95-003851 C. Dean Hofmeister vs. Division Of Retirement Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, September 25, 1996.

Summary: Member's prior service in a position that had been consolidated with his senior management position was eligible for upgrade to senior management.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

C. DEAN HOFMEISTER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-3851

)

DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly

designated Hearing Office, William J. Kendrick, held a formal hearing in the

above-styled case on May 8, 1996, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Edward G. Labrador, Esquire

Kevin B. Kelleher, Esquire

Government Center, Suite 423

115 South Andrews Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

For Respondent: Stanley M. Daneck, Esquire

Division of Retirement

Cedars Executive Center, Building C

2639 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

At issue is whether petitioner's four-year service as the Executive

Director of the Broward County Convention Center may be upgraded to the Senior

Management Service Class of the Florida Retirement System.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In February 1994, Broward County designated petitioner's position as

President of the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention and Visitors Bureau (GFLCVB)

in the Senior Management Service Class (SMSC) of the Florida Retirement System

(FRS), effective January 1, 1994. Thereafter, in March 1994, the County

submitted a request to the Division of Retirement (Division), on behalf of

petitioner, to purchase additional credible service in the SMSC for his prior

service as President of the GFLCVB (April 30, 1992, to December 31, 1993) and

his prior service as Executive Director of the Broward County Convention Center

(April 1, 1988, to April 30, 1992). According to the submittal, following his

appointment as President of the GFLCVB petitioner "maintained responsibility for

the Convention Center in what became, through reorganization, a combined

responsibility."

On April 18, 1994, the Division approved petitioner's request to upgrade

and purchase his prior service as President of the GFLCVB (April 30, 1992,

through December 31, 1993), but took no action to address his prior service with

the BCCC. As hereinafter noted in the findings of fact, that failure was

apparently based on a misunderstanding of the Division, and the Division's

failure to address his prior service with the BCCC was apparently not

communicated to petitioner.

In or about April 1995, petitioner, believing he had seven years of

credible service in the SMSC, including his four-year service as Executive

Director of the BCCC, filed an application for retirement with the Division. At

that time, it was learned the Division had not addressed whether petitioner's

service with the BCCC was eligible for upgrade.

Following consideration of the matter, the Department, by letter of June

29, 1995, advised petitioner of its decision that his prior service as Executive

Director of the BCCC was not eligible for upgrade to the SMSC because "the

positions of Executive Director of the Broward County Convention Center and

President of the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention Center (sic) coexisted

before the Board of County Commissioners' reorganization [and] [t]he function of

Director still exists but appears to have been reclassified to Deputy Director,"

as opposed to having been merged with the position of President of the GFLCVB as

urged by petitioner and Broward County. Petitioner filed a timely request for

an administrative hearing to contest the Division's decision, and the matter was

referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a

Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes.

At hearing, petitioner testified on his own behalf and called Phillip

Rosenberg as a witness. Petitioner's exhibits 2 through 5 were received into

evidence. Respondent called David Ragsdale as a witness, and its exhibits 1

through 3 were received into evidence. Additionally, joint exhibits 1 through

19, 20A, 20B, and 21 were received into evidence.

The transcript of hearing was filed July 3, 1996. The parties were

initially accorded twenty days from that date to file proposed recommended

orders; however, at petitioner's request, the deadline was extended to August 2,

1996. Consequently, the parties waived the requirement that a recommended order

be rendered within thirty days after the transcript is filed. Rule 60Q-2.031,

Florida Administrative Code. The parties' proposed findings of fact, contained

within their proposed recommended orders, are addressed in the appendix to this

recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioner's employment history with Broward County

1. Petitioner, C. Dean Hofmeister, was employed by Broward County from

April 1, 1988, through April 28, 1995. During his tenure, he served as

Executive Director of the Broward County Convention Center (BCCC), from April 1,

1988, until April 30, 1992, and as President of the Greater Fort Lauderdale

Convention and Visitors Bureau (GFLCVB), from April 30, 1992, through April 28,

1995.

