The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, regarding secure detention care provided for juveniles. With the exception of Intervenor Florida Association of Counties, Inc., the Petitioners and Intervenors (collectively referenced herein as the "Counties") are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. The specific counties that have petitioned or intervened in these proceedings are not "fiscally constrained" as that term is defined in section 985.686(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Each county is required by section 985.686 to contribute its actual costs for predisposition secure detention services for juveniles within its jurisdiction. The Counties are substantially affected by the Department's determinations of the number of secure detention days that are predisposition, and by the Department's allocation of those days among the Counties, an allocation that further determines each county's share of the cost for pre-disposition secure detention. The Counties are further substantially affected by the allocation method itself, which they assert is not authorized by section 985.686. Statutory and rule framework Section 985.686(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the "state and counties have a joint obligation, as provided in this section, to contribute to the financial support of the detention care provided for juveniles." Section 985.686(2)(a), defines "detention care," for purposes of this section, to mean "secure detention."2/ Section 985.03(18)(a), defines "secure detention" to mean "temporary custody of the child while the child is under the physical restriction of a detention center or facility pending adjudication, disposition, or placement." Section 985.686(3), provides in relevant part that each county "shall pay the costs of providing detention care . . . for juveniles for the period of time prior to final court disposition. The department shall develop an accounts payable system to allocate costs that are payable by the counties." In summary, section 985.686 requires each non-fiscally restrained county to pay the costs associated with secure detention during predisposition care, and the Department to pay the costs of secure detention during post-disposition care.3/ The Department is charged with developing an accounts payable system to allocate costs payable by the counties. Section 985.686(5), sets forth the general mechanism for this allocation process: Each county shall incorporate into its annual county budget sufficient funds to pay its costs of detention care for juveniles who reside in that county for the period of time prior to final court disposition. This amount shall be based upon the prior use of secure detention for juveniles who are residents of that county, as calculated by the department. Each county shall pay the estimated costs at the beginning of each month. Any difference between the estimated costs and actual costs4/ shall be reconciled at the end of the state fiscal year. Section 985.686(10), provides that the Department "may adopt rules to administer this section." Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Department promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009, effective July 16, 2006. Rule 63G-1.004 provides the detailed method by which the Department is to calculate the counties' estimated costs: Each county's share of predisposition detention costs is based upon usage during the previous fiscal year, with the first year's estimates based upon usage during fiscal year 2004-05. Estimates will be calculated as follows: All youth served in secure detention during the relevant fiscal year as reflected in the Juvenile Justice Information System will be identified; Each placement record will be matched to the appropriate referral based upon the referral identification code. Placements associated with administrative handling, such as pick-up orders and violations of probation, will be matched to a disposition date for their corresponding statutory charge; The number of service days in secure detention is computed by including all days up to and including the date of final disposition for the subject referral. Each county will receive a percentage computed by dividing the number of days used during the previous year by the total number of days used by all counties. The resulting percentage, when multiplied by the cost of detention care as fixed by the legislature, constitutes the county's estimated annual cost. The estimated cost will be billed to the counties in monthly installments. Invoices are to be mailed on the first day of the month prior to the service period, so that an invoice for the August service period will be mailed on July 1. Rule 63G-1.008 provides the method by which the Department is to reconcile the estimated payments with the actual costs of predisposition secure detention: On or before January 31 of each year, the Department shall provide a reconciliation statement to each paying county. The statement shall reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period. If a county's actual usage is found to have exceeded the amount paid during the fiscal year, the county will be invoiced for the excess usage. The invoice will accompany the reconciliation statement, and shall be payable on or before April 1. If a county's actual usage was less than the estimated amounts paid during the fiscal year, the county will be credited for its excess payments. Credit will be reflected in the April billing, which is mailed on March 1, and will carry forward as necessary. Under the quoted rules, the Department determines an estimate for each county's share of predisposition secure detention costs. This estimate is provided to the counties prior to the start of the fiscal year in order to allow each county to "incorporate into its annual county budget sufficient funds" to pay for the costs of predisposition secure detention care for juveniles who reside in that county. To prepare this estimate, the Department utilizes the county's actual usage of secure detention facilities for the most recently completed fiscal year.5/ The amount of this usage is shown as that county's percentage of the total usage of predisposition secure detention care by all counties. The resulting percentage for each county is then multiplied by the "cost of detention care as fixed by the legislature" to arrive at the estimated amount due for each county. Rule 63G-1.002(1) defines "cost of detention care" as "the cost of providing detention care as determined by the General Appropriations Act." The term "cost of detention care" is used in rule 63G- 1.004, which sets forth the method of calculating estimnated costs. The term is not used in rule 63G-1.008, which addresses the annual reconcilation by which the Department purports to arrive at the "actual cost of the county's usage" for the fiscal year. The definition of "cost of detention care" references the Legislature's annual General Appropriations Act, which appropriates revenues for the operation of various state functions. An "appropriation" is "a legal authorization to make expenditures for specific purposes within the amounts authorized by law." § 216.011(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008-2009 was House Bill 5001, codified as chapter 2008-152, Laws of Florida. Within chapter 2008-152, Specific Appropriations 1073 through 1083 set forth the appropriations for the juvenile detention program. These items included the cost of operating the secure detention centers and identified specific funding sources for the program. These funding sources were the General Revenue Fund ("General Revenue"), the Federal Grants Trust Fund, the Grants and Donations Trust Fund, and an amount identified under the Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund ("Shared Trust Fund"). Section 985.6015(2), states that the Shared Trust Fund "is established for use as a depository for funds to be used for the costs of predisposition juvenile detention. Moneys credited to the trust fund shall consist of funds from the counties' share of the costs for predisposition juvenile detention." A total of $30,310,534 was appropriated from General Revenue to the Department for the operation of secure detention centers. This amount was intended to cover the Department's costs in providing post-disposition secure detention services, including the state's payment of the costs for detention care in fiscally constrained counties. See § 985.686(2)(b) & (4), Fla. Stat. A total of $99,583,854 was set forth as the appropriation for the Shared Trust Fund. This amount was not an "appropriation" as that term is defined by statute because it did not authorize a state agency to make expenditures for specific purposes. Rather, this number constituted the amount to be used in the preparation of the preliminary estimates that the Department provides to the counties for the purpose of budgeting their anticipated contributions