Findings Of Fact In April, 1963, Petitioner, Carl E. R. Nelson, soon to graduate from Florida Southern College with a degree in citrus, wrote to representatives of the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture, with questions regarding his possible employment by the agency upon his graduation. In his reply letter to Petitioner, dated April 24, 1963, H. L. Jones, Assistant Director, Division of Plant Industry, inter alia, outlined the benefits package offered to state employees which convinced Petitioner to apply for a position with the state rather than work for the federal government, which reportedly paid 40% more than the state for similar positions. After an interview with Mr. Jones and the Division Director, Mr. Nelson was offered a regularly established position with the Division of Plant Industry in its Miami office at a salary of $405.00 per month. The letter of notification to him indicated his first six months employment would be on a "probationary" basis. Petitioner was sent an "info" copy of a June 26, 1963 memo from the Department of Agriculture's Personnel Director to the Director of Petitioner's Division, reflecting he was to be paid out of "OPS" funds. However, neither the Division Director's letter nor that of the Secretary of Agriculture, advising him of his hiring, made any mention of the source of his pay or indicated he would be other than a regular probationary employee. Petitioner believed that from the day he began work, on July 1, 1963, he was earning credit toward retirement. In February, 1968, unsolicited by Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture sent him a notice of Continuous and Creditable Service calculation which reflected his beginning employment date as July 1, 1963, and that as of December 31, 1967, he had accumulated four years, 6 months of total continuous and creditable service. Computing back reveals service began on July 1, 1963. On October 31, 1973, a memo from one Department of Agriculture office to another, with an information copy to Petitioner, reflected he had completed ten years service in July, 1973, and an August 10, 1972 memo to Mr. Nelson, in relation to his military service, reflected the Department's calculation that he would complete ten years service in July, 1973. Twenty-two Personnel Action Request Forms of the Department of Agriculture, relating to the Petitioner, and dated from September 23, 1970 to August 14, 1985, all reflect Petitioner's initial service date as July 1, 1963. Ten employee leave statements pertaining to Petitioner, covering the period November 13, 1987 through March 31, 1988 also reflect his continuous creditable service date as July 1, 1963. In early 1975, Petitioner requested of the Department of Agriculture an audit of his service time. This request was forwarded to the Division of Retirement. Mrs. Ruth Sansom, Bureau Chief of Retirement Calculations did the check and determined that as of the end of March, 1975, Petitioner had 11.67 years creditable service. This equates to 11 2/3 years or 11 years, 8 months. Mrs. Sansom's computation was based in part on a November 9, 1973 record check of Department of Agriculture payroll tapes which showed that for July, 1963, Petitioner was paid out of OPS funds. Computing back, 11 years and 8 months prior to March 31, 1975, is August 1, 1963. Consequently, as early as May 1, 1975, Petitioner was advised he was not given credit for the month of July, 1963, but it is obvious he did not recognize the situation as it existed. In October, 1987, Petitioner was again advised by the Division of Retirement, as a response to his inquiry regarding credit for his military service, that as of the end of July, 1987, he had accumulated 24 years service indicating his creditable service started on August 1, 1963, not July 1, 1963. If the latter had been the case, his record would show 24 years, 1 month. It was this last credit report which prompted Petitioner's request for hearing. The evidence of record shows clearly that Petitioner began work with the State of Florida on July 1, 1963 as a probationary but not temporary employee and served continuously since that time. He was paid for the month of July, 1963, out of OPS funds. The June 26, 1963 memo from the Personnel Director to Petitioner's employer indicates he was to be on probationary status for six months and paid out of OPS funds. By implication that could mean he would not be a regular employee during the six months probationary status, but the fact that the source of payroll funds for Petitioner was changed to regular funds after one month would also imply he was supposed to be a regular employee from the inception of his employment, and this is supported by the recruiting correspondence which referred to the many benefits which inure only to regular employees. Consequently, it is found that Petitioner was intended to be a regular employee from the inception of his employment, but he was paid out of OPS funds for the month of July, 1963.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that Petitioner, Carl E. R. Nelson be granted credit toward state retirement for the month of July, 1963. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida, this 7th day of May, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5541 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2 - 3. Accepted as to the fact that Respondent was offered employment. Rejected as to the fact that the "offer" of retirement was the motivating factor in Petitioner's choice to accept state rather than federal employment. 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the finding that Petitioner was never notified he had been paid one month out of OPS funds. However, the method of notification was erroneous in content and did not serve to bring this change to his attention. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: E. G. Couse, Esquire Grace and Couse, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1647 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 William A. Frieder, Esquire Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Division of Retirement will make no Findings of Fact relating to whether Petitioner's disability was in-line-of-duty. