The Issue Whether Petitioner's application to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On August 24, 2001, Petitioner submitted to the Division a Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP), Form FRS DP-11. On the form, Petitioner indicated his name, social security number, birth date (June 22, 1946), his position title (guidance counselor), present Florida Retirement System employer (Miami-Dade County Public Schools), work phone, home phone, and home mailing address. These entries were followed by the a printed statement, which read as follows: I have resigned my employment on the date stated below and elect to participate in the DROP in accordance with Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (F.S.). My DROP participation cannot exceed a maximum of 60 months from the date I first reach my normal retirement date as determined by the Division of Retirement . I understand that I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a monthly retirement benefit and my DROP benefit. I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement after the DROP begin date. If I fail to terminate my employment in accordance with s. 121.021(39)(b), F.S., on my DROP termination date, my retirement will be null and void and my FRS membership shall be established retroactively to the date I began DROP. I have read and understand the DROP Accrual and Distribution information on the reverse side of this form. The "DROP begin date" and the "DROP termination and resignation date" that were filled in the form were August 1, 2001, and July 31, 2006, respectively. On the "Beneficiary Designation" portion of the form, Petitioner named his wife, Marianne F. Coto, as his "primary" beneficiary, and his daughter, Claudine Coto, as his "contingent" beneficiary. Their birth dates (but not their social security numbers) were noted on the form. At the bottom of the form was the following "Employer Certification," signed and dated (August 24, 2001), by Miami- Dade County Public Schools personnel officer, Maria Perez: This is to certify that the above named member will be enrolled as a DROP participant on the date stated and will terminate his or her employment on the date stated. On August 24, 2001, Petitioner also submitted to the Division a Florida Retirement System Notice of Election to Participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) and Resignation of Employment, Form FRS DP-ELE. On the form, Petitioner indicated his name, social security number, birth date, his position title, present Florida Retirement System employer, work phone, home phone, and home mailing address. These entries were followed by a printed statement, which read as follows: Resignation From Employment to Participate in the DROP: I elect to participate in the DROP in accordance with Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (F.S.), as indicated below, and resign my employment on the date I terminate from the DROP. I understand that the earliest date my participation in the DROP can begin is the first date I reach my normal retirement date as determined by law and that my DROP participation cannot exceed a maximum of 60 months from the date I reach my normal retirement date, although I may elect to participate in the DROP for less than 60 months. Participation in the DROP does not guarantee my employment for the DROP period. I understand that I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a monthly retirement benefit and my DROP benefit under Chapter 121, F.S. I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement after my DROP begin date. On the form, Petitioner indicated that his "DROP begin date" and his "DROP termination and resignation date" were August 1, 2001, and July 31, 2006, respectively. Also on the form was an "Employer Certification," signed and dated (August 24, 2001), by Ms. Perez, the aforementioned Miami-Dade County Public Schools personnel officer, which was identical to the "Employer Certification" on the Form FRS DP-11 that Petitioner had submitted. Petitioner did not submit to the Division (along with Forms FRS DP-11 and DP-ELE) Form FRS 11o, on which he was required to indicate the form of payment of retirement benefits he desired. (Pursuant to the Division's Rule 60S-4.010, Florida Administrative Code, there are four optional forms of payment from which to choose.) Neither did Petitioner furnish the Division with any proof of age. In addition, Petitioner, in September of 1998, had submitted to the Division an Application to Purchase Retirement Credit for a Leave of Absence, but had not yet paid the amount necessary to purchase the credit. Accordingly, by letter dated September 8, 2001, the Division advised Petitioner of the following: This will acknowledge receipt of your Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) You will be notified should we need additional information. If there is an amount due your account, please make your check payable to the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and reference your social security number on all future correspondence with this office. Date Received: 08/24/2001 Member SSN: . . . . Drop Begin Date: 08/2001 Drop End date: 07/31/2006 Amount Due, if any: $1,126.78 Option Selected: None The following items must be received. Please provide Birth date verification of joint annuitant if Option 3 or 4 is selected. (Read the enclosed Request for Proof of Age, BVR-1). Your birth date verification is required. (Read the enclosed Request for Proof of Age, BVR-1.) Completion of the Option Selection for FRS members, Form FRS-11o is required. The amount due is to purchase service for your leave of absence from 1975-76. If you do not elect to pay the above amount due and purchase the service it represents, we must have written notification of your intent. A Final Salary Certification, FC-1, with current year salary and terminal leave payments (excluding sick leave payments) must be received from your employer. Your employer is aware of this requirement. AFTER YOUR FIRST MONTH OF DROP PARTICIPATION YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE, CHANGE OPTIONS, CHANGE YOUR DROP BEGIN DATE OR CHANGE YOUR TYPE OF RETIREMENT. Petitioner did not provide the Division with the items listed in the September 8, 2001, letter. The Division therefore sent Petitioner a follow-up letter, dated October 24, 2001, which read as follows: DROP RETIREMENT APPLICATION TO BE EFFECTIVE: 08/2001 The item(s) listed below must be received to complete your DROP application and retain the above retirement date: Please provide Birth date verification of joint annuitant if Option 3 or 4 is selected. (Read the enclosed Request for Proof of Age, BVR-1). Your birth date verification is required. (Read the enclosed Request for Proof of Age, BVR-1.) Completion of the Option Selection for FRS members, Form FRS-11o is required. Payment of $1,126.78. Please make your check payable to the Florida Retirement System and note your social security number on the face. Otherwise, provide a written statement indicating that you do not wish to purchase this service. Not having received any response from Petitioner, the Division sent Petitioner an identical letter on November 29, 2001. Still not having received any response from Petitioner, the Division sent Petitioner another letter, dated January 3, 2002, requesting that Petitioner provide the items that had been requested from him in the previous correspondence. The January 3, 2002, letter warned that the items "must be received immediately to avoid cancellation [of Petitioner's] DROP application." The items were not provided by Petitioner. Accordingly, the Division sent him the following letter, dated February 14, 2002: For your Florida Retirement System (FRS) Application for Service Retirement and Deferred Option Program (DROP), DP-11 to be effective 08/2001, the following item(s) previously requested, must be received within 21 calendar days from the date you receive this letter: Please provide Birth date verification of joint annuitant if Option 3 or 4 is selected. (Read the enclosed Request for Proof of Age, BVR-1). You should place your social security number on any documentation provided. Your birth date verification is required. (Read the enclosed Request for Proof of Age, BVR-1.) You should place your social security number on any documentation provided. Completion of the Option Selection for FRS members, Form FRS-11o is required. Payment of $1,126.78. Please make your check payable to the Florida Retirement System and note your social security number on the face. Otherwise, provide a written statement indicating that you do not wish to purchase this service. It is our intent to disapprove your application for the DROP if the requested information and documents are not received within the 21-day period. Should we disapprove your DROP application, the following will be applicable to you: You will be deemed to not have retired and the DROP application will be null and void. If you are eligible to participate in the DROP in the future, you will be required to submit a New Notice of Election to participate in the Deferred [Retirement] Option Program and Resignation of Employment and a new Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program during the 12-month period of your latest DROP eligibility date. You will be required to repay your employer for any annual leave payments you received as the result of applying for DROP. Your FRS membership will be reestablished retroactively to the effective date of DROP for which you applied. Your employer will be required to pay the FRS Trust Fund any difference between the DROP contributions and the contributions required for the applicable FRS class of membership. Also you submitted a Notice of Election to Participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program and Resignation of Employment, DP-ELE, with a resignation date to take effect in the future. Because it is discretionary with the employer as to whether such resignation can be rescinded, you should contact your employer for further information. The beneficiary you designated on the retirement application you filed will remain in effect unless changed by you at a later date. Please call me if you have any questions. Petitioner received this February 14, 2002, letter from the Division on February 25, 2002, but, as of April 9, 2002, had not provided any of the items listed in the letter. Accordingly, on that date (April 9, 2002), Doug Cherry, the Division's Benefits Administrator, telephoned Ms. Perez, and asked her to attempt to make contact with Petitioner and remind him that that if he did not submit the items listed in the February 14, 2002, letter, his application to participate in DROP would be denied. On April 18, 2002, Ms. Perez faxed Mr. Cherry a copy of Petitioner's passport, along with a note that Petitioner would make additional submissions at a later date. No additional submissions were made by Petitioner. Accordingly, on May 29, 2002, the Division sent Petitioner the following letter: We have not received the items that were requested in our February 14th letter (copy enclosed) to you. Accordingly, your Florida Retirement System (FRS) Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP), DP-11, cannot be approved. Therefore, the following are applicable to you: You are deemed to not have retired and the DROP election is null and void. If you are eligible to participate in the DROP in the future, you will be required to submit a New Notice of Election to participate in the Deferred [Retirement] Option Program (DROP) and Resignation of Employment and a new Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) during the 12-month period of your latest DROP eligibility date. You will be required to repay your employer for any annual leave payments you received as the result of your having applied for the DROP. Your FRS membership is being reestablished retroactively to 08/2001, the date of your DROP participation. Your employer will be required to pay to the FRS Trust Fund the difference between the DROP contributions (12.50%) and the contributions required for the applicable FRS class of membership during the period you participated in the DROP. Also you submitted a Notice of Election to Participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program and Resignation of Employment, DP-ELE, with a resignation date to take effect in the future. Because it is discretionary with the employer as to whether such resignation can be rescinded, you should contact your employer for further information. By copy of this letter, we are advising your employer that immediate action is required by the employer to correct your FRS retirement plan on the next payroll reported to the Division. Your employer will be billed for the appropriate FRS contribution adjustments, if any, based on you not having joined the DROP. This letter constitutes final agency action. If you do not agree with this decision and wish to appeal this action, you must file a formal petition for review in accordance with the enclosed Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) within 21 days of receipt of this letter. Your petition should be filed with the Division of Retirement at the above address. Upon receipt of the petition, you will be notified by the Division or the Administrative Law Judge of all future proceedings and hearings. If you do not file an appeal within the 21-day period, you will waive your right to request a hearing or mediation in this matter in accordance with Rule 28-206.111, F.A.C. You may contact Doug Cherry at . . . should you desire additional information. Petitioner responded by sending the following letter to Mr. Cherry: I received a certified letter