Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, including June 28, 1993, through January 27, 1994, an employee of the Department working in the economic services unit of the Department's District XI (hereinafter referred to as the "District"). In 1990, Petitioner occupied a PAS (Public Assistance Specialist) I position that, in or around June of that year, was one of 182 such positions in the District to be reclassified to a PAS II position as part of the Department's implementation of the new FLORIDA computer system. 2/ Those employees occupying these reclassified positions (hereinafter referred to as the "upgraded employees") whose salaries were below the minimum salary for a PAS II received a salary increase to raise their salary to the minimum. Petitioner was among the employees who received such a salary increase. Such action was taken in accordance with the following Department policy set forth at page 11 of HRSP 60-1: When an employee is promoted, a salary increase to at least the minimum salary of the higher level position will be made. How- ever, an increase of up to ten percent above the current base salary or ten percent above the minimum for the new class may be approved. An increase of up to ten percent of the current base salary is normally used when the employee's salary is the same or nearly the same as the minimum for the new class. An increase of up to ten percent above the minimum for the new class may be granted when an employee possesses training or experience substantially above the minimum training and experience required for the higher class and it is determined that the employee is exceptionally well qualified for the position. These increases must be approved by an assistant secretary or district administrator. Because of funding constraints that existed at the time, no other salary increases were given to the upgraded employees. Funds for such additional salary increases became available toward the end of the 1992-1993 fiscal year. The increases were approved at both the Department and District level. Petitioner and the other upgraded employees were advised of the increases by a memorandum dated July 7, 1993, from the District XI District Administrator. The District Administrator's memorandum read as follows: Your position has been identified as one which was upgraded as a result of the FLORIDA implementation in 1990/1991. At the time, our records indicate that you received a partial increase, or none at all, because of budgetary constraints. Due to the identification of available monies prior to the end of the Fiscal Year, we are pleased to inform you that you will be receiving a pay increase in your salary warrant on July 9, 1993. The amount of the increase will be either 10[percent] or the difference between what you received in 1990/1991 and 10 [percent], and was effective June 28, 1993. Should you have any questions about this increase or how it was calculated, please call Arelis Valero at 377-5197. Your continued dedication and service to HRS is sincerely appreciated. District personnel miscalculated the amount of Petitioner's approved salary increase (which was "the difference between what [she had] received in 1990 . . . and 10[percent]" of her pre-reclassification base salary). As a result, following June 28, 1993, the effective date of the increase, for the pay periods ending January 27, 1994, Petitioner was overpaid a total of $1,144.72. The District discovered the error and revised its payroll records to reflect Petitioner's correct salary. In addition, by memorandum, it notified Petitioner of the mistake that had been made and advised her that it was her responsibility to repay the amount she had been overpaid. By letter dated November 1, 1995, the District XI District Administrator informed Petitioner that the overpayment would be recovered through payroll deductions beginning January 12, 1996, amounting to "10[percent] of [her] gross salary each pay period, unless [she] prefer[red] a single lump sum, until the balance [was] paid." The letter further provided, in part, as follows: If you do not dispute the overpayment, but feel that the repayment schedule of 10 [percent] of your gross salary per pay period is overly burdensome, please call Thomas Franklin at 377-5055 Number135 and he will review with you what must be documented and submitted to the Comptroller's Office (Capitol Building, Suite 1201, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350) to request a modification. While the total amount eventually repaid to the State cannot be adjusted, the Comptroller may be convinced to lengthen the repayment schedule by lessening the percentage withheld each pay period. If you do not agree that you were overpaid this amount, you have the right to an adminis- trative hearing under 120.57(1) or (2), Florida Statutes, and Rules 10-2.036 and 28-5, Florida Administrative Code. You may request a formal or an informal hearing. If a request for a formal hearing is made, your petition must be in compliance with Rule 28-5.021, Florida Administrative Code. Please note that Rule 28-5.201(2) specifies that your petition should contain a concise discussion of the specific item in dispute. Informal hearings are governed by Rules 28-5.501-503, Florida Administrative Code. Your request for either a formal or informal hearing must be received by this office, attention Thomas Franklin, within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter, in accordance with Rule 10-2.036, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to request a timely hearing shall be deemed a waiver of your right to hearing. Petitioner subsequently requested, by memorandum, a formal hearing on the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department: find that, from June 28, 1993, until January 27, 1994, Petitioner was overpaid a total of $1,144.72; notify the Department of Management Services of this finding; and refer the matter to the Comptroller so that the Comptroller may take appropriate action to recover these moneys owed to the state. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 29th day of April, 1996.