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned previously, all findings contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8, of the recommended order are rejected. However, the Division accepts the remaining Findings of Fact contained in the recommended order. As taken from the order these findings are: Herman Williams was an employee of the Department of Transportation and a member of the Florida Retirement System. The Division of Retirement approved payment of regular disability benefits to Herman Williams. Herman Williams is currently receiving and accepting these benefits. Herman Williams is an illiterate Seminole Indian, 62 years of age. Williams' duties with the Department of Transportation were driving a mowing tractor and cleaning out roadside ditches. Williams worked for the Department of Transportation approximately 21 years 11 months prior to being placed on the retired roles [sic]. On May 1, 1975, Williams was driving his tractor in the course of his regular employment at the Department of Transportation when the power steering of the tractor malfunctioned causing the front wheels to swerve violently, wrenching the steering wheel in Williams' hands and nearly throwing him from the tractor. Repairs had to be made to Williams' tractor by a Department of Transportation mechanic because the tractor was inoperative. The mechanic discovered a loose nut in the power steering assembly when he exchanged the power steering unit in Williams' tractor with another from the maintenance yard. When the new unit was installed in Williams's tractor it functioned normally. When the power steering from Williams' tractor was installed in the other tractor, it also functioned normally. The mechanic stated that the loose nut which he had discovered could cause the tractor to swerve violently in the manner Williams' had described. On the afternoon of May 1, 1975, Williams reported this instant [sic] to his supervisor, David McQuaig. Mr. McQuaig inquired as to any injuries to Williams and the tractor. Williams reported to McQuaig that the tractor had not been harmed and that he was only sore and stiff. No report of injury was prepared by McQuaig whose duty it was to file such reports. Williams' condition did not materially improve after seeking medical treatment by Dr. Albritton. Williams remained on sick leave until August 11, 1975, when it was exhausted. Williams then took annual leave from August 12, 1975 until September 23, 19975, when his retirement became effective. When the Petitioner's sick leave was exhausted, he was contacted by his supervisor in the Department of Transportation. He suggested that Williams could retire on disability if two physicians would state that he was disabled. This letter was read to Williams by his son, Eddie, because Williams is illiterate. Retirement application forms were provided Williams by the Department of Transportation. The physician report forms were completed by Dr. Albritton and Dr. Wilkerson. The statement of disability by employer form was completed by Williams' supervisor, David A. Young, Maintenance Engineer, for the Department of Transportation. Young stated that he completed the Statement of Disability by Employer, indicating that the application was for regular disability benefits because he had determined that no workman's compensation claim had been made by Williams and because Dr. Wilkerson's medical report had stated that the injuries occurred at Williams's home. The determination that the application was for regular disability benefits was solely Young's. The Application for Disability Retirement signed by Williams was prepared by personnel at the Department of Transportation District Office. This form was signed by Herman Williams; however, this form does not make provision for the member to state the nature of the disability benefits sought. Eddie Williams, son of Herman Williams, took his father to sign the forms at the Department of Transportation office. These forms were not explained to Williams, nor did Eddie Williams read them. Herman Williams was also unaware that such a benefit existed. Herman Williams stated he sought disability benefits based upon his injury on the job. Disability retirement was not discussed between Herman Williams and David Young. Based upon the application submitted in his behalf, the Division of Retirement made a determination that Williams was entitled to regular disability benefits. Williams was unaware that he was not receiving the in-line-of-duty benefits until his son inquired as to how much money he was receiving. When he was advised, he told his father that it appeared to be too little money. At this point Eddie Williams discovered that the application had been for regular disability.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS: That the administrator permit the applicant to file an amended application for disability in-line-of-duty retirement, and, further, that said application be approved. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. W. Chalkley, III, Esquire Post Office Box 1793 Ocala, Florida 32670 Douglas Spangler, Jr., Esquire Asst. Division Attorney Division of Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF RETIREMENT DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION HERMAN H. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-982 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. / FINAL AGENCY ORDER A petition for formal proceedings having been duly filed, and a request for hearing officer having been duly made, a hearing was held in the above-styled cause pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, before the Honorable Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, in Ocala, Florida, on September 15, 1977. The Petitioner requested relief from the Division's determination that Petitioner was not entitled to resubmit an application for disability retirement requesting in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits because he had previously applied for and accepted regular disability retirement. The purpose of the hearing was to determine the factual basis for Petitioner's claim that he should be allowed to apply for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING: Eric E. Wagner, Esquire J. W. Chalkey, III, Esquire Law Offices of Eric E. Wagner, P.A. Post Office Box 1763 Ocala, Florida 32670 For the Petitioner E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C-Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 For the Respondent The Hearing Officer entered his Recommended Order on December 8, 1977, in which he sustained Petitioner's assertion and concluded, on the basis of the findings made as a result of the hearing, that Petitioner should be entitled to resubmit his application and request in-line-of-duty disability benefits. In addition to this determination, the Hearing Officer found that Petitioner was in fact entitled to in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. In making this latter conclusion, both as a matter of fact and of law, the Hearing Officer went beyond his scope of authority. As will be developed more fully herein, the Hearing Officer was without jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether Petitioner was in fact entitled to the in-line-of-duty benefits. Therefore, so much of the recommended order as purports to address this issue is of no effect, being the result of a hearing that did not comply with the essential requirements of law.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Respondent has forfeited his rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The Fund is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. The Fund is charged with administering and managing a pension plan for employees of the City of Tampa (the “City”). Respondent was employed with the City from August 1, 1994, through March 16, 2009, when the City terminated his employment. Respondent worked as an Automotive Equipment Operator II in the City’s parks and recreation department. Respondent worked a total of 15 years for the City. By reason of his employment with the City, Respondent was enrolled in the pension plan administered by the Fund. After six years of employment, Respondent vested in the pension plan. According to a Notice of Disciplinary Action, dated March 16, 2009, the City terminated Respondent based on a complaint that he had stolen City property. Specifically, in February 2009, the City received information that Respondent was in possession of a City-owned lawn mower at his residence. After receiving the complaint, the City notified the Tampa Police Department (“TPD”). TPD searched Respondent’s home. TPD did not find a City lawn mower. However, during its search, TPD did discover a spool of weed eater line on Respondent’s porch that he admitted belonged to the City. During a subsequent interview with TPD, Respondent confessed to taking the spool from the City’s supplies without permission. Respondent also divulged that he did occasionally take a lawn mower owned by the City and use it on his property. Following the TPD interview, Respondent was arrested and charged with theft of the City property under section 812.014, Florida Statutes. Respondent, however, was never prosecuted for the crime. After completing a pre-trial intervention program, Respondent’s theft charge was dismissed. The City, however, terminated Respondent’s employment based, in part, on his admission to stealing the weed eater line. Kimberly Marple, an Employee Relations Specialist Supervisor for the City, testified on behalf of the City and explained that the City maintains a zero tolerance policy for removal of or taking City property for personal use. Consequently, when the City learned of Respondent’s admission to TPD that he took City property, he was fired. At the final hearing, Petitioner admitted to “borrowing” the City lawn mower from time to time to use at his home. He expressed, however, that he always returned it to the City. Respondent claimed that he never considered permanently taking the lawn mower. Respondent did, however, confirm that he took the weed eater line from the City, without authority, for personal use and did not intend to return it. Respondent relayed that a spool of weed eater line costs approximately $80. Respondent voiced that he was an exemplary employee for the City during his 15 years of employment. Respondent represented that, prior to this incident, he had never received any disciplinary action from the City. Respondent’s testimony is supported by his annual performance evaluations which record that he dependably and diligently performed his responsibilities for the City parks and recreation department. Respondent’s performance was frequently marked as excellent or outstanding. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the City terminated Respondent’s employment by reason of his admission to theft of City property. Therefore, the Fund met its burden of proving that Respondent must forfeit all rights and benefits to the Fund’s pension plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund enter a final order finding that Respondent, Robert Ramshardt, a public employee who, by reason of his admitted commission of a “specified offense” under section 112.3173(2)(e), forfeited all rights and benefits in the pension plan administered by the Fund. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 22nd day of February, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, who was convicted of three felony counts in federal court, must forfeit his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement Systems (FRS), pursuant to Section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2006).1 Whether Petitioner's conviction in U.S. District Court in the underlying criminal case is not final because a petition for writ of habeas corpus, based upon ineffective assistance of trial counsel, is pending in the U.S. District Court.
