The Issue The issue is whether Charles C. Burlingame's request to purchase and upgrade prior regular service with the City of Panama City under the Senior Management Service Class should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this retirement dispute, Petitioner, Charles C. Burlingame (Burlingame), seeks to have certain prior service with Petitioner, City of Panama City (City), upgraded under the Senior Management Service Class (SMSC) so that his retirement benefits will vest at an earlier date. Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (Division), has denied the request on the ground that "the duties of [Burlingame's former] position were different from the duties of [his] current position," and that under these circumstances, Section 121.055(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1997), required that the request be denied. Burlingame was first hired by the City on February 14, 1994, as Human Resources Director/Safety. As such, he was one of approximately 16 City department directors. At that time, Burlingame was enrolled in the "regular" class of the Florida Retirement System (FRS). In 1998, the Legislature authorized local governments (as well as state agencies) who employed at least 200 individuals to designate an additional employee under the SMSC. Because the City employed that number of individuals, it was allowed to designate another employee for SMSC. Burlingame was selected as the employee, and he was promoted to a new position with the title Assistant City Manager/Human Resources/Safety Director. At the same time, his old position was abolished. In conjunction with his promotion, Burlingame prepared a job description for his new position. The old and new duties are described in the documents attached to Respondent's Exhibit 2. They reflect, at least on paper, that the functions and illustrative duties of the two positions are not identical. For example, in his new position, Burlingame is now in charge when the City Manager is absent from the City. He also assists the City Manager "in directing the overall operations of the City," as well as performing his former duties. According to Burlingame, however, these new duties account for no more than five percent of his total duties. The remainder coincide with the duties performed under his old position. Under the terms of the City's retirement system, the retirement benefits for a SMSC employee vest after 7 years of service, while a regular employee does not vest until after 10 years of service. Therefore, Burlingame wished to upgrade his prior service between February 14, 1994, and September 29, 1998, when he was changed to SMSC, since this would allow him to vest in fewer years. It would also allow him to accumulate more retirement points (2 per year) under the FRS for each year of service than he would have earned as a regular employee (1.6 per year). When Burlingame was approved for membership in the SMSC in October 1998, the City began processing an application with the Division on his behalf for the purpose of determining the "cost to upgrade past service to [SMSC] to 2-14-94." Because of a large backlog of work caused by Deferred Retirement Option Program applications, the Division was unable to act on Burlingame's request until the early fall of 1999. After the City made several inquiries concerning its pending request, a Division Benefits Administrator, David W. Ragsdale, wrote the City on September 15, 1999, and advised that "[s]ince the position Mr. Burlingame filled as Human Resources/Safety Director had different duties than the Assistant Manager/Human Resources/Safety Director, he is ineligible to upgrade because the position of Human Resources/Safety Director no longer exists." This was followed by another letter on November 4, 1999, which reconfirmed the earlier finding and offered Petitioners a point of entry to contest the proposed action. Petitioners then initiated this proceeding. There is no rule or statute which provides that if the job duties of a position upgraded from regular to SMSC do not remain the same, prior regular service cannot be upgraded. However, since the inception of the SMSC in 1987, the Division has consistently ascribed that meaning to the words "within the purview of the [SMSC]" in Section 121.055(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1997), and Rule 60S-2.013(2), Florida Administrative Code. Thus, if the new duties are "not within the purview" of the past regular service class, that is, they are different in any respect, the employee cannot purchase and upgrade the prior service. This interpretation of the statute and rule was not shown to be clearly erroneous or outside the range of possible interpretations.
Recommendation Based on 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 denying Petitioners' request for an upgrade of Charles C. Burlingame's service under the Senior Management Service Class. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of March, 2000. A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Cecilia Redding Boyd Bryant & Higby, Chartered Post Office Box 860 Panama City, Florida 32402-0860 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Thomas D. McGurk, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact William Marcum is a career service employee with appeal rights to the Career Service Commission. In April, 1977, Marcum received a written reprimand from his supervisor, Alphonso Crowell, for being asleep on the job. On July 19, 1977, Alphonso Crowell observed Marcum, who was on duty in the dormitory of the Okeechobee School for Boys, from outside the dormitory through a large window. Crowell observed Marcum seated at his desk with his head leaning against the wall. Crowell could not see Marcum's face, but Marcum did not move for approximately twenty (20) minutes during which time Crowell observed him. Crowell directed Mr. George LaGrange, Marcum's direct supervisor, to relieve Marcum immediately. This incident resulted in counseling by the superintendent of the school, who determined that Marcum was suffering from arthritis and taking aspirin for this problem. Marcum was counseled but no disciplinary action was taken because he had been taking medication and was scheduled to be hospitalized. On August 15, 1977, Marcum returned to work having been pronounced fit for duty by his doctor and the agency's doctor. On August 17, 1977, George LaGrange walked into the dormitory to which Marcum was assigned at approximately 4 A.M. and approached Marcum from the right rear. LaGrange, wearing boots, walked to within six (6) feet of Marcum and observed Marcum for about five (5) minutes. Marcum was slumped forward in his seat and did not move during this period. LaGrange then spoke to Marcum and Marcum immediately returned and replied to LaGrange. Marcum denies that he was asleep on either occasion, but asserts that he was absorbed in thought about his personal affairs. Marcum pointed out that neither Crowell nor LaGrange observed his face and therefore could not tell whether he was asleep. Marcum's duties were direct custodial supervision of the children in the dormitory to which he was assigned.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends to the Career Service Commission that they sustain the disciplinary action taken by the agency against William Marcum. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: William Marcum Route 3, Box 3575 Okeechobee, Florida 33472 K. C. Collette, Esquire 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 800 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dorothy Roberts, Appeals Coordinator Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Art Adams, Director Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to return his retirement contributions and be reinstated in the Florida Retirement System so that he can apply for disability benefits from the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a thirty-four year old man, having left high school in the eleventh grade in order to get married, but later took the GED test to qualify as a high school graduate. Some years later he was informed by an Ophthalmologist that he had fallen into the bracket of being legally blind, a status which categorizes a person who has ten percent (10%) or less vision. Petitioner can and does read. He worked for a bakery which entailed work with machinery and required extensive reading, but was advised by the ophthalmologist to find a job where he would not be required to work with machinery and which did not require extensive reading. Petitioner began participating in the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System on July 1, 1969, when he became a partner in a blind vending stand. He elected to become a member of the Florida Retirement System on December 1, 1970. Petitioner attended two (2) agency meetings at which retirement was discussed. He stated that he had changed from the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (Chapter 122, Florida Statutes) to the Florida Retirement System (Chapter 121, Florida Statutes), and was prompted to make the change because a senior partner in the business who had been there for many years said that it was a good idea for him and for the younger partner to sign into the new system. He stated that there probably was a discussion relative to the merits of the new retirement system but that he did not remember anything about it. He did, however, sign the card to change retirement systems. On June 1, 1971, Petitioner suffered some type of injury to his back which was subsequently diagnosed as a sprain. Petitioner received medical treatment and returned to work where he continued to work for the Bureau of Blind Services for approximately three years, resigning November 11, 1974. On March 5, 1975, Petitioner obtained a lump sum as a settlement for this disputed claim under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. Petitioner went on leave February 5, 1974, after supplying his supervisor, Mr. Eurgil G. Crawford, Administrative Vending Stand Section, Bureau of Blind Services, with a letter from the physician stating that Petitioner had a "nervous condition." In a letter of October 10, 1974, Mr. Crawford advised Petitioner to either return to work or to contact them if it was not possible. He also stated that the Petitioner would have sixty (60) days in which he might come back to work if he so desired, but that after that time his position would have to be filled permanently by another employee. Petitioner had had some employment problems with the other two (2) members of the three (3) man working team. The problems involved the work at the stand, cleanliness and the lifting necessary to operate the stand. He stated that he and the other two (2) members just could not get together as far as working as a team was concerned. After termination of employment, which was voluntary on the part of Petitioner, Petitioner contacted the supervisor, Mr. Crawford, and asked whether he was entitled to benefits he had contributed and was told that he was. Thereupon, Mr. Crawford sent him the necessary forms to apply for a refund. A refund was made after Petitioner had signed the proper forms and returned them to Mr. Crawford. Two (2) state warrants were issued to Petitioner, one on December 19, 1974, and a subsequent one to close out his account. Petitioner did not work after leaving the Blind Services and has not attempted to find work but receives disability benefits from Social Security based on a 15 percent permanent partial disability rating. He stated that "I have come up with a couple of not so advantageous jobs, you know, its a possibility of getting hurt and one thing and another, I haven't done anything." Subsequently, Petitioner requested information from the Respondent and, after receiving literature from them in 1976, tendered a sum of money equal to the refund he had received so he could apply for disability retirement benefits. The tender of the repayment of his contributions was denied. Petitioner applied for this administrative hearing. Petitioner contends: That he was unaware of a choice to apply for a disability rating when he signed the waiver to obtain a refund. That the supervisor owed Petitioner a special duty to inform him of the possibility of applying for disability benefits before requesting a return of his contributions. Respondent contends: That Petitioner was present at meetings at which the retirement system was discussed; he had information that caused him to transfer to the Florida Retirement System; that he knew of eligibility requirements under the Florida Retirement System and that requirements for eligibility were written in a booklet he had obtained from an employee of the retirement system and that he testified he knew of the five year eligibility requirement. That Petitioner voluntarily signed the waiver, that he had due notice and that the tender of the refund was properly denied.
Recommendation Deny the Petition. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Townsend, Esquire Albritton, Sessums & Di Dio 100 Madison Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The primary issue in this proceeding is whether Irene Murray is an employee of the City of Carrabelle and covered by Social Security and the Florida State Retirement System. A secondary issue is when did Murray become an employee.