toward the secure detention costs for the upcoming fiscal year. As will be discussed at length below, a refined version of this number was also improperly used by the Department as a substitute for calculating the counties' actual cost at the time of the annual reconciliation described in rule 63G-1.008. As set forth in rule 63G-1.004, the Department determines the estimate, then it notifies the counties of the estimated amount. The counties make their payments in monthly installments. Rule 63G-1.007 requires the Department to prepare a quarterly report for each county setting forth the extent of each county's actual usage. The counties receive their reports 45 days after the end of each quarter. Subsection (1) of the rule provides that the quarterly report "is to assist counties in fiscal planning and budgeting, and is not a substitute for the annual reconciliation or grounds for adjusting or withholding payment." At the end of the fiscal year, and no later than January 31, the Department must prepare an annual reconciliation statement for each county, to reconcile the difference, if any, between the estimated costs paid monthly by the county and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period. If the county's actual cost is more or less than the estimated payments made during the fiscal year, the county will be credited or debited for the difference. Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-1.008. Because a county is billed prior to the start of the fiscal year, the Department's initial estimate obviously cannot be based on actual costs for that fiscal year. However, the amount ultimately owed by each county following the annual reconciliation should assess the county's actual costs for predisposition secure detention care during that year, in accordance with section 985.686(5). Prior DOAH litigation The Department's manner of assessing the counties for predisposition secured detention services has been the subject of five prior DOAH cases, all of them involving Hillsborough County. Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 07- 4398 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 7, 2008; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. June 4, 2008)("Hillsborough I") dealt with the methodology used by the Department to determine the amount that Hillsborough County owed for predisposition secure detention services for fiscal year 2007-2008. Administrative Law Judge Daniel Manry found that the Department's practice of calculating a per diem rate for service days in secure detention was inconsistent with the Department's rule 63G-1.004(2). Instead of limiting Hillsborough County's contribution to a percentage of the amount "appropriated"6/ by the Legislature to the Shared Trust Fund, the Department was including its own General Revenue appropriation in the calculation, which inflated the county's assessment. Hillsborough I at ¶ 24. Judge Manry's findings led the Department to conclude, in its Final Order, that the calculation of a "per diem" rate for the counties should be abandoned as inconsistent with rule 63G-1.004. In a companion case to Hillsborough I, Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 07-4432 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 10, 2008; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. June 4, 2008)("Hillsborough II"), Judge Manry dealt with Hillsborough County's challenge to the Department's determination of utilization days allocated to the county for predisposition care. In this case, Judge Manry found that the Department had failed to comply with the requirements of section 985.686(6), which provides: Each county shall pay to the department for deposit into the Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund its share of the county's total costs for juvenile detention, based upon calculations published by the department with input from the counties. (Emphasis added). The Department had allocated 47,714 predisposition utilization days to Hillsborough County, which was reduced to 47,214 after the reconciliation process. The county argued that the correct number of predisposition days was 31,008. The Department identified 16,206 challenged days under nine categories: contempt of court; detention orders; interstate compacts; pick up orders; prosecution previously deferred; transfer from another county awaiting commitment beds; violation of after care; violation of community control; and violation of probation. Hillsborough II, ¶¶ 25-27. Judge Manry found that the Department had allowed input from the counties during the rulemaking workshops for chapter 63G-1, but had "thwarted virtually any input from the County during the annual processes of calculating assessments and reconciliation." Id. at ¶ 28. The data provided by the Department to the county each year did not include final disposition dates, making it virtually impossible for the county to audit or challenge the Department's assessments. Judge Manry also found that the absence of disposition dates deprived the trier-of-fact of a basis for resolving the dispute over the nine categories of utilization days that the Department had categorized as "predisposition." Id. at ¶ 30. Judge Manry rejected the Department's contention that the county's allegation of misclassification was a challenge to agency policy. He found that the issue of the correct disposition date was a disputed issue of fact not infused with agency policy or expertise that could be determined through conventional means of proof, including public records. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32. The Department failed to explicate "any intelligible standards that guide the exercise of agency discretion in classifying the nine challenged categories of utilization days as predisposition days." Id. at ¶ 34. Judge Manry made the following findings of significance to the instant proceeding: The trier-of-fact construes the reference to placement in Subsection 985.03(18)(a) to mean residential placement. Secure detention includes custody in a detention center for both predisposition and post-disposition care. Predisposition care occurs prior to adjudication or final disposition. Post-disposition care occurs after adjudication or disposition but prior to residential placement. Post-disposition care also includes custody in a detention center after final disposition but prior to release. Although this type of post-disposition care comprises a small proportion of total post-disposition care, references to post-disposition care in this Recommended Order include care after final disposition for: juveniles waiting for residential placement and juveniles waiting for release. (Emphasis added). Judge Manry found that "secure detention after final disposition, but before residential placement for the charge adjudicated, is post-dispositional care." Id. at ¶ 36. He recommended that the Department enter a final order assessing the county for the costs of predisposition care within the county "in accordance with this Recommended Order and meaningful input from the County." The Department adopted Judge Manry's recommendation. In Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 09-1396 (Fla. DOAH June 30, 2009; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. Sept. 17, 2009) ("Hillsborough III"), the dispute between Hillsborough County and the Department centered on 9,258 detention days that the Department had assigned to the county for which no disposition dates were available. Hillsborough III at ¶ 2. The Department took the position that it could identify disposition dates for all juveniles who had been transferred to its care and supervision, and that the "no date" cases indicated that those juveniles had not been transferred to the Department and were therefore the responsibility of the county. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5. Hillsborough County contended that any court order in a juvenile detention case is a dispositional order, after which the Department becomes responsible for the expenses related to retaining the juvenile. Id. at ¶ 5. Administrative Law Judge William F. Quattlebaum found that neither section 985.686 nor previous Final Orders suggest that fiscal responsibility for a juvenile is transferred to the Department upon the issuance of any court order. Id. at ¶ 6. He concluded that it is . . . reasonable to presume that the [Department] would have disposition information about juveniles who had been committed to [its] custody, and it is likewise reasonable to believe that, absent such information, the juveniles were not committed to the [Department's] custody. The [Department] has no responsibility for the expenses of detention related to juveniles who were not committed to the [Department]'s care and supervision. Id. at ¶ 13. However, the evidence also indicated that in some of the "no date" cases, the Department's records identified addresses of record that were facilities wherein the Department maintained offices. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Judge Quattlebaum recommended that the Department amend the annual reconciliation to give the Department responsibility for the disputed cases which lacked disposition dates but included Department addresses, and to give Hillsborough County responsibility for those cases with no disposition dates and no Department addresses. In its Final Order, the Department accepted the recommendation to the extent that cases lacking disposition dates were properly assigned to Hillsborough County. However, the Department concluded that "there is no legal authority to assign responsibility for detention stays based upon proximity to a Department office location," and therefore declined to amend the annual reconciliation as recommended by Judge Quattlebaum. In Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 09-4340 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 18, 2009; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. Jan. 20, 2010) ("Hillsborough IV"), the issue was the Department's authority to issue multiple annual reconciliations. On January 30, 2009, the Department issued an annual reconciliation to Hillsborough County along with an invoice for a sizable credit due the county for having made estimated payments in excess of its actual costs for fiscal year 2007- 2008. The county did not object to this reconciliation statement. Hillsborough IV at ¶ 8. On February 24, 2009, the Department issued a second annual reconciliation that increased the county's assigned predisposition days and decreased the county's credit. Id. at ¶ 9. On March 18, 2009, the county sent a letter to the Department requesting clarification as to the two annual reconciliations. The Department did not respond to the letter. Id. at ¶ 10. On May 1, 2009, the county sent a second letter to the Department disputing a portion of the assigned utilization days. The Department did not respond to the letter. However, on May 14, 2009, the Department issued a third annual reconciliation to the county that again increased its assigned predisposition days and reduced its credit. Id. at ¶ 11. On June 4, 2009, the Department issued a fourth annual reconciliation. This reconciliation decreased the county's assigned predisposition days but nonetheless again reduced the county's credit. Id. at ¶ 12. On July 17, 2009, the Department finally responded to the county's May 1, 2009, letter by advising the county to file an administrative challenge to the allocation of predisposition days. Id. at ¶ 13. With these facts before him, Judge Quattlebaum reviewed section 985.686 and the Department's rules and then arrived at the following conclusions: There is no authority in either statute or rule that provides the [Department] with the authority to issue multiple annual reconciliation statements to a county. The [Department] is required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.008 to issue an annual reconciliation statement on or before January 31 of each year. The rule clearly requires that March bills (payable in April) reflect any excess payment credit due to a county and that any additional assessment related to excess usage must be paid by a county on or before the following April 1. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the annual reconciliation statement issued pursuant to the rule is final unless successfully challenged in an administrative proceeding.... * * * 28. At the hearing, the parties suggested that the issuance of multiple annual reconciliation statements is the result of the resolution of objections filed by counties in response to the annual reconciliation statement. The resolution of such objections can result in additional costs allocated to another county. There was no evidence that counties potentially affected by resolution of another county's objections receive any notice of the objections or the potential resolution. The county whose allocated costs increase through the resolution of another county's objections apparently receives no notice until the [Department] issues another annual reconciliation statement for the same fiscal period as a previous reconciliation statement. * * * 30. Perhaps the most efficient resolution of the situation would be for the [Department] to require, as set forth at Section 120.569, Florida Statutes (2009), that protests to quarterly reports and annual reconciliations be filed with the agency. Such protests could be forwarded, where appropriate, to DOAH. Related protests could be consolidated pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.108. Where the resolution of the proceedings could affect the interests of a county not a party to the proceeding, the county could be provided an opportunity to participate in the proceeding (and be precluded from later objection) pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.109. As is apparent from the lengthy inset quotation, Hillsborough IV touched upon the subject of the Department's "tethering" of the counties, explained at Findings of Fact 50- 53, infra, though the validity of the practice was not directly at issue. Judge Quattlebaum addressed the due process concerns in counties' having no notice of administrative proceedings that could result in the allocation of additional costs to those counties, but did not address the underlying issue of the Department's authority to reallocate costs in the manner described. Judge Quattlebaum recommended that the Department issue a Final Order adopting the January 30, 2009, annual reconciliation for fiscal year 2007-2008. The Department adopted the recommendation and directed that "all successive reconciliations for that fiscal year shall be disregarded and expunged." In Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 09-3546 (Fla. DOAH Feb. 26, 2010; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. Mar. 23, 2010) ("Hillsborough V"), the main issue was Hillsborough County's contention that the Department had unilaterally and without authority increased the counties' per diem rate for detention care. The undersigned found that the Department had abandoned the calculation of a per diem rate in light of the findings in Hillsborough I, and that the increased "per diem" rate alleged by the county was simply the result of the Department's recalculation of the counties' estimated costs in accordance with its own rule.7/ Fiscal year 2008-2009 assessments and reconciliation By letter dated June 3, 2008, the Department issued its calculation of the amounts due from each county for their estimated share of the predispositional detention costs for fiscal year 2008-2009, which would run from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. As noted at Finding of Fact 19, supra, the predispositional budget was estimated at $99,583,854. The estimate was based on county utilization during the most recently completed fiscal year, 2006-2007, and the amount identified in the chapter 2008-152, Laws of Florida. The Department made the following estimates for the Counties' shares of predispositional days and costs: Days Percentage of Days Estimated Cost Miami-Dade 47,450 8.56% $8,522,140 Santa Rosa 5,213 0.94% $936,268 Alachua 10,957 1.98% $1,967,905 Orange 43,330 7.81% $7,782,177 Pinellas 32,627 5.88% $5,859,892 Escambia 15,044 2.71% $2,701,940 Hernando 2,978 0.54% $534,856 Broward 38,490 6.94% $6,912,901 City of Jacksonville8/ 28,957 5.22% $5,200,750 Bay 5,409 0.98% $971,470 Brevard 13,760 2.48% $2,471,331 Seminole 12,857 2.32% $2,309,150 Okaloosa 4,612 0.83% $828,327 Hillsborough 44,577 8.04% $8,006,142 43. The Counties incorporated the Department's estimate into their budgets and made monthly payments to the Department. By letter dated December 7, 2009, the Department issued its annual reconciliation for fiscal year 2008-2009. As noted above, the purpose of the annual reconcilation is to "reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period." The annual reconcilation set forth the following as the "Actual Predispositional Days" and the "Share of Trust Fund Expenditures" for the Counties, along with the "Difference Debit/(Credit)" between the estimated sums already paid by the Counties and the amount set forth in the annual reconciliation. Those amounts were as Days follows: Percentage of Days Share of Trust Fund Miami-Dade 38,925 11.45% $10,926,117 Santa Rosa 2,555 0.75% $717,180 Alachua 5,511 1.62% $1,546,919 Orange 25,286 7.44% $7,097,695 Pinellas 19,218 5.65% $5,394,428 Escambia 6,734 1.98% $1,890,211 Hernando 1,383 0.41% $388,203 Broward 31,339 9.22% $8,796,752 City of Jacksonville 21,246 6.25% $5,963,681 Bay 3,824 1.13% $1,073,384 Brevard 10,598 3.12% $2,974,823 Seminole 8,944 2.63% $2,510,551 Okaloosa 3,613 1.06% $1,014,157 Hillsborough 27,120 7.98% $7,612,493 The Department's letter advised the counties as follows, in relevant part: . . . Any counties that have a debit amount owed will find enclosed with this correspondence an