county attorney was the prospective retirement benefits he could expect after fulfilling a number of years in this job. Petitioner was hired by the County Commission on an oral contract basis and has never had a written contract with the county. At the first commissioner's meeting of each year, the Board considers Petitioner's continued relationship with the county and confirms it. It could, at any time, decline to extend the relationship, though it has not yet done so. This arrangement differs from that of a normal consultant in that the relationship with a relationship is terminated automatically when the specific job for which the individual is hired has been completed. Petitioner's relationship has been continuous since 1975 and at the present time there appears to be no indication that it will be terminated in the foreseeable future. His compensation is reported to the Internal Revenue Service on a form W-2. That which was submitted for the year 1983 reflects that social security taxes were withheld but no federal income tax. Petitioner explains this on the basis that he claims four dependents and that, therefore, no tax should have been withheld. This explanation is questionable at best. Petitioner takes exception to several of the answers by Mr. Scarborough on the questionnaire submitted to the Division of Retirement. For example, at question 4b, Petitioner contends that he does in fact attend regularly scheduled meetings of the Board of County Commissioners and other agencies and is, therefore, required to follow daily routines. He contends that he is given the specific work which has to be done and the time in which it is to be accomplished and is, therefore, instructed as to how the work is `to be done by his employer. He contends that this same relationship makes him no different than any other county agency or section director who have authority to accomplish their work with some latitude and discretion. Petitioner also contends that he was hired for one year, not an indefinite period, though he has continued to work since 1975 and anticipates no change in his relationship in the future. He contends that the requirement to attend meetings on definite dates at certain times, which takes up to 60 to 80 percent of his time on the job, constitutes the fixed hours and certain times mentioned in the questionnaire. Further, he indicates that with regard to the determination of the hours when the work should be performed, this decision is made not by the employee as indicated on the questionnaire, but by his employer, the county. Petitioner also contends that such help as he utilizes in performing county business is received from public employees, not from his own law firm employees, and that most of his work is done in the courthouse. While Petitioner does not earn annual leave, sick pay, bonuses, or other benefits, he has been enrolled in the retirement system, was eligible to purchase county insurance, and was carried as any other employee on the county's workers' compensation policy. He is authorized to miss one commission meeting per year for vacation and others during the year as excused for illness. Taken in its totality, it becomes obvious that Petitioner's relationship with Suwannee County, Florida is little different from that of any other attorney-client relationship of long standing. It is clear that Petitioner's relationship with the county, though it may have been intended since May, 1984 to fall within the guidelines set forth by Use Division of Retirement, did not do so from 1975 to the latter date. It is clear that the Petitioner's primary employment was that of a private practitioner. One of his clients, and perhaps his largest client in terms of population, is Suwannee County, but the relationship is that of attorney-client, not that of employer- employee. While Petitioner no doubt is the Suwannee County Attorney, he performs that function as a private practitioner and not as a member of the county work force even though his salary is paid from the general salary and wages account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, C. DEAN LEWIS, be disenrolled from the Florida Retirement System effective May 14, 1984. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of February, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Frieder, Esquire Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207 - Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 C. Dean Lewis, Esquire c/o Airth, Sellers, Lewis & Decker Post Office Drawer 8 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Linda Holston, violated the reemployment provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2005), and, if so, whether Petitioner is liable to repay the retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Linda Holston, is a member of FRS. She ended DROP and retired, effective January 31, 2006. Petitioner returned to work for the PCSB, for whom she had worked for 32 years on April 17, 2006, as a human resources clerk. With specific statutory exceptions, a FRS retiree is prohibited from returning to work for a FRS employer and receiving retirement benefits during the 12 months following their effective retirement date. As a clerical employee, Petitioner did not qualify for any of the specific statutory exceptions. Shortly after her retirement in 