2. As the Executive Director of the BCCC, petitioner was its chief

executive officer (CEO) and supervised a staff of two employees: a project

engineer (Carlos Puentez) and a secretary. As its CEO, petitioner had numerous

responsibilities, including contract administration, policy formation and

recommendation, fiscal operations, and management of the BCCC's small

administrative staff.

3. On April 30, 1992, petitioner was selected to be the next president of

the GFLCVB. Significant to his selection was petitioner's proposal to

consolidate the GFLCVB and the BCCC operations. Such consolidation was proposed

to more closely coordinate the related activities of both organizations, and

would save the County certain salary costs by eliminating the need for an

Executive Director of the BCCC.

4. The consolidation was approved by Broward County and, following

consolidation, the BCCC became an operating division of the GFLCVB.

The amendments to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes

5. In 1993, the Florida Legislature passed Chapter 93-285, Laws of

Florida, which amended Section 121.055, Florida Statutes, effective January 1,

1994, to authorize the designation of additional positions for participation in

the Senior Management Service Class (SMSC) of the Florida Retirement System

(FRS) by local agencies. Under the act, a local agency, such as Broward County,

could designate one position to the SMSC for every 200 employees.

6. To qualify for SMSC designation, a position had to be a non-elective,

managerial or policy-making position, which was filled by an employee who was

not subject to a continuing contract. Moreover, an employee serving in a

designated position could not have career service protection; rather, the

employee had to serve at the pleasure of the employer. Finally, the employee

serving in a designated position had to be the head of an organizational unit or

hold a position of responsibility that recommended personnel actions, budgetary

approval, expenditures and policy decisions.

7. Once the position was designated or added to the SMSC, the member could

purchase additional credit for credible service "within the purview of the

Senior Management Service Class," retroactive to February 1, 1987. Section

121.055(1)(g), Florida Statutes. This upgrade benefit allowed a member to

increase his credible service in the class up to the level allowed by law.

8. "Within the purview of the Senior Management Class" is not defined by

the act. The Division has, however, construed such phrase to refer to service

in the position preceding the time the position was designated for membership in

the class. Under such interpretation, the holder of a position designated for

membership in the class could purchase credit for the time he served preceding

its designation, limited only by the restriction that credit could not extend

further back than February 1, 1987. Where the title of the position changed

prior to designation, but the duties and responsibilities remained essentially

the same, such prior service is still considered "within the purview of" the

SMSC and eligible for upgrade. Moreover, pertinent to this case, where two

positions are merged or consolidated prior to designation, and the duties and

responsibilities of the eliminated position are subsumed in the new position,

prior service in the eliminated position, provided it qualified for SMSC

designation, is considered "within the purview of" the SMSC and eligible for

upgrade.

9. Consistent with the provisions of subsection 121.055(1), regarding a

member's entitlement to upgrade prior service through the purchase of additional

retirement credit, the Division has promulgated Rule 60S-2.013, Florida

Administrative Code. Pertinent to this case, that rule provides:

(2) A member of the Senior Management

Service Class as provided in 60S-1.0057(1)

who has earned creditable service within the

purview of the Senior Management Service

Class may purchase additional retirement

credit in the Senior Management Service

Class for such service retroaction to

February 1, 1987, provided that:

(a) He notifies the Division in writing

of his desire to receive credit for such

service, and

(b) The required contributions are made

in accordance with section 60S-3.013.

