The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a refund of contributions made to the Florida State Officers and Employees Retirement System from October 1952 through January 1956.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Florida A & M Hospital, Tallahassee, Florida, from October 1952 through January 1956. During the course of this employment, contributions to SOERS were withheld from her monthly pay warrant. On February 23, 1956, Division records reflect that she had contributed a total of $455.04 into SOERS. During January 1956 she terminated her employment. On or about February 23, 1956, the sum of $455.04 was debited from Petitioner's account. This action was taken because the Florida law in effect in 1956, mandated the return of contributions made to SOERS to an employee upon termination of employment. However, evidence which might have demonstrated that a warrant was issued naming Petitioner as payee, is unavailable because cancelled warrants are only maintained on file by the Florida Comptroller for 20 years. Under applicable statutes and, pursuant to Division practice at times pertinent, if a warrant had been issued, but never negotiated, the amount would have been credited back to the trust fund under Petitioner's account. Petitioner's account at the Division does not reflect such a credit. If a warrant had been issued and negotiated pursuant to a forged endorsement, and such forgery was not detected, no entries subsequent to issuance would have been made to Petitioner's account. Petitioner, in January 1956, departed Tallahassee for Nuremburg, Germany, after marrying. She did not leave a forwarding address with her employer or with Respondent. Petitioner ultimately became a resident of Coram, New York, where she currently resides. Petitioner testified that she never received a warrant for $455.04 from the State of Florida. Her testimony was unrebutted and credible and is taken as a fact. Petitioner first became aware she was entitled to a payment of $455.04 from the Division when, in the year 2000, she made inquiries regarding her eligibility for social security. Petitioner has determined that the amount in question is not being held in the Unclaimed Property Bureau of the Florida Comptroller.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division cause to be issued to Petitioner a warrant in the amount of $455.04. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 23rd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lettie L. Echols No. 2 Gulf Lane Coram, New York 11727 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of retirement contributions for the period from February 1, 1960, through January 1975.
Findings Of Fact Until January 1975, the Florida Retirement System and its predecessor, the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (SCOERS), were contributory retirement plans, in which state employees contributed a portion of their wages toward their retirement benefits. In January 1975, FRS became a non-contributory retirement plan, in which the employer paid all contributions to the plan. On February 1, 1960, Petitioner, who was then known as Rebecca Jamis or James Lee, began her state employment at Florida State Hospital (FSH), located in Chattahoochee, Florida. During her employment, Petitioner was enrolled in the state’s retirement plan and contributed $2,188.01 to that plan. In 1980, Petitioner was convicted of a felony offense and was sentenced to prison. She began serving her sentence in state prison in June 1980. Due to her imprisonment, Petitioner’s employment at FSH terminated on July 29, 1980. At some unknown date, Respondent received form FRS-M81 requesting a refund of Petitioner's contributions to the state’s retirement plan. Pursuant to the state's document retention policy, the original form was destroyed many years ago with a microfilmed copy of the front of the form retained by DMS. The microfilmed copy of this form does not reflect the date the form was signed. Additionally, except for the agency number and various signatures, information contained in the refund request form was typed in. The date of termination of Petitioner’s employment was also typed on the form, indicating the form was completed after Petitioner was imprisoned. More importantly, the form was purportedly signed by Petitioner with the name she used at the time. However, the address on the request was not Petitioner’s residence but was the 1980 address of Florida State Hospital Credit Union. At the time, Petitioner had a loan at the credit union, although she denies having an account there. Petitioner also did not hear any more from the Credit Union about her loan and does not know what happened to it. The regularly kept records of the Division indicate that on November 4, 1980, pursuant to this request for refund, Respondent issued Warrant No. 264829 in the amount due Petitioner for a refund of her retirement contributions. The warrant was issued to Petitioner and mailed as instructed to the address of the credit union. Again due to the passage of time, a copy of this warrant is no longer available. Moreover, the credit union records are not available. However, Charlene Fansler performed a search of un- cashed state warrants for Warrant No. 264829. The warrant was not on the list of warrants that remained outstanding. Further, the warrant had not escheated to the State as abandoned property. As such, the evidence demonstrated that the warrant was paid by the State. In 1990, at the age of 60 and several years after her release from prison, Petitioner requested a refund of her retirement contributions. On May 24, 1990, Respondent denied Petitioner’s request based on the 1980 refund of those contributions. At the time, Respondent did not advise Petitioner of her chapter 120 hearing rights; and