signed by Maurice Helms for Erin B. Sjostrom, which asks to contact you regarding a formal appeal to the action of your agency to cancel my D.R.O.P benefits for this 2001 to 2002 school year. Please allow this to serve as the formal appeal. Needless to say I am very frustrated and upset and would like to request your help to sort through this process. A bit of background history first I believe will help. I started working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools in 1970. At that time I was told it was necessary to be a U.S. citizen to be able to work as a teacher in the school system. I had already decided that and since I had officially turned 22, I became a naturalized U.S. citizen and submitted a copy of the Certificate of Naturalization to the School Board through the Dade County office. Where is that record and why am I being asked to produce it again after having accumulated 31 years of service and after I explained to the local retirement officer in charge, Maria Perez, that I had lost the original when I lost almost the entire contents of my house to Hurricane Andrew in 1992? Honestly since I had submitted [a] copy of my U.S. passport with birth-date and all other pertinent information and I also have my Florida Driver's License, which I have had since 1963 or so, and has been what I have used to verify my age and for identification purposes since I was a kid, (although now I am told by your office that this is not a valid acceptable proof, kindly explain why not?) I never thought it was necessary for me to obtain a copy of the Certificate of Naturalization (U.S. citizenship). Also please tell me why passport and driver's license and 31 years of continuous service on record is not sufficient. It is not as if I were trying to retire after a short time of service. I do have 31 years of service! I do not feel this is the right way to treat a dedicated teacher at the end of his career and I hope you agree with me and will help. To comply with the requirement of another piece of proof of age (which I fail to see the need of in my case where I already have 31 years of verifiable and documented service to Miami-Dade County Public Schools as stated before) I requested a copy of my child's birth certificate from the Bureau of Vital Statistics. This was also a frustrating experience. I requested one copy to be sent to me and one to Dade County Public Schools to the attention of Maria Perez. I was told that the copy would arrive in approximately 10 to 14 days. I have not yet received it. I assume that Ms. Perez never received it either. After thirty-one years of faithful service to the State of Florida, which you have on record, and my birth date established with you over 31 years ago, I find it ludicrous that, after having submitted my passport, having requested, although not having been able to get a copy from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, of my child's birth certificate within a number of days, that your office does not find this to be sufficient proof and that based on the technicality that you have only one instead of two forms of verification of my age, now you will cancel my D.R.O.P., which in essence means forfeiting close to $30,000 that I should have accumulated in my account. Please see the circumstances and kindly reconsider the action taken. I will be extremely grateful. Mr. Cherry responded to Petitioner's letter by sending the following letter, dated June 10, 2002, to Petitioner: This is in response to your letter received in our office on June 6th concerning cancellation of your DROP application. The letter from the Division dated May 29th canceling your DROP application was sent only after several prior notices were also sent. The birth date verification issue raised in your letter was only one of the pending items on your application. We sent an acknowledgment of your application dated September 8, 2001, informing you that we needed an option selection, your birth date verification, your spouse's birth date verification if you selected option 3 or 4 and either payment for your leave of absence or a statement that you did not wish to purchase the service. After receiving no response, we sent memos on October 24, 2001, November 29, 2001 and January 3, 2002, all requesting the same information. We never received any response to these notices. We then sent our February 14th letter by certified mail (which you signed for on February 25, 2002) informing you of our intent to cancel because your application was not complete. A copy of all of this correspondence is enclosed. Again, we received no response [to] this letter. Before sending our cancellation letter, I personally called the Dade School Board and asked them to contact you in one last effort to avoid cancellation. It was only then that we received (on April 18th) a copy of your passport but none of the other required documentation was submitted. After waiting until May 29th for the remaining items to be submitted, we sent the final cancellation letter. It was approximately eight months from our first notice to you of items pending on your application, to the May 29th letter of cancellation. That was certainly sufficient time to submit the needed information and also explain about the difficulty you might have obtaining additional birth date verification. However, during those eight months we had no contact or response from you despite our repeated notices. To summarize, your DROP application is not being cancelled because of birth date verification, but because you did not submit all of the items needed to complete your application, even though you had eight months to do so. Your letter will be forwarded to our Legal section and they will contact you concerning the appeal process. The "Legal Section," after receiving Petitioner's letter, referred the matter to DOAH.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order denying Petitioner's application to participate in DROP. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of October, 2002.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Julie E. Reeber, Alexander Reeber and Christine Tadry are entitled to receive survivor benefits payable under the Florida Retirement System (FRS) for Marjorie A. McCollum, deceased, under the facts and circumstances of the Case. The factual issue is whether Marjorie A. McCollum was incompetent when she made the designation of beneficiary and under the undue influence of her daughter Suzanne L. Benson.
Findings Of Fact In August of 1991, Ms. Marjorie A. McCollum, a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) applied for disability retirement benefits. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin). As part of her application for disability retirement benefits on Form FR-13 (Florida Retirement System Application for Disability Retirement), Ms. McCollum designated her daughter, Suzanne L. Benson, as her beneficiary. (Exhibit 1 of the deposition of Stanley Colvin). The designation reads, "All previous beneficiary designations are null and void. The beneficiary whom I designate to receive the benefit or refund at my death is Suzanne L. Benson." (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 1). According to the date on the form, Ms. McCollum signed the application on August 28, 1991, and was properly witnesses by a notary public, John T. West. (Testimony of Mary Shere). According to the application, Ms. McCollum was suffering from cancer. She selected the Option 2 retirement benefit. (Exhibit 1 of Stanley Colvin deposition). Ms. McCollum's application for disability retirement benefits, with the Option 2 retirement benefit, was approved by the Division of Retirement with an effective date of September 1, 1991. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 9). Prior to receiving her first check, Ms. Marjorie McCollum died on September 23, 1991. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 9). On November 4, 1991, the Division, by letter, notified Suzanne L. Benson that as designated beneficiary of Ms. Marjorie McCollum, she was entitled to the Option 2 benefit in the amount of $280.69 per month through August 31, 2001, for ten years. On November 19, 1991, the Division received a letter from Julia Reeber, another daughter of Ms. McCollum (the deceased), disputing the designation of her sister Suzanne L. Benson as the beneficiary. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 16). As a result of the notice of dispute by Julia Reeber, the Division on November 26, 1991, notified Ms. Benson by letter that payment of the Option 2 benefit would not be forthcoming until the dispute was resolved. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 12). The designation of beneficiary executed by Ms. McCollum was properly executed and filed with the Division of Retirement in accord with the Florida Statutes and rules pertaining to the designation of beneficiaries for Florida retirement benefits. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin). Suzanne L. Benson was the properly designated beneficiary, and the Division intended to pay the Option 2 benefit to Suzanne L. Benson in accord with the Division's rules. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin). Ms. McCollum suffered some deterioration of her mental faculties prior to her death because of her illness, she could no longer handle her financial matters, and needed aid from her children in the payment of her bills. However, at no time was the Petitioner legally declared incompetent. Testimony of Julie Reeber). Despite suffering from the ravages of the disease, Ms. McCollum was at times able to function in a normal matter without evidence of diminished mental capacity. (Testimony of Mary Shere). On August 23, 1991, the deceased came to the office of Ms. Mary Shere. Ms. McCollum had been a regular customer of Ms. Shere's beauty parlor and later her accounting service. Ms. Shere had known Ms. McCollum for over ten years. (Testimony of Mary Shere). On August 23, 1991, Ms. McCollum and Ms. Shere talked for an hour to an hour and a half regarding her illness and her application for disability retirement. Ms. McCollum expressed her desire for Ms. Shere to notarize the application for disability retirement benefits. Ms. McCollum told Ms. Shere that Ms. McCollum wanted her daughter Suzanne to be the beneficiary of her death benefits. However, they could not complete the designation of beneficiary because the form had not come. Another discussion concerning the arrival of the forms took place by telephone on August 24, 1991, between Ms. Shere and the Deceased. On August 26, 1991, Suzanne Benson telephoned Ms. Shere advising Ms. Shere that her mother had been hospitalized, and that she needed to come to the hospital in order to notarize the disability application. (Testimony of Mary Shere). On August 26, 1991, Ms. Shere accompanied by one of her employees, John West, visited Ms. McCollum in the hospital. In her presence, the application was signed by Ms. McCollum and notarized by John West. (Testimony of Mary Shere). Ms. Shere's very credible testimony was that Ms. McCollum knew what she was doing, was aware of what she possessed and knew she was terminal. Ms. McCollum made a knowing and rational decision to designate Suzanne L. Benson as her beneficiary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Division holding that Marjorie McCollum retired with an Option 2 retirement benefit and that Suzanne L. Benson, her designated beneficiary, receive the Option 2 benefit. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of May, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie E. Reeber 133 Kirkwood Drive Debary, FL 32713 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Rhonda B. Goodson, Esquire Post Office Box 4319 South Daytona, FL 32121 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2539 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 415 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participation in the State University Optional Retirement Program for the period August 1997 through December 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Jeffrey Bradshaw (Bradshaw) was employed by UWF as a Research Assistant from August 8, 1997, until December 1998. This position was eligible to participate in the ORP for the State University System as described in Section 112.35, Florida Statutes (1997). On August 18, 1997, Bradshaw signed a Form ORP-16, indicating his election to be a member of the ORP and indicating that he had signed the necessary contract with TIAA-CREF, an approved annuity provider. Bradshaw returned this form to UWF. Below Bradshaw's signature is a portion of the Form ORP-16 which is entitled, "To be completed by employer." Within that portion of the form, a signature appears in the signature line designated "Signature of University" beneath the following certification: "I certify that since their employment with the university, this employee has signed a contract(s) with the ORP carrier(s) as shown and is filling an eligible position." Following this certification and above the signature of the university representative appears the following in handwriting, "verbal by employee." This portion of the form indicates that it was signed by a representative of UWF on October 6, 1997. The fully executed form ORP-16 was forwarded to Respondent on or about October 6, 1997. Bradshaw recalls that he sent a copy of the executed contract directly to TIAA-CREF. UWF paid the employer's statutory portion of Bradshaw's salary to Respondent to participate in the ORP for the entire period from August 8, 1997 to December 31, 1998, for a total of $11,494.88. Respondent forwarded that money to TIAA-CREF. On June 2, 1998, Respondent sent a letter to Bradshaw