Findings Of Fact Exception 4: The Petitioners' contention that the contract between Ms. Murray and the City is contingent upon the revenues generated and that the City never contributed funds to the operation of the program is without merit and hereby rejected. The Hearing Officer's findings of fact, which are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, concludes the contract is contingent upon the availability of funds appropriated for that purpose. Petitioners' exception is rejected. Exception 5: The Hearing Officer's finding of fact is supported by competent, substantial evidence. The City Commission is the authority responsible for the approval of the budget for the Center. Petitioners' exception is rejected. Exception 6: The Petitioners' contention that repairs to the Community Center do not have to be approved by the City Commission is without merit. The Hearing Officer found that prior approval of repairs must be granted by the City Commission and the expenditures for the Community Center are paid out of the City's general revenue fund. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. Exception 6 is rejected. Exception 7: The Petitioners' exception is without merit. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The exception is rejected. Exception 9: The Petitioners' exception is without merit. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The exception is rejected. Exception 10: The Petitioners' exception is without merit. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The exception is rejected. Exception 12: The Petitioners' exception is without merit. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The exception is rejected. Exception 13: The Petitioners' exception is without merit. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The exception is rejected. Exception 14: The Petitiners' exception is without merit. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The exception is rejected.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Irene Murray, be enrolled as a member of the FRS effective September, 1986 and Petitioner, City of Carrabelle, pay the retroactive retirement contributions. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Stephen F. Dean Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner's proposed findings were adopted or rejected for the following reasons: Paragraph 6 Rejected second unnumbered paragraph as contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 8 Rejected first sentence as contrary to more credible evidence. Rejected third sentence as to Ms. Murray's paying her taxes because it is irrelevant. Paragraph 9 Rejected as to entitlement to unemployment compensation because the contract is silent on this. Paragraph 10 Rejected all because it's contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 14 The city participates in a job and job skills program funded by a federal grant. The janitor at the center is a participant in this program. The City's proposal, while not strictly untrue, is an overstatement of the matter. Paragraph 16 Rejected that FRS is illegally interfering with the contract between the city and Ms. Murray, and what Ms. Murray wants is irrelevant. Paragraph 17 Rejected as a legal conclusion beyond the competence of the witnesses. Paragraphs 18 Rejected as contrary to fact. and 20 The Respondent's proposed findings were adopted or rejected for the reason stated: Paragraph 5 Rewritten to more completely explain the budget relationship. Paragraph 19 Rejected as conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Webster, Esquire Post Office Box 478 Crawfordville, FL 32327 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System pursuant to Section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact Based on the record in this proceeding, including the evidence presented at the formal hearing and the joint pre- hearing stipulation1 of the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Florida Retirement System (FRS) is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (Respondent or Division), is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS. Petitioner, Mr. Johnson Holsberry, Jr. (Petitioner or Mr. Holsberry), was formerly employed as a teacher at the West Area School of Choice by the Palm Beach County School Board (PBCSB). By reason of his employment with the PBCSB, Mr. Holsberry became a member of the FRS. As a teacher, Mr. Holsberry was subject to the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida found in Rule 6B- 1.001, Florida Administrative Code. As a teacher, Mr. Holsberry was subject to the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006. On or about December 5, 2000, Mr. Holsberry resigned his teaching position with PBCSB. On or about October 24, 2001, Mr. Holsberry was charged, by amended information, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with one count of child abuse, a third degree felony, in violation of Section 827.03(1), Florida Statutes. The same amended information is filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in State of Florida v. Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., Case No. Ol-CF-001185. The victim of the alleged crime, R.D., was a female student at the Area School of Choice. In Palm Beach County, Florida, between the dates of January 1, 1999, and December 31, 1999, Petitioner, while teaching in a position of parental responsibility, was alleged to have had contact with R.D. and to have acted in such a manner as to cause mental injury to said child. On or about October 24, 2001, Mr. Holsberry entered an agreement with the State Attorney's Office wherein he agreed to plead guilty as charged in the amended information. The same plea agreement is filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in State of Florida v. Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., Case No. Ol-CF- 001185. Mr. Holsberry's guilty plea was made freely and voluntarily. Mr. Holsberry pled guilty because he was in fact guilty. On or about October 24, 2001, Mr. Holsberry was adjudicated guilty. The same judgment is filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in State of Florida v. Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., Case No. Ol-CF-001185. On or about January 8, 2001, Mr. Holsberry applied to the Division for early service retirement from the FRS and began receiving retirement benefits. The Division suspended payment of Mr. Holsberry's monthly retirement benefits in June 2008. By certified letter dated June 13, 2008, Mr. Holsberry was notified of the Division's intended action to forfeit his FRS rights and benefits as a result of his guilty plea in the case styled and numbered State of Florida v. Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., Case No. Ol-CF-001185. At the hearing, Mr. Holsberry testified that R.D. was in his classroom a few times, but that he was not sure of the year, frequency, or why she was there. He testified that he does not remember taking a picture of R. D. sitting at his desk, but that might have taken place. Mr. Holsberry also testified that he does not recall permitting R. D. to access her email from his classroom, or inviting her to join him on trips, to come to his home, or otherwise to meet him any place outside of the school. Mr. Holsberry testified that he does not recall giving R. D. his home telephone number. He recalls having an email screen name of Sameagle1, but does not recall whether he emailed R. D. from that email address or whether he had another screen name, Gutster. He testified that he does not recall referring to himself as H-Man (although he said some students called him "Mr. H.") or referring to R.D. as "Dukey Dufus." In general, Mr. Holsberry's testimony that he does not recall his actions that ultimately ended his career as a teacher is not credible. Mr. Holsberry noted that R.D. was not officially assigned to any of his classes, so that he was not responsible for her education, nor was he involved with her in any after school program that would have made him responsible for her welfare. Mr. Holsberry testified that he probably would not have met R.D. but for his position as a teacher at her school. He also recalled having being interviewed by an investigator named Green. Angelette Green, an employee of the Palm Beach County School District for 15 years, was the investigator assigned to Mr. Holsberry's case. Detective Green testified that Mr. Holsberry admitted that he helped R. D. set up an email account, communicated with her by email, including having sent by internet a picture of her taken in his classroom. She also testified that she remembers emails inviting R. D. to go somewhere. She said Mr. Holsberry called R. D. "Dukey Dufus" after he sent her an email and she questioned who it was from. On July 30, 2002, an Administrative Complaint was filed by the Commissioner of Education seeking disciplinary sanctions against Mr. Holsberry's license based on allegations of professional misconduct. Mr. Holsberry did not contest the disciplinary matter, having already agreed to surrender permanently his teaching certificate as a part of his plea agreement. The Education Practices Commission entered a final order permanently revoking his teaching certificate. On October 24, 2001, a plea conference was held on the following charge: Amended Information For: CHILD ABUSE In the Name and by the Authority of the State of Florida: BARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that JOHNSON LEO HOLSBERRY JR. on or between January 01, 1999 and December 31, 1999, in the County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, did knowingly or willfully, intentionally inflict physical or mental injury upon R.D., a child, {or} did an intentional act or actively encourage another to do an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to R.D., a child, contrary to Florida Statute 827.03(1). (3 DEG FEL) At the plea conference, the following exchange occurred: [By Mr. Jaegers, Assistant State Attorney:] The defendant will be adjudicated guilty of the offense; he will be placed on five years probation. There will be no early termination contemplated. The defendant will be required to pay Court costs in the amount of $261.00, $50.00 to the Drug Trust Fund, $50.00 cost of prosecution. The defendant must undergo a psychological evaluation and successfully complete any recommended treatment. * * * The defendant is to surrender all and not seek at any time in the future any teaching certificates in any jurisdiction in the world. There will be no contact with children under 18 unless they're in the presence of an adult who is aware of these charges. And those are the terms of the negotiated settlement. The facts in this case, Judge, are that the defendant, Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., did in Palm Beach County, Florida, on, between the dates of January 1, 1999 and December 31st, 1999, while teaching in a position of parental responsibility, in that capacity had contact with a juvenile female by the name of, or by the initials of SRD, I think it's on the plea sheet. MR. WILINSKEY [Counsel for Mr. Holsberry] That's right. MR. JAEGERS: -- RD, and did act in a manner such as to cause mental injury to said child. The -- those are the facts that occurred in Palm Beach County. THE COURT: Sir, raise your right hand, please. JOHNSON LEO HOLSBERRY, JR. BEING FIRST DULY SWORN BY THE COURT, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT: Your name? THE DEFENDANT: Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr. THE COURT: How old are you? THE DEFENDANT: 62 * * * THE COURT: Do you understand what the things are you have to do? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do you agree with the facts the State Attorney gave me as the basis for your plea of guilty? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner was convicted of a specified offense pursuant to Section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, and directing the forfeiture of his FRS rights and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 24th day of July, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent, Paul Meloy, Sr. (Meloy), was Volunteer Fire Chief of the Fire Protection and Rescue District for Alva, Florida. As such, he was a "public officer" of an "agency" within the meaning of Sections 112.312(2) and 112.313(1), Florida Statutes. Meloy helped to establish a volunteer fire department in the rural community of Alva, Florida in 1973. Meloy was selected as the volunteer fire chief. In 1976, the Alva Fire Protection and Rescue Service District (District) was established. The firefighting equipment and vehicles were originally located in Meloy's garage, where he maintained an automotive repair shop. Meloy received a fixed reimbursement from the District each month for the use of his garage and for repair services which he rendered for the District. In approximately 1984, Meloy took a 40-hour volunteer firefighting course and became certified as a volunteer firefighter. Full-time firefighters were required to complete a 280-hour firefighting course to become certified as firefighters pursuant to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. Meloy never took the 280-hour course and has never been a state certified fire fighter pursuant to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. In 1988, the District joined the State of Florida Retirement System (FRS). At that time the District employed four full-time firefighters and a part-time secretary. Meloy worked part-time as the administrator for the District, but did not draw a salary but continued to receive remuneration in the form of the monthly reimbursement for expenses. The full-time firefighters were enrolled in the FRS in 1988 as special risk members, which would allow them to retire at an earlier age than regular members of the FRS and with greater benefits. In June, 1990, Meloy was interviewed by an investigator from the Florida Commission on Ethics (Commission) concerning an Ethics Complaint unrelated to the complaint filed in the instant case. Meloy told the investigator that he was not receiving a salary from the District, but that he was receiving reimbursement for expenses. Additionally, he told the investigator that he was not certified to be a full-time professional firefighter. In 1990, Connie Bull, was employed as a part-time secretary for the District. Until the District received a letter from the Commission explaining that part-time employees should be enrolled in the retirement system, neither Ms. Bull nor Meloy was aware that part-time employees filling established positions were to be enrolled in the retirement system from the date of their employment. Ms. Bull called the Division of Retirement (Division) which is the agency responsible for administering the FRS. She talked with Ira Gaines concerning the requirement for the enrollment of part-time employees. Ira Gaines is the retirement services representative with the Division who is responsible for determining eligibility for members in the special risk plan of the FRS. Neither Ms. Bull nor Mr. Gaines recalls any discussion they may have had concerning certification requirements for enrollment in the special risk class. Ms. Bull obtained enrollment forms from the Division. She and Meloy filled out and signed the enrollment forms. The form Ms. Bull used for her enrollment was for regular membership. The form used by Meloy was for enrollment in the special risk plan. On September 22, 1990, Meloy represented on his enrollment form that he was a firefighter certified, or required to be certified, by the Bureau of Fire and Training and that he was the supervisor or command officer of special risk members whose duties included on the scene fighting of fires. Additionally, Meloy in his capacity as fire chief certified that his position meets the criteria for special risk membership in accordance with Section 121.0515, Florida Statutes, and Florida Retirement System Rules, and he was certified or required to be certified in compliance with Section 943.14 or Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. When he was completing the enrollment form, he told Ms. Bull that he knew that he was not certified. Meloy testified in his defense that when he signed the application form that he knew that he was not a certified full-time firefighter and that he knew that special risk members were required to be certified. Meloy stated that by signing the application he was acknowledging that special risk members were required to be certified not that he was certified. Having judged the credibility of Meloy, I find that Meloy's testimony is not credible. Ms. Bull sent the executed enrollment forms to the Division on October 17, 1990, with a cover letter stating that she and Meloy had worked for the District for some time on a part-time basis, but were unaware that as part-time employees they should have previously have been enrolled in the retirement system. In either 1990 or 1991, after he had executed the enrollment form, Meloy began receiving a salary from the District instead of reimbursement for expenses. In January, 1991, the District purchased back retirement benefits for Meloy from August, 1985 through June, 1988 for $4,207.97. Sometime after the enrollment forms were submitted and Meloy had been enrolled in the FRS, Ira Gaines and Meloy discussed Meloy's certification. Meloy told Mr. Gaines that he had taken a course which certified him as a firefighter. Meloy did not tell Mr. Gaines that he was a firefighter certified pursuant to Section 633.35. Meloy sent Mr. Gaines a copy of a letter dated September 16, 1991, from the Department of Insurance which stated that Meloy had held a Certificate of Competency entitled Volunteer Basic since July 11, 1984. Meloy did not qualify for special risk membership in the FRS. In May, 1992, Meloy was interviewed by an investigator for the Commission concerning the allegations in the Ethics Compliant which had been filed against Meloy. Meloy told the investigator that he knew that the enrollment application which he signed required that the employee had to have taken the 280-hour course to be eligible for the special risk class. By letter dated June 29, 1992, the Division notified Meloy that his membership in the FRS and the Florida Retirement Special Risk Class was being terminated. The grounds for termination were that Meloy had been receiving payments for expenses and not compensation and that he was not certified in compliance with Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. Meloy did not appeal the Division's decision. If Meloy had been allowed to remain as a special risk member in the FRS, he would have been eligible to draw annually at least $2,024.92 in special risk benefits beginning as early as August, 1995. There was no evidence presented that established that Mr. Meloy had anything to do with Assistant Volunteer Fire Chief Brent Golden's application, membership, or retention of any benefits from the FRS and the parties so stipulated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order and Public Report be entered finding that Paul Meloy, Sr. violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, as it relates to the allegations concerning his retirement benefits but not as to the retirement benefits of the Assistant Fire Chief, imposing a civil penalty of $2,024.92, and issuing a public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 8th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5984EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2-4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraphs 6-7: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 8-12: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: The first, third, and fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. In practice both Mr. Tiner and Meloy supervised the firefighters during on-the-scene fighting of fires. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant to the extent that Meloy listed all the duties that he was actually performing for the fire department. Paragraph 14: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 15: Rejected as irrelevant. There was no evidence presented to show that Meloy knew that the Commissioners and not he should have executed the enrollment form on behalf of the employer. Paragraphs 16-17: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 18: Rejected to the extent that it implies that Meloy took no steps to seek help from the Division. He did direct Ms. Bull to call the Division which she did. Paragraph 19: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 21-22: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 23: Accepted in substance except as to the amount. 13. Paragraphs 24-25: Rejected as constituting argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Stuart F. Wilson-Patton Advocate For the Florida Commission on Ethics Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 John H. Shearer, Jr., P.A. Post Office Box 2196 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2196 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, Esquire General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahasee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John F. Morack, is a member of the Teachers Retirement System (TRS). The TRS is administered by respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement (Division). On April 18, 1988, petitioner began working for a new employer and concurrently filled out an application form to enroll in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), a plan also administered by the Division. By letter dated June 27, 1988, the Division, through its chief of bureau of enrollment and contributions, Tom F. Wooten, denied the request on the ground Morack failed to qualify for such a transfer. Dissatisfied with the agency's decision, Morack initiated this proceeding. Petitioner first enrolled in the TRS on September 18, 1970, when he began employment as a dean at Broward Community College. At that time, he had no option to enroll in any retirement program except the TRS. Under the TRS, an employee did not have to make contributions to social security and earned "points" for calculating retirement benefits at a rate of 2% for each year of creditable service. In contrast, under the FRS, which was established in late 1970, members earned benefits at a rate of only 1.6% per year but were participants in the social security program. Finally, a TRS member could not purchase credit for wartime military service unless he was an employee at the time he entered the military service and was merely on a leave of absence. On the other hand, an FRS member could purchase credit for military service after ten years of creditable service as long as such military service occurred during wartime. When the FRS was established in late 1970, members of the TRS were given the option of transferring to the newly created FRS or remaining on TRS. Morack executed a ballot on October 15, 1970 expressing his desire to remain on the TRS. In November 1974, the Division offered all TRS members an open enrollment period to change from TRS to FRS. Morack elected again to remain on the TRS. In the latter part of 1978, the Division offered TRS members a second open enrollment period to switch retirement systems. On November 21, 1978, Morack declined to accept this offer. On January 1, 1979 Morack accepted employment with the Department of Education (DOE) in Tallahassee but continued his membership in the TRS. He remained with the DOE until July 1981 when he accepted a position in the State of Texas. However, because Morack intended to eventually return to Florida, he left his contributions in the fund. Approximately two years later, petitioner returned to Florida and accepted a position at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton as assistant vice president effective July 11, 1983. About the same time, he prepared the following letter on a FAU letterhead. To Whom it May Concern: This is to indicate that I elect remaining in TRS rather than FRS. (Signature) John F. Morack The letter was received by the Division on July 19, 1983, and the enrollment form was processed on November 2, 1983. Although Morack stated that he was told by an FAU official that he could not transfer plans at that time, there is no competent evidence of record to support this claim since the testimony is hearsay in nature. On November 18, 1985, Morack requested the Division to audit his account for the purpose of determining how much it would cost to purchase his Korean War military service. On January 24, 1986, the Division advised Morack by memorandum that because he had "no membership time prior to (his) military service, that service is not creditable under the provisions of the Teachers' Retirement System." During the next two years Morack requested two audits on his account to determine retirement benefits assuming a termination of employment on July 31, 1987 and June 30, 1988, respectively. On April 14, 1988, Morack ended his employment with FAU and began working on April 18, 1988, or four days later, at Palm Beach Junior College (PBJC) as construction manager for the performing arts center. When he began working at PBJC he executed Division Form M10 and reflected his desire to be enrolled in the FRS. As noted earlier, this request was denied, and Morack remains in the TRS. The denial was based on a Division rule that requires at least a thirty day break in service with the state in order to change retirement plans after returning to state employment. Because Morack's break in service was only four days, he did not meet the requirement of the rule. At hearing and on deposition, Morack acknowledged he had several earlier opportunities to transfer to the FRS but declined since he never had the benefits of the FRS explained by school personnel. As retirement age crept closer, petitioner began investigating the differences between the TRS and FRS and learned that the latter plan was more beneficial to him. This was because the FRS would allow him to purchase almost four years of military service, a higher base salary would be used to compute benefits, he could participate in social security, and there would be no social security offset against his retirement benefits. Also, petitioner complained that school personnel were not well versed in retirement plans and either were unaware of alternative options or failed to adequately explain them. As an example, Morack points out that when he returned from Texas in 1983 he was not told by FAU personnel about the change in the law now codified as subsection 121.051(1)(c). Finally he thinks it unfair that the Division counts four days employment in a month as a full month's creditable service for computing benefits but will not count his four days break in service in April 1988 as a full month for computing the time between jobs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request to change retirement plans be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4183 Respondent: 1. Covered in finding of fact 6. 