2006, Petitioner was contacted by PCSB regarding returning to work on a part-time basis. She indicated a willingness to return, but advised that she was concerned that her recent retirement would be an impediment to reemployment. Allen Ford, a PCSB employee, contacted Respondent and was advised that Petitioner "fell within the 780 hour maximum hourly requirement for reemployment and that she could work part-time." Mr. Ford did not record the name of Respondent's employee or the date of the conversation. He did not give Petitioner's name to Respondent's employee which would have resulted in the entry of a record of the phone conversation in Petitioner's record. Respondent has no record of Mr. Ford's phone call. Until July 1, 2003, repeal of the exception, certain school board employees could be employed within the first year of retirement for up to 780 hours without the suspension of retirement benefits. Petitioner was assured by PCSB that she could return to part-time work without impairing her retirement benefits. In fact, PCSB supplied, and Petitioner signed, a "District School Board of Pasco County Employment After Retirement Statement" that incorrectly stated that she may "be eligible for a reemployment exemption that limits my reemployment to 780 hours during the limitation period." This document also recorded the fact that Petitioner was a retired member of FRS, although PCSB was fully aware of this fact. However, Respondent was not made aware of Petitioner's reemployment because of her part-time status. After PCSB started reporting Petitioner's wages, Respondent made inquiry regarding her start date and discovered that Petitioner had been reemployed during the first 12 months of her retirement. That discovery initiated this case. In making her decision to return to work, Petitioner relied on the information provided by PCSB; she did not contact Respondent, nor did she review information available from Respondent regarding her status as a retired member of FRS. Petitioner returned to work on April 17, 2006. During the period of April 17, 2006, through January 31, 2007, Petitioner received $14,312.15 in retirement benefits and $1,500.00 in health insurance subsidy. Petitioner's earnings as a part-time clerical worker are insignificant relative to the amount of retirement benefits she is asked to forfeit. As a retired member of FRS, Petitioner is subject to the reemployment limitations in Section 121.091, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Linda Holston, violated the reemployment restrictions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Linda J. Holston 5841 10th Street Zephyrhills, Florida 33542 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The central issues in this case are (1) whether Petitioner is eligible for membership in and retirement benefits from the Teachers' Retirement System; and (2) whether Petitioner is entitled to receive as a refund contributions paid by his employing agency and, if so, how much and at what interest rate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, currently sixty-six years old, was employed as a professor of economics and finance at the University of South Florida (USF), Tampa, Florida, from September 1965 through August 31, 1981, when he terminated employment. As a member of the teaching faculty, Petitioner automatically became a compulsory member of the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) and remained a member throughout his tenure at USE. When Petitioner originally enrolled in the TRS in September 1965, he signed an enrollment form entitled "Teachers' Retirement System of Florida, Enrollment Blank New Teachers." The form provided general information concerning the TRS, and included information about contributions, service credit, and service retirement benefits under the TRS. The enrollment form provided in part the following: I understand that the full amount of deductions from my compensation for annuity purposes with compound interest will be returned to me if I leave the service without a retirement benefit or will be paid to my beneficiary if I die in active service. At all times relevant hereto, the TRS required that members make contributions of six-quarter percent of their total salaries to their retirement accounts. Of this amount, six percent went into the TRS member's retirement account and the quarter percent was allocated to the Survivors' Benefits Fund. In addition to the contributions made by TRS members, employers were required to contribute matching funds to the TRS Retirement Fund. While employed at USF, the prescribed six quarter percent of Petitioner's salary was deducted, with six percent appropriately posted to his TRS retirement account. During the time Petitioner was employed at USF, the employer contribution paid by USF to match Petitioner's contribution was $23,846.06. Had Petitioner remained a member of TRS, he would have been eligible to begin receiving benefits in February 1993. While employed at USF, Petitioner was given the option to transfer from the TRS to the newly created Florida Retirement System on five different occasions: December 1970; June 1971; July 1972; January 1975; and January 1979. Through information disseminated by Respondent, TRS members were notified that by transferring to the "new" Florida Retirement System, they would become