in care of UWF which read in pertinent part as follows: Effective July 1, 1997, Section 121.35, F.S. was amended and now requires ORP participants that fail to select a provider company and execute an annuity contract within 90 days of eligibility, must be enrolled in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Even though you selected a provider company within 90 days of becoming eligible for ORP, you have not completed the other required step in the process. According to the company, you do not have a contract with them. The Division will be forced to transfer your contributions from the company account to the FRS Trust Fund unless you act immediately. You will then be credited with the appropriate service credit under the FRS and your employer will be requested to begin reporting you under the FRS. In order that you may continue in the ORP, you must complete the establishment of your ORP Account. We therefore request that you provide the critical information requested by the company to establish a contract using their application form (enclosed). If you have any questions about this process, please call the special toll free number for the Service Plus Office, 800 842-7715. This should be done as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days from the date of this letter. Please send a copy of this letter along with your form. Otherwise, to revert your retirement membership to the regular class of the Florida Retirement System, please complete the enclosed Form FRS-M10, Personal History Record and return it to your employer within the next 15 days. Should you have any questions concerning enrollment in the FRS, please call our Enrollment Section at SUNCOM 278-8837 or (850) 488-8837. Please send a copy of this letter along with the form. (emphasis in original) Faye Borders is a Senior Personnel Representative with UWF. According to her files, UWF contacted Bradshaw by telephone when UWF received the June 2, 1998, letter and Bradshaw indicated that he sent the application directly to TIAA-CREF. It is not clear from the record the scope of the telephone conversation between the UWF representative and Bradshaw. The evidence of record does not establish that Bradshaw was sufficiently informed of the content of the June 2, 1998, letter, or of its consequences. Bradshaw does not recall that the telephone conversation took place. He believed he had done everything he needed to do and did not became aware that there was a question about his earlier membership in the ORP until he signed a new contract in October of 2000. What is clear is that Bradshaw did not receive a copy of the letter and never received any written correspondence from anyone inquiring as to his status in the ORP. As far as Bradshaw was concerned, he completed all forms necessary at the appropriate times. Bradshaw left employment with UWF in December 1998 and moved out of state. He returned to employment at UWF in 2000 and signed a new ORP-16 and a new contract with TIAA-CREF in October 2000, and is currently actively enrolled in the ORP with TIAA-CREF as his annuity provider. He became aware that there was an issue about his former membership in the ORP in a telephone call he placed to TIAA-CREF and when he received a letter informing him that the money from the time period of his earlier employment had been returned to UWF. At this point, he sought advice from UWF's office of human relations. Bradshaw and UWF sent letters to Respondent to clarify this issue. A letter dated November 17, 2000, from Faye Borders to Respondent reads in pertinent part as follows: Dear Hobe, Please see (attached) Mr. Jeffrey Bradshaw's letter regarding his status in the Optional Retirement Program during his prior employment with the University of West Florida. I am also attaching information from our files pertaining to Mr. Bradshaw's efforts to enroll in the Optional Retirement Program. Mr. Bradshaw is certain he sent the application directly to TIAA-CREF and has repeated that on several occasions. He has moved several times since his prior employment, thus the address we provided to TIAA-CREF on our attached copy of the fax sent to them may not have been current. TIAA-CREF's letter to Mr. Bradshaw states that the University of West Florida requested the institutional premiums be removed from the contract and placed in their Repurchase account at TIAA-CREF. I am unclear on this and as far as I know the University does not handle such transactions. Anything you can do to assist Mr. Bradshaw with his request will be greatly appreciated. Respondent responded directly to Bradshaw, again in care of UWF, with a letter dated March 30, 2001. The letter was written by David Ragsdale, Benefits Administrator, and reads in pertinent part as follows: Dear Mr. Bradshaw: This is in reference to your October 20, 2000 letter requesting the Division of Retirement allow you to participate in the State University System Optional Retirement Program (SUSORP) after the ninety day eligibility period. Effective July 1, 1997, Section 121.35, F.S., was amended and requires SUSORP participants that fail to select a provider company within 90 days of eligibility to be enrolled in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Based on the information submitted, it appears you did not complete and submit the ballot, Form ORP-16, within the ninety days window of eligibility in compliance with the law. As such, you will be a compulsory member of the FRS. Mr. Ragsdale acknowledges that the March 30, 2001, letter to Bradshaw was in error in that the Division had received the ORP-16 signed by Bradshaw in 1997. Mr. Ragsdale also explained that letters to Bradshaw were addressed to UWF because in 1997, and until sometime in 2001, Respondent did not maintain personal addresses for participants, but relied on the employing agencies to maintain addresses for their employees. On April 26, 2001, Sherell Hendrickson, Director of Human Resources at UWF, sent a letter addressed to Mr. Ragsdale which stated as follows: Dear Mr. Ragsdale: This is in reference to your March 30, 2001 letter denying Jeffrey Bradshaw's enrollment in the ORP in 1997. A copy of your letter is attached. This denial is based on Mr. Bradshaw's failure to complete and submit the ballot, Form ORP-16, within the ninety-day window of eligibility in compliance with the law. Mr. Bradshaw did complete and return his Form ORP-16. He was hired on August 8, 1997; the form ORP-16 was sent to the Division of Retirement on October 6, 1997, less than 60 days after his initial employment with UWF. On this form, he designated TIAA-CREF as his retirement annuity company and certified that he had signed a Florida ORP contract. Mr. Bradshaw sent his enrollment forms directly to TIAA- CREF. HR Benefits Clerk, Valerie Comparetta, notes that he sent the annuity contract to TIAA-CREF on the form ORP-16. Unfortunately, TIAA-CREF alleges that they did not receive his contract application and that after attempting to get in touch with him, they contacted UWF's Human Resources Department. He gave TIAA-CREF an address that may not have been current to contact Mr. Bradshaw. However, Mr. Bradshaw confirmed with us that he had completed and mailed the contract to TIAA-CREF. The University's institutional premiums of $11,496.88 were sent to TIAA-CREF during 1997-98. Mr. Bradshaw moved and did not hear anything else from either us or TIAA- CREF. He returned to employment at UWF on May 6, 2000. When he called TIAA-CREF, he was surprised to find out that his initial paperwork had never been located by TIAA- CREF and that UWF had requested that the institutional premiums "be removed from the contract and placed in their Repurchase account at TIAA-CREF." To my knowledge, and that of the Benefits Section in HR, no one in this office asked for this to be handled. We do not handle such transactions. I am requesting that you reconsider this issue. Mr. Bradshaw is in the ORP, has selected TIAA-CREF for his contract, did not receive the notices sent to him by TIAA- CREF, and has stated on more than one occasion that he sent in his enrollment application to TIAA-CREF. The institutional funds were held by TIAA-CREF for two years. We believe that the institutional funds of $11,496.88 should be sent back to TIAA-CREF and into Mr. Bradshaw's ORP account. According to Ms. Hendrickson, her office has had problems in the past with TIAA-CREF losing documents or correspondence. Unlike other annuity providers, TIAA-CREF does not have a local representative at UWF. UWF deals directly with the TIAA-CREF office in Atlanta. Also according to Ms. Hendrickson, UWF's file indicates two instances when Bradshaw informed UWF that he provided a contract directly to TIAA-CREF. These are further explained in a June 13, 2001, memorandum from Hendrickson to Respondent which also references that UWF confirmed with TIAA- CREF in 1999 that the company had a completed application: Thank you for any additional consideration you might give to my April 26, 2001 letter to Mr. David W. Ragsdale concerning the ORP account of Mr. Jeffrey Bradshaw. Mr. Bradshaw is in the ORP, has selected TIAA-CREF for his contract, and did not receive the notices sent to him by TIAA- CREF. He has stated to the University of West Florida Office of Human Resources personnel on two (2) separate occasions that he sent in his enrollment application to TIAA-CREF. Our first contact with him about the TIAA-CREF application was in October 6, 1997. When we contacted him about the TIAA- CREF application, he stated that he had signed and sent in his TIAA-CREF application to the company. This is noted on our ORP-16 enrollment form for him. On our second contact with him on June 23, 1998, our notes reveal that he verified to our office that he had sent in his forms directly to TIAA- CREFF[sic]. In January 1999, we have a note in our files that we again confirmed with TIAA-CREF that he completed his TIAA-CREF application and sent it directly to the company. We also have a completed ORP-16 Form from him dated August 18, 1997 after his initial employment on August 8, 1997. Copies of these documents may be provided, if necessary. They were included in my April 26, 2001 letter. Based on the above information, we have every reason to believe that Mr. Jeffrey Bradshaw completed his TIAA-CREF application and mailed it to TIAA-CREF. Respondent responded to Ms. Hendrickson's April 26, 2001, letter on September 4, 2001, in a letter addressed to Bradshaw in care of UWF. This letter gave a different reason for rejecting Bradshaw's membership in the ORP for the period of his earlier employment: Dean Mr. Bradshaw: This is reference to your June 13, 2001 letter requesting the Division of Retirement allow you to participate in the State University System Optional Retirement Program (SUSORP) after the ninety-day eligibility period. Effective July 1, 1997, Section 121.35, F.S., was amended and requires ORP participants that fail to select a provider company within ninety days of eligibility to be enrolled in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Based on the information submitted, it appears you did not complete an annuity contract with a provider company within the ninety-day window of eligibility. Therefore, you are not eligible for the SUSORP and you will be a compulsory member of the FRS. Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact David Ragsdale or Hobart Lawrance at SUNCOM 278- 8837 or (850) 488-8837. According to Mr. Ragsdale, Respondent does not get a copy of the contracts entered into between individuals and annuity providers. Respondent made the payments to TIAA-CREF on behalf of Bradshaw based on the ORP-16 that indicated on its face that a contract existed. No one involved in this proceeding appears to have a copy of the contract signed by Bradshaw in 1997. At that time, it was not unusual for UWF or Respondent to not have a copy of contracts between individual employees and annuity providers. On or about June 24, 1999, TIAA-CREF credited the $11,494.88 to a repurchase fund maintained on behalf of Respondent. Respondent transferred these contributions to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund. As a consequence, Bradshaw has received service credit for the number of months of his earlier employment period with UWF.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order rescinding its letter of September 4, 2001, and sending Petitioner Bradshaw's contribution of $11,494.88 to TIAA-CREF, requesting that it be deposited into Bradshaw's ORP account or, in the alternative, refunding the $11,494.88 directly to Bradshaw. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie L. Sheppard, Esquire Patricia D. Lott, Esquire University of West Florida 11000 University Parkway Building 10 Pensacola, Florida 32514-5750 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) of the Florida Retirement System (FRS).