Petitioner's SMSC designation and upgrade request

10. In February 1994, Broward County, pursuant to the amendments to

section 121.055, designated thirty new positions, including petitioner's

position as President of the GFLCVB, for inclusion in the SMSC, effective

January 1, 1994. Thereafter, on or about March 17, 1994, Broward County

submitted a FR-9 (the Division's information request form), completed by

petitioner, which sought to purchase additional credible service in the SMSC for

his prior service as President of the GFLCVB (April 30, 1992, to December 31,

1993) and his prior service as Executive Director of the BCCC (April 1, 1988, to

April 30, 1992). Accompanying such form were various personnel documents, as

well as an employment certification from Phillip Rosenberg, Director of Human

Resources for Broward County, which stated:

C. Dean Hofmeister [Petitioner] was

appointed as Executive Director of the

Broward County Convention Center on April

1, 1988. On April 30, 1992 he was

appointed President of the Greater Fort

Lauderdale Convention [and] Visitors Bureau

and has maintained responsibility for the

Convention Center in what became, through

reorganization, a combined responsibility.

11. Petitioner's application, as well as numerous other applications filed

by new SMSC members of Broward County, were reviewed by David Ragsdale, a

retirement administrator with the Division, and during March and April 1994, he

and Mr. Rosenberg had a number of discussions to clarify certain matters

regarding the pending upgrade requests, including petitioner's application. The

particulars of the conversation regarding petitioner's application are not

apparent from the record, except that during the course of the conversation Mr.

Ragsdale was apparently informed that the positions of Executive Director of the

BCCC and President of the GFLCVB were separate positions.

12. On April 18, 1994, the Division approved petitioner's request to

upgrade and purchase his prior service as President of the GFLCVB (April 30,

1992, through December 31, 1993), but took no action to address his prior

service with the BCCC. The reason for such failure was Mr. Ragsdale's apparent

understanding that, notwithstanding the employment certification that the

responsibilities of the two positions had been combined, the two positions were

separate. With such understanding, petitioner's service with the BCCC did not

qualify for upgrade because that position had not been designated for inclusion

in the SMSC.

13. By letter of June 27, 1994, the Division informed Broward County of

the upgrade approvals, including petitioner's; however, that notice merely

reflected the dollar amounts necessary for each employee to purchase their

upgrade credits, and did not reflect the service or time for which credit was

approved. 1/

14. In or about April 1995, petitioner, under the belief he had seven

years of credible service under the SMSC, including his four-year service as

Executive Director of the BCCC, filed an application with the Division for

retirement benefits. Thereafter, it was learned that the Division had not

addressed whether, if consolidated, petitioner's service with the BCCC was

eligible for upgrade.

15. Consequently, the Division reviewed the matter and in June 1995,

formally advised petitioner that such prior service was not eligible for upgrade

because "the positions of Executive Director of the Broward County Convention

Center and President of the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention Center (sic)

coexisted before the Board of County Commissioners' reorganization [and] [t]he

function of Director still exists but appears to have been reclassified to

Deputy Director," as opposed to having been merged with the position of

President of the GFLCVB, as urged by petitioner and Broward County. Such notice

further advised petitioner of his right to request a formal hearing to contest

the Division's determination. Petitioner timely requested a hearing, and this

proceeding ensued.

Petitioner's request for upgrade of his services as Executive Director of the

BCCC

16. As heretofore noted, petitioner was employed by Broward County as the

Executive Director of the BCCC from April 1, 1988, to April 30, 1992. During

that time there were three employees of the BCCC: petitioner, a project engineer

(Carlos Puentez), and a secretary.

17. During the course of construction of the convention center, which was

completed in September 1991, petitioner, with the assistance of his project

engineer, coordinated with the project developer, general contractor and project

architectural firm in reviewing plans for value engineering and change orders,

and reviewed and approved purchase orders submitted by the general contractor.

As the facility neared completion, petitioner began to function more as the

contract administrator for the management firm selected by the County to operate

the convention center, as well as continuing to fulfill his responsibilities for

policy formation and recommendation, and fiscal or operating budgetary matters

for the center and the management firm. Moreover, as construction was

completed, Mr. Puentez, the project engineer, began to assist petitioner more

fully in administrative matters unassociated with construction.