mandatory members of the federal Social Security System. Petitioner chose to remain in TRS rather than transfer to the Florida Retirement System, thereby foregoing membership in the federal Social Security System. In August 1981, prior to his normal age of retirement, Petitioner terminated his employment with USF and requested that Respondent refund Petitioner's retirement contributions. In making the request, Petitioner completed and signed a form entitled, "Request for Refund," FRS M81. Completion of this form is a requisite for receiving retirement refunds and applies to members of any of the Florida retirement systems. The Request for Refund states: I hereby make application for refund of my accumulated contributions in the Florida Retirement Systems. I do waive for myself, my heirs and assignees all rights, title and interest in the Florida Retirement Systems. On the reverse side of the Request for Refund card, is the following: Under the provision of the Florida Statutes, a member MUST terminate employment before he can obtain a refund. * * * The refund process may be started upon receipt of this application. It may be necessary to issue a second refund after all payrolls on which a member's name appears are received and audited by the Retirement System Office. A member who has ten or more years of creditable service has a vested interest in retirement and may leave his contributions on deposit indefinitely and qualify for deferred retirement. Pursuant to Petitioner's request, the Division refunded $22,153.10 to Petitioner in October 1981. The refund, which was provided in three warrants, included all employee contributions and earned interest posted to Petitioner's retirement account as of the date of the refund. Petitioner's refund was provided in three separate warrants because the system in place, in 1981, was incapable of generating a single check for an amount in excess of $9,999.99. In late 1995 or early 1996, Petitioner called the Division of Retirement to inquire about his benefits under the TRS. Petitioner made after this call after he reviewed his Social Security wage earning history and learned that no contributions had been posted to his Social Security account during the sixteen years he had been employed at USF. Upon reviewing the Petitioner's request, Respondent discovered that $1,692.96 remained in Petitioner's TRS account. Of the amount remaining in Petitioner's account, $292.63 represented Petitioner's employee contributions, and $1,400.33 was earned interest. Respondent's failure to refund Petitioner's $292.63 and the interest earned thereon as soon as these moneys were posted to Petitioner's account was the result of an unintentional accounting error. Under the procedures used by the Division at that time, Petitioner's most recent employee contributions were not posted to his account until November or December 1981. The interest earned on Petitioner's employee contributions were not posted to Petitioner's account until the end of the 1981/1982 fiscal year. This matter is addressed in the Request for Refund which notified members that "it may be necessary to issue a second refund" after all payrolls on which the member's name appears have been posted. After discovering this inadvertent accounting error, Respondent initially agreed to refund Petitioner the outstanding $1,692.96. Subsequently, the Division of Retirement agreed to pay Petitioner $1,692.96 plus six a-half percent interest from October 1981, for a total amount of $4,088.31. The six and a- half percent interest rate is the current rate established by Respondent. Pursuant to Petitioner's request, Respondent has not yet refunded Petitioner's outstanding employee contributions and interest, pending the culmination of this proceeding. At the time Petitioner completed and signed the Request for Refund, it was his intention to obtain all of his contributions and interest. It was not until Petitioner's inquiry in 1995 or 1996 that he became aware that a small amount of his employee contributions and interest thereon had not been refunded. Petitioner believes that because Respondent did not refund all moneys due him, some $1,692.96, he retained membership in the TRS and is now able to retire from that system with a partial benefit. Alternatively, Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to receive as a refund, all contributions paid into his retirement fund, including the contributions paid by USF. According to Petitioner, his understanding and belief in this regard is based on an explanation provided to him by Dr. John Milliken, the Dean of the College of Business at USF. Petitioner's understanding in this regard was not correct. At some point prior to Petitioner's terminating his employment at USF, he reviewed a Summary Plan Description (SPD) which was issued by the Division of Retirement in 1980. One section of the SPD, Refund of Contributions, provides in relevant part: If a member terminates employment he may elect to receive a refund of all the contributions he has made to the retirement system, except those made to the Survivors' Benefit Trust Fund. Furthermore, the first paragraph of the Summary Plan Description states: This brochure contains basic information on the Teachers' Retirement System, established by Ch. 238, Florida Statutes. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the Teachers' Retirement System and should not be used in place of the law on questions of interpretation and appli-cation. Any question which are not answered by this brochure may be addressed to the Div. of Retirement, . . . . Based on Petitioner's reading of the provision of the SPD quoted in paragraph 20 above, it was his "judgment" and "impression" that any refund prior to retirement, would include both employee and employer contributions and the interest on these contributions. At no time did Petitioner verify his interpretation with the Division of Retirement or the USE Personnel Office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order finding that Petitioner, John C. Deiter, is (1) ineligible for retirement benefits under the Teachers' Retirement System and (2) is not entitled to receive employer contributions and interest thereon. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELDK 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 3rd day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray B. Silverstein, Esquire POWELL, CARNEY, HAYES and SILVERSTEIN, P.A. Barnett Tower One Progress Plaza, Suite 1210 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Stanley M. Danek, Senior Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Julie E. Reeber, Alexander Reeber and Christine Tadry are entitled to receive survivor benefits payable under the Florida Retirement System (FRS) for Marjorie A. McCollum, deceased, under the facts and circumstances of the Case. The factual issue is whether Marjorie A. McCollum was incompetent when she made the designation of beneficiary and under the undue influence of her daughter Suzanne L. Benson.
Findings Of Fact In August of 1991, Ms. Marjorie A. McCollum, a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) applied for disability retirement benefits. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin). As part of her application for disability retirement benefits on Form FR-13 (Florida Retirement System Application for Disability Retirement), Ms. McCollum designated her daughter, Suzanne L. Benson, as her beneficiary. (Exhibit 1 of the deposition of Stanley Colvin). The designation reads, "All previous beneficiary designations are null and void. The beneficiary whom I designate to receive the benefit or refund at my death is Suzanne L. Benson." (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 1). According to the date on the form, Ms. McCollum signed the application on August 28, 1991, and was properly witnesses by a notary public, John T. West. (Testimony of Mary Shere). According to the application, Ms. McCollum was suffering from cancer. She selected the Option 2 retirement benefit. (Exhibit 1 of Stanley Colvin deposition). Ms. McCollum's application for disability retirement benefits, with the Option 2 retirement benefit, was approved by the Division of Retirement with an effective date of September 1, 1991. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 9). Prior to receiving her first check, Ms. Marjorie McCollum died on September 23, 1991. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 9). On November 4, 1991, the Division, by letter, notified Suzanne L. Benson that as designated beneficiary of Ms. Marjorie McCollum, she was entitled to the Option 2 benefit in the amount of $280.69 per month through August 31, 2001, for ten years. On November 19, 1991, the Division received a letter from Julia Reeber, another daughter of Ms. McCollum (the deceased), disputing the designation of her sister Suzanne L. Benson as the beneficiary. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 16). As a result of the notice of dispute by Julia Reeber, the Division on November 26, 1991, notified Ms. Benson by letter that payment of the Option 2 benefit would not be forthcoming until the dispute was resolved. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 12). The designation of beneficiary executed by Ms. McCollum was properly executed and filed with the Division of Retirement in accord with the Florida Statutes and rules pertaining to the designation of beneficiaries for Florida retirement benefits. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin). Suzanne L. Benson was the properly designated beneficiary, and the Division intended to pay the Option 2 benefit to Suzanne L. Benson in accord with the Division's rules. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin). Ms. McCollum suffered some deterioration of her mental faculties prior to her death because of her illness, she could no longer handle her financial matters, and needed aid from her children in the payment of her bills. However, at no time was the Petitioner legally declared incompetent. Testimony of Julie Reeber). Despite suffering from the ravages of the disease, Ms. McCollum was at times able to function in a normal matter without evidence of diminished mental capacity. (Testimony of Mary Shere). On August 23, 1991, the deceased came to the office of Ms. Mary Shere. Ms. McCollum had been a regular customer of Ms. Shere's beauty parlor and later her accounting service. Ms. Shere had known Ms. McCollum for over ten years. (Testimony of Mary Shere). On August 23, 1991, Ms. McCollum and Ms. Shere talked for an hour to an hour and a half regarding her illness and her application for disability