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is now, and has been since December 19, 1974, an employee of the State of Florida. By virtue of her employment with the State of Florida, Petitioner is an active, regular class member of the FRS. Petitioner was considered “vested” for purposes of the FRS when she completed 10 years of creditable service with the State of Florida. The “normal retirement date,” for regular class members, is defined, in pertinent part, as the first day of the month following the date on which the member attains 62 years of age, with six or more years of creditable service,1/ or the date on which the member reaches 30 years of creditable service, regardless of age. § 121.021(29)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioner was born on June 6, 1944 and reached the age of 62 on June 6, 2006. She reached 30 years of creditable service in November 2004. Petitioner’s “normal retirement date” for purposes of the FRS was established as December 1, 2004, by virtue of reaching 30 years of creditable service in November 2004. Petitioner was aware that her “normal retirement date” had been established as December 1, 2004. An active member becomes eligible to enter the DROP upon reaching his or her “normal retirement date.” A member must elect to participate in the DROP within 12 months of the date on which he or she first attains his or her normal retirement date. A member who fails to make an election within such 12-month limitation period forfeits all rights to participate in the DROP. § 121.091(13)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioner’s period of eligibility to enter the DROP began on December 1, 2004 and ended on November 30, 2005. Petitioner requested DROP retirement benefit estimates from the Division on three separate occasions. On November 25, 2003, Petitioner asked Respondent to send her the first DROP retirement benefit estimate. On December 2, 2003, Respondent sent Petitioner the first DROP retirement benefit estimate. The Comments section of the document advised that the estimate was based on the assumption that Petitioner would enter the DROP effective 12/1/2004. Accordingly, the DROP Estimated Benefit Accrual Calculation section provided for a 12/2004 “DROP Begin Date,” an 11/2009 “DROP End Date,” and 60 “Months in DROP.” The first DROP retirement benefit estimate makes no reference to Petitioner’s normal retirement date. On December 1, 2004, Petitioner asked Respondent to send her a second DROP retirement benefit estimate. On December 1, 2004, Respondent sent Petitioner the second DROP retirement benefit estimate. The Comments section of the document advised that in order for Ms. Campbell to retain a 12/2004 DROP retirement date, she must complete and return the enclosed DROP application materials within 30 days of the date the second estimate was mailed. Again, the DROP Estimated Benefit Accrual Calculation section provided for a 12/2004 “DROP Begin Date,” an 11/2009 “DROP End Date,” and 60 “Months in DROP.” The second DROP retirement benefit estimate makes no reference to Petitioner’s normal retirement date. On October 24, 2005, Petitioner asked Respondent to send her a third DROP retirement benefit estimate. On October 25, 2005, Respondent sent Petitioner the third DROP retirement benefit estimate. Again, she was advised in that mailing that in order for Petitioner to retain a 10/2005 DROP retirement date, she must complete and return the enclosed DROP application materials within 30 days of the date the third estimate was mailed. The Comments section also advised that Petitioner’s 50 months of DROP participation would be from 10/01/2005 to 11/30/2009. Accordingly, the DROP Estimated Benefit Accrual Calculation section was changed to provide for a 10/2005 “DROP Begin Date,” an 11/2009 “DROP End Date,” and 50 “Months in DROP.” The third DROP retirement benefit estimate makes no reference to Respondent’s normal retirement date. Petitioner alleged at final hearing that she was confused by the language Respondent used in the third DROP retirement benefit estimate. Petitioner presumed that Respondent had changed her normal retirement date to 10/2005, and therefore she believed she had an additional 12 months to elect to participate in the DROP. There is no indication in Respondent’s records that Petitioner ever contacted Respondent’s personnel to express confusion about or to ask questions about any of the DROP retirement benefit estimates provided to her. Respondent’s standard practice is to enclose an informational brochure, entitled “Deferred Retirement Option Program,” when it sends DROP retirement benefit estimates. Petitioner also testified at final hearing that she was confused by certain language Respondent used in the DROP Brochure to her to explain when a member could begin the DROP, specifically: The earliest you may begin participation in DROP is the month you reach your normal retirement date based upon your age, or the month after the month you reach your normal retirement date based upon your years of service. Petitioner claim of confusion is not credible in view of the fact that the above language is followed by an example designed to help those members who may have difficulty understanding the meaning of the language: If you are vested (have at least 6 years but less than 30 years of service credit), and attain age 62 on May 22nd; your normal retirement date would be May 1st. Or, if you will complete 30 years of service in May, your normal retirement date is June 1st. (Exhibit R-10). Finally, the DROP Brochure was intended to put statutory language into laymen’s terms for the FRS membership. The DROP Brochure includes a disclaimer on the first page after the cover page which states: If questions of interpretation arise as a result of the attempt to make these retirement provisions easy to understand, Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, Chapter 60S, Florida Administrative Code, and the Internal Revenue Code shall remain the final authorities. There is no indication in Respondent’s records that Petitioner ever contacted Respondent’s personnel to express her confusion about the wording of the DROP Brochure or to ask questions about when she could begin DROP or her DROP participation eligibility. Petitioner possesses both Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in Education. In addition, she formerly possessed a Florida Teaching Certificate. On the basis of her educational achievements and teaching certification, Petitioner is a well- educated individual. Petitioner’s former employer, the Division of State Group Insurance, was in the process of privatizing during 2005, and was therefore laying off some of its employees. Petitioner also feared lay-off and decided to delay filing her application materials for the DROP. Respondent received Petitioner’s Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (Form DP-11) on January 5, 2006. Petitioner signed the Form DP- 11 on December 22, 2005. Petitioner’s employer certified the Form DP-11 on December 29, 2005. Petitioner’s Form DP-11 also included the following acknowledgement: I . . . elect to participate in the DROP in accordance with Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (F.S.). My DROP participation cannot exceed a maximum of 60 months from the date I first reach my normal retirement date as determined by the Division of Retirement. (Exhibit R-5). On January 5, 2006, Respondent also received Petitioner’s Notice of Election to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) and Resignation of Employment (Form DP-ELE). Petitioner signed the Form DP-ELE on December 22, 2005. Petitioner’s employer certified the Form DP- ELE on December 29, 2005. Petitioner’s Form DP-ELE also included the following acknowledgement: I elect to participate in the DROP in accordance with Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (F.S.), as indicated below. . . . I understand that the earliest date my participation in the DROP can begin is the first date I reach my normal retirement date as determined by law and that my DROP participation cannot exceed a maximum of 60 months from the date I reach my normal retirement date, . . . . (Exhibit R-6). On January 11, 2006, Respondent issued an initial agency action letter which advised Petitioner as follows: To participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP), you were required to submit a Form DP-ELE (Notice of Election to Participate in the DROP and Resignation of Employment) within twelve months of the date you first became eligible to participate in the DROP. If the Form DP-ELE is not received within this twelve month period, the right to participate in DROP is forfeited. Your dates of eligibility to elect participation in the DROP was [sic] from 12/01/2004 to 11/30/2005. We received your Form DP-ELE and Form DP-11, Application for Service Retirement and DROP, in our office on 01/05/2006. Because the Division received the DP-ELE after the ending eligibility date, you are not eligible to participate in the DROP. The DP-ELE and DP- 11 forms are considered null and void. (Exhibit R-7). On March 6, 2006, Respondent issued a final agency action letter which advised Petitioner as follows: Section 121.091(13)(a)(2), Florida Statutes, gives all active Florida Retirement System (FRS) members the right to elect participation in the DROP provided that: “Election to participate is made within 12 months immediately following the date on which the member first reaches normal retirement date. . . A member who fails to make an elections [sic] within such 12-month limitation period shall forfeit all rights to participate in the DROP “ (emphasis added). You first became eligible to participate in the DROP on 12/01/2004, after earning 30 years of service credit in 11/2004. Therefore, your Form DP-ELE, Notice of Election to Participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) and Resignation of Employment and Form DP-11, Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) must have been received no later than 11/30/2005 for you to be eligible to participate in the DROP. Your Forms DP-ELE and DP-11 were received in the Division of Retirement on 01/05/2006. Since the Forms DP-ELE and DP-11 were not submitted and received by the Division within the 12-month limitation period, you have forfeited your right to participate in the DROP. The Forms DP-ELE and DP-11 you submitted are null and void. It is unfortunate that your eligibility period to begin participation in DROP has expired, however because the 12-month eligibility period stated above is a statutory requirement and we have no authority to waive the law, we must deny your request for DROP participation. (Exhibit R-8)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a Final Order denying Petitioner’s application to participate in the DROP. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 13th day of September, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to membership in the State University System Optional Retirement Program (SUSORP), rather than the Florida Retirement System (FRS).
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner, Qiu-Xing Jiang, is a faculty member in the Department of Microbiology and Cell Science at the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science (UF IFAS). 2 Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, is the state agency with the responsibility to administer the FRS and the SUSORP. Petitioner was a professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, when he received a written offer letter from UF IFAS for his current faculty position on August 14, 2015. The offer letter was delivered to Petitioner via his personal e-mail address, which is a Yahoo account. The offer letter is five pages long, including an addendum containing conditions of employment. The two-page addendum includes the following information regarding retirement options: You are required to participate in at least one of the retirement programs offered by the State of Florida, unless you have received a pension or distribution of employer contributions, including a rollover, from a retirement program administered by the State of Florida. If you have received a distribution as described, you are not eligible to participate or renew membership in a State of Florida retirement plan. Otherwise, an employee contribution of 3% is mandatory and you may select the retirement program you wish to enroll. For more information, please attend new employee orientation or visit the UF Retirement website at http://hr.ufl.edu/benefits/retirement. Should you have any questions regarding benefits or retirement, please contact University Benefits and Retirement at (352) 392-2477. Petitioner electronically signed and accepted the offer of employment, and initialed the two-page addendum, on August 14, 2015. The website to which the offer letter to Petitioner referred contained all the information regarding the SUSORP, including eligibility, enrollment, contribution rates, forms, publications, and other resources. With respect to enrollment, the website informed new hires of the two steps for enrollment: Open an account with an investment provider. Fax completed Optional Retirement Program Enrollment Form (https://www.rol.frs.state.fl.us/forms/orp- enroll.pdf) to UF Benefits at (352) 392-5166 within 90 calendar days from hire. Prior to receiving the written offer letter, Petitioner travelled to Gainesville to enroll his children in school and complete other tasks to settle his family in a new location. Petitioner’s children began school on August 15, 2015. Petitioner’s hire date was September 1, 2015. UF has adopted an online hiring process, known as “GatorStart,” to expedite payroll enrollment of new hires. To reduce the paperwork required, the system requires new hires to create an e-signature and review and initial all the necessary forms online. The GatorStart system shows that Petitioner accessed the system on August 31, 2015, and acknowledged receipt by initialing several forms, including the W-4, Direct Deposit, the FRS Certification, and the Benefits and Retirement Information. The Benefits and Retirement Information form includes the following pertinent information: Welcome to the University of Florida! The university offers a comprehensive array of benefits to employees. This provides a brief introduction to those benefits. Specifically, please take note of the enrollment deadlines associated with insurance and retirement benefits. In addition to our website, you may refer to the New Employee Orientation Guide at