therefore, did not provide Petitioner with a clear point of entry for an administrative hearing. However, Petitioner was clearly aware that DMS claimed that she had been issued a refund of her contributions and was, therefore, not entitled to a further refund. Petitioner took no action in 1990 even though she did not personally receive the 1980 refund because and claimed to not have signed the refund request form. In 2012, 32 years after the 1980 warrant was issued and 22 years after the 1990 denial of her request for refund, Petitioner, at the age of 82, again requested a refund of her retirement contributions based on her claim that she did not sign the 1980 refund request form and the fact that she did not personally receive the refund warrant. Respondent submitted the microfilmed copy of the signed refund request form and known handwriting exemplars of Petitioner's signature to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) laboratory for analysis. Kesha White, a handwriting analyst with FDLE, analyzed the documents and concluded that they were more likely than not signed by the same person. Her finding was not conclusive due to the limits of analyzing signed documents preserved on microfilm. Indeed, the signatures on the refund form and the known handwriting samples of Petitioner's signature are very similar and appear to be by the same person. In this case, the better evidence demonstrates that Petitioner signed the 1980 refund request form and, due to the passage of time, has simply forgotten that she did so. By signing that form, Petitioner instructed Respondent to issue and mail the warrant to the address for the credit union listed on the form. Respondent complied with that request. Given these facts, Petitioner is not entitled to another refund of her retirement contributions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner was issued a refund of retirement contributions for the period from February 1960, through January 1975, and dismissing Petitioner's request for hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 21st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Rebecca Thomas 1929 Hamilton Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dan Drake, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Jason Dimitris, General Counsel Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible to receive retirement credit for the period of his employment with the Florida Bar from July 1, 1977 through June 4, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Florida Bar from July 1, 1977 to June 4, 1981. The record is unclear as to the nature of his employment at the Florida Bar. He is presently employed as a professor at Florida State University and has approximately 24 years' credit in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Employees of the Florida Bar are paid as part of an overall budgetary process generated primarily from members' dues. Their salaries are not established by or funded by legislative appropriation. The Florida Bar has its own pension system that is a defined contribution plan funded entirely by the Florida Bar. The Bar employees contribute nothing to their pension system. This system has been in place since approximately 1970. Salaries of state officers and employees are reported from the State Comptroller to the Division of State Retirement. No salaries of the Florida Bar were paid or reported to the Division for the period of time Petitioner was employed at the Florida Bar. In the 1970's the FRS went from an employee/employer funded system to a strictly employer funded system which became known as a non-contributory system. The Florida Bar does not participate as a paying agency of the FRS and employees of The Florida Bar do not participate in any state employee benefit system. Beginning in 1955, until the establishment of the FRS, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners participated in the former public retirement system. When the FRS was created, participants, such as the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, began reporting into the new system and were allowed to participate in the new system. Mr. Ragsdale, administrator of the enrollment section of the Division, established that the employees of the Board of Bar Examiners participated by contributing into the former retirement system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for retirement service credit for the period of his employment with the Florida Bar. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2001.
The Issue WHETHER CHARLES OTERO'S EMPLOYMENT AS A PART TIME TEACHER FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD BETWEEN 1965 AND 1972 IS CREDITABLE SERVICE UNDER THE FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM. There was some discussion at the commencement of the hearing as to whether Otero's petition for formal hearing properly raised his claim that his service is creditable both as "past" and as "prior" service. The terms "past," "prior" and "previous" service are each separate terms of art defined in Rule 225-6, Florida Administrative Code. While Otero's petition requests permission to purchase Florida Retirement System ("FRS") credit for "prior" service, his petition also frames the ultimate issue in the broader terms as expressed above. (See Petition, paragraphs 4 and 5.) The Division's unilateral Pre-hearing Statement filed on October 29, 1986, paragraph f., states: "At issue is whether or not Petitioner should be permitted to purchase the requested employment time as creditable service in the Florida Retirement System." The Division has not suggested that a more specific request for "past" credit would have resulted in any different response. The broader issue is, therefore, considered here in the interest of economy.