invoice for that amount. This amount is due by March 1, 2010. A credit amount . . . means the county overpaid based on their utilization and a credit invoice is enclosed with this correspondence. (If the credit amount is larger than the amount currently being paid by the county, the credit will be applied to future invoices until the credit is applied in total.) It is critical that all credits be taken prior to June 30, 2010. . . . (emphasis added). In comparing the estimated costs with the "Share of Trust Fund Expenditures," an untutored observer might expect a correlation between the absolute number of predisposition days and the money assessed by the Department. However, it is apparent that no such correlation was present in the Department's calculations. Dade County, for example, had 8,525 fewer actual predisposition days than the Department estimated at the outset of fiscal year 2008-2009, yet was assessed $2,403,976.89 in the annual reconciliation over and above the $8,522,140 in estimated payments that the county had already made over the course of the year. (For all 67 counties, the Department had estimated 538,836 predispositional days for the fiscal year. The actual number of predispositional days was 339,885.) The correlation, rather, was between a county's percentage of the total number of predispositional days and the money assessed. Though its actual number of days was less than estimated, Dade County's percentage of predispositional days was 2.89% higher than its estmated percentage. Therefore, the Department presented Dade County with an annual reconcilation assessment of $2.4 million. The correlation between percentage of days and the final assessment was caused by the Department's practice of treating the Shared Trust Fund appropriation of $95,404,5799/ as an amount that the Department was mandated to raise from the counties regardless of whether the counties' actual predisposition days bore any relation to the estimate made before the start of the fiscal year. At the final hearing, the Department's representatives made it clear that the Department believed that the Legislature required it to collect the full Shared Trust Fund appropriation from the counties. Reductions in actual usage by the counties would have no bearing on the amount of money to be collected by the Department. The Department views its duty as allocating costs among the counties, the "actual cost" being the Legislature's appropriation to the Shared Trust Fund. Beth Davis, the Department's Director of the Office of Program Accountability, testified that if all the counties together only had one predispositional secure detention day for the entire year, that day would cost the county in question $95 million.10/ In practice, the Department treated the Shared Trust Fund "appropriation" as an account payable by the counties. In this view, the appropriation is the Department's mandate for collecting the stated amount from the counties by the end of fiscal year 2008-2009, even while acknowledging that the Shared Trust Fund number in the General Appropriations Act was no more than an estimate based on the actual usage for the most recently completed fiscal year, which in this case was 2006-2007. Because the Department felt itself bound to collect from the counties the full amount of the Shared Trust Fund appropriation, any adjustment to one county's assessment would necessarily affect the assessments for some or all of the other counties. A downward adjustment in Orange County's assessment would not effect a reduction in the absolute number of dollars collected by the Department but would shift Orange County's reduced burden proportionally onto other counties. The Department has "tethered" the counties together with the collective responsibility to pay $95,404,579 for fiscal year 2008-2009. Richard Herring is an attorney and longtime legislative employee, including 16 years as a deputy staff director to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and was accepted as an expert in the appropriations process. Mr. Herring was knowledgeable and persuasive as to the appropriations process and the circumstances surrounding the passage of the legislation at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Herring testified as to a "disconnect" in the way the Department treats the Shared Trust Fund program. The Shared Trust Fund appropriation is not an amount of money; rather, it is an authorization to spend money from that trust fund. Mr. Herring found that the Department mistakenly "treats appropriations almost as though it were a revenue-raising requirement." Mr. Herring could not think of any other example in which a state legislative appropriation mandates that another governmental entity such a county spend its own funds.11/ The Department allocates 100% of the Shared Trust Fund appropriation to the counties and collects that amount, even though section 985.686(5) limits the Department's collections to "actual costs." Mr. Herring clearly and correctly opined that the Appropriations Act cannot amend a substantive law on any subject other than appropriations. Therefore, the Department cannot rely on the appropriation made in chapter 2008-152, Laws of Florida, as authority for substituting the appropriated amount for the "actual costs" that the substantive statutory provision allows the Department to collect. Mr. Herring found that it is "a huge stretch to say an appropriation means that I will, no matter what, collect that amount of money." He concluded: [O]ther than this program, I'm not aware of any place in the budget where somebody takes an appropriated amount, where it's not another State agency involved, and tries to true up at the end of the year to make sure that every penny of that . . . authorization to expend, that the cash has come in to match the authorization. * * * Again, an appropriation is not an authorization to levy taxes, fees, fines. It's not an authorization to raise revenues, to collect revenues. It may provide, where there are double budgets between two agencies or within an agency, it may be authority to move money from one pot within the State treasury . . . to another. But to go out and extract money from someone who's not a State agency, who's not subject to receiving appropriation, I don't know any place else that we do that. And I can't come up with another example. Fiscal year 2008-2009 challenges In a letter to the counties dated January 26, 2010, Ms. Davis wrote as follows, in relevant part: I am writing this letter to ensure everyone understands the proper procedure for handling any challenges to the annual reconciliation data sent to you in December 2009 for FY 2008-09 and any future year's reconciliation. As a result of the State of Florida, division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) challenge in case no. 09-4340 between Hillsborough County (Petitioner) and the Department of Juvenile Justice (Respondent), the reconciliation completed for FY 2008-09 is considered "final" and adjustments can only be made to the reconciliation using the following steps. Counties have 21 days from receipt of the reconciliation to file their challenges to the reconciliation with the Department. The Department will review the challenges and determine if any adjustments need to be made and which counties will be affected by those potential changes. All affected counties will be notified of the potential adjustments even if those counties did not submit a challenge. If challenges to the reconciliation cannot be resolved with the concurrence of all affected counties, the Department will file a request for a hearing with DOAH. Affected counties will be able to present their case regarding the adjustments at the hearing. . . . Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.009 set forth the Department's dispute resolution process. It provided that the quarterly report "marks the point at which a county may take issue with the charges referenced in the report," but that such an objection was not a basis for withholding payment. All adjustments based on a county's objections to quarterly reports would be made in the annual reconciliation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-1.009(1). Though the rule was silent as to counties' ability to file challenges or disputes to the annual reconciliation, the Department interpreted the rule as allowing such challenges. Twelve counties, Pasco, Sarasota, Brevard, Lee, Polk, Broward, Santa Rosa, Pinellas, St. Johns, Hillsborough, Hernando, and Miami-Dade, filed disputes using the form prescribed by the Department, providing specific reference to the disputed charges and setting forth specific charges for the Department to reconsider. The remaining counties did not file challenges to the annual reconciliation. At least some of these counties, including Orange, Alachua and Escambia, had already accepted their overpayment credit in the manner required by the Department's December 7, 2009 letter. See Finding of Fact 46, supra. The record contains letters that Ms. Davis sent to Broward, Hernando, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Santa Rosa Counties on different dates in January and February 2010, but containing substantially the same text. The letter sent to the deputy director of Broward County's human resources department, dated February 19, 2010, is representative: The Department has received challenges to the 2008-2009 reconciliation from 12 counties, including your challenge. In keeping with the Final Order from DOAH case no. 09-4340 [Hillsborough IV] the Department is evaluating all of the challenged assessments. If the Department determines there are any adjustments that need to be made, we will attempt to reach agreement with all of the counties affected by the changes. However, if we cannot reach agreement, the Department will combine all of the challenges and request an administrative hearing from the DOAH at which all of the issues can be resolved. Because of the number of challenges involved, and time constraints in working on next year's budget, we anticipate the review process taking about 30 days. This time period exceeds the general requirement for referring challenges to DOAH for those counties that have requested an administrative review. We are asking that the counties seeking administrative review will allow the Department additional time. If after the review it is necessary to proceed with an administrative hearing, we will notify all potentially affected counties so that one final resolution can be reached in a timely manner. The Department reviewed the disputes filed by eleven of the twelve counties. In reviewing the disputes, the Department looked only at challenges to specific cases and did not consider broader policy disputes raised by the counties. Ms. Davis testified that Miami-Dade's dispute was not reviewed because Miami-Dade failed to include specific individual records. Ms. Davis stated that Miami-Dade was making a conceptual challenge not contemplated by rule 63G-1.009. Barbara Campbell, the Department's data integrity officer, testified that she reviewed every record that was disputed by a county. Ms. Campbell stated that her review for Hillsborough County alone took about a month. Hillsborough County disputed 50,528 days in 6,963 entries for the following reasons: adults in juvenile status (493 days), charges not disposed (22,495 days), invalid disposition end date (5 days), non-adjudicatory charges (2,987 days), extended period of detention (763 days), invalid zip code (352 days), invalid address (63 days), out of county (88 days), institutional address (1,560 days), escape after disposition (78 days), guardian (21,552 days), transfer after adjudication (45 days), no criminal charge (13 days), and duplicated entry (34 days). Ms. Campbell concluded that Hillsborough County should remain responsible for 45,873 of the rejected 50,528 days. Despite Ms. Campbell's conclusion, the annual reconciliation assessed Hillsborough County for only 27,120 days. This discrepancy was not explained at the hearing. Ms. Campbell testified that one of the corrections she made for Hillsborough County related to the waiting list for placement of juveniles in committed status. At that time, the waiting list was used to determine the commitment date for billing purposes, but Ms. Campbell found that the list contained commitment dates that were several days after the actual commitment dates. This error resulted in a substantial number of extra days being billed to Hillsborough County.12/ Ms. Campbell testified that this sizable error as to Hillsborough County did not prompt a review of the records of all counties to determine if the error was across the board. The Department lacked the time and manpower to perform such a review for all counties. The Department was already stretched thin in reviewing the specific challenges made by the counties. In a letter to the counties dated March 23, 2010, Ms. Davis wrote as follows, in pertinent part: The Department has concluded it [sic] analysis of challenges submitted by counties for the 2008-09 final reconciliation for detention utilization. A total of twelve counties submitted challenges. After reviewing all the data, resulting adjustments affect a total of 45 counties, ten of which are fiscally constrained. Enclosed with this letter is a document outlining the specifics regarding adjustments as they pertain to your county. For counties that filed a challenge with the Department, each type of dispute category is addressed. Counties subsequently affected by the original twelve counties' challenges are impacted by either address corrections and/or as a result of their percentage of the total utilization being changed by adjustments made. An adjustment to a county's percentage of utilization occurs when days challenged are subsequently found to be the responsibility of the State or another county. Changes made based on address corrections are listed on the enclosed disc, if applicable to your county. Each county is asked to review the adjustments and respond back to the Department indicating agreement or disagreement with the findings. If a county has issue with the proposed adjustments they will need to file a petition with the Department to initiate proceedings with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to 28-106-201 [sic] Florida Administrative Code. For the few counties that have already filed a petition with the Department, still complete the attached form and return to the Department but an additional petition is not required. Responses from the counties must be postmarked by April 9, 2010. . . . Ms. Davis' March 23, 2010, letter was the first notice given to non-disputing counties by the Department that twelve counties had filed disputes to the annual reconciliation. Thus, counties that believed they had closed their ledgers on fiscal year 2008-2009 were forced to reopen their books to deal with the Department's "adjustments" to the amounts of their final annual reconciliations. Attached to the letter was a spreadsheet containing the "08-09 Pending Challenge Adjustments" containing the following information for the Counties: Adjusted Adjusted Days Percentage Share of Trust Fund Miami-Dade 38,944 11.77% $11,229,123 Santa Rosa 1,980 0.60% $570,914 Alachua 5,581 1.67% $1,589,043 Orange 27,048 8.17% $7,799,027 Pinellas 15,523 4.69% $4,475,906 Escambia 6,734 2.04% $1,941,683 Hernando 1,327 0.40% $382,628 Broward 31,231 9.44% $9,005,154 City of Jacksonville 21,300 6.44% $6,141,647 Bay 3,830 1.16% $1,104,343 Brevard 8,816 2.66% $2,542,008 Seminole 8,965 2.71% $2,584,970 Okaloosa 3,613 1.09% $1,041,773 Hillsborough 22,465 6.79% $6,477,564 72. In addition to making adjustments to the accounts of the challenging counties, the Department modified the amounts set forth in the annual reconciliation for all 38 non-fiscally constrained counties.13/ A total of 9,010 days were reclassified as post-dispositional and therefore shifted from the counties' to the Department's side of the ledger. This shift did nothing to lessen the overall burden on the counties in terms of absolute dollars because the overall amount the Department intended to collect remained $95,404,579. Of the twelve counties that challenged the annual reconciliation, five did not contest the Department's adjustment and are not parties to this proceeding: Pasco, Sarasota, Lee, Polk, and St. Johns. The record does not indicate whether these counties notified the Department that they accepted the adjustment. Four counties that challenged the annual reconciliation, and are parties to this proceeding, notified the Department that they accepted the adjustment: Pinellas, Brevard, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa. However, because all affected counties did not accept the adjustments, the Department did not refund monies to the counties that were awarded a credit by the adjustment. In correspondence with Pinellas County's Timothy Burns, Ms. Davis stated that the credit set forth in the adjustment would not be applied to the county's account "until the final decisions from the DOAH hearing." At the hearing, Ms. Davis explained the Department's action as follows: Each county's utilization is considered a percentage of the total utilization and that percentage is multiplied by the expenditures. So if you change one number in that mathematical calculation, it has a rippling effect and will affect the other-- in this case it's 45 counties. So all of the counties had to accept those changes and agree to the modifications, those pending adjustments, if we were going to modify the reconciliation, the agency's final action. To restate, the following are the estimates, the annual reconciliation each County: amounts, and the adjustment amounts for Miami-Dade: 47,450 8.56% $8,522,140 38,925 11.45% $10,926,117 38,944 11.77% $11,229,123 Santa Rosa: 5,213 0.94% $936,268 2,555 0.75% $717,180 