2-4. Covered in finding of fact 7. 5. Covered in finding of fact 10. 6-7. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in findings of fact 8 and 11. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John F. Morack 10474 Green Trail Drive Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Andrew J. McMullian, III State Retirement Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Adis Maria Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire general Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue This matter was referred by the Public Employees Relations Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing to determine: Whether the Respondent, Seminole County, is a Public Employer within the meaning of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Whether the Petitioner, Union, is an employee organization within the meaning of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Whether there has been a sufficient showing of interest has required for the filing of a representation election petition under Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Whether the employer organization is a properly registered organization with the Public Employees Relations Commission. What is the appropriate unit of public employees within the Public Employer? PRE-HEARING MATTERS Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Respondent filed the following motions with the Hearing Officer who made the indicated disposition of the motion: Motion for Discovery; denied on the basis of prior PERC rulings. Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction to Local PERC; denied because the local ordinance had not been approved by the Public Employees Relations Commission. Motion for Oral Argument on Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction; denied, see Petitioner's Motion to Amend, below. Motion to Dismiss Based on Employer Not Having Denied Recognition; denied. Motion to Dismiss or Limit Hearing on the Basis that Local PERC Ordinate Controls; denied. Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Inappropriateness of Units Sought; denied. Motion to Quash Hearing on Basis that Acting Chairman Lacked Authority to Notice Hearing; denied. Motion to Dismiss on Basis of Lack of Due Process and Lack of Authority; denied. The Petitioner moved orally in response to the suggestion that paragraph 11 of the Petition indicated concurrence in local PERC authority to amend paragraph 11 to "no". Motion was granted by the Hearing Officer. After having presented its motions the Respondent thereafter filed its Answer, asserting therein certain affirmative defenses. Succinctly stated the position of the Respondent was that the county had defined the appropriate units within the Public Employer by local ordinances as professional, supervisory and blue collar, and that the unit sought by the Petitioner did not conform to the units the County had defined by ordinance. The Petitioner sought all employees of the Road and Arthopod Divisions of Seminole County excluding officers, clericals, supervisory and guard employees.
Findings Of Fact The Hearing Officer directed the Employer to go forward and present its evidence in support of its definition of the units. The Employer sought to call Pat Hill and Jack McLean, both previously subpoenaed by the Employer. Neither of the individuals were present in the hearing room. The Hearing Officer, noting that the time had not expired to oppose the subpoenas but that no opposition had been filed, allowed the Employer to proffer the testimony these witnesses would have given if present. The Hearing Officer notes that subsequently these subpoenas were quashed. Therefore, the proffered testimony will not be considered by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer would, in light of the fact that the Commission's file was not present at the hearing, direct the Commission's attention to the proffer as it relates to the Commission's file for resolution of any matters appropriately raised. The Employer then called Carl Crosslin who was present but whose subpoena had been timely opposed by his Counsel. The subpoena having been issued by the Acting Chairman, the Hearing Officer deferred to the Acting Chairman for his ruling on the subpoena in question. The Hearing Officer allowed the Employer to proffer the testimony which would have been presented by Carl Crosslin and Commissioner Paul Parker. Thereafter, the Employer moved for a continuance which motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. The Employer then made a demand for presentation of the authorization cards, which were not present at the hearing. The Employer then sought to introduce the affidavit of Chris Haughee which was rejected by the Hearing Officer. The Employer then filed its motion for Determination of Managerial and Confidential Employees. This motion is preserved for consideration by the Commission. It is appropriate to note at this point that upon the conclusion of the taking of testimony the Petitioner amended its petition to seek a unit composed of non-exempt employees of the Road Construction and Maintenance Division, the Heavy Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance Division, and Arthopod Division of the Public Works Department of the County of Seminole, or in the alternative, all non-exempt employees of the Public Works Division and as a final alternative, a unit of all blue collar workers of the Public Employer who are in construction, maintenance and trades, but excludes clerical, secretarial and similar positions. The parties also stipulated to the managerial status of division directors within the Administrative Services Department and their secretaries. However, in light of the fact that not all division directors within the employ of the Public Employer were not included within the stipulation, and further, because the Employer has filed a motion for Determination of Managerial and Confidential Status and because the stipulation between the parties would not be binding upon others who might have an interest, the facts relating to the duties and functions of division directors and similar positions are set forth so that the Public Employees Relations Commission may resolve the status of these employees as it relates to the motion filed by the Public Employer. The general organization of the Public Employer is indicated on Exhibit 6. The Board of County Commissioners, as the elected representatives of the citizens of Seminole County, head the Public Employer. An executive assistant manages the office and staff of the Board of County Commissioners and functions as general coordinator for the other department heads of the county government. Each of the several departments of government is headed by a department head. Each department head is directly responsible for the management of his department to the Board of County Commissioners. Although the executive assistant, as a coordinator, would have some coordinating function with the department heads, the department heads are the first level of management below the Board of County Commissioners. The department heads prepare the budgets for their department, manage and direct their personal staffs and their division heads, make policy within their department, and participate in the resolution of grievances. They have the authority to hire and fire all employees making less than $10,000 per year and they participate in evaluations of all employees. Department heads have the ability to effectively recommend the employment and discharge of division heads and employees making more than $10,000 per year. All of the department heads meet on Mondays to discuss their joint duties and coordinate their activities. The division heads or directors have the authority to effectively recommend hiring and firing of personnel. The division heads assign work and determine the manner in which work shall be done by their subordinates. The division heads have the authority to discipline their personnel or effectively recommend disciplinary measures dependent upon the action taken. Division directors prepare and submit budget data to the department heads upon which the departmental budget is based. The division heads constitute the second level of supervision or management in county employment. Among their other functions they make determinations regarding the manner in which programs will be accomplished and participate in the resolution of grievances. In all but the smallest divisions and in all of the departments, the department heads and division directors have secretaries assigned to them to handle their personal correspondence, In the larger divisions and in the majority of the departments there are additional clerical personnel assigned to handle general typing and filing and to maintain fiscal records. The parties with regard to the RC petition in question have stipulated that the secretaries to the department heads and division directors should be excluded as confidential. There are divisions within the county government whose function is primarily administrative and whose employees perform administrative duties. These divisions or activities would include the Personnel Division, Microfilm Division, Division of Manpower Planning, Purchasing Division, Office of Management and Evaluation, Veterans' Service Officer, Division of Social Services and Seminole County Industrial Development Authority. In the aforelisted activities, all of the personnel are involved in totally administrative functions. In addition to these totally administrative divisions or activities, there are additional divisions in which there are mixed administrative and other functions. The administrative employees of these divisions would include Switchboard Operators and the Mail Clerk in Support Services Division; the Biologists in Operations Division of the Department of Environmental Services; the Operator Inspector, Pollution Control Technician, Account Clerk in the Division of Environmental Control of the Department of Environmental Services; Cashiers within the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Public Safety; the Deputy Civil Defense Director in the Division of Civil Defense, Department of Public Safety; Permit Clerks and a Secretary II of the Building Division of the Department of County Development; two Secretaries and a Site Planner within the Office of the Land Development Administrator, Division of Land Development, Department of County Development; a Secretary, two Draftsmen, two Planners, Drafting Technician II, Planner (current plans), Senior Planner, Principal Planner and County Planner within the Planning Division of the Department of County Development. The following personnel hold positions within the county government below that of division director and perform functions which are not clerical or administrative in nature. These remaining personnel will be discussed by division. Within the Building Maintenance Division there is a Supervisor of Custodial Services, Supervisor of Courthouse Custodians, and Building Custodian Supervisor, all of whom report to the Director of Building Maintenance. The Supervisor of Courthouse Custodians directly supervises the fifteen custodians assigned to the Seminole County Courthouse. The Supervisor of Custodial Services supervises the custodians assigned to the maintenance of the other county buildings. The Building Custodian Supervisor supervises the electrical, carpentry, plumbing and air conditioning foremen under whose direction maintenance workers perform such maintenance as is required upon the various county buildings. These three supervisors have the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and disciplinary action and assign specific work to those employees under their direction. These supervisors constitute the first level of direct supervision over the county employees for although there are trades foremen designated they function as lead workers. Within the Support Services Division there are three Night Watchmen who are responsible for security of the County Courthouse and one Senior Night Watchman who assigns the work shifts of the Watchman. The testimony would indicate that the Senior Night Watchman functions in the role of a lead worker. It should be noted that this Division does not have a division director but is under the control of the acting executive assistant. Within the Division of Human Services is the Office of Animal Control which is headed by the Animal Control Officer. The Animal Control Officer is responsible for the operation of the County Pound and the supervision of the work of the four Animal Control Officers. He is assisted in his functions by the Animal Control Supervisor who is specifically