Findings Of Fact In 1965, Charles Otero was an inspector for the Tampa Police Department. Through a joint effort of the Police Department and the Hillsborough County School District a unique high school course curriculum was developed to assist youths who were interested in pursuing careers in law enforcement. A survey was conducted and some preliminary recruiting revealed sufficient student interest to include the course as an elective at Leto Comprehensive High School in Tampa, Florida. The curriculum was divided into two levels: Law Enforcement I and Law Enforcement II. A student enrolling in Law Enforcement I had to be in 11th grade and be free of any physical impediments to a future law enforcement career. Law Enforcement I consisted of two hours instruction a day (one hour in the classroom and one hour of physical education), five days a week. The students who successfully completed this level were expected to go on to Law Enforcement II in the 12th grade. This course was conducted one hour a day, five days a week. Students were required to complete the first level before enrolling in Law Enforcement II. (Testimony of Otero and Farmer.) Charles Otero was hired as a part-time instructor for the Hillsborough County School District in September 1965. He began teaching the new course, Law Enforcement I, at Leto Comprehensive High School, two hours a day, five days a week for the entire school year. The following year, he taught both Law Enforcement I and II, for a total of three hours a day, five days a week. Without interruption, Otero continued teaching the courses at Leto through the 1968/1969 school year. He taught the same courses at Blake High School during the 1969/1970 school year, and from August 1970 until June 1974, he taught the same courses at the Hillsborough County Evening Vocational Center. He resigned in 1974 to become Police Chief for the City of Tampa. (Testimony of Otero, Mahin, Farmer and Scaglione). For each school year from 1965 until 1974, Charles Otero was hired under an annual part-time contract for instructional staff. The three contracts placed in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits #4, #5 and #6 are typical of the forms used by Hillsborough County School District during the relevant period. Each contract specifies an hourly rate and provides that the hours of instruction are based upon the classes offered for which the teacher is qualified and assigned to teach by the county superintendent or his designee. The contract also provides for termination at will by either party upon written notice to the other. This option was not exercised during the relevant period. Otero was certified only as a part-time law enforcement teacher. (Testimony of Otero and Dobbins, Petitioner's Exhibits #4, #5 and #6). Otero's wages for teaching were paid from a Hillsborough County School District wages and salary account commonly used to pay part-time, adult education teachers. The adult education account was separate from the regular teachers' account. Otero was not paid from an OPS (other personnel services) account. (Testimony of Mann.) At the time that he was hired in 1965, both Otero and the Hillsborough County School District anticipated that the law enforcement courses would continue for at least two years, based on the survey and recruitment responses, and based on the expectation that the Level I students would go on to take the Law Enforcement II course. Since these were elective courses, the students were not required to enroll and if an insufficient number had enrolled, then Otero's courses would not have been taught. In fact, the courses continued and still continue today, with full-time teachers. (Testimony of Otero, Farmer, Scaglione and Dobbins.) Prior to December 1, 1970, full time instructional staff of the Hillsborough County School District participated in the teacher's retirement system under Chapter 238, Florida Statutes. On December 1, 1970, the FRS was created and the existing systems were closed out. Otero never participated in the teacher's retirement system, nor was he eligible for that system as a part- time teacher. In January 1972, he became a member of the FRS when the Hillsborough County School District commenced contributions on his behalf. Otero was re-employed by the Hillsborough County School Board in 1979, as Supervisor of Security and has been continually employed in that capacity on a full-time basis. He has likewise participated continually in the FRS since 1979. Otero conceded that his application to the Division indicating that he was seeking purchase of "refunded service" was in error. He had no "refunded service" under an existing system or the FRS. (Testimony of Otero and Sansom.) In June 1984, Charles Otero applied to the Division for an audit of his employment with the Hillsborough County School District to determine how much of his service would be creditable under the FRS. In July 1985, the Division responded that his employment as a part-time teacher from 1965 through 1971 is not creditable. (Testimony of Otero and Sansom, Petitioner's Exhibits #7 and #8.) The Division of Retirement is statutorily charged with administering the FRS and with determining what service may be claimed by a member as cieditable service in calculating that member's retirement benefits. Ruth Sansom has been Chief of the Division's Retirement Calculations Bureau since October 1980. She has been employed in some capacity in calculating retirement benefits for the teachers' retirement system and the FRS for 23 years. She is intimately familiar with the Division's policies. She has interpreted retirement laws and has assisted in policymaking and rulemaking for the Division. She is likewise familiar with Charles Otero's request and she testified regarding the bases for the Division's denial. The Division considered Otero's circumstances as similar to part-time adult education instructors who are paid on an hourly basis and whose students enroll on a voluntary basis. Those teachers who are hired with no contractual expectation of continuation are considered "temporary" instructional personnel and are not considered eligible for participation in the FRS. When examining a request for purchase of service, the Division applies the rules in effect at the time the request is made. The Division, however, applies those rules just as they would to an individual seeking enrollment in the FRS. The Division looks at the employment contract and legitimate expectations of the parties at the time of hire, rather than at the actual length of time the individual was employed. In other words, while the rule is applied retroactively, the employment circumstances of the individual are examined in a prospective manner. An individual is considered "temporary," even if employed for many years, so long as the employment relationship described at its commencement is merely temporary. A "part-time" teacher is not automatically "temporary." (Testimony of Sansom.) In making a determination regarding an individual's service credit the Division applies Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, Rules 225-1, 2 and 6, Florida Administrative Code, Memorandum 81-60 (Respondent's Exhibit #3) and a memorandum dated February 1, 1982 from A.J. McMullian, III. (Petitioner's Exhibit #9.)(Testimony of Sansom.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that: So long as the required contributions are made, Charles Otero's request to purchase "prior service" in the FRS for the period September 1965 to December 1970, be approved. Charles Otero's request for the period December 1970 until his enrollment in the FRS in 1972, be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2487 The following constitutes my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-3. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 8. 6-10. Adopted in paragraph 6. 11. Adopted in paragraph 2. 12-13. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2, except that the record establishes that he was hired effective September 28, 1965. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Adopted in paragraph 5. 17-28. Adopted in summary form in paragraph 2. 29-35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Adopted in paragraph 4. 39-44. Adopted in summary form in paragraph 3. 45-46. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. 47-49. Rejected as unnecessary. 50. Adopted in part in paragraph 2. The record is not clear that the Hillsborough County Evening Vocational Center was a "high school classroom." 51-56. Rejected as unnecessary. (See Conclusion of Law 7.) 57. Adopted in paragraph 2. 58-59. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 60-63. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 7. 66-67. Adopted in paragraph 8. 68. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 69-70. Adopted in substance in paragraph 8. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted by implication in paragraphs 3 and 5. 9-13. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 5. Adopted in part in paragraph 5 (as to continual nature of the course); otherwise rejected as unsubstantiated by the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. 18-21. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 6. 22-23. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in "Background" portion of the recommended order. Adopted in paragraph 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Edward M. Chew, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire William A. Frieder, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 207 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Andrew J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gilda H. Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System (FRS), pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f), Florida Statutes, because of his conviction for official misconduct, a third degree felony under section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS. In January 1987, Petitioner began employment with the Florida Department of Transportation ("DOT"), an FRS-participating employer. By reason of this employment, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS, and DOT made contributions to the FRS on his behalf. In March 2001 and March 2005, Petitioner was elected to separate four-year terms as a Commissioner on the City Commission of the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida ("City"), an FRS-participating employer. By reason of his public office as a City Commissioner, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS, and the City made contributions to the FRS on his behalf. Before entering upon the duties of his public office, pursuant to Florida law and the City Charter, Petitioner was required to take and subscribe substantially to the following oath: I do solemnly swear or affirm that I am a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America and a registered voter and resident of the City of Deerfield Beach, as shown by the public records of Broward County, Florida. I am being employed as a Commissioner of the City of Deerfield Beach and will be a recipient of public funds. As such Commissioner I further swear or affirm that I will support the Charter of the City of Deerfield Beach, the Constitution of the State of Florida, and the Constitution of the United States, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of my office upon which I am about to enter. All elected officials of the City were subject to the standards of ethical conduct for public officers set by Florida law and the City Charter. Effective December 11, 2008, Petitioner resigned his position as City Commissioner. On or about December 29, 2008, Petitioner was charged, by information, with one count of grand theft, a third degree felony, in violation of sections 812.014(1)(a) and (b) and (2)(c)2., Florida Statutes; one count of official misconduct, a third degree felony, in violation of section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes; and one count of falsifying records, a first degree misdemeanor, in violation of section 839.13, Florida Statutes. The crimes with which Petitioner was charged were alleged to have occurred between October 6, 2007 and January 10, 2008. The basis for the official misconduct charge was that Petitioner falsified a campaign treasurer's report as part of his campaign for mayor of the City. The campaign treasurer's report is an official record or document belonging to the office of the City Clerk and/or the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. Petitioner is no longer employed by DOT or the City. Petitioner is not retired from the FRS, and he has not received FRS retirement benefits. On or about May 7, 2010, Petitioner filed with the Division a completed FRS Pension Plan Application for Service Retirement (Form FR-11). By letter dated May 11, 2010, the Division advised Petitioner in relevant part as follows: This letter is to advise you of the status of your application for Florida Retirement System benefits. Our Legal office is reviewing your current legal situation for a determination of whether a forfeiture of benefits has occurred. If the determination is that forfeiture occurred, you will be notified and given information if you wish to appeal that determination. Your retirement application is pending until this review is complete. On May 10, 2011, a jury rendered a verdict which found Petitioner guilty as charged in the information. On July 29, 2011, the court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of the crimes. On or about August 3, 2011, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal. On May 1, 2013, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's convictions for grand theft, official misconduct, and falsifying records, and authored an opinion which addressed Petitioner's contention that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the count of official misconduct. The Court wrote in relevant part: Section 838.022(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), makes it "unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to ... [f]alsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document." In this case, the basis for the official misconduct charge was that appellant falsified a campaign report as part of his campaign for mayor of Deerfield Beach. On appeal, appellant focuses on section 838.022(2)(a), which defines "public servant" as not "includ[ing] a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant," for the argument that "he was not a public servant at the time of the alleged offense" but was "merely a candidate for public office." However, as the State argues, at the time appellant was a candidate for mayor, he "otherwise qualif[ied] as a public servant" by virtue of his status as a city commissioner. Chapter 838 defines "public servant" as including "[a]ny officer or employee of a state, county, municipal, or special district agency or entity." § 838.014 (6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). The statute distinguishes a mere candidate from a public job or office holder in order to reach the evil of public servants misusing their office. Here, appellant was not just a candidate at the time of the offense; it was his dual status as a candidate and an incumbent commissioner that brought him within the ambit of the statute. ... Gonot v. State, 112 So. 3d 679, 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)(emphasis in original). ULTIMATE FACTUAL FINDINGS Petitioner forfeited his rights and benefits under the FRS pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f), Florida Statutes, because he was convicted of official misconduct, a third degree felony, in violation of section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes.