http://hr.ufl.edu/working-at-uf/new- employees/employee-handbook/. Throughout your employment, you can always contact us by email as well. Benefits: benefits@ufl.edu Retirement: retirement@ufl.edu * * * Retirement Enrollment in a retirement plan is mandatory. You have 90 days from your date of hire to enroll in the SUSORP. To select the FRS Investment Plan, you must enroll by the end of the 5th month after your month of hire. If you do not actively enroll in a plan, you will default into the FRS Pension Plan. Health Science Center faculty are mandatory SUSORP participants. For more information, visit https://www.hr.ufl.edu/retirement. The form then lists the three plan choices (SUSORP, FRS Investment, and FRS Pension), as well as the voluntary plans (403(b) and 457). At hearing, Petitioner denied that he accessed and acknowledged receipt of the online hiring forms on August 31, 2015. Instead Petitioner maintained that someone in his department must have done that on his behalf. However, Petitioner admitted that he accessed the online retirement tutorial at some point prior to September 1, 2015,1/ but was unable to enroll because he was not yet “in the University system.” On or about September 17, 2015, Petitioner met with Kathy Higgs. Ms. Higgs has been employed with IFAS HR for 10 years and assists new employees with benefits enrollment. Her primary duties are with respect to enrollment in medical and supplemental insurance plans. Ms. Higgs has no expertise in state retirement options. With respect to retirement options, it is her practice to inform new employees of the enrollment deadlines and direct them to the website which lists investment providers and their local representatives. Ms. Higgs has prepared a summary chart of the three retirement options, including eligibility, vesting time, and enrollment window, which she generally provides to new employees. New employees enroll in medical and supplemental insurance plans through the People First portal. Every employee has a unique password to access the portal. Petitioner faults Ms. Higgs for misleading him into waiting to enroll in a retirement plan until after he received his People First password. Ms. Higgs denied having instructed, or otherwise advised, Petitioner to wait until he received his People First password to enroll in a retirement plan. Based on the evidence, Petitioner misunderstood certain communications from Ms. Higgs. Petitioner’s employment at UF is a blend of two different positions: 0.8 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) for IFAS and 0.2 FTE for Sponsored Research. On September 21, 2015, Ms. Higgs e-mailed Lisa Hodges, UF HR Assistant Director of Benefits, to determine whether Petitioner needed to enroll for benefits separately in each position. On September 22, 2015, Ms. Hodges replied via e-mail that, for the state plans, Petitioner should enroll as usual in People First and that the two FTEs would be combined, but for UFSelect plans, Petitioner should enroll under the 0.8 FTE. Ms. Hodges added, “The only enrollment that he would need to enter on both is LTD since it has to factor in the salary on the .80 and .20 FTE job.” On September 22, 2015, Ms. Higgs forwarded Ms. Hodges’ e-mail explanation of benefits enrollment to Petitioner at his UF e-mail address. She included the following message by way of introduction: “Good morning, Dr. Jiang, Please read below email from University Benefits to make sure your enrollments are processed successfully.” On that same date, Petitioner responded, “Thanks for your help. I will wait for the ID/passwd. What is LTD? Best, Qiu-Xing.” Ms. Hodges was copied on that e-mail exchange between Petitioner and Ms. Higgs, and replied to Petitioner on September 30, 2015, that LTD means “Long-Term Disability” and referred Petitioner to the UF website containing a tutorial on both the state and UFSelect benefits plans. The e-mail exchanges were clearly limited to benefits enrollment, not retirement. Also on September 22, 2015, UF HR, through its Benefits office, sent Petitioner an e-mail regarding all three retirement options and instructions on how to enroll. The e- mail was sent to Petitioner’s e-mail address at Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. Petitioner did not receive the e-mail. Petitioner faults UF HR for failing to send the e-mail to the correct address. Ms. Hodges characterized the e-mail as a “courtesy” that is sent to all new employees as a reminder of the retirement options. Respondent provided no satisfactory explanation for why the courtesy e-mail reminder was sent to Petitioner’s former university e-mail address. On October 7, 2015, Petitioner sent Ms. Higgs an e- mail in regard to hiring a scientist for his lab. Petitioner only had an Other Personal Service (OPS) position available, but the scientist was a current UF employee enrolled in the FRS. Petitioner inquired of Ms. Higgs if he could hire the scientist in the OPS position but “pay extra money to continue his FRS pension program he is currently in as he will continue to work for UF.” On October 9, 2015, Ms. Higgs sent Petitioner an e- mail wherein she included the link to the SUSORP page of the retirement benefits website. This e-mail was sent to Petitioner 39 days after his hire date. Petitioner did not make a retirement election within 90 days of his hire date and, thus, defaulted to membership in the FRS. Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated January 11, 2016, that because he had not selected a SUSORP provider company within 90 days of his hire date, Respondent transferred his retirement contributions to the FRS Trust Fund. On or about February 19, 2016, Petitioner contacted Ms. Hodges to determine why he was not enrolled in SUSORP. Ms. Hodges explained that since Petitioner “did not make an active retirement plan election within 90 days from hire, [he was] defaulted into the Pension Plan. Ms. Hodges also forwarded Petitioner’s request to Eric Kegley, a UF HR Retirement Specialist, for review. Mr. Kegley subsequently investigated Petitioner’s allegations that he had been misled by Ms. Higgs into waiting for his People First password in order to enroll in retirement, faulting IFAS HR for failing to provide him with advice from someone who was knowledgeable in retirement benefits, and faulting UF HR for sending the courtesy reminder to an invalid address. On February 22, 2016, Petitioner completed a SUSORP enrollment form, which UF submitted on his behalf to Respondent. However, following UF HR’s investigation, UF determined that its staff were not to blame for Petitioner’s failure to make an active retirement election within 90 days of his hire date. Thus, UF did not support Petitioner’s instant request to transfer from the FRS to the SUSORP plan.
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 Petitioner’s request to enroll in the SUSORP. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 6th day of December, 2016.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Peter McRedmond, the deceased, should have been permitted to change the beneficiary on his state retirement plan to elect an annuity for the benefit of his estate and the Intervenor, Martin Horton.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Division of Retirement, was the state agency responsible for the control, operation and monitoring of the State Retirement System. Petitioner, Eugene McRedmond, is the surviving brother of Peter McRedmond, deceased, a former member of the Florida Retirement System. Intervenor, Martin V. Horton, is the former live-in friend and companion to Peter McRedmond and the individual who claims an interest in Peter's retirements benefits. For some period prior to 1988, Peter McRedmond was employed at Manatee Community College as a psychology professor and as such was a member of the Florida Retirement System, (FRS). He was so employed until he retired for disability in early 1990. Before that time, however, in August or September, 1988, he was diagnosed as having AIDS by Dr. Warren D. Kuippers, a physician with the Community Migrant Health Center. Tests taken at or around that time indicated he was suffering from toxoplasmosis, a disease of the brain in which significant portions of that organ are eaten by parasites, resulting in intermittent periods of impaired judgement and reasoning ability. He also suffered numerous other medical problems including weight loss, a wasting syndrome, general weakness and fatigue. Notwithstanding the seriousness of his illness, because Mr. McRedmond wanted to qualify for retirement under the FRS system, he continued to work for another year to meet the minimum requirements for retirement. On April 27, 1990, he made application for disability retirement to be effective July 1, 1990. As a part of that application, Mr. McRedmond selected Option 1 under the FRS as the method under which he desired his benefits be paid and named the Intervenor, Mr. Horton, as his designated beneficiary to receive any benefits legally due after his death. Mr. McRedmond could have elected to receive benefits under either Option 1 or Option 2 of the plan. Option 3 was not available to him because of his marital status. Under Option 1, he would receive payments of $639.33 per month for the remainder of his life, regardless of how long he lived. Under Option 2, he would have been paid a slightly lesser monthly sum, $587.51, for the rest of his life, but not less than 10 calendar years, and if he were to die before 10 years were up, the payments would go to his designated beneficiary. In May, 1990, consistent with the procedure then in effect within the Division, Mr. McRedmond was sent a second Option selection form to give him as much information as was possib1e and to make sure he understood what he was doing as it related to his option selection. Mr. McRedmond again selected Option 1, had his signature notarized, and returned the executed form to the Division. The individual who performed the notary service did not recall the transaction but indicated her routine practice was not to notarize a document for anyone who did not appear to know what he was doing. Peter McRedmond died on August 23, 1990 from the disease with which he was afflicted. Several months before his death, in mid June, 1990, Mr. McRedmond and Mr. Horton discussed finances and what Horton could expect after McRedmond's death. It is clear that Mr. McRedmond wanted to make arrangements for Mr. Horton to finish his education without having to work while doing so. At that time, McRedmond's life insurance policy, in the face amount of $60,000.00, had Horton as the beneficiary. Shortly before his death, however, upon the prompting of his brother, Eugene, Petitioner herein, Peter McRedmond directed the policy be changed to make his estate the beneficiary. This was done by Eugene through a power of attorney. There was also some discussion of an additional $500.00 per month which was to go to Mr. Horton, but no one, other than Mr. Horton, recalls this. Also shortly before his death, Mr. McRedmond and Mr. Horton travelled to the family home in Connecticut for several weeks. During that time, Mr. McRedmond had at least one major seizure and family members noticed that while he was sometimes forgetful, for the most part his thinking was rational and normal. There can be little doubt that Mr. McRedmond had deep feelings for Mr. Horton and wanted the latter to be provided for after his death. Friends of both relate the numerous comments McRedmond made to that effect and are convinced that at the time he made the contested election, Mr. McRedmond was not of sound mind sufficient to knowingly make the choice he made. To be sure, the ravages of his disease had taken its toll and there were numerous occasions on which he was not lucid or competent to determine issues such as here. On the other hand, the benefits administrator with whom McRedmond talked at the time he selected his retirement plan option was totally satisfied that at that time, he fully understood the nature and effect of the option he selected and was choosing that which was consistent with his desires at the time. By the same token, the notary, whose testimony was noted previously herein, also was satisfied he knew what he was doing at the time of the second election. In its final configuration, Mr. McRedmond's estate includes all his assets, including the proceeds of the insurance policy previously designated to go to Mr. Horton, for a total of approximately $120,000.00. According to the terms of the will, the estate is to be put into a trust from which Mr. Norton is to receive $1,000.00 per month for his lifetime, as well as all his medical expenses. Since Mr. Horton has tested HIV positive, these can be expected to be extensive. Eugene McRedmond is the executor of the estate. Petitioner and Mr. Horton claim that since the trust contains all of Peter's assets existing at his death, the only other source of the additional $500.00 per month would be the benefits from the FRS. Both cite this as evidence of Mr. McRedmond's intent that the option selection providing for payment after death was his intention. This does not necessarily follow, however. Notwithstanding what Petitioner and Intervenor state were his intentions, Mr. McRedomnd took no action to make the change in option selection which would have effectuated them. Instead, he went out of town to visit family for several weeks, and even after receipt of the first retirement check, received on July 31, 1990, still took no action to make the change. During this period, after the return from Connecticut, Mr. McRedmond's condition deteriorated to the point he was often bedridden and was periodically unaware. However, there is ample evidence to indicate that he was often lucid during this period and still took no action to change his retirement option. During this time, Mr. Horton conducted come of Mr. McRedmond's business affairs for him pursuant to specific instructions. These included making bank deposits and as a part of one of these deposits, when Horton was to deposit two checks as requested by McRedmond, he also deposited the first retirement check. Horton and Eugene McRedmond both claim that at no time did Peter McRedmond ask or authorize him to do so. In a visit that Petitioner made to his brother in early August, 1990, just weeks prior to Peter's death, according to Petitioner his brother explained he had selected the wrong retirement option and requested that Eugene attempt to change the election. Peter gave Eugene a Power of Attorney with which he was to do this as well as to change the beneficiary on the life insurance policy. Consistent with those instructions, Eugene wrote a letter to the Division explaining the situation and that the check had been deposited by mistake. On August 13, 1990, Eugene telephonically contacted the Division where he spoke with Melanie White. During this conversation, in which he again spelled out the circumstances which he believed constituted the mistaken election, he was told to file a power of attorney. When he did this, the Division would not honor it claiming that since it had been executed in May, 1990, some three months earlier, it was not current. Subsequent to the death of Peter McRedmond and the filing of the claim against the Division, Eugene McRedmond and Martin Horton have entered into an agreement whereby any sums recovered from the Division will be split with 25% going to Mr. Horton and 75% going to the Trust. Upon the death of Mr. Horton, any sums remaining in the trust will be split by Eugene McRedmond and another brother.