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Alfred Greenberg, has held the position of a veterinary aide since approximately November, 1967. During October 1974, he was converted from OPS status to a regular career service employee subject to the normal six month probationary period. By letter dated June 24, 1976, from J. Patrick McCann, Division Director, Petitioner was advised that based on "action by the 1976 legislature, we most regretfully inform you that it will be necessary to abolish your position effective the close of business, June 30, 1976. In lieu of two weeks notice, you will receive two weeks termination pay." (See Respondent's Composite Exhibit Number 1). Within a few days, the Petitioner was converted back to an OPS position receiving the same hourly pay and was advised that he would be offered any vacancy which occurred within the department to which he qualified within the following 12 month period. Petitioner, through his attorney, timely appealed the Respondent's actions essentially contesting his conversion from the career service status to the OPS status and thereby losing social security benefits, retirement benefits and the accrual of vacation and sick leave. He further complained about the manner in which he was served his layoff notice. Specifically, he complained that his letter was hand delivered whereas personnel rules and regulations require that layoff notices etc. be sent by certified mail. In this regard, evidence reveals that by letter dated August 3, 1976, by certified mail, return receipt requested, Petitioner was advised that he was then being provided notice in accordance with the requirement in the department's personnel rules and regulations. Pursuant to emergency rules governing the layoff of career service employees, 22AER76-1, the Petitioner was advised that his position was abolished pursuant to action taken by the 1976 legislature. Evidence adduced during the course of the hearing reveals that the Petitioner's layoff was effected via the procedures as outlined in the above referred emergency rule and he was immediately converted to an OPS position, a position he now holds, at the same rate of pay. Evidence clearly reveals that Petitioner's layoff was effected pursuant to and authorized by the foregoing emergency rule. In view thereof, and in the absence of any evidence which would provide basis for a contrary finding, the action of the Department in effecting the Petitioner's layoff was proper and I shall accordingly recommend that such action be sustained. It is therefore recommended that the action of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, in effecting the layoff of the Petitioner, Alfred Greenberg, pursuant to emergency rule 22AER76-1, as published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on June 11, 1976, and adopted by the Administration Commission that same date, be sustained. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James W. Pritchard, Esquire 1038 Alfred I. DuPont Building 169 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 Mrs. Dorothy B. Roberts Room 443, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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 (2015).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 most recently employed by the City beginning on October 31, 2005. Respondent worked as a Fleet Mechanic Supervisor I for the City’s Logistics and Asset Management/Fleet Management department. The City terminated Respondent on January 21, 2015, based on theft of City property. 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 the Notice of Disciplinary Action, dated January 21, 2015, the City terminated Respondent based on his admission to stealing certain property belonging to the City. On January 5, 2015, Respondent was interviewed by the Tampa Police Department (“TPD”) as part of an investigation into stolen property. During this interview, Respondent confessed to stealing a set of tires owned by the City and installing them on his personal vehicle. After the City learned of Respondent’s admission to the theft of City property, the City terminated Respondent’s employment. Kimberley 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, he was fired. 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 a legal basis under section 112.3173 for Respondent’s forfeiture of 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, Mario Perez, was 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 23rd day of August, 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 23rd day of August, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, including June 28, 1993, through January 27, 1994, an employee of the Department working in the economic services unit of the Department's District XI (hereinafter referred to as the "District"). In 1990, Petitioner occupied a PAS (Public Assistance Specialist) I position that, in or around June of that year, was one of 182 such positions in the District to be reclassified to a PAS II position as part of the Department's implementation of the new FLORIDA computer system. 2/ Those employees occupying these reclassified positions (hereinafter referred to as the "upgraded employees") whose salaries were below the minimum salary for a PAS II received a salary increase to raise their salary to the minimum. Petitioner was among the employees who received such a salary increase. Such action was taken in accordance with the following Department policy set forth at page 11 of HRSP 60-1: When an employee is promoted, a salary increase to at least the minimum salary of the higher level position will be made. How- ever, an increase of up to ten percent above the current base salary or ten percent above the minimum for the new class may be approved. An increase of up to ten percent of the current base salary is normally used when the employee's salary is the same or nearly the same as the minimum for the new class. An increase of up to ten percent above the minimum for the new class may be granted when an employee possesses training or experience substantially above the minimum training and experience required for the higher class and it is determined that the employee is exceptionally well qualified for the position. These increases must be approved by an assistant secretary or district administrator. Because of funding constraints that existed at the time, no other salary increases were given to the upgraded employees. Funds for such additional salary increases became available toward the end of the 1992-1993 fiscal year. The increases were approved at both the Department and District level. Petitioner and the other upgraded employees were advised of the increases by a memorandum dated July 7, 1993, from the District XI District Administrator. The District Administrator's memorandum read as follows: Your position has been identified as one which was upgraded as a result of the FLORIDA implementation in 1990/1991. At the time, our records indicate that you received a partial increase, or none at all, because of budgetary constraints. Due to the identification of available monies prior to the end of the Fiscal Year, we are pleased to inform you that you will be receiving a pay increase in your salary war- rant on July 9, 1993. The amount of the in- crease will be either 10[percent] or the difference between what you received in 1990/1991 and 10[percent], and was effective June 28, 1993. Should you have any questions about this in- crease or how it was calculated, please call Arelis Valero at 377-5197. Your continued dedication and service to HRS is sincerely appreciated. District personnel miscalculated the amount of Petitioner's approved salary increase (which was "the difference between what [she had] received in 1990 . . . and 10[percent]" of her pre-reclassification base salary). As a result, following June 28, 