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 finding that the Petitioner was convicted of a felony under section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes, and directing the forfeiture of his FRS retirement rights and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 13th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) of the Florida Retirement System (FRS), for the period September 1, 1998, through and including September 30, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a former employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County (School Board) and is a retired member of FRS. In September 1998, Petitioner became eligible to participate in DROP by virtue of reaching 30 years of service with the School Board. In September 1998, Petitioner asked Respondent for an estimate of her retirement benefits. In January 1999, the estimate of Petitioner's retirement benefits was prepared by Respondent and mailed to Petitioner. During the 1998-99 school year, Petitioner had difficulties in her dealings with a new school principal. 1/ Petitioner testified that she delayed applying for DROP because she believed that her relationship with her employer would improve and she could continue to work as a teacher. Petitioner also testified that School Board administrators gave her erroneous information and misled her as to their intention to permit her to continue to teach. Petitioner argues that she would have elected to participate in DROP beginning September 1, 1998, had her employer told her the truth about her employment status. In this proceeding, Petitioner argues that she be permitted to participate in DROP effective September 1, 1998, on equitable grounds, without specifying the equitable principles upon which she relies. On October 27, 1999, Petitioner completed her application to participate in DROP and filed the application with the School Board's personnel office. Respondent received the completed application via facsimile on November 3, 1999. The first application sent in by Petitioner requested that her DROP participation start retroactive to September 1, 1998. Respondent, through its staff, denied that request and informed Petitioner that she would have to submit a second application, referred to by staff as a corrected application, requesting a start date of October 1, 1999. Pursuant to those instructions, Petitioner submitted a second application requesting that her start date be October 1, 1999. Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's denial of her request to accept her participation in DROP retroactive to September 1, 1998, was timely. Petitioner was later terminated from her position with the School Board. 2/ Respondent has been paid her drop benefits for the period beginning October 1, 1999, and ending when the School Board terminated her employment. Petitioner has not been employed by a FRS employer since the School Board terminated her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for benefits under DROP for the period September 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2001
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the joint stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner was elected to the office of tax assessor, Bay County, for successive regular terms in 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972. He was commissioned for that office on January 6, 1953, January 8, 1957, January 3, 1961, January 5, 1965, January 7, 1969, and January 2, 1973. As tax assessor, petitioner was a member of the retirement system now known as the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System, Chapter 122, Florida Statutes. By two written ballots, petitioner rejected membership in the Florida Retirement System, Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, to be effective December 1, 1970, and January 1, 1975. The constitutional office of tax assessor was abolished and the constitutional office of property appraiser was created in its stead by amendment to Article 8, Section (1)(d) in 1974. The petitioner was elected to the office of property appraiser in 1976, and commissioned on January 4, 1977. The petitioner's duties as property appraiser were and are the same as they were when he was the tax assessor. Petitioner has been in office continually since January 6, 1953, either as tax assessor or property appraiser. He has not terminated his employment and received a refund of contributions; has not had a non-creditable leave of absence; nor was he off the payroll for at least one calendar month.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's demand for admittance into the Florida Retirement System as of January 4, 1977, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 20th of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Cooper, Jr., Esquire Davenport, Johnston, Harris, Gerde and Harrison 406 Magnolia Avenue Robert L. Kennedy, Jr. Panama City, Florida 32401 State Retirement Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207-C, Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether at the time of his father's death, Armando Martinez, Jr., was a "dependent beneficiary" of his father, a vested member of the Florida Retirement System, so as to be entitled to his father's retirement benefits?
Findings Of Fact Armando Martinez, Jr., was born on February 22, 1974, to Natalie M. Martinez and the late Armando Martinez, Sr. In 1992, when Armando, Jr., was eighteen years old, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were divorced. The following year, 1993, less than two weeks after Armando, Jr.'s, nineteenth birthday, Armando Martinez, Sr., died. The cause of death was liver cancer, a disease from which Ms. Martinez presently suffers. At the time of his death on March 7, 1993, Mr. Martinez was a vested member of the Florida Retirement System. A municipal employee, he had been a bus operator. At some point close to commencement of his employment, slightly more than ten years prior to his death, Armando Martinez, Sr., had executed a Form M-10. The form named his wife, Natalie, as his primary beneficiary. Armando, Jr., the only child of Armando, Sr., and Natalie Martinez, was named as the sole contingency beneficiary. Following Mr. Martinez, Sr.'s death, Ms. Martinez disclaimed Florida Retirement System benefits. She did so in order for Armando, Jr., as the contingent beneficiary, to be able to receive the benefits. On February 17, 1997, the Division of Retirement