charged with maintenance of the County Pound. The Animal Control Officer has authority to recommend hiring, firing and discipline of these employees who he evaluates. Within the Operations Division of the Department of Environmental Services there is a Chief Operator and three Operator Trainees who are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the county's water and sewage treatment facilities. The Operator Trainees are under the direct supervision of the Chief Operator whose responsibility is to train then to operate the system and to assign their duties. The Operator Trainees perform maintenance, read meters, and perform such other duties as the Chief Operator assigns necessary to the operation of these facilities. Within the Office of the Director of Public Safety and under the Director's control is Fire Prevention and Arson Investigator, a Training Officer, and two Mechanics. The Investigator and the Training Officer are trained firefighters. The two Mechanics are physically located at Station 14 and are responsible for the maintenance of the County Fire Department's Vehicles. The Fire Department is divided into three shifts or platoons. Each shift or platoon being supervised by a Sector Fire Coordinator. The Sector Fire Coordinator prepares the budget for his shift, establishes field operating procedures, and directs fire fighting, and has access to the personnel files of the employees. Also within the Department of Public Safety is the Communications Division which at present relates primarily to the Fire Department but which will in the future also encompass the 911 telephone number. The Communications' personnel are under the supervision of the Communications supervisor. The Communications' personnel are generally not firefighters, but receive emergency calls and dispatch equipment. Within the Motor Vehicle Inspection Division of the Department of Public Safety there are three Inspection Stations located within the county. The Motor Vehicles Inspection function is under the supervision of the Motor Vehicles Inspection Supervisor who acts as a division director and effectively recommends hiring and firing and discipline of employees and who helps prepare the budget for the Motor Vehicles Inspection activities. He is also responsible for work assignments and development of work procedures. Each Inspection Station is under the direction of a Chief Inspector who is responsible for assigning work at each station and responsible for the function thereof. There are four Motor Vehicle Inspectors at each Inspection Station and one Cashier. Within the Division of Parks and Recreation of the Department of County Development there is a Parks Coordinator/Designer who can effectively recommend hiring and firing and disciplinary action of personnel within the Division. The Parks Coordinator/Designer is also responsible for the direct or specific supervision of work. He functions as an assistant division director. The Parks Supervisor is also able to effectively recommend hiring, firing and disciplinary action. The Parks Supervisor provides direct supervision of the five Maintenance Workers, the Equipment Operator II, and three Trades Workers assigned to the Parks and Recreation Division. In addition to the positions enumerated above there are an additional twenty-nine CETA Workers assigned to Parks and Recreation primarily in the grades of Maintenance Worker and Equipment Operator. Within the Building Division of the Department of County Development the construction inspection function within the county is the responsibility of the Building Official who functions as the division director of the Building Division. He is assisted in his duties by the Plans Examiner who functions as the Deputy Building Official. Both employees have the authority to effectively recommend the hiring, firing and discipline of their subordinate employees. The actual inspection of construction is carried out by one of ten inspectors. There are three Chief Building Inspectors; one assigned to general construction, one to electrical, and one to plumbing, There are six Inspectors who work under the three Chief Inspectors and one Trailer or Mobile Home Inspector who reports directly to the Building Official. Within the Land Development Division of the Department of County Development is the Zoning Department. The Land Development Administrator functions as the division director. He is assisted in his Duties by the Zoning Administrator who acts as the Assistant Division Director. Both employees have the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and disciplinary actions. There are three Inspectors assigned to the Land Development Division. One inspects for compliance with the County Tree Ordinance, one inspects with regard to commitments made to the county by developers and the third inspects for violations of the county zoning code. The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works is responsible for three basic functions: Traffic engineering, design and survey, and survey and inspection. The Traffic Engineer is responsible for the traffic engineering activity and supervises the other employees directly. Signs are prepared in the County Sign Shop which is under the supervision of the Sign Shop Foreman. An Electrician is also assigned to this activity together with an Electronics Technician. They are responsible for the installation and maintenance of traffic signals. A Radio Technician is also assigned to the Traffic Engineer activity. The Radio Technician is responsible for the repair of all county radios. The Design and Survey activity consists of a Design Engineer and a Design Technician who design and draft plans for county construction projects. The Assistant County Engineer heads up the survey and inspection type activity for the Engineering Division. He is responsible for the county's two survey crews which are made up of a Party Chief and three to four crew members. The Assistant County Engineer is responsible for directing the work functions and activities of his subordinates and has the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and discipline. The Assistant Road Superintendent is in charge of the Road Construction and Maintenance Division of the Department of Public Works. He is assisted in the performance of his duties by two foremen and three to four crew leaders. The Road Maintenance function contains three supervisors, two of which supervise a foreman and two crew leaders and the third supervisor who supervises a crew leader. Under each crew leader there are from four to six maintenance workers or equipment operators. The Assistant Road Superintendent and the three supervisors in maintenance all function in assigning work to crews and individuals and supervising the work activity. In addition, the Assistant Road Superintendent acts as the assistant to the Road Superintendent who functions as the division director. Both men would have authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing, and disciplinary action together with the three supervisors, The Division of Heavy Equipment Maintenance is under the supervision of the Shop Foreman who functions as a division director, He is assisted by the Parts Manager who acts as the assistant division director. The position of Chief Mechanic is currently vacant and the duties are being performed by the Assistant Chief Mechanic. The primary function of the Parts Manager is the purchasing and stockage of spare parts. The Shop Foreman, Parts Manager and Assistant Chief Mechanic all have the authority to effectively hire, fire and recommend discipline. These three individuals would also provide evaluations of the mechanics, mechanic helpers and equipment servicemen assigned to the Heavy Equipment Maintenance Division. The Arthropod Division of Seminole County is responsible for refuse disposal. The division director is the Refuse Superintendent. Working under him are the Refuse Supervisor and a Landfill Foreman. The Landfill Foreman is responsible for supervision of the actual landfill operations and directly is responsible for three Equipment Operator III's and an Equipment Operator IV. The Landfill Foreman is also responsible for supervision of truck drivers while they are at the landfill area. The Landfill Foreman, Refuse Supervisor and Refuse Superintendent (division director) all have the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and discipline and to make work assignments and to evaluate performance. There were approximately twenty-eight employees within the Arthropod Division at the time of hearing. With regard to the employees of the county generally the testimony indicates that all employees of the county are entitled to the same vacation, retirement, and insurance benefits and that their salaries are established within the framework of the pay classification plan. The Petitioner has argued that each division is a totally independent unit, therefore, a unit composed of employees of the Arthropod and Road Construction and Maintenance Divisions of the Department of Public Works would be appropriate. The Employer has urged that the employees of the county be divided into three units: (1) all professional employees (2) all supervisory employees and (3) all employees not contained in the first two units. The Employer's proposal would appear to lump all the clerical employees, all custodial and maintenance employees, and certain highly skilled or specially trained employees in the same unit. The record does not support the Petitioner's contention that the divisions of Seminole County government are independent. The record clearly indicates that divisions are subordinate to the departments of which they are a part. The record further indicates that even departments are not totally independent or autonomous since the department heads are responsible to the County Commission which in turn establishes the salaries and other benefits of employment for all employees of the county. The record clearly indicates that a unit limited to the Arthropod and Road Divisions or even to the Public Works Department would not encompass many employees with essentially the same job functions and in some instances the same job titles and pay classifications. There are maintenance workers, equipment operators and certain custodial personnel and mechanics located in other divisions of county government. The position of the Employer fails to recognize the disparity of interest between the employees which would be "left over" and compose the third unit it has proposed. The record indicates that there are essentially three types of employees below the grade or position of division director as follows: (1) Clerical, (2) Maintenance/Custodial, and (3) Highly skilled. A large portion of the total number of county employees would fall into the clerical category to include secretaries, clerk typists, filing clerks, and fiscal assistants. The maintenance/custodial category would appear to be the next largest grouping of employees and would include custodial and maintenance workers, vehicle operators, watchmen, and mechanics. The highly or specially skilled category would include various planners, biologists, draftsmen, personnel specialists, zoning and building inspectors, and the highest level of skilled trades workers and sanitariums. Based upon the foregoing categorization of county employees, the unit composed of maintenance/custodial employees would encompass all of the job titles and job classifications sought by the Petitioner within the Department of Public Works and consolidate a substantial portion of the total number of county employees who share similar duties and work environments. A unit composed of this category would be almost identical to the last alternative unit sought by Petitioner. At the same time it would prevent fractionalization within county government and better meet the criteria stated in Section 447.009(4), Florida Statutes. This report is respectfully submitted this 11th day of April, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Pilacek, Esquire Bowels & Pilacek 131 Hark Lake Street Orlando, Florida 32803 David Richeson, Esquire Alley, Alley & Blue 205 Brush Avenue Tampa, Florida Henry Swann, Esquire Alley, Alley & Blue 205 Brush Avenue Tampa, Florida Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300, 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