1,980 0.60% $570,914 Alachua: 10,957 1.98% $1,967,905 5,511 1.62% $1,546,919 5,581 1.67% $1,589,043 Orange 43,330 7.81% $7,782,177 25,286 7.44% $7,097,695 27,048 8.17% $7,799,027 Pinellas 32,627 5.88% $5,859,892 19,218 5.65% $5,394,428 15,523 4.69% $4,475,906 Escambia 15,044 2.71% $2,701,940 6,734 1.98% $1,890,211 6,734 2.04% $1,941,683 Hernando 2,978 0.54% $534,856 1,383 0.41% $388,203 1,327 0.40% $382,628 Broward 38,490 6.94% $6,912,901 31,339 9.22% $8,796,752 31,231 9.44% $9,005,154 City of Jacksonville 28,957 5.22% $5,200,750 21,246 6.25% $5,963,681 21,300 6.44% $6,141,647 Bay 5,409 0.98% $971,470 3,824 1.13% $1,073,384 3,830 1.16% $1,104,343 Brevard 13,760 2.48% $2,471,331 10,598 3.12% $2,974,823 8,816 2.66% $2,542,008 Seminole 12,857 2.32% $2,309,150 8,944 2.63% $2,510,551 8,965 2.71% $2,584,970 Okaloosa 4,612 0.83% $828,327 3,613 1.06% $1,014,157 3,613 1.09% $1,041,773 Hillsborough 44,577 8.04% $8,006,142 27,120 7.98% $7,612,493 22,465 77. Overall, the 6.79% Department $6,477,564 had estimated there would be 538,836 predisposition utilization days for all counties. The actual number of predisposition days indicated in the annual reconciliation was 339,885, some 198,951 fewer days than estimated. The number of actual days was further decreased to 330,875 in the Department's March 23, 2010, adjustment. Nonetheless, the absolute number of dollars assessed by the Department against the counties remained unchanged because the only variable in the Department's formula for ascertaining a county's "actual costs" was the county's percentage of the total number of predisposition days. The $95 million set forth in the General Appropriations Act for the Shared Trust Fund remained unchanged. Thus, even if a county's actual number of predisposition days was several thousand fewer than the Department originally estimated, the county's assessment could be higher than the estimate because that lesser number of days constituted a higher percentage of the overall number of predisposition days. The City of Jacksonville, for example, was found by the adjustment to owe $940,897 more than the original estimate despite having actual usage that was 7,657 days fewer than the original estimate. The Counties forcefully argue that Department's use of the General Appropriations Act as a substitute for calculating the counties' actual costs results in a gross disparity between the amounts per day paid by the state and those paid by the Counties for the same services at the same facilities, echoing the argument made by Hillsborough County in Hillsborough V. Robert M. Dunn, the Department's director of policy development for detention services, testified as follows: Q. But in terms of the actual cost of detention, there's no difference in the cost of a predisposition detention day and a post-disposition detention day? A. None. They receive the same services: food, clothing, supervision, mental health, medical, all of those issues. Every youth receives the same services in detention. Ms. Davis testified that the General Appropriations Act provided the Department with General Revenue sufficient to cover roughly 20% of the cost of all secure detention.14/ Ms. Davis conceded that approximately 38% of the secure detention utilization days were post-disposition days that were the Department's responsibility. She further conceded that through the Shared Trust Fund the counties are paying the 18% difference for the state's portion of secure detention. Evidence introduced at the hearing established a downward trend in the use of predisposition detention utilization since fiscal year 2005-2006, but no corresponding decrease in the amount that the counties pay for detention services. Mr. Herring, the appropriations expert, testified that as a result of the manner in which the Department allocates costs, counties pay approximately $284 per day for detention services, whereas the state pays only $127 per day. Mr. Burns, bureau director of Pinellas County's Department of Justice and Consumer Services, calculated that an average per diem rate for all detention days, predisposition and post-disposition, would be $229.56. Ms. Davis testified that if the utilization ratio and the budget ratio were the same--in other words, if the Legislature fully funded the state's share of detention services--then the per diem rates for the counties and the Department would be almost the same. Despite the fact that the counties were partially subsidizing the state's share of secure detention for juveniles, the Department nonetheless reverted $9,975,999 of unspent General Revenue funds back to the state's general revenue in fiscal year 2008-2009. Of that amount, approximately $874,000 had been appropriated for secure detention. Section 985.686(3) requires the counties to pay the costs of providing detention care for juveniles prior to final court disposition, "exclusive of the costs of any pre- adjudicatory nonmedical educational or therapeutic services and $2.5 million provided for additional medical and mental health care at the detention centers." (Emphasis added). The underscored language was added to the statute by section 11, chapter 2007-73, Laws of Florida, the appropriations implementing bill for fiscal year 2007-2008. Vickie Joan Harris, the Department's budget director, testified that the Legislature appropriated an additional $2.5 million for medical and mental health care in 2007-2008, but that no additional money has been appropriated for those services since that fiscal year. For fiscal year 2008-2009, the counties shared these costs with the Department. The Counties are correct in pointing out that the cost of a utilization "day" is the same whether it occurs predisposition or post-disposition, and their desire for a per diem basis of accounting is understandable from a fiscal planning perspective. If the Department announced a per diem rate at the start of the fiscal year, then a county could roughly calculate its year-end assessment for itself without the sticker shock that appears to accompany the annual reconciliation. However, there are two obstacles to such an accounting method, one practical, one the product of the Department's purported understanding of the term "actual cost" as used in section 985.686(5). The practical objection is that the actual cost of maintaining and operating the Department's secure detention system is not strictly related to the number of days that juveniles spend in detention facilities. Robert M. Dunn, the Department's director of policy development for detention services, testified as follows: For whatever reasons, detention population has decreased significantly over the last few years. However, we have to maintain the capability of providing adequate and proper services for 2,007 beds. In our system, we do not staff centers based on the number of beds or the number of youth who are in the center. We typically follow a critical post staffing process. We know that within center, there are certain posts that have to be manned 24/7, such as intake. We have to be able to provide staff to perform intake duty should a youth be delivered to the center for detention. We have to provide someone in our master control unit 24/7. Those people are responsible for outside communications, directing staff to where they are needed within the center, answering the phones inside the center for requests for assistance, monitoring the camera system to provide assistance. So that position, that post has to be staffed 24/7, whether we have one kid in the center or 100 kids. It's irrelevant. Mr. Dunn went on to describe many other fixed costs of operating a secure detention facility for juveniles. He also discussed the Department's ongoing efforts to identify redundant facilities and streamline the program in light of falling usage, but the point remains that the Department's actual costs do not fluctuate significantly due to usage. Simply keeping the doors open carries certain costs whether one child or 100 children come into the facility, and a pure per diem assessment approach might not cover those costs. While the evidence establishes that there is a significant degree of county subsidization of the state's share of juvenile detention costs, there is a lack of credible evidence that a pure per diem approach would capture a given county's "actual costs" in keeping with the mandate of section 985.686.15/ It is apparent that the Counties have seized on the per diem concept not merely because it was the measure used by the Department prior to Hillsborough I, but because the system used for fiscal year 2008-2009 gave the Counties no way to even roughly predict their annual expenses for predisposition secure juvenile detention. At the start of the fiscal year, a non-fiscally constrained county received an estimate of its predisposition days and its estimated portion of the Shared Trust Fund. The county made monthly payments based on those estimates. As the year progressed, it