denied Armando, Jr., survivor benefits. Had Mr. Martinez, Sr., died one-year and several weeks earlier, that is, prior to Armando, Jr.'s eighteenth birthday, the Division would have approved distribution of survivor benefits to him. But, although he was still a high school student, since he was older than nineteen by a few days at the time of his father's death, the Division required proof that Armando, Jr., had received half of his support from his father at the time of his father's death. No such proof was provided to the Division prior to or at the time of its preliminary denial. In fact, in his 1992 tax return, Mr. Martinez did not claim his son Armando, Jr., as a dependent. In this formal administrative proceeding, however, Armando Martinez, Jr., provided such proof, proof which was lacking until hearing. The year 1992 was very difficult for Armando Martinez, Jr., and his family. His parents separated, Armando, Jr., lived with his mother. Armando, Sr., lived elsewhere. Prior to his death, divorce proceedings were finalized. In the meantime, Ms. Martinez had lost her job. She remained unemployed for the entire year and in early 1993 as well. Armando, Jr., was still in high school at the time of his father's death. During the 1992-93 school year, to support himself and his mother, he obtained work part-time while he remained in school. Ms. Martinez paid the rent for their apartment at a rate of between $370 and $500 per month. The monthly phone bill of Ms. Martinez and Armando, Jr., was approximately $50; utility payments $70; groceries $300; gasoline $10, automobile insurance $100; and school supplies $40. There were other expenses, clothes, for example, that occurred from time-to-time. In addition to minimal government support to Ms. Martinez and Armando, Jr.'s, part-time employment income, Armando, Jr., was supported by cash payments provided by his father. Two or three times a month, Armando's father and a girl friend, Karen Jones, would drive to the front of the house. Because of his illness, Mr. Martinez remained in the car while Ms. Jones brought cash, usually between two and five hundred dollars in an envelope to the front door. On more than one of these occasions, Ms. Jones, the envelope, and the cash were observed by friends of the family at the moment of delivery. Ms. Martinez log of the estimates of these payments totals approximately $8,500, an amount in excess of Mr. Martinez's income reported in his 1992 tax return filed before his death in 1993 to be $6,389.00. But, Mr. Martinez, Sr. had access to other means of support and other monies including proceeds from insurance policies. The $8,500 provided to Armando, Jr., by Armando Martinez, Sr. constituted more than half of Armando, Jr.'s, support for the year 1992 and up until Mr. Martinez, Sr.'s, death in early 1993.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the Division of Retirement recognize Armando Martinez, Jr., to have been the dependent beneficiary of Armando Martinez, Sr., at the time of Mr. Martinez, Sr.'s, death, and therefore entitled to retirement benefits. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Natalie Martinez Suite 3811 3801 Northgreen Avenue Tampa, Florida 33624 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a Police Sergeant with Metropolitan Dade County. He is 38 years old and has 13.83 years of creditable service under the Florida Retirement System. (Exhibit A) On February 16, 1973, Petitioner was involved in an automobile accident in Broward County, Florida while serving with a detached drug abuse unit. On February 25, 1974, Petitioner applied for disability retirement benefits under Section 121.091(4) and Section 121.021(13), Florida Statutes, stating: "I believe I am incapacitated for further service in Florida because of injuries received in an in-line-of-duty automobile accident that occurred on 16 February 1973." (Exhibit A) After considering the evidence submitted in support of Petitioner's application, the Administrator of the Florida Retirement System determined that insufficient information was submitted to substantiate a finding of total and permanent disability as provided by Section 121.091(4), Florida Statutes. As a result, Petitioner was notified on March 20, 1975 of the Administrator's intention to deny the subject disability retirement application. (Exhibit B) Notice of Petitioner's right to an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, was also provided at that time. On April 2, 1975, Petitioner notified the Respondent of his intention to Petition for an administrative determination of his disability application pursuant to Section 120.47(1), Florida Statutes. (Exhibit C) Whereupon, the Director of the Respondent requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a hearing officer to conduct a hearing which was ultimately held at 1350 N.W. 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida on the 12th day of September, 1975. (Exhibit D) The first witness to appear at this hearing on Petitioner's behalf was Detective Pete Kreimes who is employed by Metropolitan Dade County. The witness testified that he was trained by the Petitioner for the narcotics section and the two later became personal friends. He has known Petitioner for about five (5) years. Mr. Kreimes testified that Petitioner was an outstanding investigator while employed by Metropolitan Dade County. While performing these duties, Petitioner participated in the physically demanding activities of a law enforcement officer. He related the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's accident of February 16, 1973, and the long range affects he felt the accident had on Petitioner's physical condition. This included Petitioner's apparent discomfort in walking, standing or sitting for extended periods of time. The witness also stated that Petitioner developed a serious drinking problem after the accident due to what he believed was the frustration of not being able to continue in police work and because of the financial problems being encountered. Mr. Kreimes felt there were no jobs available in the area of law enforcement wherein the Petitioner could render useful and efficient service on a full-time basis. The next witness to appear was one Dr. Gilbert. Dr. Gilbert is a Medical Doctor with specialties in Psychiatry and Neurology. He also holds a Ph.D.. degree in the field of Psychology. Dr. Gilbert detailed the neurological impairments to the cervical and lumbar areas of