1993, the effective date of the increase, for the pay periods ending January 27, 1994, Petitioner was overpaid a total of $769.39. The District discovered the error and revised its payroll records to reflect Petitioner's correct salary. In addition, by memorandum, it notified Petitioner of the mistake that had been made and advised her that it was her responsibility to repay the amount she had been overpaid. By letter dated November 1, 1995, the District XI District Administrator informed Petitioner that the overpayment would be recovered through payroll deductions beginning January 12, 1996, amounting to "10[percent] of [her] gross salary each pay period, unless [she] prefer[red] a single lump sum, until the balance [was] paid." The letter further provided, in part, as follows: If you do not dispute the overpayment, but feel that the repayment schedule of 10 [percent] of your gross salary per pay period is overly burdensome, please call Thomas Franklin at 377-5055 Number135 and he will review with you what must be documented and submitted to the Comptroller's Office (Capitol Building, Suite 1201, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350) to request a modification. While the total amount eventually repaid to the State cannot be adjusted, the Comptroller may be convinced to lengthen the repayment schedule by lessen- ing the percentage withheld each pay period. If you do not agree that you were overpaid this amount, you have the right to an adminis- trative hearing under 120.57(1) or (2), Florida Statutes, and Rules 10-2.036 and 28-5, Florida Administrative Code. You may request a formal or an informal hearing. If a request for a formal hearing is made, your petition must be in compliance with Rule 28-5.021, Florida Administrative Code. Please note that Rule 28-5.201(2) specifies that your petition should contain a concise discussion of the specific item in dispute. Informal hearings are governed by Rules 28-5.501-503, Florida Administrative Code. Your request for either a formal or informal hearing must be received by this office, attention Thomas Franklin, within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter, in accordance with Rule 10-2.036, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to request a timely hearing shall be deemed a waiver of your right to hearing. By letter dated November 6, 1995, Petitioner advised the Department that that she was not in agreement with the "content" of the District Administrator's November 1, 1995, letter, and that she desired to have a hearing on the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department: find that, from June 28, 1993, until January 27, 1994, Petitioner was overpaid a total of $769.39; notify the Department of Management Services of this finding; and refer the matter to the Comptroller so that the Comptroller may take appropriate action to recover these moneys owed to the state. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 29th day of April, 1996.
The Issue Whether accounting fees charged in connection with petitioner's rate increase application should be included as rate case expense; and Whether anticipated accounting fees for "pass-through" rate increase requests should be included in annual operating expenses.
Findings Of Fact Accounting Fees as Part of Rate Case Expense At issue was whether Atlantis had substantiated the accounting fees it sought to include as rate case expense. Without objection, Atlantis agreed to submit a late-filed exhibit (P-2) itemizing the accounting tasks performed, the time required, and the fees charged. After reviewing that exhibit, the Commission agreed that the accounting fees were justified and should be included in rate case expenses. Consequently, operating expenses included in the Commission's proposed agency decision 2/ should be increased $2,659 for both water and sewer systems; this represents actual rate case expenses of $15,954 amortized over three years, allocated equally to each system. ($15,954/3 = $5,318/2 = $2,659.) (Testimony of Mitchell, Deterding; Commission's Recommended Order; P-2, R-1.) II. Accounting Fees for Projected "Pass-Through" Rate Increase Requests Atlantis is a small private utility providing water and sewer service to customers located in the City of Atlantis, Palm Beach County, Florida. On December 31, 1980, it had 893 residential- and 65 general-service water customers; 877 residential- and 28 general-service sewer customers. (Commission Order No. 10445.) The City of Lake Worth pumps Atlantis sewage effluent to the West Palm Beach regional sewer plant for treatment and disposal. The regional plant imposes a treatment charge which Lake Worth passes on to Atlantis. Twice a year the regional plant has increased its treatment charge to Lake Worth which, in turn, has passed on the increased costs to Atlantis. Such increases may be recovered by filing a "pass-through" rate increase request with the Commission. (Testimony of Mitchell, Deterding.) In the past, Atlantis employed a certified public accountant to assist in preparing "pass-through" rate increase requests. The accountant charged approximately $900 per "pass-through" request. He worked 25-30 hours per request at $36 per hour. Much of his time was spent preparing a billing analysis-- showing the number of bills rendered, cumulative gallons consumed, cumulative bills, and a consolidated factor. (Testimony of Mitchell, Neville.) Atlantis wishes to continue retaining the accountant for this purpose in the future by including $1,800 in operating expenses in anticipation of biannual "pass-through" rate increase requests. It contends that such an accounting expense is reasonable and necessary because of its limited staff: one full-time bookkeeper who handles billing and one part-time accountant who supervises daily office procedures and bookkeeping routines. The Commission contends that this anticipated accounting expense is unnecessary--that a "pass- through" rate increase request and the necessary documentation could easily be prepared by the staff bookkeeper. (Testimony of Mitchell, Neville, Deterding.) There is conflicting expert testimony on whether the preparation of such "pass-through" rate increase requests require the supervision and assistance of a certified public accountant. Phillip Mitchell, the accountant who performed this service for Atlantis in the past, testified that it is necessary; Floyd Deterding, the Commission's accountant, testified that it was not. Mr. Deterding's opinion is accepted as persuasive. Don Neville, the accountant who manages the daily affairs of Atlantis, testified that it would be much "easier" having Mr. Mitchell assist in preparing the "pass-through" requests; but he admitted that he thought the bookkeeper was competent enough to perform the work if Mr. Mitchell was unavailable. (Tr. 30.) Furthermore, a billing analysis (containing a consolidated factor and consumption by customer groups) is not a requirement for filing a "pass-through" request. The only items required are: A schedule of monthly charges for sewage treatment from governmental authority. A schedule of monthly gallons of purchased sewage treatment. A schedule of sewage treatment sold (billings to customers in gallons) by month. A schedule of the proposed rates which will pass the increased costs through, showing calculations thereof. A[n] affirmation from an officer that the increase will not cause the util- ity to overearn. A copy of the notice of the increase to customers. A certified copy of the letter, Order or Ordinance setting out the increased charges from the governmental authority. Finally, Mr. Mitchell was not a disinterested witness since--as the outside accountant--he stood to gain from including the $1,800 accounting fee in annual operating expenses. (Testimony of Neville, Deterding, Mitchell.