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's and Intervenor's claims for retirement benefits under Option 2 of the Florida Retirement System retirement plan, on behalf of Peter McRedmond, be denied. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 29th day of July, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Buildi5g 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clark of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1991 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 90-7104 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 AND INTERVENOR: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence not proven. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that Peter McRedmond had numerous conversations with friends about providing for Mr. Horton, but it was not established that he mentioned using his retirement benefits for that purpose. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not necessarily following from the facts. Rejected as speculation not supported by fact, except that Petitioner claims Peter desired to change the option selection. First sentence accepted. Second sentence accepted in so far as it asserts Peter told Horton he would receive a monthly sum of $1,000.00. Balance rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as speculation and conclusion except for first sentence and first clause of second sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17.-20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. First and second and last sentences accepted. 22.-24. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 28. Accepted. 29. Irrelevant. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1-4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8.-10. Accepted. Ultimate finding accepted. On the date he filed his application, Peter McRedmond was capable of understanding what he was doing and the implications thereof. & 13. Rejected as comments of the evidence and not Findings of Fact. First four sentences accepted. Remainder rejected except that McRedmond wanted Horton to get at least $1,000.00 per month for life, and more if possible. & 16. Accepted except for last two sentences of 16. Accepted except for last sentence which is a comment on the evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Stafman, Esquire Stafman & Saunders 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 1639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 John A. Pieno Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Linda Stalvey Acting General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner can transfer service from the State University Optional Retirement Program to the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is currently employed as a professor of philosophy and religion at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU). He was first employed as an Assistant Professor at FAMU in 1971. During Petitioner's employment with FAMU, he became an associate professor and was given years toward tenure in 1980, after filing an action with the Office of Civil Rights.2/ Petitioner has published a dozen books, has been awarded the Teacher Incentive Program Award and the Professorial Excellence Program Award, and has been a National Endowment for the Humanities Scholar at Boston University, New York University, and the University of Chicago. By stipulation, the parties agreed that Petitioner accrued retirement benefits under FRS and the Division of Retirement has credited Petitioner's service as a participant in FRS during the academic years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975- 76, 1978-79, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983-84. Note that this stipulation is silent as to the academic years 1973-74, 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1979-80. During the period from August 1984 through the present, Petitioner has been considered by the Division of Retirement to be a participant in ORP, and ORP has been credited with employer contributions for Petitioner's service at FAMU accordingly. The Division of Retirement stipulated that if Petitioner had not undertaken acts which, in its opinion, constituted an election to participate in ORP, Petitioner's service, which has been credited in ORP, would have qualified for the continued accrual of benefits under FRS. In 1984, Petitioner became aware that he could make an election to join ORP, a retirement option created that year by the legislature, and that he must make his election to join that program by June 1, 1984, or he would be forever barred from utilizing ORP. The effective date of salary contributions was July 1, 1984. In 1984, it was necessary for a state employee to work 10 years in a FRS position in order for his or her retirement to vest. Effective July 1, 2001, the requirement changed to six years of creditable service for those members actively employed on that date.3/ Other Personal Services (OPS) is a category of temporary employee which does not accrue creditable time toward FRS retirement benefits. Petitioner's pre-1980 employment contracts with FAMU had not indicated whether he was in FRS, as opposed to being an OPS employee, but there is no evidence to suggest this information was provided on anyone else's contract, either. There is no direct evidence whether Petitioner's FAMU salary warrants and/or pay-stubs, throughout all the years, indicated withholding for social security, although that is probable (See Finding of Fact 52). If they did, it would go to show that Petitioner always had monthly or bi-weekly notice of whether or not he was a regular employee. It is also probable that his FAMU warrants throughout all the years, as they do now, showed a fund code, a class code, and his type of retirement contributions. At all times material, Petitioner at least knew he had been in FRS his first two years at FAMU. This would seem to be academic years 1971-72 and 1972-73. Petitioner was "laid off" for the 1973-74 academic year. Petitioner was refunded all his FRS accruals up to that date. This meant that those FRS accruals would have to be paid back to FRS in order for Petitioner to be able to count those academic years toward retirement in FRS, but it is not clear when Petitioner knew this was the result of his withdrawal of the accruals. The record is unclear as to whether he has paid back these accruals.4/ Under FRS, he would have had the option to pay them back anytime before retirement. When Petitioner applied for promotion at FAMU in 1978, he had been told by FAMU officials that he could not be promoted because he was in the OPS category. However, after settling his civil rights action in 1980, he knew he was put in a permanent position, as associate professor with the promotion he had been denied, and had been given years towards tenure since 1978. Apparently, he did not comprehend that this adjustment also resulted in his receiving FRS credit for all those years. In 1984, Petitioner somehow believed that he had only been credited with FRS membership for 1980 through 1984. In June 1984, Petitioner already had a tenured contract for the following year, which, per the parties' stipulation, would have been his tenth year in FRS, with vesting. Cf. the collective endnotes. Petitioner found out about the option to join ORP in the spring of 1984. Petitioner testified that he had not wanted to elect ORP in 1984 unless he could find out how many years of credited service he had in FRS. This was because he understood the illustrations provided with the ORP election literature to indicate that if an employee had only one, two, or three years of credit in FRS, making the election to participate in ORP might be advisable, whereas the election should not be made by one who had eight or nine years of FRS credit. The ORP election literature itself was not offered in evidence. Petitioner first testified that he had sought clarification of his number of years in FRS from both the FAMU Personnel Office and the Division of Retirement prior to the June 1, 1984, deadline for making an ORP election. However, the attempts he related amounted to filling out a form in the payroll section of the FAMU Personnel Office requesting his work history, which form he thought would be forwarded to the Division of Retirement; and filling out a form to make an appointment with a FAMU Personnel Officer to discuss his situation. His testimony is confused and contradictory as to whether he personally made direct contact with the Division of Retirement during this period, and upon the evidence as a whole, it is concluded that he did not. Nonetheless, Petitioner completed a Division of Retirement Ballot/Enrollment Form, also known as an ORP-16 Form, to participate in ORP. The instructions attached to the form read, in pertinent part: As an employee eligible to participate in the ORP you have the option to reject or elect membership in the ORP. If you reject the ORP, you will be a member of the FRS. If you choose not to participate, so indicate in the space provided for rejecting the ORP and include the date. If you reject the ORP, it will not be necessary to complete the remainder of the Enrollment Form. If you elect to participate, please complete the following: Percent of salary to be contributed by your employer to each plan (the total must equal 6%). Percent of salary to be deducted from your salary as an employee contribution (the total cannot exceed 6%) and to which plan(s). Name of company or companies you have selected. Read the three statements carefully, sign and date the Enrollment Form. The form contains an admonition that ORP election is irrevocable. Also on this Ballot/Enrollment Form, under "I elect to become a member of the ORP and have signed necessary contracts as follows," Petitioner filled in the investment provider name of TIAA-CREF, the State employer's contribution percentage, and the date of May 15, 1984. He did not fill in an employee contribution percentage. He did not sign in either the "elect to participate" or the "elect not to participate" portion of the form. FAMU certified this form as described infra. Petitioner also completed an ORP Enrollment/Change Form, selecting, as his investment provider, TIAA-CREF. This form provided, "If you have elected participation in TIAA-CREF under the Florida Optional Retirement Program (ORP), please complete this form when enrolling in or making a change to TIAA- CREF noncashable Retirement Annuity or cashable Supplemental Retirement Annuity (SRA) contracts. This form applies only to TIAA-CREF contributions under the ORP." Petitioner checked "enrollment" under "Reason for submitting form." He filled out all parts of the form concerning the State's contributions, including inserting the effective date of "7/1/84." He signed the form and dated it "5/15/84." Petitioner also signed a contract with TIAA-CREF as his investment provider, dated "May 17, 1984." This document bears a certification by FAMU that his passport proved Petitioner's identity on that day. Petitioner left the foregoing three 1984 forms with a FAMU Personnel Office employee. Petitioner testified that he had an agreement with the unnamed FAMU Personnel Office employee to the effect that only if Petitioner came in and signed the unsigned documents was he electing ORP, and that if Petitioner did not come in to sign by June 1, 1984, the forms should be destroyed. However, this testimony is only Petitioner's understanding of the agreement. No one from the FAMU Personnel Office testified, and there is no evidence that there was ever a meeting of the minds on this "understanding." On May 17, 1984, a FAMU official dated and certified Petitioner's unsigned Ballot/Election form (see P-4 and Findings of Fact 18-20) and forwarded it to the Division of Retirement. The FAMU certification on this document was to the effect that Petitioner had executed a contract with a provider, which, in fact, Petitioner