Findings Of Fact Based on the joint exhibits and joint stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Division of Retirement (Respondent) is charged with the responsibility of managing, governing, and administering the FRS on behalf of the Department of Management Services. The FRS is a public retirement system, as defined by Florida law. As such, Respondent's proposed action regarding the forfeiture of Petitioner's rights and benefits under the FRS are subject to administrative review. Petitioner was formerly employed by the Charlotte County Sheriff's Department as a deputy sheriff. Petitioner retired from the aforesaid employment and began receiving FRS benefits in March of 2003. Petitioner is a special risk class member of the FRS. On May 28, 2003, Petitioner was charged by Incident in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, in case number 2:03-cr-00065, with (1) One Count of Deprivation of rights under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 242; (2) One Count of engaging in misleading conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(b)(3); and (3) One Count of making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. On September 18, 2003, a Superseding Indictment was entered charging the same offenses. Count One of the Superseding Indictment, dated September 18, 2003, provides: On or about May 21, 2002, in Charlotte County, in the Middle District of Florida, defendant WYATT O. HENDERSON, who was then employed as a detective with the Charlotte County, Florida Sheriff's Department, while acting under color of the laws of the State of Florida, did willfully deprive C.G., a juvenile, resulting in bodily injury to C.G. and did thereby willfully deprive C.G. of the right preserved and protected by the Constitution of the United States not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which includes the right to be secure in his person and free from the intentional use of unreasonable force by one acting under color of law. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242. 18 U.S.C. Section 242 provides, in relevant part: Whoever, under color of any law, . . . willfully subjects any person in any State . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, that are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more that one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. . . . Count Two of the Superseding Indictment provides: On or about May 22, 2002, in Charlotte County, in the Middle District of Florida, defendant WYATT O. HENDERSON, who was then employed as a detective with the Charlotte County, Florida Sheriff's Department, did knowingly engage in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense, namely, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, as charged in Count One of this Indictment, by submitting to Sergeant Jerry White of the Charlotte County Sheriff's Department an incomplete and inaccurate statement regarding the arrest on or about May 21, 2002, of C.G., a juvenile. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b)(3). 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(b)(3) provides, in relevant part: (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to -- * * * (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer . . . of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense . . .; Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more that ten years, or both. Count Three of the Superseding Indictment provides: On or about October 4, 2002, in Charlotte County, in the Middle District of Florida, defendant WYATT O. HENDERSON, who was then employed as a detective with the Charlotte County, Florida Sheriff's Department, did knowingly and willfully make a false and fictitious statement and representation of material fact in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency of the United States, in that the defendant stated and represented while being interviewed by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that on or about May 21, 2002, prior to pushing C.G., a juvenile, to the ground, the defendant threw his handgun into the window of his car, whereas the defendant then knew that on or about May 21, 2002, he did not throw his handgun into the window of his car prior to pushing C.G., a juvenile, to the ground. In violation of Title 18, United Stated Code, Section 1001. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides, in relevant part: Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -- falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more that 5 years . . . or both. The charges contained in the Superseding Indictment were committed prior to Petitioner's retirement under the FRS. On December 10, 2003, a jury returned a verdict of guilty of all three counts in the Superseding Indictment. On March 12, 2004, the Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case was entered on the aforesaid verdict, by the Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge. Therein, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of all counts charged in the aforesaid superseding indictment. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons. Petitioner appealed his conviction and in an opinion issued on May 23, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in case number 04-11545, affirmed the aforesaid judgment in part, vacated the same in part, and remanded the case to the District Court. See United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d. 1293 (11th Cir. 2005), certiorari denied, 126 S.Ct. 1331 (2006). The Circuit Court issued its mandate on July 26, 2005. On May 3, 2006, a Judgment on Remand in a Criminal Case was entered by the District Court on the aforesaid verdict, wherein Petitioner was again adjudicated guilty of all counts charged in the aforesaid Superseding Indictment and was re- sentenced. An appeal was again taken and in an opinion issued on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in case number 06-12816, affirmed the aforesaid judgment on remand. See United States v. Henderson, 211 Fed. Appx. 919, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 31565 (11th Cir. 2006). The Circuit Court issued its mandate on January 22, 2007. On July 24, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Sentence in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, in case number 2:06-cv-00373. Said Petition and Motion are now pending before the U.S. District Court (M.D. Fla.). On March 19, 2007, Petitioner received the Notice of Action to Forfeit Retirement Benefits signed by Sarabeth Snuggs, State Retirement Director, by certified letter, dated March 15, 2007. The letter advised Petitioner of the proposed agency action to forfeit his FRS rights and benefits as a result of the above referenced conviction. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge to challenge the proposed agency action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order forfeiting Petitioner's rights and benefits under the FRS. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 10th day of September, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Robert Gilmour, was employed by the Dade County School Board until July 2, 1984, when he terminated his employment effective June 15, 1984. Mr. Gilmour terminated his employment by placing a telephone call to his supervisor. At the time of the telephone call, Mr. Gilmour was out of the Miami area on vacation. Mr. Gilmour did not return from vacation until August 8, 1984. On August 9, 1984, Mr. Gilmour went to the Office of Personnel Retirement Section, of the Dade County School Board, where he executed an application for early retirement. Mr. Gilmour's application for retirement was received by the Benefits Calculation Section of the Division of Retirement on August 15, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. The Division of Retirement assigned to Mr. Gilmour an effective date of retirement of September 1, 1984, the first day of the month following the date on which the Division of Retirement received his application for retirement. In May, 1984, Mr. Gilmour, placed a telephone call to Louise Syrcle, an employee of the School Board in the Office of Personnel, Retirement Section. Mr. Gilmour was considering retirement and wanted to discuss the matter with Ms. Syrcle. At the time of the telephone call, Ms. Syrcle was on her vacation and then was subsequently on sick leave because of a broken back. Ms. Syrcle was absent from employment from April 23, 1984 until June 25, 1984. In the course of the telephone call, Mr. Gilmour was told of Ms. Syrcle's broken back and was told that appointments were being made only for those teachers who had already decided to retire. Because he had not yet made that decision, he did not make an appointment. Further Mr. Gilmour did not seek to speak with any other personnel in that office. Art Miles Ms. Syrcle's supervisor, and other personnel were available in the Dade County School Board's Office of Personnel to respond to retirement requests and they did process numerous retirement requests during Ms. Syrcle's absence. At no time did Mr. Gilmour seek, read or receive a copy of the Summary Plan Description brochure which was admitted as Respondent's Exhibit C. Additionally, at no time did Mr. Gilmour make inquiry of anyone at the Division of Retirement regarding his retirement options. Instead, Mr. Gilmour relied on information gleaned from casual conversations with colleagues, which information was not correct. At all time relevant hereto, the Division of Retirement has maintained a staff of counselors who are available to consult with members and agencies on matters concerning retirement, including deadlines for filing applications. As a result of Mr. Gilmour's July 2, 1984, telephone call, in which he terminated his employment, the Dade County School Board sent a certification of service and earnings, Form FT4A, on July 2, 1984. This form was received by the Division of Retirement on July 9, 1984. While this form may have indicated that Mr. Gilmour had terminated his employment with the Dade County School Board, no information contained in that form indicated his intent to retire. When Mr. Gilmour went to the Office of Personnel, Retirement Section, of the Dade County School Board on August 9, 1984, he first learned that the rules of the Division of Retirement required that the application for retirement be filed within 30 days of the termination date in order for the retiree to receive retirement benefits retroactive to the date of termination. Because Mr. Gilmour failed to file his application for retirement until August 15, 1984, he did not receive retirement benefits for the months of July and August, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Retirement enter a Final Order denying Robert Gilmour retirement benefits for the months of July and August, 1984, and establishing Mr. Gilmour's effective date of retirement to be September 1, 1984, the first day of the month following his application for retirement. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 17th day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Having heard oral argument on the issues and considered the pleadings and the record transmitted to the respondent by the BTA, the following pertinent facts are found: For seven years prior to the tax year 1973, petitioners property had received an educational exemption from ad valorem taxation. By letter dated June 1, 1973, petitioner was advised by the tax assessor that its property had been denied tax exemption for the reason that no application for exemption had been received. Upon receipt of this letter, which wascorrectly addressed, petitioner immediately contacted the Exemption Department of the assessors office, advised them that he had not received an application form in the mail, and was informed that the application had been mailed to the wrong address, apparently the address of one of the former owners of petitioner. The reason for the application being sent to the wrong address was because, for the first time, the assessor's office was using new application forms prepared by data processing and the old address had not been changed in posting. Upon receipt of the application form, petitioner completed it and returned it to the assessors office on June 11, 1973. Had the application form, petitioner completed it and returned it to the assessors office on June 11, 1973. Upon appeal to the Broward County BTA, the BTA unanimously granted the tax exemption upon the recommendation of the tax assessor. The BTA notified the respondent's Executive Director of the change. It was the respondent's staff recommendation to invalidate the change for the reason that the BTA did not have before it information legally sufficient to warrant such change. Petitioner requested a hearing to review