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 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner, and if so, what corrective action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a forty-one-year-old black male. He is a 1977 graduate of the University of Florida with a bachelor's degree in Business Administration. His undergraduate major was Finance. Petitioner has approximately 30 credit hours in Accounting from the University of North Florida, which he earned between 1983 and 1988. Petitioner is currently enrolled in the University of North Florida's Masters of Public Administration program. He has completed 30 of the 39 required credit hours in that program. From November of 1979 to March of 1991, Petitioner worked for Occidental Chemical Company as an accountant. After leaving this job, Petitioner was self-employed from April of 1991 to December of 1991. Respondent's District Two office in Lake City, Florida, hired Petitioner on March 6, 1992, as a Purchasing Agent I. Respondent hired Petitioner under administrative rules pertaining to career service employees as promulgated by the Department of Management Services. Petitioner received a copy of Respondent's disciplinary and conduct standards when he was hired. Petitioner worked as a Purchasing Agent I until September of 1992. His salary during that time was $609.00 bi-weekly. In September of 1992, Respondent promoted Petitioner to the position of Accountant II in Respondent's Office of Financial Services. His bi-weekly salary was $752.91, a 23.5 percent increase. As soon as Petitioner became a member of the fiscal section, he received five weeks of intensive training relative to vouchers. This training was necessary because Respondent's central office was beginning to relinquish many functions to its district financial offices, including the vouchering process. Petitioner's direct supervisor in the fiscal section was Faye McClellan. She occupied the position of Accounting Services Supervisor I. Petitioner was indirectly supervised by David Sheffield, District Financial Administrator. On March 1, 1993, David Sheffield hired Karin Davis Charron, a white female, as an Accountant I in Respondent's Office of Financial Services. Her salary was $674.14 bi-weekly, or ten percent above the minimum for an Accountant I. Prior to her employment with Respondent, Ms. Charron had 15 credit hours in Business Administration and Accounting, which she earned at Lake City Community College. Her prior work experience included the following: (a) head cashier at a food store, October of 1983 to June of 1984; (b) accountant/bookkeeper in private business, July of 1984 to September of 1985; (c) Fiscal Assistant I, Department of Corrections, November of 1985 to April of 1987; (d) Secretary Specialist/Cashier, Department of Corrections, April of 1987 to May of 1988; and (e) Fiscal Assistant II, Department of Corrections, May of 1988 to March of 1993. In March of 1993, Petitioner completed his probationary period as an Accountant II. On March 27, 1993, Faye McClellan and David Sheffield gave Petitioner an overall performance rating of "exceeds." On June 1, 1993, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Accountant III. At this time, Petitioner's salary was increased by 10 percent to $828.20 bi-weekly. On August 20, 1993, Respondent hired Ricky Haddock, a black male, as a Fiscal Assistant II at a bi-weekly salary of $549.90. Ricky Haddock testified that soon after he was employed, Ms. Charron told him that "we can make your life a living hell." This statement is not credible due to Mr. Haddock's poor memory concerning the circumstances under which Ms. Charron allegedly made this statement. On or about March 11, 1994, Respondent promoted Ms. Charron to Accountant II with a bi-weekly salary of $766.94, a ten percent increase. Subsequently, Dave Sheffield received a promotion and vacated his position as District Financial Administrator. Linda Green, a white female, took his place. Ms. Green had over ten years of managerial experience when she accepted this position. As manager of the fiscal section, Linda Green became responsible for the direct supervision of Faye McClellan. She was Petitioner's and Ms. Charron's indirect supervisor. On or about March 17, 1994, Faye McClellan gave Petitioner a special performance appraisal. The appraisal form indicates that Petitioner, as an Accountant III, had attended voucher quarterly meetings, SAMAS contract training, payroll training, ADA training, and conduct standards training. The appraisal form described Petitioner as a team player. Of special note was his participation in the Youth Motivator Program in the Columbia County School System. Petitioner received a overall performance rating of "exceeds." Linda Green concurred in Ms. McClellan's assessment of Petitioner's job performance. On September 9, 1994, Respondent promoted Petitioner to the position of Accountant IV. The promotion increased Petitioner's salary by ten percent to $938.36 bi-weekly. Linda Green, as manager of the financial office, recommended Petitioner for this promotion. As an Accountant IV, Petitioner's duties primarily consisted of auditing consultant contracts. These contracts are the most complicated contracts that the financial office processes. Petitioner was also responsible for the payroll and for the supervision of other contract auditors. About two months after Petitioner became an Accountant IV, his immediate supervisor, Faye McClellan, requested and received a position reassignment in Respondent's purchasing office. Petitioner filed an employment application to fill the vacancy created by Ms. McClellan's reassignment. On November 21, 1994, Respondent promoted Petitioner to the position of Accounting Services Supervisor I. The promotion increased Petitioner's salary by 19 percent to $1,161.31 bi- weekly. Linda Green recommended Petitioner for the Accounting Services Supervisor I promotion. She became his direct supervisor. As Accounting Services Supervisor I, Petitioner was responsible for the direct supervision of several subordinate Fiscal Assistants and Accountants, including Ms. Charron. Petitioner was the only black supervisor in Respondent's second district. Historically, the financial section is one of the more racially diverse offices in District Two. From November of 1994 through June of 1995, there were approximately ten people working in the fiscal section. Three of these employees were black. At least two employees were members of other minorities. Petitioner, Ricky Haddock, and two other minority employees were the only employees in the financial office with a college education. On December 23, 1994, Respondent promoted Ms. Charron to Accountant IV. Her bi-weekly salary became $928.50 which was equivalent to the minimum of the pay grade for that position. Linda Green recommended Ms. Charron for the promotion to Accountant IV. Petitioner participated on the panel that selected Ms. Charron as the most qualified candidate to fill Petitioner's former position. In so doing, he reviewed her application and interviewed her for the job. There is no credible evidence to support Petitioner's current allegation that Linda Green allowed Ms. Charron to misrepresent her qualifications for the position of Accountant IV. Ms. Charron's application in February of 1994 for the position of Accountant II, and her application in November of 1994 for the position of Accountant IV, accurately describe all duties and responsibilities that she performed at Stafford's Fire Extinguisher Service in 1984-1985. In 1994, an applicant for the position of Accountant IV was required to have a bachelor's degree in accounting, or a certificate as a Certified Public Accountant, or equivalent work experience in accounting. Neither the Petitioner nor Ms. Charron possessed a bachelor's degree in accounting or a certificate as a Certified Public Accountant when Respondent promoted them to their respective Accountant IV positions. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that they were well qualified for the position of Accountant IV, at the time of their respective appointments, based on a combination of their education and work experience. Petitioner had a bachelor's degree in Finance, over eleven years of accounting experience in private industry, and more than four years of experience in state governmental accounting. Ms. Charron, on the other hand, had less then one year of formal education in business administration/accounting, over one year of accounting experience in private industry, and more than eleven years of experience in state governmental accounting. State employees have to comply with numerous statutes and rules which do not apply to private enterprise. In this case, Ms. Charron's experience in working for the state more than compensated for her lack of formal education. As Accounting Services Supervisor I, Petitioner's supervisory responsibilities increased. In February of 1995, he directly supervised Rick Haddock and three other Fiscal Assistant II positions, two of which were vacant. He also had direct supervision over Ms. Charron. Ms. Charron, in turn, was responsible for the direct supervision of four other Accountant positions. On February 13, 1995, Petitioner signed a Review and Performance Planning (RAPP) form. This was a new form which Respondent began using just prior to implementing a major career service reform within the agency. The form states that from February 1, 1995, through January 31, 1996, Petitioner would be evaluated based on his performance of the following duties: Supervise district vouchering section. Active participation/supervision vouchering section. Coordinate workloads. Provide liaison with personnel, DOT and State Comptroller. Assist in Legislative budget request. Assist with budget preparation for various programs. Assist in formulating budget information into the different entities LBR's. Manage contract section. Manages all contracts. Verifying information and all supporting documentation for payments to vendors. Audit district disbursements. Audit disbursement for accuracy in accordance with GAP and pertinent federal/state/department rules/ regulations/statutes. The RAPP form lists the following as Petitioner's departmental responsibilities: 1. Coaching; 2. Delegation; 3. Management control; 4. Leadership/Influence; 5. EEO/Affirmative Action; 6. Performance goals; 7. Planning and organization; 8. Judgment; Resources; and 10. Safety practices. Linda Green wanted to increase the cross-training of all employees so that work would not become back-logged when one of them took leave. She also wanted to give Petitioner an opportunity to broaden his experience in other functions of the financial office. In order to accomplish her goals, Ms. Green gave Petitioner additional budget responsibility and deleted his property administration duties in February of 1995. Linda Green gave Petitioner's property administration duties to Ms. Charron. From February 1995, through May 1995, Ms. Charron spent a portion of her time working on the inventory. Ms. Charron continued to work on several special projects to supervise other accountants. As Accounting Services Supervisor I, Petitioner's desk was located in a glass enclosed area within a larger office. Petitioner was supposed to be a "working" supervisor. However, Petitioner spent an inordinate amount of time in his office with the door closed. During these times, Petitioner had long social visits with an employee from another office in the building. He discussed personal matters with an auditor from the central office on the phone for extended periods of time. At times Petitioner's door was locked, so staff could not use the computer which was located in his office. Petitioner's subordinates were reluctant to disturb Petitioner during these times even if they had a question they needed to ask him. They began to complain to Linda Green about Petitioner's unavailability. Linda Green observed Petitioner sleeping during meetings. At first she ignored the situation. However, employees from other offices began to complain about Petitioner's sleeping during meetings. Linda Green also received complaints from other employees that Petitioner was misusing state property. They claimed that he was receiving facsimile transmissions not related to department business. Linda Green began taking notes about these complaints on her computer. She did not share these notes with Petitioner. Linda Green discussed the prohibitions against misuse of state property in staff meetings. She also discussed her concerns about Petitioner's sleeping in meetings, talking on the telephone, and entertaining visitors with Petitioner personally. In February of 1995, Respondent initiated a new job classification and pay plan. The 1994 Legislature mandated this new system, which is distinct from the career service rules promulgated by the Department of Management Services. The new system is unique to Respondent as an agency. Under the new system, Respondent's employees retain career service status and benefits. However, Respondent changed position descriptions, job classifications, employment qualifications, and pay scale ranges to create more flexibility in hiring, promoting, and reassigning duties of employees within the department. The new system concentrates on the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for each position rather than a minimum qualification for each class specification. Formal education remains important, but it is not the paramount consideration in deciding whether to hire or promote employees. The focus of the new system is to ensure that employees can perform the required functions and duties of the specific positions which they occupy or for which they apply. Under the new system, Respondent can reward employees for productivity by increasing their salary without having to promote them to a new position or reclassify their existing positions. Respondent can increase or decrease salaries within a new classification, depending upon the actual duties assigned and performed by the employees. The new plan reduced the number of career service job classes from over 52 occupational groups with 1700 job classifications to 16 occupational