had. (See R-4 and Finding of Fact 22.) The FAMU certification read, in whole part, "I certify that this employee has signed a contract(s) with the ORP carrier(s) as shown above and is filling a fulltime position." The certifier checked the box for "enrollment." FAMU then forwarded the unsigned but certified Ballot/Enrollment Form to the Division of Retirement. The Enrollment/Change Form, signed by Petitioner, may or may not have gone to the Division, but the contract between Petitioner and TIAA-CREF was forwarded by FAMU to TIAA-CREF. In 1984, as now, if anyone in the Division of Retirement had noticed that Petitioner had not signed the Ballot/Election Form, it was Division policy to write the employee and ask him to completely fill out a new form and sign it. Then the Division would honor the employee's election of ORP, even if the correctly completed form were received after the election deadline or the first payroll deduction. Apparently, in 1984, due to the necessity of processing a huge quantity of ORP Ballot/Election forms between the June 1, 1984 election deadline and the dates of the electing employees' first July bi-weekly or monthly paycheck(s), no one in the Division of Retirement noticed the absence of Petitioner's signature on the Ballot/Election Form, and no letter was written to him. Instead, based upon the certified unsigned Ballot/Election Form, and probably the Enrollment/Change Form, the Division of Retirement treated Petitioner as enrolled in ORP as of the June 1, 1984 deadline. However, Both Ms. Smith, Administrator of the Enrollment Section of the Bureau of Enrollment and Contributions, and Mr. Henning, Administrator of the Optional Retirement Program and Optional Annuity Program Section, of the Division of Retirement, testified that if they had seen Petitioner's certified but unsigned Ballot/Enrollment Form in 1984 or today, they would have assumed the Petitioner had elected to be enrolled in ORP, because all the required information was there, including the certified information that he had signed a binding contract with the carrier/provider TIAA- CREF. In August 1984, the employer began paying the maximum allowable State contributions to TIAA-CREF for Petitioner's ORP retirement benefits. In August 1984, Petitioner received, from TIAA-CREF, a copy of the contract he had signed with that ORP provider. Although Petitioner claimed that he only asked to get out of ORP in 2002 when his number of years in FRS was finally revealed to him by a social security account calculation,5/ he simultaneously and inconsistently maintained that he went to the FAMU personnel office in August 1984 and orally complained that he did not want to be in ORP. However, Petitioner was consistent throughout his testimony that a FAMU personnel office employee told him in August 1984 that the FAMU employee had telephoned the Division of Retirement and that the Division of Retirement had "said" that Petitioner's decision to join ORP was irrevocable. Sometime in 1984, after being advised by FAMU's Personnel Office that his prior election to go into ORP was irrevocable, Petitioner sought the advice of an attorney, but he ultimately chose not to formally contest his membership in ORP. Petitioner testified that, based on his prior civil rights action, he was not anxious to jump into an expensive lawsuit without knowing what his damages were and that his damages depended upon the number of years of accrued service he had in FRS as of June 1, 1984, which accrued service he believed he had lost by the election of ORP. Then, as now, state employees frequently presented issues contesting their appropriate retirement fund or account to the Division of Retirement by phone or letter. Once an oral request for review of the account is presented in written form to the Division, it is reviewed and a decision made. The decision is reduced to a letter, which constitutes the (proposed) final agency action. Petitioner's testimony that he repeatedly from 1984 until 2003 tried to obtain his FRS history from FAMU strains credulity, but his claim that between 1984 and 1989 he had twice tried, without success, to secure information from the FAMU Personnel Office about how many years in FRS he had lost is credible. He claimed to have sent certified letters concerning his years of service, apparently to FAMU, but there is no documentation at the Division of Retirement that anyone telephoned or wrote the Division of Retirement at any time prior to 2002 with any information that could be linked to Petitioner by social security number or his personnel file. From 1984 to 1989, the employer's maximum contribution to TIAA-CREF was transmitted as requested by Petitioner's 1984 Ballot/Election and Ballot/Change Forms. A member of ORP is allowed to make supplemental employee contributions. 39. In 1989, 1993, 1998, and 1999, Petitioner made employee contributions to his ORP provider company TIAA-CREF, utilizing Division of Retirement Ballot/Enrollment forms, also known as ORP-16 forms. After the 1984 enrollment period, ORP-16 forms have been used for employees already in ORP to change their contribution amounts, as the respective maximum amounts the State and the employee were permitted to contribute were raised by statutory amendments. ORP-16 forms could also be used to request divisions of the maximum percentages of the employer's and the employee's contributions between several ORP investment providers or to change from one ORP investment provider to another. Changing providers or adding providers would require that the employee also execute a new contract with the new provider. After June 1, 1984, ORP-16 forms could not be used by anyone employed and eligible on that date to initially elect to be in ORP because their deadline to elect ORP had been June 1, 1984. However, other persons becoming employed later had later election deadlines for ORP membership and could use the same ORP-16 forms to meet their later election deadlines. Employer certifications to the Division that valid provider contracts had been executed to cover all funds transmitted were still required. On his 1989 ORP-16 Form, Petitioner signed under the words, "I elect not to participate in ORP," and inserted the date "1/9/89". He also signed under the words, "I elect to become a member of ORP and have signed necessary contracts…" He inserted "11%" for his employee contributions, the TIAA-CREF name, and the same date in this portion of the form. He did not indicate the new 11% employer contribution on this ORP-16 Form, because that percentage was statutorily defined. This ORP-16 Form was certified by FAMU to the Division of Retirement on 1/11/89, in the language set out above in Finding of Fact 24. The certifier could have checked the boxes for "enrollment" or "plan change," but he or she checked the box for "other". The Division of Retirement transmitted the employer's maximum contribution and Petitioner's requested employee contribution to TIAA-CREF as requested by Petitioner's 1989 ORP-16 Form until 1993. Ms. Smith and Mr. Henning testified that they would not have understood Petitioner's 1989 ORP-16 Form as a request to get out of ORP, because an employee could not change ORP contribution percentages unless he or she was already in ORP; because an employee in Petitioner's class could not elect for or against ORP after June 1, 1984; and because the form was certified by the employer. On September 18, 1989, Petitioner signed an Application for TIAA-CREF Supplemental Retirement Annuity (SRA) and an Enrollment Memo for an ORP and Tax Deferred Annuity Program (TDA). On this latter item, Petitioner marked "already participating" beside the printed words, "ORP employer contributions"; checked the box for "voluntary ORP employee contributions"; and checked the box for "new contract" under "Supplemental retirement annuity (SRA) contracts." These forms were sent to TIAA-CREF. On October 1, 1989, TIAA-CREF issued Petitioner his SRA and TDA. On the 1993 ORP-16 Form, Petitioner did not sign a new portion added to the form which allowed a certain class of employee to state, "In lieu of participating in the ORP, I elect to participate in FRS." Petitioner did not fall in this classification of employee, anyway. He did, however, increase his employee's contribution to ORP via TIAA-CREF, and signed and dated the ORP-16 Form "September 27, 1993," in the section under, "I elect to become a member of the ORP and have signed necessary contracts. . ." This ORP-16 Form also was certified by FAMU to the Division of Retirement in the usual language, and the box for "contributions change" was checked. The Division of Retirement transmitted the employer's maximum contribution and Petitioner's employee contribution to TIAA-CREF as requested by Petitioner's 1993 ORP-16 Form until 1998. On November 3, 1996, Petitioner signed a Request for a TIAA Traditional Transfer Payout Annuity to TIAA Real Estate and/or CREF. This document was sent to TIAA-CREF. On the 1998 ORP-16 Form, Petitioner again did not sign the portion which allowed a different class of employee to state, "In lieu of participating in the ORP, I elect to participate in FRS." He did, however, again increase his employee's contribution to ORP via TIAA-CREF, and signed and dated the ORP-16 Form, "Nov. 30, 1998," in the section under, "I elect to become a member of the ORP and have signed necessary contracts. . ." This ORP-16 Form also was certified by FAMU to the Division of Retirement, in the usual language, and the box for "contributions change" was checked. The Division of Retirement transmitted the employer's maximum contribution and Petitioner's employee contribution to TIAA-CREF as requested by Petitioner's 1998 ORP-16 Form until 1999. The 1999 ORP-16 Form states at one point that the employer's contribution must equal 10.14% of salary and the employee's contribution cannot exceed 10.14%, and then also states that if the employee chooses to have up to 11.57% of his adjusted gross taxable salary deducted, other issues including other investment funds must be considered. (See Finding of Fact 50.) On the 1999 ORP-16 Form, Petitioner did not sign the new portion which allowed a different class of employee to state, "In lieu of participating in the ORP, I elect to participate in FRS." He did, however, decrease his employee's contribution to ORP via TIAA-CREF, and signed and dated this ORP-16 Form "6/11/99" in the section under, "I elect to become a member of the ORP and have signed necessary contracts. . ." This ORP-16 Form also was certified by FAMU to the Division of Retirement in the usual language, and the box for "contributions change" was checked. Since that date, The Division of Retirement has continued transmitting the employer's maximum contribution and Petitioner's employee contribution to TIAA-CREF as requested by Petitioner's 1999 ORP-16 Form. Petitioner testified that he used the 1989-1999 ORP-16 forms and the TIAA-CREF contracts to set up supplemental accounts while protesting against being in ORP at all. The reason Petitioner gave for executing the four changes in contribution to ORP itself was that he had unilaterally concluded that he could not use any investment companies used in conjunction with FRS supplemental accounts. In fact, Petitioner could not purchase his TIAA-CREF ORP-SRA and ORP-TDA without already being in ORP. Therefore, logically, his execution of the SRA and TDA documents described at Finding of Fact 43, further signify or ratify Petitioner's earlier election of ORP. Also, Mr. Henning testified that at no time was there any impediment via ORP to Petitioner's setting up a regular 403b tax shelter annuity or a 457 tax-deferred compensation account outside ORP. Petitioner also could have set up such plans if he had remained in FRS, but if he had remained in FRS, he would not have been able to run these plans through the ORP process. Mr. Henning's testimony is competent, expert, and unrefuted. Moreover, information concerning a 457 plan is included on each ORP-16 Form, immediately above the signature line for the "I elect to become a member of the ORP and have signed necessary contracts. . ." portion, by way of cautioning the employee that it is the employee's responsibility to be sure that in listing/changing any amount to be deducted for ORP, the employee must take into consideration that all payroll deductions, including credit unions, the 457 plan, or other supplemental accounts are fully funded. From 1984 through the present, Petitioner has received quarterly statements from TIAA-CREF, reflecting his earnings in ORP. In 2002, Petitioner received a calculation from the Federal Social Security Administration, which showed that he had been employed and that some employer(s) (not necessarily FAMU) had paid deductions in every year from 1971 to the present, with the exception of 1977. Petitioner then interpreted this to mean that he was in OPS with FAMU that year and was in FRS every other year between 1971 and 1984.6/ Only in 2002 did he contact the Division of Retirement. Petitioner's calculations show that if he had stayed in FRS, he could expect approximately three times the annual retirement benefit that he can now expect via TIAA-CREF.