the staff recommendation, the respondent's Executive Director requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing and the undersigned was assigned was assigned as the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the action of the Broward County Board of Tax Adjustment in granting petitioners property an educational exemption from ad valorem taxation be validated and affirmed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 23rd day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether petitioner's employment from January 13, 1975 to January 24, 1977, was creditable service for purposes of calculating retirement benefits under applicable statutes and rules? Whether respondent is estopped to deny that this period of employment amounted to creditable service, where respondent's personnel twice advised petitioner it was, and petitioner continued working for Escambia County for some three years in reliance on this advice?
Findings Of Fact 12 In late 1974, Escambia County operated under the CETA program which was operated by the county under three separate programs known as Title I and Title II, and then later under Title VI. Title I was an on-the-job training program which provided training to individuals in jobs that were in addition to the regular employment positions already maintained by the County. Title II was an employment program for targeted groups of persons. At the beginning of the Title II program, the County paid retirement contributions on behalf of some of those participants. However, when it was advised that this was improper, it stopped such payments and refunded those contributions to some of the participants. Title VI was a program to employ as many people as possible. The positions were funded with Federal grant money and were considered public service employment positions for a limited tern. The County administered the program which eventually included about 300 participants. Payment of all CETA participants was made from a special sub-account (set up for this purpose) of the salary account. Mr. Wayne Peacock, currently Assistant County Administrator who was directly involved in the CETA program during its entire existence, testified that none of the participants who worked for the County occupied regularly established positions, or were in budgeted positions and none were paid from county budgeted salary funds. Mr. Little's employment file stated that he was hired in January, 1975, as a Title VI CETA participant and that no record showed payment of any retirement contributions on his behalf. Mr. Little testified that retirement contributions were deducted from his first four (4) paychecks, but thereafter stopped. Ruth Sansom, the Division representative, testified that the Division records as provided by the County reflected that the County began payment of retirement contributions on Mr. Little in January, 1977, and that there was no evidence or record that contributions had been paid from January, 1975, to January, 1977. Mr, Little submitted the Minutes of Escambia County for (inter alia) February 11, 1975, which showed numerous individuals hired as "manpower: laborers and four (4) men hired as "manpower planning aides". Included in that latter group was Mr. Little. Ms. Sansom testified that she checked the retirement records of several persons in the first group and all four (4) persons in the latter group. None of the persons had received creditable service for the employment, and the Division had no record of contributions having been paid. The evidence shows that Mr. Little was employed as a CETA participant and was not a county employee.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Francis Thompson's interests in the pension plan are forfeited under the law, whether he should be required to repay all monies received less accumulated contributions, and whether Respondent Patricia R. Thompson's interest in the plan is forfeited upon the forfeiture of the rights of her former husband.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The City of Daytona Beach (City) is a municipal corporation created as a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Petitioner, Board of Trustees of the City of Daytona Beach Police and Fire Department Pension Fund (Board), was established by Special Act of the Legislature in 1959, as amended in 1965. The Board is responsible for administering the City's police and fire department retirement plan (plan) and paying benefits to eligible participants subject, however, to the requirements of Chapter 112, Part VII, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Francis Thompson, is a plan participant, having retired as a police officer with the City of Daytona Beach Police Department on September 24, 1994. His dates of service are from July 31, 1972, to July 30, 1977, and from June 19, 1983, to September 24, 1994. Under the terms of the plan, upon retirement, Francis Thompson was entitled to $1439.84 per month in retirement benefits. Sometime prior to his retirement, however, his marriage to Patricia R. Thompson was dissolved. As a part of the settlement between the parties, Francis Thompson agreed to transfer a portion of his benefits (48.75% had he retired on January 31, 1992), but not to exceed a total liability of $31,000.000, plus twelve percent simple interest on the unpaid balance computed from January 31, 1992. This agreement is embodied in a Domestic Relations Order entered on March 30, 1993, by the Circuit Court, in and for Volusia County, Florida. Although the City was never given notice of this proceeding nor an opportunity to participate, the order reflects that a copy of the same was served upon the plan administrator. Notwithstanding the above action, Section 10 of Sub-Part D of the City Code provides that "the right of a person to a pension . . . shall be unassignable." In other words, Francis Thompson was prohibited from assigning his plan benefits to another person. Faced with a court order which directed the City to pay a portion of the benefits to a third party, the plan administrator consulted with the City's legal counsel, who advised the adminstrator to "follow the intent" of the court's order and begin paying