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Atlantis to increase its water and sewer rates be granted, consistent with the Commission's proposed agency action dated December 9, 1981, and this recommended order. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times material to these proceedings, Petitioner Rodriguez has been employed by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners as the Director of the Department of Emergency Support Services. This position is exempt from the Hillsborough County Civil Service Act because it is a managerial/executive position under the jurisdiction of the County Administrator. Petitioner's employment with the County allows him to participate in the Florida Retirement System administered by the Division. On January 1, 1988, the County implemented a classification and compensation system for all positions under the jurisdiction of the County Administrator that are exempt from the Civil Service Act. This system is known as the Hillsborough County Exempt Service Classification and Compensation Plan (the Plan). As an incumbent employee, Petitioner's salary was not reviewed or subjected to the compensation structure set forth in the Plan until October 1, 1988. Effective October 1, 1988, Petitioner's compensation with the County was structured according to the Plan, as revised May 1988. During his performance rating prepared December 12, 1988, Petitioner's job performance from October 1, 1987 through September 30, 1988 was found to exceed standards. Under the Plan, this meant that his current annual salary could be increased. The salary action permitted by the Plan was a combination of salary adjustment "merit increase" and a one-year "performance pay" increase. The salary adjustment under the "merit increase" category became part of Petitioner's adjusted base salary. The "performance pay" was an increase created for a one- year term. It was not part of Petitioner's base salary. This method of creating a pay increase applied to Petitioner because his pay was already above the midpoint of the pay grade the Plan dictated the County was willing to pay for the performance of his particular job when completed to the required standard. The division of salary increases above the midpoint into two separate categories was placed into the Plan in order to balance two distinct County interests. The first was to keep the maximum salary range in a pay grade aligned with the competitive salary indicators in the geographical area for the same type of work. The second was to annually reward each employee whose performance exceeded standards over the past year and to motivate continued high performance on a personalized basis. The compensation approved for Petitioner for October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1989, was a "merit increase" of three percent of his current annual salary along with a one-year "performance payment" of eight percent of his current annual salary. This created an annual salary of $58,177,00 base pay with a one-year performance increase of $4,514.00. Petitioner's total compensation for the time period was $62,691.00. The pay increase approved for Petitioner for October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990, was a five percent "merit increase" and a four percent "performance payment" of his current salary. This gave Petitioner a new base pay of $61,090.00 with a one-year performance increase of $2,330.00. Petitioner's total compensation for the time period was $63,419.00. From October 1, 1990 through September 30, 1991, Petitioner had the same base pay and one year performance increase as the year before. So did every other employee subject to the Plan. This salary designation violated the Plan because a "merit increase" was required before a one year "performance pay" increase could occur. However, "performance pay" was still classified in the usual manner and was not pledged by the County as a payment that would be reoccurring. From October 1, 1991 to September 30, 1992, Petitioner's base salary is $66,020.42. The County no longer pays the "performance pay" previously in effect under the Plan. Instead, the part of Petitioner's salary designated as "performance pay" the year before was added into his base salary. As a result, retirement benefits are earned on Petitioner's entire salary in this pay period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's "performance pay" received from October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1991, should be excluded from the calculation of his "average final compensation" by the Division. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Reestablished each year. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #5, #6 and #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Evidence is rejected because calculations are incorrect. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: GILBERT M RODRIGUEZ 18506 TURTLE DR LUTZ FL 33549 STANLEY M DANEK ESQ DIVISION OF RETIREMENT CEDARS EXECUTIVE CENTER/BLDG C 2639 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1560 A J McMULLIAN III DIRECTOR DIVISION OF RETIREMENT CEDARS EXECUTIVE CENTER/BLDG C 2639 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1560 AUGUSTUS AIKENS ESQ JOHN PIENO GENERAL COUNSEL SECRETARY OF ADMINISTRATION DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION 435 CARLTON BLDG 435 CARLTON BLDG TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1560 TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1560