18. On April 30, 1992, petitioner was selected by Broward County to be the

next president of the GFLCVB. Significant to his selection was petitioner's

proposal to consolidate the operations of the GFLCVB and the BCCC. Such

consolidation would more closely coordinate the related activities of both

organizations, and would save the County certain salary costs by eliminating the

need for an Executive Director of the BCCC, since petitioner would continue to

fulfill those responsibilities in his new position.

19. Following his appointment as President of the GFLCVB, the operations

of the GFLCVB and the BCCC were consolidated, and the BCCC became an operating

division of the GFLCVB.

20. In August 1992, in recognition of the consolidation, the Broward

County Board of County Commissioners approved a proposal to eliminate the

position of Executive Director of the BCCC, which had remained vacant since

petitioner's appointment to the GFLCVB, and to create a new classification,

Deputy Director of Convention Center, to "manage the Convention Center section

of the Convention and Visitors Bureau." Responsibilities were noted to include

"finance, operations/maintenance, human resources, minority participation, risk

management, legal matters and general administration."

21. Deleting a vacant position, such as the Executive Director position,

to create a new position, such as Deputy Director, is a customary practice for

Broward County, given its personnel cap that is established annually by the

County Commission.

22. As created, the Deputy Director position had a salary range that was

designated as "open range 3," with a pay range of $41,745 to $66,792 (minimum to

maximum), as compared to the Executive Director position which had a salary

range designated as "open range 6," with a pay range of $55,557 to $88,899

(minimum to maximum). At the time of his promotion, petitioner's salary was at

the maximum of the pay range, and upon appointment as President of the GFLCVB

his salary range designation was "open range 7," with his initial salary at

$93,345.

23. The position description for the Deputy Director, which was created

with petitioner's input, is almost identical to the position description that

had existed for the Executive Director, except that the Deputy Director was to

work "independently with direct responsibility to [petitioner] the President of

the County's Convention and Visitors Bureau," whereas the Executive Director had

worked "independently with direct responsibility to the County Administrator."

24. That the nature of the work and illustrative tasks of the Deputy

Director's position description would track, except for the chain of authority,

the previous Executive Director's work description is not unusual or dispositive

of this case. Clearly, in the absence of a director, a deputy functions in his

stead; however, the ultimate responsibility reposes in the director, as

recognized by the position description.

25. Mr. Puentez, who had served as petitioner's project engineer/assistant

at the convention center, was appointed to fill the Deputy Director position.

Following appointment, Mr. Puentez' role in the day-to-day operations of the

center expanded, as they had previously expanded under petitioner; however,

notwithstanding Mr. Puentez's expanded role, no new personnel were employed (the

convention staff, if it may be so described, continued to consist of petitioner,

albeit now as the CEO of the consolidated operations, Mr. Puentez, and a

secretary), and petitioner's ultimate authority and responsibility for the

operation of the BCCC remained the same. In so concluding, it is observed that

petitioner maintained an office at the BCCC, where he addressed convention

center matters two to three times a week, continued to develop, implement and

maintain strategic plans for the BCCC, and was involved and responsible for the

development, implementation and maintenance of the joint operating budget, as

well as the physical and capital improvement plans for both operations.

Moreover, petitioner continued to attend conferences and public meetings on

behalf of the BCCC, including professional conferences and appearances before

the Broward County Commission, with respect to agency related agenda items.

26. Given the circumstances, the proof is compelling that the operations

of the GFLCVB and the BCCC were consolidated, and that with the consolidation

the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Director of the BCCC were

merged into the position of President of the GFLCVB. The proof is further

compelling that the position of Deputy Director of the convention center is not

a clone of the previous position of Executive Director, as advocated by the

Division.