Petitioner's spine. The witness related that the Petitioner suffered from a post concussion syndrome following a brain concussion. The doctor also diagnosed a traumatic neurosis resulting from the pain and trauma of the accident and manifesting itself in tension and anxiety. The witness acknowledged Petitioner's allergies to various medications which might otherwise be used to alleviate muscle spasm, tension and some of the pain brought on by neurological probless. Dr. Gilbert felt that the combination of Petitioner's inability to alleviate pain in this manner and his various emotional problems led to the excessive use of alcohol. However, the witness did not feel that Petitioner's excessive use of alcohol was advisable; although, he did feel, considering Petitioner's allergies, that the only hope of Petitioner's dealing with his pain was by mental conditioning. Dr. Gilbert felt that the Petitioner had not reached maximum medical improvement, because he had not yet completed his diagnosis and work up on Petitioner's disability due to possible brain damage. However, he did feel that, due to the combination of Petitioner's post concussion syndrome, neurological and emotional problems, he was unemployable at this time, without regard to Petitioner's excessive drinking. Mr. Harold Dunsky also testified as an employment expert on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Dunsky holds B.A., M.A., and J.D. degrees and has worked in the area of job placement and vocational counseling for the State of Illinois and the U.S. Government for over twenty years. Mr. Dunsky testified that after interviewing the Petitioner and considering various unidentified medical reports, he felt the Petitioner was unemployable on a full-time basis. The final witness to testify was the Petitioner, Robert Barr. The Petitioner related his educational and employment experience which consisted of an in precriminology and approximately fourteen (14) years as a police officer with Metropolitan Dade County. Mr. Barr explained that the first indication of his allergy problems was in 1961 when his upper back, shoulders and arm began to ache while playing ball. As a result of his allergic reaction to the medication taken at this time, he suffered his first cardiac arrest. In 1966 the Petitioner suffered another cardiac arrest as a result of a penicillin shot administered during a bout with the flu. Another allergic reaction took place in a dentist's office in 1970 as a result of an injection of sodium penathol. The medical witnesses had been advised by Barr of his past allergic reactions. Petitioner next detailed the circumstances surrounding his accident in February of 1973. He also related his current physical limitations, his financial problems, his desire to return to the field of law enforcement and his frequent use of alcohol to alleviate his pains and problems. At this point the Deposition of Dr. William Scott Russell, Jr., Dadeland Medical Building, Suite 303, Miami, Florida, was made a part of the record. Dr. Russell is a neurologist who began treating the Petitioner on September 10, 1973. Dr. Russell testified that the Petitioner complained of shoulder and arm pain due to thoracic outlet syndrome. The witness stated that this could be caused by a so-called jerk-injury or as a secondary phenomena in association with muscle spasm produced by an underlying disc injury. Dr. Russell also explained an impairment to the lower lumbar region of Petitioner's spine. This was diagnosed as nerve roots irritation of the, S1 nerve root. (Dep. Russell, 20) The witness stated that the Petitioner had a history of low-back problems relating to an automobile accident which occurred several years prior to his accident in February of 1973. (Dep. Russell, p. 14) Dr. Russell stated that the Petitioner represented that the pain from his prior accident ceased over a period of eight (8) months. (Dep. Russell, p. 14 and 44) Dr. Russell stated that based upon Barr's statements to him Barr had apparently fully recovered from that accident. The witness also stated that the Petitioner had a congenital defect in the lower lumbar area of his spine. Dr. Russell however concluded that this congenital defect had not effected Barr prior to the February 1973 accident because Barr had not had any pain prior to that accident, and lack of pain would have been evidence of an absence of disease or problems with regard to the congenital defect. (Dep. Russell, p. 29) The witness testified further as follows: "Q. Doctor, do you have an opinion, based on the reasonable degree of medical probability, as to whether or not the laminectomy defect was, is related at all to the accident here? First of all, I don't think it is a laminectomy defect. I think a laminectomy implies a surgical defect. I think it is probably a bony, let's say a failure, of the bone to fuse over a specific area. Q. Does that contribute, Doctor, in your diagnosis of the disc, does that contribute to the pain and discomfort in the area that you found? A. By itself it should not but it can contribute to an unstable back which may, in turn, make it easier for that particular individual to have to sustain disc injury." (emphasis supplied) Dr. Russell also testified that the Petitioner had multiple and severe drug allergies. Dr. Russell testified that the Petitioner began consuming excessive amounts of alcohol as a substitute for various muscle relaxants. As a result of Petitioner's resort to alcohol he began experiencing episodes of alcoholic gastritis or peptic ulcer disease. (Dep. Russell, p. 38) When asked to express in layman's terms the extent of the Petitioner's physical limitations, Dr. Russell testified: "A. I don't -- I wouldn't consider him, at present, employable under any circumstances or under any quasi- responsible type position, either from the point of view of having to do any sort of physical activity or, I hate to say this, but from the point view of his reliability at this particular moment. Q. What do you mean by that, 'reliability'? A. I'm not certain that alcohol and reliability go hand in hand." (emphasis supplied)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether James B. Anderson, a deceased retiree in the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan, selected Option 1 (maximum retiree’s monthly benefit without any spousal benefit after death of the retiree) or Option 3 (a reduced retiree’s monthly benefit with continued spousal benefit after death of the retiree).