retirement. Ms. McCollum expressed her desire for Ms. Shere to notarize the application for disability retirement benefits. Ms. McCollum told Ms. Shere that Ms. McCollum wanted her daughter Suzanne to be the beneficiary of her death benefits. However, they could not complete the designation of beneficiary because the form had not come. Another discussion concerning the arrival of the forms took place by telephone on August 24, 1991, between Ms. Shere and the Deceased. On August 26, 1991, Suzanne Benson telephoned Ms. Shere advising Ms. Shere that her mother had been hospitalized, and that she needed to come to the hospital in order to notarize the disability application. (Testimony of Mary Shere). On August 26, 1991, Ms. Shere accompanied by one of her employees, John West, visited Ms. McCollum in the hospital. In her presence, the application was signed by Ms. McCollum and notarized by John West. (Testimony of Mary Shere). Ms. Shere's very credible testimony was that Ms. McCollum knew what she was doing, was aware of what she possessed and knew she was terminal. Ms. McCollum made a knowing and rational decision to designate Suzanne L. Benson as her beneficiary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Division holding that Marjorie McCollum retired with an Option 2 retirement benefit and that Suzanne L. Benson, her designated beneficiary, receive the Option 2 benefit. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 29 day of May, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie E. Reeber 133 Kirkwood Drive Debary, FL 32713 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Rhonda B. Goodson, Esquire Post Office Box 4319 South Daytona, FL 32121 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2539 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 415 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to purchase a retirement service credit for approximately three and one-half years pursuant to Section 121.011(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The record in this cause consists of all documents filed in this cause either with the Hearing Officer or with the Division of Retirement, including all documents received in evidence at the hearing as exhibits. After review of the record in this case, the Division accepts all the findings of fact as set forth by the Hearing Officer in his recommended order. However, the Division is unable to accept all of the conclusions of law as set forth by the Hearing Officer in his recommended order.
Findings Of Fact As a teacher with the Orange County School Board (the School Board") since 1967, Petitioner is a member of the Florida Retirement System. Petitioner was so employed in 1978 and was a member of the Florida Retirement System at that time. In January, 1978, Petitioner was on approved personal leave for her wedding. Her husband lived in Arkansas. Petitioner requested and was granted a leave of absence to join her husband in Arkansas for the balance of the school year. Petitioner and her husband intended to return to Orlando, Florida before the beginning of the next school year. Petitioner's husband intended to accept a position with a veteran's clinic in the Orlando area. Petitioner intended to resume employment with the School Board. On January 16, 1978, Petitioner properly submitted a written request for a leave of absence. The leave requested was limited to the remaining term of the school year which ended in June, 1978. The request asked for a teaching assignment in the event the request was denied. On February 14, 1993, the School Board granted Petitioner's request for a leave of absence. The School Board's written authorization was issued on a standard approval form used by the School Board for such authorizations. The one page form consisted of standard boiler plate language except for three blanks in the first paragraph stating the date of approval, the reason for the leave, and the expiration date for the leave. The boiler plate language in the standard form included the following statement: . . . A teacher who desires to return to employment at the expiration of the leave period must notify the Superintendent in writing by March 1 of the school year for which the leave was granted. . . . Petitioner notified the Superintendent in writing of her desire to return to employment. Petitioner's written request on January 16, 1978, was addressed to the School Board. The relationship of the School Board and Superintendent is that of principal and agent. Petitioner's written request expressly provided that the leave period was limited to the remainder of the school year and that Petitioner wanted a teaching assignment if the request for leave of absence was denied. The requirement for notice prior to March 1, 1978, was based on the Master Agreement, Article IX, Section L, entered into by the School Board and the teacher's union. No similar requirement appears in Respondent's rules. Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-2.006(1)(a) requires only that: . . . A leave of absence must be authorized in writing by a member's employer prior to or during the leave of absence. Petitioner's leave of absence was authorized in writing by Petitioner's employer during her personal leave. Early in February, 1978, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Royce B. Walden, Associate Superintendent of the School Board, and informed him that she desired to return to her employment at the beginning of the next school year; in the Fall of 1978. Mr. Walden did not indicate to Petitioner that she had failed to provide timely written notice of her intent to return to employment. Later in February, 1978, Petitioner traveled to Orlando. While in Orlando, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Walden and again stated her desire to return to employment at the beginning of the next school year. The Associate Superintendent did not indicate to Petitioner that she had failed to provide timely written notice of her desire to return to employment. In May, 1988, Petitioner moved back to Orlando. Petitioner again telephoned Mr. Walden. Petitioner was informed for the first time during that telephone conversation that there may not be a teaching position available for her at the beginning of the next school year. The reason stated by the Associate Superintendent was that Petitioner had failed to notify the Superintendent in writing by March 1, 1978, of her desire to return to employment. Petitioner immediately wrote a letter on May 25, 1978, restating her desire to return to employment at the beginning of the next school year. On the same day, Mr. Walden issued a letter to Petitioner stating that the School Board would not automatically assign Petitioner to an employment position for the 1978-1979 school year. The reason stated in Mr. Walden's letter was that Petitioner failed to comply with the requirement that she notify the Superintendent in writing by March 1, 1978, of her desire to return to employment. On July 11, 1978, Mr. Walden issued a letter to Petitioner purporting to terminate her as an employee of the School Board. The reason given for the purported termination was that Petitioner had failed to give written notice to the Superintendent by March 1, 1978, of her desire to return to employment. The letter purporting to terminate Petitioner contained no notice of Petitioner's rights to challenge the School Board's proposed action, including the right to a proceeding under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. After informing Petitioner of the purported termination and the reason, the letter stated: . . . Should you wish to return as an employee with the School Board of Orange County, we invite you to communicate with us in the near future. Please accept our sincere appreciation for your contribution to the educational program for children in the Orange County Public School System. 1/ Shortly after July 11, 1978, the School Board sued Petitioner for repayment of funds allegedly advanced to Petitioner for a paid sabbatical in 1973. The litigation culminated in a settlement agreement and Petitioner's reinstatement to her employment for the 1981-1982 school year with credit for nine years of service. Petitioner has been continuously employed by the School Board since that time and has maintained her continuing contract status with no loss in seniority. The settlement agreement did not pay Petitioner any back compensation and did not address Petitioner's fringe benefits, including the right to purchase the retirement service credit for the period of January, 1978 through the date of her reinstatement. Petitioner must pay the total cost of providing the retirement credit into the Retirement System Trust Fund. The economic burden of the retirement service credit falls solely on Petitioner. Petitioner's purchase of the retirement service credit will not result in any adverse economic impact on the School Board, Respondent, or the State of Florida. The proposed purchase price for the retirement service credit is sound for actuarial purposes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order allowing Petitioner to purchase the retirement service credit at the statutorily prescribed purchase price. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 26th day of July, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Sally T. Sperling commenced teaching for the Leon County School Board in 1969 as an elementary teacher at Sabal Palm Elementary School. Following maternity leave and absences to continue her education, Mrs. Sperling returned to the Leon County School System in 1971 as a full-time teacher and subsequently gained continuing contract status before resigning in 1976. In 1978 Petitioner submitted an application (Exhibit 5) for part-time employment with the Leon County School System in which she indicated a desire to work "perhaps, three days per week. She was employed in the Adult Education Program at Lively Vocational-Technical School in Tallahassee teaching remedial reading. The form contract used by the Leon County School Board for Petitioner's employment is the same that is used for all instructional personnel. The contract purported to run for one year and Petitioner was paid on an hourly basis, with no minimum or maximum hours specified. Full-time teachers are hired on an annual basis. Some of the teachers in the Adult Education Program are full-time teachers and are on annual or continuing contracts. Most of the teachers in the Adult Education Programs are part-time teachers and are paid only for the hours they teach. Petitioner taught remedial reading classes and sufficient interest in this course has been