27. In reaching the foregoing conclusion, the similarities of the position

description of Executive Director and Deputy Director have been noted, but, for

reasons heretofore noted, such similarity is not dispositive. What is more

telling is that the deputy position, as the name would imply, is subordinate to

the CEO of the BCCC (the President of the GFLCVB), who is responsible for its

operations. That the prior Executive Director position and the Deputy Director

position are not clones is further supported by the fact that, upon petitioner's

appointment as President of the GFLCVB, the position of Executive Director

remained vacant while he continued to fulfill those responsibilities; the

positions of Executive Director and Deputy Directory have significantly

different pay grades; the BCCC, organizationally, is now part of the GFLCVB;

and, the staff of the BCCC has not been increased following petitioner's new

appointment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

28. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Section 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes.

29. Here, petitioner is seeking to increase his credible service in the

Senior Management Class of the Florida Retirement System by upgrading his

service as the Executive Director of the BCCC. As the proponent, petitioner

"carries the 'ultimate burden of persuasion.'" Florida Department of

Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). See

also, Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349,

350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), ("[T]he burden of proof, apart from statute, is on the

party asserting the affirmative issue before an administrative tribunal.")

30. Section 121.055, Florida Statutes, established a Senior Management

Service Class (SMSC) within the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Within this

class, members vest in seven years, compared to ten years for regular members,

and earn an annual percentage of two percent for each year of credible service.

Section 121.055(4)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes.

31. Effective January 1, 1994, section 121.055 was amended to allow local

agencies, such as Broward County, to designate additional positions for

participation in the SMSC. Section 121.055(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes. The

number of positions that could be designated was, however, limited to one

position for every 200 employees. Section 121.055(1)(b)1b, Florida Statutes.

32. To qualify for membership in the SMSC, section 121.055(1)(b)1c,

requires that:

Each position added to the class must be a

managerial or policymaking position filled

by an employee who is not subject to

continuing contract and serves at the plea-

sure of the local agency employer without

civil service protection, and who:

(I) Heads an organizational unit; or

(II) Has responsibility to effect or

recommend personnel, budget, expenditure,

or policy decisions in his or her areas of

responsibility.

33. Here, petitioner's position as President of the GFLCVB qualified for

membership in the SMSC, and Broward County elected to so designate it, effective

January 1, 1994. Petitioner's prior position as Executive Director of the BCCC,

had it existed, would likewise have been eligible for designation in the SMSC.

34. Pertinent to this case, once a position has been designated for

membership in the SMSC, the member may:

. . . purchase additional retirement credit

in such class for credible service (within

the purview of) the Senior Management Service

Class retroactive to February 1, 1987, and

may upgrade retirement credit for such

service, to the extent of 2 percent of the

member's average monthly compensation . . .

for such service. [Emphasis added].

Subsection 121.055(1)(g), Florida Statutes.

35. "[W]ithin the purview of" the SMSC is not defined by the statute;

however, as heretofore noted, the Division has construed such phrase to refer to

service in the position preceding the time the position was designated for

membership in the class. Under such interpretation, the holder of a position

designated for membership in the class could purchase credit for the time he

served preceding its designation, limited only by the restriction that credit

could not extend further back than February 1, 1987. Where the title of the

position changed prior to designation, but the duties and responsibilities

remained essentially the same, such prior service was still considered "within

the purview of" the SMSC and eligible for upgrade. Moreover, pertinent to this

case, where two positions were merged or consolidated prior to designation, and

the duties and responsibilities of the eliminated position were subsumed in the

new position, prior service in the eliminated position, provided it qualified

for SMSC designation, was considered "within the purview of" the SMSC and

eligible for upgrade.

36. Generally, an administrative construction of a statute by an agency

responsible for its administration is entitled to great deference and should not

be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Department of Environmental Regulation

v. Goldring, 477 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1985), All Seasons Resorts, Inc. v. Division of

Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, 455 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984),

and Sans Souci v. Division of Land Sales and Condominiums, 421 So.2d 623 (Fla.

1st DCA 1982). Moreover, the agency's interpretation does not have to be the

only one or the most desirable one; it is enough if it is permissible. Florida

Power Corp. v. Department of Environmental Regulation. 431 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1983). Here, the Division's interpretation is rational, and it is accepted.