Findings Of Fact Coflin was a permanent Career Service Employee, in Employment Office Supervisor (EOS) III Position. Coflin was "bumped" from his position by another permanent Career Service employee (Mr. Reddy), whose EOS III position was abolished by virtue of the failure of Hillsborough County to renew a contract for service with the Department of Commerce in November, 1975. Coflin was "bumped" on April 1, 1976 because pursuant to Department guidelines approved by the State Personnel Director as required by the State Personnel Rules, Coflin had fewer retention points than Reddy. Coflin, pursuant to the guidelines and rules and regulations, was in turn entitled to "bump" either the incumbent of an EOS III position who was not permanent in the position of EOS III or the employee within the State with the least retention points. This right and the positions available to him were communicated to Coflin; however, because he would have had to move to another area of the State to assume either of these positions, Coflin elected under protest to take the third alternative, demotion to another class in which he held permanent status in his immediate geographical area. Coflin appealed the resulting demotion, asserting that he had been wrongfully demoted. The demotion was solely the result of Coflin having been "bumped" in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Commerce and not because of Coflin's job performance and conduct which were above average. The Department's guidelines were not adopted as rules in the manner prescribed in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Coflin be reinstated to his position as EOS III, the personnel action taken having not been for good cause. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day September, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel and Retirement Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Esquire 401 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Brian Duffy, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact In early 1979, the Department of Administration, Division of Personnel, prepared for the Governor a document entitled Recommended Salaries and Benefits for Career Service Employees for the Biennium July 1, 1979, to June 30, 1981. The purpose of this document was to assist the Governor in making recommendations to the 1979 Legislature regarding salaries and benefits for the State's Career Service employees. Approximately one month after publication of its initial recommendations, the Department of Administration published a supplement to those recommendations to reflect the results of collective bargaining negotiations with various bargaining units and to clarify certain points. With respect to merit salary increases, it was recommended that all funds not distributed as guaranteed merit increases in accordance with specific collective bargaining agreements be "distributed at the discretion of management" to employees with six months satisfactory service as of September 1, 1980. For the supervisory bargaining unit of which all Petitioners are members, all merit funds were to be distributed at the discretion of management. The Governor's recommendations contained in the document prepared by the Department of Administration were furnished to legislators and all State agencies prior to adoption of the Appropriations Act. In 1979, in the Appropriations Act for the Biennium 1979-81, as supplemented in 1980 by the 1980 Supplemental General Appropriations Act, the Legislature appropriated certain funds to be used for merit salary increases for Career Service employees. These raises were to become effective September 1, 1980. Funds were allocated in a total dollar amount for each collective bargaining unit within each state agency. The Legislature, in appropriating funds for salary increases and benefits for Career Service employees, specifically provided that such funds were to be distributed in accordance with the Governor's recommendations. Ch. 79-212, Sec. 21, Laws of Florida. The Department of Environmental Regulation received merit increase monies for its Career Service employees within the following bargaining units: supervisory-professional, professional, administrative clerical, operational services, and managerial/confidential. Petitioners Leslee A. Williams, Sylvia E. Sakamoto, and Rosemary Bottcher are Career Service employees employed in the Bureau of Water Analysis, Division of Environmental Programs. Leslee Williams is a Microbiologist III. Sylvia Sakamoto and Rosemary Bottcher are Chemist III's. Petitioners are employees within the Supervsory/professional collective bargaining unit. On July 31, 1980, the Secretary of the Department of Administration sent a memorandum to all Department heads with attached instructions for implementation of salary increases for employees in all affected bargaining units, including the supervisory unit. The instructions for distribution of merit salary increases to employees in the supervisory unit provided that the distribution of funds to eligible employees was discretionary with management, subject only to a cap on the maximum amount any employee could receive. This cap of 10, 7.5, or 5 percent of an employee's salary is determined by the employee's official performance evaluation rating. With regard to "discretionary merit salary advancements", the instructions noted that: These increases are provided to reward current employees based upon their performance. These increases are intended to allow employees to progress within the salary range in recognition of their increased worth to the State as an employee. The proper implementation of merit salary advancements is critical to the State's ability to reward tie most competent, qualified and productive employees. While the funds are discretionary as to the actual amount any one employee may receive, management has no discretion as to whether the Funds may or may not be distributed. These instructions were received by DER in early August of 1980, and DER immediately began taking steps necessary to implement the salary increases in time for inclusion in employees' September paychecks. In August, 1980, the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation authorized each of the directors of the three principal divisions within the Department (the Divisions of Environmental Programs, Environmental Permitting, and Administrative Services), as well as the offices of General Counsel and the Secretary, individually, to establish or determine the methods, standards for determining employee merit and employee performance and performance to be used within each division or office for identification of those Career Service employees eligible to receive a merit salary increase. By memorandum dated August 2, 1980 the Director of the Division of Environmental Programs requested that all Bureau Chiefs in his division and certain supervisors meet with him to establish a ranking of employees within the division to be used in determining the amount of merit salary increase each eligible employee would receive. This memorandum provided, in part, as follows: . . . We have available a certain amount of "discretionary" money which can be given as merit raises. This will be over and above those pay increases through pay adjustments or cost of living increases, which are mandated by the Legislature. The discretionary amounts are small; but they are significant enough that we should make every effort to insure fairness recognition of outstanding service and encouragement of those whom the Department needs to keep. The final decision on all increases will be mine alone, but the