maintained so the program has continued semester after semester for the four years Petitioner has taught adult education courses. Other Adult Education Programs in which sufficient interest has not developed have been dropped. Funding for Adult Education Programs depends upon the number of students attending the classes. If this number drops below the number required to keep the course self-sufficient, the course will be dropped. In such a case the teacher of the course will not remain on the Leon County payroll, as no hours will be devoted to teaching this course. Unless an actual course is taught, the part-time teacher is not paid. Teachers on annual contracts are paid for the full year regardless of the number of hours of classes taught. At the time Petitioner was hired she was given a packet of information (Exhibit 7) but was not specifically told that part-time teachers are not eligible for the Florida Retirement System. During the four years Petitioner has been employed as a part-time teacher she has had no social security deductions taken from her pay and has earned no annual or sick leave. Pursuant to an agreement between the state and federal governments all members of the Florida Retirement System are covered by social security and FICA deductions are taken from their pay. This deduction is indicated on the check stub given to the employee with each pay check. State employees not under the Florida Retirement System and not specifically made parts of the Social Security System are not covered by social security. Full-time teachers are considered salaried employees holding a regularly established position. They are paid from funds provided in the "100" account. Part-time employees are designated as Other Personal Services (OPS) and are paid from funds in the "700" account. These accounting codes are established by the Department of Education to provide uniformity in accounting in the various school systems. The accounting code designation from which fund the employee is paid gives a quick reference to the status of the employee. When the pay records show Petitioner is paid from "751" funds, there will be no state retirement or FICA contributions from the code that disburses those funds. When the Florida Retirement System replaced older state retirement systems, some confusion developed regarding the status of personnel hired temporarily and retained on the payroll for an extended period. This confusion carried over to part-time teachers in the Adult Education Programs throughout the state. Some of the counties placed these part-time teachers in the Florida Retirement System where they have been covered for nearly ten years. The Division of Retirement is in the process of removing those people from the retirement system. At the time Petitioner wads hired she did not believe she was eligible for the Florida Retirement System and no FICA deductions were ever taken from her pay. After a visiting friend advised her she might be eligible for the Florida Retirement System Petitioner initiated the inquiries that led to these proceedings.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible to receive retirement credit for the period of his employment with the Florida Bar from July 1, 1977 through June 4, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Florida Bar from July 1, 1977 to June 4, 1981. The record is unclear as to the nature of his employment at the Florida Bar. He is presently employed as a professor at Florida State University and has approximately 24 years' credit in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Employees of the Florida Bar are paid as part of an overall budgetary process generated primarily from members' dues. Their salaries are not established by or funded by legislative appropriation. The Florida Bar has its own pension system that is a defined contribution plan funded entirely by the Florida Bar. The Bar employees contribute nothing to their pension system. This system has been in place since approximately 1970. Salaries of state officers and employees are reported from the State Comptroller to the Division of State Retirement. No salaries of the Florida Bar were paid or reported to the Division for the period of time Petitioner was employed at the Florida Bar. In the 1970's the FRS went from an employee/employer funded system to a strictly employer funded system which became known as a non-contributory system. The Florida Bar does not participate as a paying agency of the FRS and employees of The Florida Bar do not participate in any state employee benefit system. Beginning in 1955, until the establishment of the FRS, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners participated in the former public retirement system. When the FRS was created, participants, such as the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, began reporting into the new system and were allowed to participate in the new system. Mr. Ragsdale, administrator of the enrollment section of the Division, established that the employees of the Board of Bar Examiners participated by contributing into the former retirement system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for retirement service credit for the period of his employment with the Florida Bar. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 14th day of September, 2001.