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order, which determines Petitioner to have been a valid member of ORP since June 1, 1984, denies his request to retroactively transfer into FRS, and dismisses his Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 6th day of October 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2009),1 as a substitute teacher for the Lee County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been an employee of the Lee County School Board (the School Board) from February 28, 2001, through the date of the final hearing. The School Board is a participating member in the FRS. Petitioner has never been a full-time employee of the School Board and has never been eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS. From February 28, 2001, until some time in May 2004, the School Board employed Petitioner in a temporary, part-time position. From some time in May 2004 through the date of the final hearing, the School Board has employed Petitioner as a substitute teacher. From February 28, 2001, through some time in May 2004, the School Board required part-time employees such as Petitioner to participate in a plan identified in the record as the Bencor FICA Alternative Plan (the Bencor Plan). The Bencor Plan provided retirement benefits for temporary teachers, who were not eligible for FRS retirement benefits. On May 25, 2004, Petitioner submitted a Distribution Request Form to withdraw her accumulated savings from the Bencor Plan. Petitioner was eligible to withdraw her retirement benefits from the Bencor Plan, because she changed her employment status from a temporary teacher to a substitute teacher. Some time in May 2004, Petitioner began teaching as a substitute teacher for the School Board. Petitioner has continued as a substitute teacher for the School Board through the date of the final hearing. As a substitute teacher, Petitioner is not a full-time employee, who is eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for FRS benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Eugene L. Borus began employment with the Department of Transportation (DOT) in February, 1962, and was enrolled in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) as a mandatory member. In April, 1976, he terminated employment and applied for retirement. He was retired effective May 1, 1976, with 12.33 years of credible service (Exhibit 2). Mr. Borus was reemployed on May 23, 1977, by DOT. During 1977 and under the provisions of the "Reemployment After Retirement" provisions of Section 121.091(9), Florida Statutes, Petitioner received both his salary and his retirement benefit up to 500 hours of employment at which point his retirement benefits ceased. Beginning January 1, 1978, and on each January 1 thereafter Petitioner was again paid his retirement benefit up to 500 hours of employment after which the retirement benefit was discontinued. In early 1984, Mr. Borus applied to the Division to have his 1976 retirement cancelled and his employment service with DOT since 1976 included in his creditable service so that at such time as he would again retire, his total creditable service would include all his employment time. If this transpired, his future retirement benefits would be greater than those currently paid. His request was denied by the Respondent by letter dated April 5, 1984 (Exhibit 1). No member of FRS who has retired and drawn retired pay, except for those excepted in Section 120.091(4)(e) and 121.091(9)(d) have ever been "unretired" and allowed to rejoin the FRS.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) when she submitted the DROP paperwork to her employer, but that paperwork was not submitted to Respondent within the timeframe set forth by statute or administrative rule. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 10, 2021, Respondent, the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (the Division), issued a letter to Petitioner, Celeste Lyons (Ms. Lyons or Petitioner), denying her application to participate in DROP because the Division did not receive her application to participate within the required time, pursuant to section 121.091(13)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2020), and no provision in Florida law would allow the Division to approve her for participation in DROP after the eligibility period.1 On April 7, 2021, Ms. Lyons filed an Amended Request for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Division. The Division transferred the matter to DOAH, where it was assigned and set for hearing. On June 28, 2021, Petitioner moved to amend her Request after discovering the Division was also relying on Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-11.002(2) and (3)(a) to deny her participation in DROP. Petitioner was granted leave to amend her Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, and this matter proceeded on the Second Amended Request for Formal Hearing submitted July 13, 2021 (Second Am. Req.). After three continuances, the final hearing was held on September 16, 2021. Petitioner presented her own testimony and the testimony of Kathy Gould, Bureau Chief of Retirement Calculations for the Division. Petitioner's Exhibits P1 through P34 and P36 were admitted into evidence. 1 All references to the Florida Administrative Code Rules and Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codifications. The Division presented the testimony of Garry Green, Policy Administrator for the Division. Respondent's Exhibits R2 through R5, R6-1, R6-2, R7, R10 through R13, R15, and R16 were admitted into evidence. At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed to submit a joint stipulation of facts regarding the timeline of events. The Stipulation of Facts was filed on October 4, 2021, and is incorporated into this Recommended Order when appropriate. The Transcript of the hearing was filed on October 4, 2021. Both parties timely filed proposed recommended orders, which have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ms. Lyons, is a Fiscal Administrator for the Office of the State Attorney, Twentieth Judicial Circuit (SAO-20). Respondent, the Division, is a part of the Department of Management Services (Department). The Division is responsible for administering the retirement plans and programs under the Florida Retirement System (FRS). DROP is a retirement benefits program that entitles an eligible member of FRS to defer receipt of retirement benefits while continuing employment with the employer. § 121.091(13), Fla. Stat. The deferred benefits accrue with FRS on behalf of the member, with interest compounded monthly, for the specified period of DROP participation. Id. After the member terminates employment with the employer, the member receives the total DROP benefits and begins to receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits. Id. SAO-20 has been Ms. Lyons' employer for more than thirty years. Employees of SAO-20 participate in FRS and, if eligible, can choose to participate in DROP. SAO-20 obtained administrative services through the Justice Administrative Commission (JAC). JAC is a statutorily created "central state office" that provides "administrative services and assistance when possible to and on behalf of the state attorneys and public defenders of Florida, the capital collateral regional counsel of Florida, the criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and the Guardian Ad Litem Program." § 43.16(5), Fla. Stat. These services include accounting, payroll, benefits, and retirement assistance to the above cited entities that participate in FRS. Although JAC was not Ms. Lyons' employer, it did have access to employees' personnel files. Moreover, the Division had trained JAC personnel on FRS and DROP, and the Division authorized JAC to accept DROP paperwork from various employers and submit it to the Division. JAC, however, was not part of the Department or the Division. Rather, JAC served as a conduit between SAO-20's human resources office and the Division for the processing of all the retirement benefit paperwork. MS. LYONS' DROP ELIGIBILITY AND PAPERWORK Ms. Lyons' normal retirement date was January 1, 2020. Ms. Lyons' 12-month eligibility window to elect to participate in DROP was between January 1 and December 31, 2020. § 121.091(13)(a)2., Fla. Stat. Before this date, in February and August 2019, Ms. Lyons requested estimates of her retirement benefits from the Division. These estimates were generated by the Division and sent directly to Ms. Lyons' home address. In the "Comments" section of the estimates created by the Division, it explicitly states, "If the DP-ELE is not received in our office by 12/31/2020, your eligibility to participate in DROP is forfeited." The August 2019 estimate projected that after 60 months, Ms. Lyons would have received $113,826.03 if she entered (or began participation in) DROP during her first month of eligibility, January 2020. In January 2020, Ms. Lyons continued to work for SAO-20 but filled out the Division's paperwork for participating in DROP with the help of Rosemarie Mitchell, Director of Human Resources for SAO-20. These forms included the following: Notice of Election to Participate in [DROP] and Resignation of Employment (DP-ELE); Application for Service Retirement and [DROP] (DP-11); Option Selection for FRS Member (FRS-11o); [FRS] Pension Plan Spousal Acknowledgment Form (SA-1); and [FRS] Pension Plan Retired Member and DROP Participant Beneficiary Designation Form. (FST-12). On these forms, Ms. Lyons certified she elected to participate in DROP and would resign her employment on the date she terminated from DROP. Ms. Lyons listed "January 1, 2020," as her DROP start date and "December 31, 2024," as her DROP termination resignation date. Petitioner's employer, SAO-20, also certified that Ms. Lyons would "be enrolled as a DROP Participant" on January 1, 2020, and that Ms. Lyons would "terminate ... her employment" on December 31, 2024. All of the above forms were filled out, signed by Ms. Lyons, and notarized on January 9, 2020. On January 9, 2020, Ms. Lyons submitted the above forms to Ms. Mitchell. On that same day, Ms. Mitchell emailed Ms. Lyons' DROP paperwork to the JAC Retirement Coordinator. Jessica Estes (formerly known as Jessica Liang), a Senior Human Resources Coordinator for JAC, acknowledged JAC's receipt of Ms. Lyons' DROP paperwork and requested two new FST-12 forms and more documentation verifying Ms. Lyons' date of birth. The requested information was not required to be eligible or participate in DROP. Ms. Estes' normal procedure was to forward DROP paperwork to the Division before the end of the month in which it was received. If she had followed this practice, she should have sent in Ms. Lyons' DROP paperwork to the Division on or before January 31, 2020. She did not. In fact, no one in SAO-20 or JAC forwarded Ms. Lyons' DROP paperwork to the Division before December 31, 2020. This mistake was not discovered until more than a year later. On February 25, 2021, JAC discovered it had failed to submit the DROP paperwork for Ms. Lyons to the Division. On February 26, 2021, after JAC contacted the Division, Ms. Estes emailed Petitioner's DROP paperwork, including Forms DP-ELE and DP-11, to Kathy Gould, Chief of the Bureau of Retirement Calculations at the Division. Again, there is no dispute this was outside of Ms. Lyons' 12-month eligibility window. On March 5, 2021, SAO-20 notified Ms. Lyons of JAC's failure to submit her DROP paperwork to the Division within the eligibility period. On March 10, 2021, the Division issued an Administrative Notice to Ms. Lyons denying her participation in DROP and informing her that she was not eligible to participate in DROP because the application and election were received outside her 12-month eligibility window (and past the December 31, 2020, deadline). Relying on sections 121.091(13)(a)2. and 121.021(29)(a), the Division informed Ms. Lyons that a member must "submit a form DP-ELE ... to the Division ... within twelve months of the date you first bec[o]me eligible to participate," and because the Division "received [Ms. Lyons'] DP-ELE after the end of [her] eligibility period, [she was] not eligible to participate in DROP." The denial letter did not reference any administrative rule. The testimony established that the Division has accepted DROP paperwork after the eligibility period when there is a dispute about whether the paperwork has been received by the Division within the 12-month eligibility window. In these cases, the Division has, after an investigation, discovered that there was a technical mistake on the Division's end that prevented submission of the DROP paperwork within the statutory deadline. For example, in the past, the Division has accepted DROP paperwork as timely received when an FRS member submits DROP paperwork via facsimile, but it does not print out on the Division's end because of a technical issue; or where an email with DROP paperwork attached was sent by the member to the Division within the eligibility period, but did not upload or arrive in the Division's inbox until after the end of that period. That is not the case for Ms. Lyons. Her documentation was not sent to the Division within the statutory timeframe, and there was no technical (or human) error on the Division's end of the communication. Any error was on the part of JAC or SAO-20.
Conclusions For Petitioner: George T. Levesque, Esquire James Timothy Moore, Esquire Patrick Hagen, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Respondent: Gayla Grant, Esquire Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Whitney Rebecca Hays, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
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 Celeste Lyons from participation in DROP. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: George T. Levesque, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gayla Grant, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Patrick Hagen, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 James Timothy Moore, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Whitney Rebecca Hays, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Kristen Larson, Interim General Counsel Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