preliminary ranking and classification of the various persons will be done in collaboration with all of you. We will begin with the personnel evaluations. However, since grading standards for the evaluations differ among various supervisors, we will attempt to bring all evaluation ratings to comparable scales. We will then try to emphasize those qualities, both within the ratings and those not included in the particular categories, which most contribute to the mission of the Department. We must all try to eliminate our personal biases in this process and the biases inherent in the evaluation system. If we succeed, the raises will be both fair and perceived as fair and will be a help to Division and Department morale. I ask your complete cooperation in this process. (Emphasis added) On September 2, 1980, the Director of the Division of Environmental Programs sent a memorandum to all employees of the division explaining the process used in computing merit salary increases for division employees. The September 2, 1980, memorandum contained the following provisions: The raises were awarded based on relative scores given to each employee. This scoring was done by the Director, Deputy Director and Bureau Chiefs (together with independent office heads for those classes which contained their subordinates) in joint session. First, each employee's evaluation was considered and then related to that of ether employees in the class. The employee's other attributes and contribution to his program and the Department was then discussed. His immediate supervisor's rating tendencies were considered (and we, incidentally, gained a very good idea of how different were the different scoring scales used) and the supervisor was called and consulted if there was difficulty in reaching a consensus. In almost every case one or more of the Bureau Chiefs, other than the employee's own, had experience and opinions on that employee to share. We repeatedly examined each other on the possibility of bias and favoritism. Finally, the employee was given a weighted percentage score. Although some discussions were more protracted than others, complete consensus was reached in every case. The Director and Deputy Director then translated the relative scores into both the base salary and the dollars available within the class. Some small further subjective judgements were necessary because of rounding and some inexactness in the formula but they were extremely minor - no more than $1.00 per person and usually much less. The raises given reflect very closely the relative scores from the joint sessions. There is considerable agreement between the curve of the merit raises and the curve of the evaluations. They are far from congruent, however. Some employees with relatively high evaluations got no merit raises; others relatively low got substantial ones. In each case the discussions were very extensive and the decision was made only after all were convinced that an injustice would otherwise result. Such inflated and deflated evaluations will be the subject of much additional scrutiny in the coming year. Merit salary increases for all 192 Career Service employees within the Division of Environmental Programs were determined pursuant to the methods, standards for determining employee merit and employee performance, and procedures contained in the memoranda of August 25, 1980, and September 2, 1980. The three Division directors, the General Counsel, and the Secretary of DER each used different methods to award merit salary increases to employees in their respective offices. The method used by the Director of the Division of Environmental Programs to award merit salary increases for 1980 was different from the various methods used by DER in the past to distribute similar appropriations. Since at least 1975, DER has made a separate determination each year that funds appropriated for merit increases of the manner in which those funds would be distributed. A decision made one year was not prospectively applicable to future appropriations. Since at least 1975, the Department of Environmental Regulation has evaluated the job performance of its Career Service employees on an annual basis pursuant to procedures applicable to the entire Department. Currently, the Department follows the employee performance evaluation procedures contained in Section 3.2, Department of Environmental Regulation, Administrative Services Internal Management Policies and Procedures Manual ("ASIMPP") including exhibits attached thereto. These procedures and criteria were adopted by the Department pursuant to Rule 22A-9.02(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 110.201, Florida Statutes, but have never been adopted as "rules" through Section 120.54, Florida Statutes rulemaking proceedings. The policy of the Department, as stated in the ASIMPP, is to use performance evaluations ". . . to award or deny salary increases . . ." In 1976, 1977 and 1978, merit salary increases were awarded to career service employees in the Department based solely upon performance evaluations. In each of those years, the "merit" of employees was determined by the annual performance evaluations, but a differing method of computing the dollar amount was used for each year. However, within categories of employees having the same performance evaluation rating, the method of calculating the dollar amount was uniformly applied. These standards and procedures for awarding merit salary increases in 1976, 1977, and 1978 were in written form, were established by the Secretary of the Department, and were communicated to all employees. There were no merit raises in 1979. Since at least June 19, 1978, the Department of Environmental Regulation has also had in effect a written policy statement which provides in part: The personnel Rules and Regulations provide that merit/anniversary increases be based on performance evaluations Petitioners were given performance evaluations in the summer of 1980 pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 3.2, ASIMPP and each Petitioner was rated "above satisfactory." Petitioners each had at least six months continuous and satisfactory service on September 1, 1980, and were otherwise eligible to receive a merit salary increase on September 1, 1980, but were denied such a salary increase. Neither of the methods and procedures used by the Division of Environmental Programs to distribute merit salary increases to division employees for 1980, as outlined in the memoranda of August 25, 1980 and September 2, 1980, nor the methods used by the other two divisions and the General Counsel and Secretary were adopted through formal rulemaking in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. In each case, the procedures used applied only to Career Service employees within that division or office who were eligible for a merit increase and were used only to determine the distribution of those funds appropriated by the Legislature for the biennium 1979-81. Counsel for Petitioners and Respondent stipulated that the methods used by the Division of Environmental Programs to determine merit salary increases affect the private interests of Petitioners, and further, that Petitioners have standing to bring this petition pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Counsel for both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue Whether certain payments received by the Petitioner, James Gomia, from the Leon County Clerk of Court subsequent to July 1, 1989, constitute creditable "compensation" within the meaning of Rule 22B-6.001(16), Florida Administrative Code, for purposes of determining Mr. Gomia's retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Gomia's Employment. The Petitioner, James Gomia, has been employed by the Clerk of Court in and for Leon County, Florida, for the past eleven years. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Gomia has been employed as an Assistant Finance Director and Deputy Clerk. By virtue of his employment with the Clerk's office Mr. Gomia is eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. Mr. Gomia's Compensation. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Gomia received a monthly base salary from his employment with the Clerk's office. The Clerk's office operates for budget purposes on a fiscal year which begins October 1st and ends September 30th. In addition to his base salary, Mr. Gomia has been paid the following amounts (hereinafter referred to as "Additional Compensation"), during the following months: Month Amount September, 1989 $1,750.00 May, 1990 500.00 September, 1990 1,750.00 May, 1991 600.00 September, 1991 2,150.00 Mr. Gomia has been paid Additional Compensation twice a year since he was employed by the Clerk's office. The Clerk's Policy of Paying Additional Compensation. It has been the policy of Paul F. Hartsfield, Leon County Clerk of Court, to pay Additional Compensation to employees of the Clerk's office, with one exception not relevant to this proceeding, for at least the past twenty years. Additional Compensation has been paid to Clerk's office employees twice a year. One payment is made in May/June and the other payment is made in September/October/November. The amount of Additional Compensation paid to each employee is the same. For example, in May, 1991, all employees received $600.00 as Additional Compensation. The amount to be paid as Additional Compensation is included in the budget submitted by the Clerk's office each year for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The amount requested is included as part of a lump-sum request for the amount of funds necessary to pay all salary, including employees' base salary. Although the amount of the payments to be made as Additional Compensation is broken out in the work papers to the budget each year, those figures are only seen by the financial personnel and not the Board of County Commissioners. Lack of Written Policy. The decision of whether Additional Compensation is paid is within the sound discretion of the Clerk to make. The Clerk of Court is under no legal obligation to make such payments even if included in an approved budget. The policy of paying Additional Compensation has not been reduced to writing. Nowhere has the Clerk stated in writing that the Clerk's office has a policy: That applies all employees will receive Additional Compensation equally; Additional Compensation will be paid no later than the eleventh year of employment; Additional Compensation will be paid for as long as an employee continues employment; and Additional Compensation will be paid at least annually. The only written indication that Additional Compensation will be paid to employees is the inclusion of the dollar amount necessary to make the payments in the work papers of the Clerk's office budget. Nowhere in the work papers to the budget or the budget itself are the conditions set out in finding of fact 13 included. Even if the work papers (or the budget) of the Clerk's office were sufficient to constitute a formal written policy, the policy evidenced in the work papers only applies to the fiscal year the work papers relate to. Therefore, if the work papers or budget constitute a written policy it is only a policy to pay Additional Compensation for the upcoming fiscal year and not on a recurring basis. Although a policy of paying Additional Compensation to Clerk's office employees exists, that policy has not formally been reduced to writing. Mr. Hartsfield, the Leon County Clerk of Court, admitted that there was no formal written policy during his deposition and in a letter dated November 12, 1991, attached as Respondent's exhibit 1 to Mr. Hartsfield's deposition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order declaring that the Additional Compensation paid to James Gomia between September, 1989, and September, 1991, was not paid as "average final compensation" for purposes of Rule 22B-6.001(6), Florida Administrative Code, and dismissing Mr. Gomia's Amended Petition with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of September, 1992. APPENDIX Case Number 92-2504 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Gomia's Proposed Findings of Fact Findings of fact 1, 4 and 6-11. Hereby accepted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Findings of fact 1-3. Findings of fact 4 and 6. Finding of fact 16. Conclusion of law. Findings of fact 4, 6 11 and 13. Finding of fact 4 and 6. Whether the payments come within the Department's rules is a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry H. Mitchell, Esquire 103 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Burton M. Michaels Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1566 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Larry Strong Acting Secretary Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland General counsel Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed his petition and request for formal hearing approximately December 1, 1992. The attachments thereto suggest that he began requesting redress June 19, 1992. The agency referred his December 1, 1992 petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. The Petitioner alleges that Petitioner's substantial interests are adversely affected by his employing agency paying other employees similarly situated more than Petitioner is paid. The Petition's attachments also obliquely put at issue the agency's refusal to process a special pay increase request for an individual exception in Petitioner's pay rate to the Department of Administration (now Department of Management Services). Such an application was refused by the agency approximately May 21, 1990. (See Petition attachments and Petitioner's Exhibit P-6.) Petitioner has not formally petitioned to invalidate any agency rule. Petitioner was hired by the Department of Corrections on April 6, 1965 in the position of guard. On September 1, 1965, he was promoted to Road Prison Officer I (RPO I), and his salary