groups divided into six levels. Respondent uses the fourth and fifth levels within an occupational group to recognize the distinctive, but equivalent, value of technical and managerial expertise. For example, each occupational group embraces a Level IV and Level V which corresponds to technical and managerial expertise respectively. A reassignment from a Level V managerial position to a Level IV technical position, or vice versa, is not a demotion or promotion, respectively. The new Level IV and Level V positions allow Respondent to reassign employees to different duties to meet the demands of the changing work load and work force without adversely affecting their work status, employment records, or incomes. Thus, Respondent can shift employees from obsolete duties to new and viable tasks where they are more productive. When Respondent initiated the new system, and for one year thereafter, Respondent's central office had to approve every reassignment from an old career service position "title" to the corresponding new title. In performing this duty, Respondent's central office verified the salary for each position to ensure that the salary corresponded to the duties assigned to that position. The initial reassignments in the new system were effective February 24, 1995. At that time, Linda Green, Ms. Charron, and Petitioner were reassigned to the new Accounting, Audit, and Tax occupational group with no change in their respective salaries. Linda Green was assigned to Level VI, as District Financial Services Manager. Petitioner was assigned Level V, Accounting Services Supervisor I, which required that Petitioner spend over 51 percent of his time supervising other employees. Ms. Charron was assigned to Level III as an Accountant IV. Petitioner continued to be Ms. Charron's direct supervisor. A personality conflict developed between Petitioner and Ms. Charron after she became an Accountant IV in December of 1994. Ms. Charron did not want the employees that she supervised to seek or receive assistance from Petitioner, even though he was her supervisor. If Ms. Charron disagreed with Petitioner, she would go over Petitioner's head to Linda Green to resolve the conflict. Petitioner resented not having total control over all of the employees under his direct and indirect supervision. His attitude became confrontational with other employees when they asked a question or made a comment that he perceived as undermining his authority. At times he was overly assertive in an effort to prove that he was right on one point or another. Linda Green did nothing to open lines of communication between Petitioner, as supervisor, and Ms. Charron, as his subordinate. Petitioner did not seek Ms. Green's assistance in resolving the conflict with Ms. Charron. As the power struggle between Petitioner and Ms. Charron ensued, dissension and poor morale became a problem in the fiscal section. On one occasion, Debbie Williams and Laura Kennon were working with the central office to correct an invoice error on one of Petitioner's consultant contracts. Petitioner questioned the method they were using to correct the problem. He wanted them to correct the error without involving the central office or the State Comptroller's office. Ms. Williams wanted to leave a proper audit trail. Before the situation was resolved, all three employees became angry and confrontational. Around the end of February 1995, a member of the financial services staff requested a meeting to discuss the problems the office was having as a result of the dissension between Petitioner and Ms. Charron. Jean Jones, District Two's Director of Administration attended the meeting. Linda Green and Jean Jones advised the staff that they could go to either Petitioner or Ms. Charron for answers to any questions about their work. Linda Green did not tell her staff in this meeting, or any other meeting, that education did not mean anything in Respondent's financial section. After the meeting was over, Jean Jones told Linda Green that some changes had to be made to better define the lines of communication within the office. Ms. Jones instructed Ms. Green to do some research and develop a solution to the problem. A large part of Ms. Charron's duties included working on special projects. These projects necessitated frequent consultations between Linda Green and Ms. Charron. There is no persuasive evidence that Linda Green showed favoritism to Ms. Charron by conspiring with her against Petitioner in private meetings and conversations. To the contrary, the dissension that existed in the office was the result of a personality conflict between Petitioner and Ms. Charron. Ms. Green's inability to establish a clear chain of command aggravated the situation. Prior to November of 1994, Respondent provided Petitioner with an abundance of training in technical and management subject areas. Some of the technical seminars included consultant procedures and negotiation, contract fund approval and encumbrance, and contractual services training. Other training programs included office staff skills enhancement, employee selection, conduct standards and discipline, district budget development, supervisory decision making, employee performance appraisal, fundamental skills of communication, fundamental skills of management, and Certified Public Management Level I. After November of 1994, Petitioner continued to receive training to enhance his career. Some of the programs he attended included review and performance planning, how to supervise people, managing change, presentation skills, budget and budget orientation, federal aid training, records retention, and management problems of the technical person in a leadership role. Linda Green encouraged Petitioner to participate in the training programs. She gave him the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to enhance his career. In the spring of 1995, Linda Green worked on training plans for all personnel in the fiscal section including Petitioner. On April 7, 1995, Ms. Green discussed Petitioner's training plan with him. On April 25, 1995, a copy of Petitioner's training plan was discovered on his desk with the word "bullshit" written across the bottom. Petitioner admits that he wrote this expletive on his training plan in the presence of Ms. Charron. In April of 1995, the State Comptroller's office rejected and returned a great number of invoices to the financial office. Linda Green responded by assigning Petitioner the responsibility of handling the returns and correcting the errors. In order to stay apprised of the situation, Ms. Green required that all mail relating to returns be directed to her before being delivered to Petitioner. She did not review Petitioner's mail unrelated to the returns. In April of 1995, Linda Green became aware that certain work assigned to Petitioner and/or Petitioner's subordinates was not being performed in a timely manner. Ms. Green had to enlist the help of other personnel to complete the work. In April of 1995, Linda Green initiated the procedure to issue reprimands to Petitioner concerning his continued misuse of the office telephones and facsimile machines, his sleeping on duty, and his social visits that wasted time. However, this procedure was delayed because Petitioner was hospitalized for surgery. Petitioner was out of work on sick leave from April 27, 1995, to May 30, 1995. During his illness, Linda Green extended Petitioner's probationary period for his Accounting Services Supervisor I position. In the 1992-93 fiscal year, the financial services office had approximately 12 primary responsibilities. The financial office gained 10 additional duties in the 1993-94 fiscal year and 18 new duties in the 1994-95 fiscal year. During this time, the number of positions in the financial office doubled. In May of 1995, Linda Green began to plan the reorganization of the financial section. She discussed the reorganization with her supervisor, Jean Jones. They made a decision to divide the responsibilities in the financial services office between Petitioner and Ms. Charron, the two established supervisors. They based the decision in part on a need to accommodate the increased work load. They also decided to split the supervision duties in an effort to improve the lines of communication within the office and to eliminate dissension. Officials in Respondent's central and district offices approved the reorganization. Under the reorganization plan, Ms. Green decided to give Petitioner responsibility for the following: supervising the concentration account; processing purchase orders, local purchase orders, local charge accounts, and utility invoice transmittals; processing travel and individual reimbursements; handling deposits; supervising warrant distribution; and processing mail. Ms. Green deleted Petitioner's duties relative to payroll and contracts. Ms. Charron's duties under the reorganization included supervision of the following: contracts, reconciliations, compliance reports, interest payments, and journal transfers. She assumed supervision of the payroll at the express request of Jean Jones. Additionally, Ms. Charron was assigned numerous special projects. When Petitioner returned to work from sick leave on June 1, 1995, Linda Green discussed the reorganization with Petitioner and Ms. Charron. She advised them that Ms. Charron would supervise four Level Two positions, one of which was vacant. Petitioner would supervise five Level One positions, all of which were occupied. Petitioner and Ms. Charron would report directly to Linda Green. Linda Green decided to have Petitioner supervise the Level One positions because they needed more supervision than the Level Two positions. Petitioner was better qualified than Ms. Charron to supervise the five entry level positions occupied by minority and non-minority employees. On June 15, 1995, Linda Green promoted Ms. Charron to Accounting, Audit, Tax Level V. Her salary was increased by 20 percent to $1,114.20 bi-monthly. The promotion was effective before the expiration of Ms. Charron's probationary period as an Accountant IV. The decisions to reorganize the section and promote Ms. Charron were made while Petitioner was absent on sick leave. Linda Green did not deliberately choose to promote Ms. Charron without consulting Petitioner as her supervisor. Moreover, Ms. Green, as manager, had no duty to consult with Petitioner before reorganizing the office. On June 16, 1995, Linda Green issued two official written reprimands against Petitioner. The first written reprimand involved a violation of Respondent's Conduct Standard 14-17.012(4)(a)6., Florida Administrative Code, for sleeping on duty. The reprimand documented the following occasions that Petitioner violated this conduct standard: November 30, 1994; December 1, 1994; January 5, 1995; March 13, 1995; March 20, 1995; March 21, 1995; March 30, 1995; June 5, 1995; and June 7, 1995. Prior to June of 1995, numerous employees were observed sleeping in meetings. The record contains no evidence that any of them were given written reprimands for sleeping on duty. Except for one of these employees, there is no evidence that their respective supervisors were aware that they were sleeping on duty. One employee, Jim Spencer, was observed sleeping on duty by his direct supervisor, Jean Jones. He was not on permanent career status at the time. Jean Jones decided to extend Mr. Spencer's probationary status rather than issue him a written reprimand. Ms. Jones made a conscious decision to give Mr. Spencer an opportunity to correct his behavior before dismissing him from employment. The second official written reprimand charged Petitioner with violating Respondent's Conduct Standard 14-17.012(4)(a)25., Florida Administrative Code, for unauthorized use or misuse of state property, services, equipment or personnel, and Respondent's Conduct Standard 14-17.012(4)(a)7., Florida Administrative Code, for loafing. This reprimand was the result of Petitioner's continued abuse of telephone privileges from January through June of 1995, misuse of the facsimile machines from February through May of 1995, and extended social visits with an employee from another office from January through March of 1995. Petitioner's alleged misuse of Respondent's facsimile machine was due to his involvement with the Safe and Drug-free Schools Advisory Council sponsored by the Columbia County School Board. Petitioner was cautioned in staff meetings on February 13, 1995, and February 21, 1995, against using state property for personal reasons. After those meetings, he received announcements of advisory council meetings on February 27, 1995, and April 26, 1995. He received a third fax transmission from the school board on May 16, 1995, while he was on sick leave. The school board solicited Petitioner's participation in the advisory council during one of Respondent's staff meetings. Respondent's employees did not have to request leave to attend the meeting. Nevertheless, Respondent did not give its employees permission to use its facsimile machines to receive notices about advisory council meetings or other volunteer work. Petitioner contacted the school board staff to tell them not to send him notices using Respondent's facsimile machines. The record is not clear as to when Petitioner made this request. Petitioner did not receive facsimile transmissions from the school board after he received the reprimand in June of 1995. The record contains evidence of four written reprimands for employee misuse of state property from December 1994, through May 1995. From February 1996, through June 1996, six employees were given written reprimands for misuse of state property. The reprimands of other employees included misuse of telephone privileges, computers, and agency stamps and stationary. These reprimands, together with competent evidence that Petitioner abused his long-distance telephone privileges as set forth below, eliminate any concern that Petitioner received disparate treatment regarding his reprimand for misuse or unauthorized use of state property. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever cited anyone but Petitioner for loafing. Nevertheless, the record supports this charge against Petitioner. Juanita Aiken works in Respondent's central office as an Disbursement Services Analyst. She testified that she often discussed personal matters with Respondent's employees in long- distance telephone conversations before she addressed the business purpose of her call. Linda Green personally informed Petitioner in January of 1995 that he needed to confine his long-distance telephone conversations with Ms. Aiken to department business. Petitioner did not heed her verbal warning. Ms. Aiken's personal telephone conversations with Petitioner did not cease until Linda Green and Jean Jones contacted her supervisor in Tallahassee. In the spring of 1995, Linda Green solicited Debra Williams' help in monitoring Petitioner's personal telephone calls. Ms. Williams declined to become involved and requested that her desk be relocated to another area. Linda Green assigned Ms. Charron a desk in Petitioner's private office in April of 1995. Ms. Charron complained to Ms. Green that Petitioner was talking on the phone for 30 to 45 minutes everyday and sometimes twice a day. The personal nature of the calls made Ms. Charron feel uncomfortable. Olu Olyewole worked for Respondent as a Distributor Computer Systems Analyst. He was responsible for connecting personal computer terminals to the networking system. He visited Petitioner regularly for extended periods of time until Ms. Green complained to his supervisor. When Mr. Olyewole visited Petitioner, the door to Petitioner's private office would often be closed. Early in 1995, Wanda Jean Hills desk was located in the glass-enclosed office with Petitioner's desk. On one occasion she could not get to her desk because she believed Petitioner and Mr. Olyewole were having a private conversation. The long social visits with Mr. Olyewole wasted time in an office that was overburdened with work. The visits interfered the performance of work by Petitioner and his subordinates. Petitioner was unavailable to his subordinates during these visits because they were reluctant to disturb his conversations, even when they needed his assistance. Linda Green did not reprimand any of her subordinates except Petitioner for misuse of state property, sleeping on duty, or loafing. However, there is no evidence that other employees under her authority violated the same conduct standards that Petitioner violated. There is evidence that Linda Green sold Amway products to employees on Respondent's property over a two-month time span. The record does not reflect the exact period of time in which Ms. Green engaged in this activity. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Linda Green passed out Amway brochures and delivered merchandise before work in the mornings. At times, her co-workers would place an order with Ms. Green during work hours because they were familiar with Amway products and knew that she was an Amway representative. Occasionally, Respondent's employees would hand Ms. Green a check or leave one in her desk during work hours. Linda Green did not aggressively pursue her private enterprise during work hours. There is no evidence that Ms. Green's private business activities interfered with her duties or usurped a significant portion of her time as manager of the financial section. Respondent did not give Linda Green a written reprimand for conducting private business on Respondent's property. The record does not reflect whether Ms. Green was verbally reprimanded. It does not appear that her supervisor, Jean Jones, was aware that Ms. Green was involved in selling Amway products on department property. The record does not contain evidence of any written reprimand based solely on unauthorized solicitation on state property. It does contain evidence that Respondent issued a written reprimand to an employee for conducting personal business while using a state vehicle. The employee's actions, like Ms. Green's, were incidental to the performance of his duties. The employee's supervisor did not require the employee to reimburse the agency for any cost. On June 16, 1995, Linda Green gave Petitioner a special performance appraisal to evaluate his performance as a supervisor since November 21, 1994. To conduct this evaluation, Ms. Green used the performance appraisal form for supervisors and managers that was in effect when Petitioner was promoted to Accounting Services Supervisor I in November of 1994. Linda Green admits that she did not conduct the required initial review of the relevant performance standards with Petitioner within two weeks of his promotion. Nevertheless, Petitioner's claims that he was not familiar with the performance standards used by Ms. Green to evaluate his performance is not persuasive. Petitioner attended at least two seminars in performance appraisal and performance planning. Petitioner was familiar with the performance standards for a supervisor, which became effective after Respondent initiated its career service reform in February of 1995. He signed the RAPP form on February 13, 1995. The standards contained on the new appraisal form are substantially similar to the performance standards listed on the older appraisal form. Linda Green gave Petitioner an overall performance rating of "below" standards. The record supports her determination that Petitioner's work performance began to fall short of expectations after he assumed the position as an accounting supervisor. Linda Green determined that Petitioner's performance in two categories deserved the highest rating of "achieves." These two categories were EEO/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and SAFETY PRACTICES. Linda Green determined that Petitioner's performance was substantially below expectations in at least one area of each of the remaining six categories for the following reasons: PLANNING, CONTROLLING AND ORGANIZING WORK Petitioner failed to operate his work areas efficiently. He did not notify his supervisor of job related problems. Petitioner did not take necessary and appropriate action on performance and shortcomings of subordinate employees. SUPERVISION/LEADERSHIP OF PEOPLE Petitioner failed to delegate effectively. Petitioner demonstrated dissension toward other staff members. PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS Petitioner did not take necessary and appropriate action on performance shortcomings of subordinate employees. PROBLEM ANALYSIS/DECISION MAKING Petitioner failed to inform and/or consult with necessary persons during the decision- making process. SELF DIRECTION/PERSONAL SKILLS Petitioner failed to use his work time effectively. He abused his telephone privileges. He wasted time visiting with an other employee. JOB PERFORMANCE Petitioner failed to perform specific job assignments as outlined on his position description or as assigned by appropriate management. A job applicant claimed that he earned 2400 credit hours in a U.S. Army finance school within a two-month period. Petitioner offered the applicant a job without verifying this information. Linda Green subsequently determined that the applicant had misrepresented his qualifications and withdrew the job offer. Based on this incident alone, Petitioner did not meet the standard for job performance in general. In December of 1995, Rick Haddock received a promotion to a Level II accountant. His salary increased by 20 percent to $715.27 bi-monthly. In March of 1996, Petitioner had a confrontation with Mary Caldwell, a white female accountant. Petitioner's voice was loud; he sounded very angry and threatening. The disturbance alarmed several employees who were in the vicinity. Ms. Caldwell and Petitioner went into a private office where the argument continued. Petitioner's behavior toward Ms. Caldwell was totally inappropriate. On March 22, 1996, Linda Green gave Petitioner a written reprimand for violation of Respondent's Conduct Standard 14-17.012(4)(a)16., Florida Administrative Code, involving rudeness, display of uncooperative or antagonistic attitude, actions or behavior. That same day, Ms. Green gave Petitioner a mandatory Employee Assistance Program Referral. In June of 1996, Linda Green deleted Petitioner's duties involving the budget and supervision of the vouchering section. Linda Green gave Patsy Green, a white female, Petitioner's budget responsibilities. Linda Green took this initiative because of the increased work load resulting from continued decentralization. The central office initiated a process in 1996 to conduct a periodic formal Quality Assurance Review (QAR) in each district office. The purpose of the QAR was to ensure that all vouchers were correct before they were sent to the billing office of the State Controller. Ms. Green wanted Petitioner to focus his energy on making sure that District Two's vouchers were in compliance with all state regulations. In June, 1996, Linda Green gave Petitioner additional duties including financial audits and investigations, quality assurance reports, reconciliations, comptroller returns, and liaison with the State Comptroller's office. His new duties were in-depth auditing and accounting responsibilities involving job cost reporting and making sure that the accounting system stayed in balance. Petitioner's salary was not decreased when his job description changed. At the same time, Linda Green gave Ms. Charron additional duties including contract funds management, joint participation agreements, settlement agreements, management reports, training, and numerous special projects. Ms. Green deleted Ms. Charron's supervisory responsibilities over the contract section. Linda Green received information in June 1996, that the central office intended to audit the supervisory positions in District Two. The central office wanted to make sure that all Level V positions in the Accounting, Audit, and Tax occupational group were held by employees spending at least 51 percent of their time in supervision. Petitioner and Ms. Charron were not spending 51 percent of their time in supervising the work of other employees. Accordingly, both of them were reassigned on June 14, 1996, to Level IV of the Accounting, Audit, and Tax occupational group. The working title for each of them became Accounting Services Administrator. This change was not a demotion and did not effect their respective salaries. Instead, the reassignments accurately reflected the actual duties of their positions. After Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination, Michael Klump, from Respondent's Minority Program Office in Tallahassee, Florida, was assigned to furnish all information requested by FCHR and to prepare the agency's response to the complaint. Mr. Klump's duties did not involve investigating the alleged charges on behalf of FCHR. Respondent's Minority Program Office prepared a letter dated September 11, 1995, addressed to Petitioner. The purpose of the letter was to advise Petitioner that the agency had received the complaint. It states that Petitioner should contact Mr. Klump if Petitioner had any additional information or questions regarding this matter. There is no competent evidence to indicate whether Petitioner received the letter from the Minority Program Office. Mr. Klump visited Respondent's District Two Office in Lake City to gather the information requested by FCHR. He did not interview Petitioner while he was there. Respondent's Minority Program Office does not routinely interview complainants who file a charge of employment discrimination with FCHR unless the complainant responds to a letter similar to the one addressed to Petitioner. There is no credible evidence that Respondent prepared its response and/or position statement to FCHR with the intention of misrepresenting material facts. Linda Green gave Petitioner a copy of her computer notes relative to dissension in the office when he first requested them. However, she edited the notes to delete the names of employees that had complained about Petitioner. At the hearing, Ms. Green produced an unedited copy of the notes which had been updated beyond the time relevant here. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent intentionally discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race or gender or retaliated against him for filing his Charge of Discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's claims of racial and gender discrimination and retaliation. Recommended this 15th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1997.