a portion of the benefits to the former wife. It is noted, however, that Patricia R. Thompson did not receive an interest in the plan by the court's order; rather, she obtained entitlement to a portion of the benefits of a plan member. Between September 1995 and the end of November 1997, Patricia R. Thompson has received $24,199.32 in benefits. As of the same date, Francis Thompson received a total of $55,333.18 in benefits. Based upon a belief that Francis Thompson had been convicted of a specified offense related to conduct prior to his retirement, on August 5, 1997, the Board initiated this proceeding for the purpose of terminating all of his rights and benefits under the plan and requiring him to return $42,655.20, plus all distributions, if any, made subsequent to June 1997. Because Patricia R. Thompson is now receiving a portion of her former husband's benefits, she was also named as a party. Between 1987 and 1994, Francis Thompson was evidence custodian and in charge of the evidence and property room for the City of Daytona Beach Police Department. In that position of special trust, he was responsible for keeping all weapons, drugs, moneys, and other property seized or held by the Police Department. The position of evidence custodian was a position that required the City to trust that the custodian would properly perform his responsibilities and duties. It is undisputed that during his tenure as evidence custodian, Francis Thompson removed multiple firearms from the evidence and property room and shipped them to another person in the State of Pennsylvania for personal use. The Police Department could not find any evidence that the firearms had been properly logged or recorded for removal in accordance with proper protocol. By engaging in this conduct, Respondent violated the City's trust. On June 27, 1996, Francis Thompson was convicted of multiple felony violations of the United States Code in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Case No. 2:95CR00232-1. One of these offenses was "shipping stolen firearms in interstate commerce." Because the offense involved the commission of a theft by a public employee from his employer, it constituted a "specified offense" as defined by Sections 112.3173(2)(e)2. and 6., Florida Statutes (1997). The conviction for a specified offense calls for forfeiture of all retirement benefits under Section 112.3173(2)(e)2., Florida Statutes (1997). Finally, it is noted that the illicit activity occurred while Respondent was employed as evidence custodian with the City's Police Department. Throughout his term of employment with the City, Francis Thompson made accumulated contributions to the plan totaling $29,173.21. As of November 30, 1997, the plan administrator had distributed plan benefits in the amount of $79,532.50, or $50,359.29 more than contributions. At hearing, Respondent's present wife, Patricia B. Thompson, testified on his behalf. Her testimony was limited to a request that, due to financial and health problems incurred by her incarcerated husband, the undersigned appoint counsel on his behalf. That request was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the City of Daytona Beach Police and Fire Department Pension Fund enter a final order determining that Francis Thompson's interest in the plan, including past payments made and future benefits payable by the plan, less accumulated contributions shall be forfeited by the Board pursuant to law; that all persons deriving an interest through his interest in the plan, including his present and former wife shall forfeit all future payments from the plan upon the issuance of a final order; and that Francis Thompson shall pay back to the Board all payments in excess of his accumulated contributions in such manner as the Board may determine. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret T. Roberts, Esquire Post Office Box 832 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32170-0832 David D. Fuller, Esquire 220 South Ridgewood Avenue Suite 210 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Francis Thompson Registry Number 17952-018 Eglin Air Force Base Prison Camp Post Office Box 600 Eglin Air Force Base, Florida 32542 James C. Maniak Plan Administrator City of Daytona Beach Post Office Box 2451 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2451
The Issue The issue in the case is as set forth in the Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits dated November 10, 2005, and issued by the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (Respondent), to Richard Brandenberger (Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners as a correctional officer at the county jail and participated in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The Respondent is the state agency charged with administering the FRS. The applicable position description for employment by Orange County as a correctional officer included, in relevant part, the following description of the job duties: Supervises inmates to prevent altercations, intimidation, undesirable or illegal acts, intercedes when necessary, and to ensure the safety of the facility, other Correctional staff and the inmates. On or about October 29, 2003, a grand jury issued a one-count indictment against the Petitioner as follows: On or about July 3, 2003, in Orange County, Florida, defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed with intent to distribute and distributed Methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("MDMA") commonly known as "ecstasy", and marihuana, controlled substances listed in Schedule I of 21 U.S.C. Section 812, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 841(b)(1)(D). The Petitioner was subsequently arrested. He then retired from employment in December 2003 and began receiving benefits from the FRS the following January. On or about January 29, 2004, the Petitioner, represented by legal counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the indictment and executed a written plea agreement that stated in material part as follows: Count Pleading To The defendant shall enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the indictment. Count One charges the defendant