was increased. On October 27, 1989, he was promoted to Correctional Officer II (CO II). At the time of his promotion to CO II, his biweekly salary was $1,029.07. The maximum biweekly salary for that class was $1,004.14. Salary ranges for a job-class are posted on the job vacancy notice for that position. Petitioner had constructive, if not actual, knowledge of the pay grade range (maximum and minimum) at the time he accepted his October 27, 1989 promotion to CO II. Petitioner remained in the CO II class as of the date of formal hearing, however CO II is now known as Correctional Officer-Sergeant. The Petition herein has not affirmatively put at issue the Respondent agency's failure to promote Petitioner since 1989, however it is noted that at all times material, Petitioner met or exceeded all job performance requirements of a CO II. Petitioner, like all other employees similarly situated, has received salary adjustments and pay raises as appropriated by the legislature since October 27, 1989, even though he exceeded the maximum salary for the class he was occupying at the time. The testimony is clear that, as a CO II, Petitioner's salary is negotiated with the Respondent agency by a bargaining representative of the Police Benevolent Association, and that Petitioner was aware, at least by May 21, 1990, when he was denied an individual pay adjustment above the maximum for his pay grade, that he could file a grievance. He has never done so. From the foregoing, the only reasonable inference is that Petitioner has, at all times material, been subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement for State of Florida career service employees which provides for a grievance procedure. The terms of the collective bargaining agreement are not in evidence, however. As of the date of formal hearing, Petitioner also has filed no action before the Public Employees Relations Commission. The maximum authorized annual salary for a Correctional Officer- Sergeant as of the date of formal hearing was $29,479.84. At the present time, six employees ranked as Correctional Officer-Sergeant receive salaries in excess of Petitioner's salary. These employees in the same class are James Vaughn, Charles Williams, John C. Norman, Glynn H. Dunham, James Newsome and James Hamilton. Some of these employees have been employed by Respondent fewer years total than Petitioner. James Vaughn was promoted to CO II (now Correctional Officer-Sergeant) on April 19, 1974; Charles Williams on November 28, 1975; John C. Norman on February 20, 1976; Glynn H. Dunham on November 9, 1975; James Newsome on January 9, 1976; and James Hamilton originally on December 1, 1975 and then after a separation from employment, rehired as a CO II on January 1, 1985. As of January 1, 1987, all six of these employees were granted an across the board pay raise which equalized their salaries. The excess raise was given to the employees in a lump sum payment. Employees working in certain geographical regions of the state were granted a set pay adjustment for that region, up to $5,000. This amount may cause an employee's salary to exceed the maximum of the pay range for the CO II class. The Petitioner does not work in one of these geographic regions. By the time Petitioner was promoted to the position of CO II on October 27, 1989, the other six employees were earning $1,120.04, biweekly. Although their salaries exceeded the maximum salary for that class ($1,004.14), their pay raises were appropriated by the legislature across the board, regardless of whether the maximum range would be exceeded. Petitioner was also being paid in excess of the maximum for his class (RPO I) and in excess of the promotional class (CO II). Petitioner's biweekly salary at that time was $1,029.07. He also was given a raise in salary whenever it was authorized by a legislative appropriation bill. (See Finding of Fact 5). In early 1993, Petitioner brought to Respondent agency's attention that another employee, Richard E. Cobb, was making a salary in excess of what was permissible. Once the Department became aware of the error, it forwarded the information to the State of Florida, Office of the Comptroller for review. The error was corrected, and Richard E. Cobb's salary was reduced prospectively and the retroactive recovery of the overpayment was begun through deductions to Mr. Cobb's salary. Petitioner also complained about employee Blendage Weeks being promoted on September 1, 1989 with a 3.5 percent pay raise. Mr. Weeks is not a similarly situated employee because he is in a different job class than Petitioner. Also, although Petitioner believed that Mr. Weeks was given a raise in excess of the maximum for his class (Correctional Officer Chief I), in fact, the evidence shows that Mr. Weeks received a raise that brought him up from his then salary of $1,209.55 biweekly to the maximum for his class of $1,253.31 biweekly. 17. Rule 60K-2.002(5), F.A.C. (formerly 22A-2.001) provides: An employee shall not be paid in excess of the maximum of the salary range for a class, unless such payments are authorized by these rules or legislation. 18. Rule 60K-2.004(1)(b), F.A.C. (formerly 22A-2.004) provides: The agency head is authorized to grant a promotional appointment to an individual at a base rate of pay from the minimum to the maximum of the salary range for the class to which promoted provided such increase does not exceed 10 percent of the employee's base rate of pay prior to promotion. Pursuant to the foregoing rules, promotional pay raises are treated differently than legislatively appropriated pay raises and the agency may grant a promotional pay raise as long as it does not exceed the maximum of the salary range for the class into which the employee is being promoted. Petitioner does not fall into any of the protected classes governed by Section 760.10, F.S. and has filed no charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the relief sought be denied and the petition therefore dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of December, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7417 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Accepted, except as to month and day. Accepted as to content of Rule 60K-2.002(5) [not 60K-1.002(5)] F.A.C. The remainder of PFOF 3 is not properly cited. Accepted. Accepted as to what the salaries are and their names. The remainder of PFOF 5 is rejected as mere argument. Respondent's PFOF: 1-7,9-11,14-15 Accepted. 8,12 Accepted as modified to more accurately reflect the record evidence. 13 Covered in FOF 8; otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as mere argument. Covered except as cumulative; see FOF 16. Rejected as evidentiary rulings or cumulative; see FOF 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian T. Hayes, P.A., Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Laura S. Leve, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Harry K. Singletary, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