37. Notwithstanding the Division's skepticism, the proof demonstrates that

upon petitioner's appointment as President of GFLCVB the duties and

responsibilities of the Executive Director position were merged. Consequently,

applying the provisions of subsection 121.055(1)(g) and the Division's

interpretation to the facts of this case, compels the conclusion that

petitioner's service as Executive Director of the BCCC, which immediately

preceded his appointment as President of the GFLCVB and the merger of the two

positions, is eligible for upgrade and that petitioner should be accorded the

opportunity to purchase additional retirement credit for such service.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which approves petitioner's

request to upgrade his service as Executive Director of the Broward County

Convention Center to the Senior Management Service Class of the Florida

Retirement System and that the Division reconsider petitioner's application for

retirement benefits consistent with such recommendation.

DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

____________________________________

WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 25th day of September, 1996.

ENDNOTE

1/ The Division did send a letter to petitioner on July 1, 1994, referencing

the amount due and that "[t]he amount due shown is the cost to upgrade your

service from April 30, 1992 to December 31, 1993 under the provisions of the

Senior Management Service Class (SMSC)." However, petitioner did not receive

that letter.

APPENDIX

Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows:

1. Addressed in paragraph 1.

2. Addressed in paragraph 2.

3. Addressed in paragraph 3.

4. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 25.

5. Addressed in paragraphs 3, 4 and 25.

6 and 7. Addressed in paragraph 25.

8. Addressed in paragraph 5.

9. Addressed in paragraph 6.

10. Accepted, but unnecessary detail.

11. Addressed in paragraph 7.

12. Addressed in paragraph 9.

13 through 15. Accepted, but unnecessary detail.

16 through 18. Addressed in paragraph 8.

19 through 21. Addressed in paragraphs 20 through 27, otherwise

unnecessary detail.

22. Accepted, but unnecessary detail.

23 through 27. Addressed in paragraph 10, otherwise unnecessary detail.

28 and 29. Addressed in paragraph 11, otherwise unnecessary detail.

30 and 31. Addressed in paragraph 11.

32. Rejected as testimony, and not a finding of fact. Also, unnecessary

detail.

33 and 34. Addressed in paragraphs 12 and 13, and endnote 1.

35. Addressed in paragraph 14.

36 through 47. Rejected as subordinate (recitation of or comment on

testimony or argument); however, addressed in paragraphs 16 through 27.

48. Rejected as not relevant.

49. Addressed in paragraph 14.

50. Not necessary to the result reached.

Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows:

1. Accepted, but unnecessary detail.

2. Addressed in paragraphs 2, 16 and 17.

3. Accepted, and to the extent necessary addressed in paragraph 23.

Otherwise unnecessary detail.

4. Accepted, and to the extent necessary addressed in paragraph 3.

Otherwise unnecessary detail.

5. First three sentences accepted and addressed in paragraphs 3, 4 and 18.

Fourth sentence rejected as contrary to the proof. Last sentence not relevant

to the conclusion reached.

6. Rejected as subordinate (recitation of or comment on testimony) or

argument. Ultimate conclusion, based on the proof, addressed in paragraphs 16

through 27.

7. Addressed in paragraphs 20 and 22, otherwise subordinate to the

conclusions reached.

8. Addressed in paragraph 23 and 24, otherwise contrary to the conclusion

reached.

9. Addressed in paragraphs 25 through 27, otherwise contrary to the

conclusion reached.

10. Rejected as contrary to the conclusion reached.

11. Rejected as not relevant.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Edward G. Labrador, Esquire

Kevin B. Kelleher, Esquire

Governmental Center

115 West Andrews Avenue, Suite 423

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Stanley M. Danek, Esquire

Division of Retirement

Cedars Executive Center, Building C

2639-C North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560

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

Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel

Department of Management Services

4050 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended

order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit

written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final

order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be

filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.