Findings Of Fact On June 30, 2007, the named Petitioner, James B. Anderson, terminated his employment with the University of South Florida (USF) at the age of 69 years and 9 months. At the time, his tenure at USF spanned 27 years and entitled him to receive pension benefits under the Florida State Retirement System Pension Plan. Also on June 30, 2007, Mr. Anderson completed an application for retirement. By applying Mr. Anderson, who was USF’s Director of Insurance and Risk Management, acknowledged that he would not be able to add service, change options, change his type of retirement (regular, disability, and early) or elect the Investment Plan once his retirement became final, which would be when he cashed or deposited any benefit payment. Also on July 2, 2007, Mr. Anderson and his wife, Mitzi Anderson, executed a Statutory Official Form FRS 110 before a notary public. By doing so, they selected Option 1, which provides the maximum pension benefits to Mr. Anderson until his death and no pension benefits to his wife after his death. The form stated clearly, in bold print, that Option 1 did not provide a continuing benefit after Mr. Anderson’s death and that the selection of Option 1 would be final when Mr. Anderson cashed or deposited any benefit payment. The next day, Mr. Anderson faxed the executed form to the Division of Retirement, which mailed Mr. Anderson an acknowledgement of receipt of the executed form. The acknowledgement included a clear statement, in bold print, that Mr. Anderson would not be able to change his benefit option selection after retirement and that his retirement would become final when he cashed or deposited any benefit payment. Mr. Anderson had second thoughts about his benefit option selection and contacted Donna Pepper, a retirement specialist employed by USF, to discuss changing to Option 3, which would give him a reduced pension benefit that would continue and be paid to his wife after his death. On July 6, 2007, Ms. Pepper sent an email to Mr. Anderson stating: “Here is another option selection form so that you can change your option.” The email attached a blank Statutory Official Form FRS 110. Ms. Pepper’s email also stated: “As we discussed, you may want to indicate that this form should supersede the previously submitted form.” It also advised the Petitioner to keep a copy for his records and send the original to the Division of Retirement as soon as possible. On July 20, 2007, at 12:53 p.m., a comment was entered on the Integrated Retirement Information System (IRIS) telephone log, documenting that Mr. Anderson was considering changing his benefit option selection and would “either FAX a form with a change of option on it or call to let them know he would not make the change.” The comment also documented that Jan Steller in retirement payroll was asked to hold Mr. Anderson’s first check until “this is resolved.” Later the same day, at 2:30 p.m., another comment was added to document that Mr. Anderson had called back to say he had decided to stay with Option 1 and that Jan Steller had been called back and asked “to release his check.” On July 31, 2007, an initial pension check was sent to Mr. Anderson in the amount of $4,188.45, in accordance with his selection of benefit Option 1, which was about $1,200 more than it would be under Option 3. This check was not immediately cashed. On August 31, 2007, a second Option 1 pension check in the same amount was sent to Mr. Anderson. On September 4, 2007, Mr. Anderson deposited the first two benefit checks into his Bank of America account. He continued to receive and cash or deposit monthly Option 1 benefit checks through January 2015. Mr. Anderson died on February 14, 2015. His wife notified the Division of Retirement, which stopped benefit payments in accordance with Mr. Anderson’s Option 1 selection. In March 2015, Mrs. Anderson found among her husband’s papers a copy of an executed Form FRS 110 that selected Option 3. Notwithstanding the telephonic communications with the Division of Retirement on July 20, 2007, the executed form indicates that it was notarized on July 23, 2007. Included in handwriting at the bottom of the executed form was the language, as suggested by Ms. Pepper: “This option supersedes option dated 7-02-07.” Mrs. Anderson also found a copy of Donna Pepper’s e-mail dated July 6, 2007, with instructions on how to change the selection of pension payments. Mrs. Anderson sent copies to the Division of Retirement and requested Option 3 spousal benefit payments. The Division of Retirement denied Mrs. Anderson’s request because it did not receive an Option 3 benefit selection before the copy Mrs. Anderson sent in March 2015. There was no evidence that the form was sent to the Division of Retirement before then. This, together with the fact that Mr. Anderson received and cashed or deposited seven and a half years’ worth of monthly Option 1 benefit checks, which were each over $1,200 more than the Option 3 benefit would have been, support a finding that Mr. Anderson actually selected Option 1 and never switched to Option 3. It is not clear from the evidence why Mr. Anderson kept a copy of an executed change from Option 1 to Option 3 after deciding not to send it to the Division of Retirement.
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 finding that Mr. Anderson selected benefit Option 1, finally and irrevocably and that Mrs. Anderson is not entitled to Option 3 spousal benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas E. Karatinos, Esquire Law Office of Karatinos Suite 101 18920 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33540 (eServed) Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Management Services Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Dan Drake, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Ste. 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