with possession with intent to distribute and distribution of MDMA and marihuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1). * * * Elements of the Offense The defendant acknowledges understanding the nature and elements with which defendant has been charged and to which defendant is pleading guilty. The elements of Count One are: First: That defendant knowingly possessed or distributed MDMA or marihuana as charged; and Second: That defendant possessed the substance with the intent to distribute it. * * * Factual Basis Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty. The defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set forth below are true, and were this case to go to trial, the United States would be able to prove those specific facts and others beyond a reasonable doubt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order stating that the Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 7th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey M. Christian, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Edward Gay, Esquire 1516 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 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 issues are whether Petitioner became an employee of an FRS employer within a calendar month after completing his participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) in violation of Subsection 121.091(13)(c)5.d., Florida Statutes (2006)1; whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an unadopted rule; and whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to several facts in this proceeding. Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the FRS. Petitioner was employed as an equipment operator (street sweeper) by the City of Venice, Florida (the City), for more than 35 years until he completed his participation in DROP on January 11, 2007. At that time Petitioner was earning approximately $38,000.00 annually. The City revoked its participation in the FRS effective January 1, 1996, and established a new City retirement plan. The new City retirement plan applies to all employees hired after January 1, 1996. However, the City continued its participation in the FRS for all employees who were members of the FRS prior to January 1, 1996. Petitioner elected to participate in DROP on March 31, 2002. At the conclusion of DROP, Petitioner received a lump-sum payment of approximately $84,279.00 and received monthly benefits until Respondent ceased paying benefits in accordance with the proposed agency action. Petitioner's efforts at reemployment were unsuccessful. On January 31, 2007, the City employed Petitioner to perform the same work he previously performed at a base salary as a "new hire."2 The City assured Petitioner that reemployment would not adversely affect Petitioner's FRS retirement benefits because the City does not consider itself an FRS employer. A member of the City's human resources department contacted a representative for Respondent to verify the City's statutory interpretation. The conversation eventually led to this proceeding. Petitioner was not employed by an employer under the FRS during the next calendar month after completing his participation in DROP on January 11, 2007. Judicial decisions discussed in the Conclusions of Law hold that the issue of whether Petitioner is an employee of an FRS employer is a factual finding. When Petitioner began employment with the City on January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not a member of the FRS within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(12). He was not an employee covered under the FRS because he was hired after January 1, 1996, when the City revoked its participation in FRS. On January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(11). Petitioner was not employed in a covered group within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(34). Petitioner did not become a member under Chapter 121, and the City was not a "city for which coverage under this chapter" was applied for and approved for Petitioner. On January 11, 2007, Petitioner ceased all employment relationships with "employers under this system" within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(39). When Petitioner resumed employment on January 31, 2007, Petitioner did not fail to terminate employment with an employer under the FRS system. Petitioner's new employer was not an employer under the FRS system and had not been such an employer after January 1, 1996. After January 1, 1996, the City was not a covered employer for any employees employed after that date, including Petitioner. On January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not an employee of an employer within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(10). The City did not participate in the FRS system for the benefit of Petitioner. The employment of Petitioner by the City on January 31, 2007, had no financial impact on the FRS, and Petitioner did not begin to accrue new benefits with the FRS. Respondent did not demonstrate in the record why the agency's proposed statutory interpretation requires special agency insight or expertise and did not articulate in the record any underlying technical reasons for deference to agency expertise. Nor did the agency explain in the record or its PRO why the issue of whether Petitioner is an employee of an FRS employer is not an issue of fact that is within the exclusive province of the fact-finder. Respondent proposes a literal interpretation of selected statutory terms without explaining legislative intent for the prohibition against reemployment within the next calendar month.3 Respondent's proposed statutory interpretation also fails to distinguish the economic impact in situations involving what may be fairly characterized as a dual-purpose employer; that is one like the City which is part covered employer and part non-covered employer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order reinstating Petitioner's monthly retirement benefits, paying all past due amounts to Petitioner, with interest, and dismissing its request for reimbursement of past FRS benefits from Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2008.