became apparent to the county that its actual usage was proving to be far less than the estimate. The annual reconciliation confirmed that the county had fewer predisposition days than the Department had estimated, which led the county to expect a refund. In defiance of that expectation, the county was presented with a bill for additional assessments. In the case of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, the additional bill was for millions of dollars despite the fact that their actual usage was several thousand days fewer than the Department's estimate. The Counties were, not unreasonably, perplexed by this turn of events. This perceived anomaly points to the second obstacle to the Counties' proposed per diem accounting method: the Department's working definition of "actual costs" is unrelated to anything like a common understanding of the term "actual costs." It is a fiction that renders nugatory any effort by the Counties to limit their assessed contributions to the Shared Trust Fund to the money that was actually spent during the fiscal year. As to fiscal year 2008-2009, the Department simply made no effort to ascertain the counties' actual costs or, if it did, it failed to disclose them to the counties. "One of the most fundamental tenets of statutory construction requires that the courts give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning, unless words are defined in the statute or by the clear intent of the Legislature." City of Venice v. Van Dyke, 46 So. 3d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), citing Reform Party of Fla. v. Black, 885 So. 2d 303, 312 (Fla. 2004). The Legislature did not define the term "actual cost" in section 985.686. "Actual cost" is not a term of art.16/ The Florida Statutes are replete with uses of the term "actual cost" that rely on the common meaning of the words and do not attempt further definition.17/ Those few sections that do provide definitions of "actual cost" indicate that the Legislature is capable of limiting that common term when appropriate to its purposes.18/ Nothing in Section 985.686 gives any indication that the Legislature intended the words "actual costs" to carry anything other than their plain and ordinary meaning. By statute, the Department is obligated to reconcile "any difference between the estimated costs and actual costs . . . at the end of the state fiscal year." § 985.686(5), Fla. Stat. By rule, this reconciliation is to be performed on a county by county basis: On or before January 31 of each year, the Department shall provide a reconciliation statement to each paying county. The statement shall reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period. Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-1.008(1). Nothing in the statute or the implementing rules authorizes the Department to base its annual reconciliation on the anything other than actual costs. Section 985.686(5) speaks in terms of the individual county, not in terms of "counties" as a collective entity. Rule 63G-1.008(1) states that the Department will provide a reconciliation statement to "each paying county." That statement must reflect the difference between the estmated costs "paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period." Like the statute, the rule speaks in terms of the individual county; the rule does not purport to authorize the Department to treat the 67 counties as a collective entity. Neither the statute nor the rule supports the rationale that the Shared Trust Fund liability of one county should in any way depend upon the costs incurred by any other county. At the end of the fiscal year, the amount collected in the Shared Trust Fund should be no more or less than the amounts of the counties' actual costs. Nothing in the statute or the implementing rules authorizes the Department to tether the counties together with the collective responsibility to pay $95,404,579 for fiscal year 2008-2009, as opposed to paying a reconciled amount based on each county's actual costs of providing predisposition secure detention services for juveniles within its jurisdiction.19/ Nothing in the statute or the implementing rules has changed in such a way as to vitiate Judge Quattlebaum's conclusion in Hillsborough IV that "the annual reconciliation statement issued pursuant to the rule is final unless successfully challenged in an administrative proceeding" pursuant to section 120.569, Florida Statutes. See Finding of Fact 37, supra. Therefore, the December 7, 2009, annual reconciliation constituted final agency action as to all counties that did not contest the reconciliation in accordance with the Department's January 26, 2010, letter. The Department did not have the statutory authority to recalculate the amounts set forth in that annual reconciliation for the 55 counties that did not file challenges.20/ As regards the parties to this proceeding, the following Counties did not contest the December 7, 2009, annual reconciliation: Alachua, Orange, Escambia, City of Jacksonville, Bay, Seminole, and Okaloosa. As to these Counties, the annual reconciliation should have constituted final agency action and spared them further involvement in litigation. The amounts set forth for these Counties in the annual reconciliation should be reinstated and their accounts reconciled on that basis, as follows: Reconciled Share of Trust Fund Alachua $1,546,919 Orange $7,097,695 Escambia $1,890,211 City of Jacksonville $5,963,681 Bay $1,073,384 Seminole $2,510,551 Okaloosa $1,014,157 105. The following Counties did contest the reconcilation pursuant to the Department's January 26, 2010, letter: Brevard, Broward, Santa Rosa, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Hernando, and Miami-Dade. By letter dated March 23, 2010, the Department informed all 67 counties that it had completed its analysis of the challenges21/ submitted by 12 counties and was instituting adjustments to the accounts of 45 counties, including 10 that were fiscally constrained. For the reasons stated above, the March 23, 2010, adjustment was effective only as to the 12 counties that challenged the annual reconciliation. Of those 12, seven are parties to this litigation. Of the seven Counties, four accepted the adjustment announced by the March 23, 2010, letter: Pinellas, Brevard, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa.22/ As to these four Counties, the Department's March 23, 2010, adjustment letter should have ripened into final agency action without need for further litigation.23/ The amounts set forth for these counties in the adjustment letter should be reinstated and their accounts reconciled on that basis, as follows:24/ Share of Trust Fund Santa Rosa $570,914 Pinellas $4,475,906 Brevard $2,542,008 Hillsborough $6,477,564 To this point, the resolution of the amounts owed has been based on the simple principle of administrative finality as to 10 of the Counties that are parties to this proceeding: proposed agency action that is accepted, affirmatively or tacitly, by a party becomes final agency action as to that party and as to the agency upon the expiration of the time for requesting an administrative hearing. However, there remain three Counties that challenged the annual reconciliation, contested the later adjustment, and continue to assert their statutory right to be assessed only the "actual costs" associated with predisposition secure detention: Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward. During the course of this litigation, some of the parties asked the Department to perform an alternative calculation of the fiscal year 2008-2009 reconciled amounts. In an email dated January 12, 2011, the Department transmitted to the Counties a speadsheet that the Department titled "2008/2009 Secure Detention Cost Sharing Data Analysis," taking care to point out that the document was "not an amended or revised reconciliation."25/ Several Counties, including the three whose contributions to the Shared Trust Fund remain unresolved, have urged this tribunal to adopt this most recent analysis as the most accurate available measure of their pre-disposition detention days and actual costs of detention. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department also argues that it should be allowed to employ this "more accurate methodology" to amend the annual reconciliation as to all counties. Ms. Campbell, the Department's data integrity officer, testified as to several changes in programming that are reflected in the results of the January 12 analysis. The dispositive change for purposes of this order is that the analysis was performed in accordance with the Department's new rule 63G-1.011(2), which provides: "Commitment" means the final court disposition of a juvenile delinquency charge through an order placing a youth in the custody of the department for placement in a residential or non-residential program. Commitment to the department is in lieu of a disposition of probation. Ms. Campbell stated that in previous reconciliations and adjustments, the Department stopped billing the counties at the point a final disposition was given by the court. Under the new rule, the Department would continue billing the counties if the disposition did not result in the child's commitment to the Department. Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.011 became effective on July 6, 2010, well after the close of fiscal year 2008-2009 and well after the Department's annual reconciliation and adjustments for that fiscal year were performed. Aside from the increased accuracy claimed by the Department, no ground has been cited for its retroactive application in this case. Further, rule 63G-1.011 has recently been found an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the precise ground that its narrow definition of "commitment" is in conflict with section 985.686(5), Florida Statutes, which limits the counties' responsibility to "the period of time prior to final court disposition." Okaloosa Cnty. et al. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 12-0891RX (Fla. DOAH July 17, 2012).26/ In other words, the Department's prior practice was more in keeping with its statutory mandate than was the "correction" enacted by rule 63G-1.011. In fairness to the Department, it should be noted that its revised definition of commitment was at least partly an outcome of Hillsborough III. In that decision, Judge Quattlebaum concluded, "The [Department] has no responsibility for the expenses of detention related to juveniles who were not committed to the [Department]'s care and supervision. Nothing in the statute or the previous Final Orders indicates otherwise." Hillsborough III at ¶ 13. On this point, however, Hillsborough III adopts the position of the Department that was not seriously challenged.27/ However, section 985.686(3) requires the county to pay "the costs of providing detention care... for the period of time prior to final court disposition." The statute does not state that "final court disposition" is equivalent to "commitment to the Department."28/ Okaloosa County provides a more comprehensive analysis statute: the Department is responsible for the expenses of all post-disposition detention, not merely detention of juveniles who are committed to the Department. The evidence in the instant case made it clear that probation is another post- disposition outcome that may result in detention, and that the Department has made a practice of charging the counties for detentions related to this disposition. Judge Anthony H. Johnson, the Circuit Administrative Judge of the Juvenile Division, Ninth Judicial Circuit, testified as to the procedures that a circuit court follows after the arrest of a juvenile charged with delinquency: Okay, we'll begin by the arrest of the juvenile. And the juvenile is then taken to the JAC, the Joint Assessment Center, where a decision is made whether to keep the juvenile in detention or to release the juvenile. That decision is based upon something called the DRAI, the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument. How that works probably is not important for the purpose of this except to know that some juveniles are released, and some remain detained. The juveniles that are . . . detained will appear the following day or within 24 hours before a circuit judge, and it would be the duty judge, the emergency duty judge on the weekends, or a juvenile delinquency judge if it's regular court day. At that time the judge will determine whether the juvenile should be released or continue to be retained. That's also based upon the DRAI. If the juvenile is detained, he or she will remain for up to 21 days pending their adjudicatory hearing. Everything in juvenile has a different name. We would call that a trial in any other circumstance. Now the 21 days is a statutory time limit: however, it's possible in some cases that that 21 days would be extended. If there is a continuance by any party, and for good cause shown, the judge can decide to keep the juvenile detained past the 21 days. That's relatively unusual. It's usually resolved, one way or the other, in 21 days. After the trial is conducted, if the juvenile is found not guilty, of course he or she is released. If they're found guilty, then a decision is made about whether or not they should remain detained pending the disposition in the case. The disposition—- there needs to be time between the adjudication and the disposition so that a pre-disposition report can be prepared. It's really the Department of Juvenile Justice that decides whether or not the child will be committed. We pretend that it's the judge, but it's not really.29/ And that decision is made—- is announced in the pre-disposition report. If the child is committed at the disposition hearing, the judge will order the child committed to the Department. Now, one or two things will happen then. Well, maybe one of three things. If the child scores detention-- let me not say scores. If it's a level eight or above, then the child will remain detained. If it's not that, the child will be released and told to go home on home detention awaiting placement. Here's where things get, I think, probably for your purposes, a bit complex. Let's say at the disposition, the child-- the recommendation of the Department is not that the child be committed, but that the child be placed on probation. Then the child goes into the community. The disposition has then been held, and the child's on probation. If the child violates probation, then the child comes back into the system, and then you sort of start this process again, on the violation of probation. If the child is found to have violated his or her probation, then you go back to the process where the Department makes a recommendation. Could be commitment, it could be something else. The child may be detained during that time period. Often what will happen is the misconduct of the child will be handled in a more informal manner by the court. The court may decide instead of going through the VOP hearing, violation of probation, I'm going to handle this by holding the child in contempt for disobeying the court's order to go to school, to not use drugs, or whatever the violation was. In that case, the child may be detained for contempt, for a period of 5 days for the first offense, or 15 days for a subsequent offense. Judge Johnson testified that "by definition, anything after the disposition hearing would be post-disposition." He went on to explain: You know, the problem here, I think, is we have a couple of different dispositions. We have one disposition that's the initial disposition. And if the child is put on probation, and then violates the probation, then you have a whole other hearing as to whether or not there was a violation of probation. And, if so, you have a whole new disposition hearing as to what the sanction ought to be for violation of probation. The probation issue was a key point of contention between the Counties and the Department. The Department does not consider itself responsible for detentions of juveniles who been given a disposition of probation. Thus, when a juvenile is picked up for a violation of probation, the Department considers that detention to be "pre-disposition" and chargeable to the county. The Counties contend, more consistently with section 985.686(3), that probation is a consequence of "final court disposition," and any subsequent detentions arising from violation of probation should be considered post-disposition and paid by the Department. Aside from the legal barriers, there are practical considerations that render the January 12, 2011, analysis unsuitable as a measure of the Counties' actual costs. Ms. Davis testified that the analysis is "a little deceiving because it only includes an analysis based on commitment." She noted that the analysis did not take into account the adjustments that had been made in light of the twelve counties' challenges to the annual reconciliation. Ms. Davis stated: "We simply ran an analysis per the request of the counties as to what the days would be based on commitment only, using our new programming that we do today. . . [W]e couldn’t submit it as a reconciliation because it's not correct. There are some address errors. We didn't fix those." Ms. Davis testified that the Department never had any intention that the January 12 analysis should be considered a reconciliation. The programming and the data set had changed since the annual reconciliation. The information in the analysis was not the same information that was analyzed in the reconciliation. Comparing the reconciliation to this analysis would be "apples to oranges" in many respects, according to Ms. Davis. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the January 12, 2011, analysis does not establish the "actual costs" of the remaining counties and is not an accurate basis for settling their final accounts for fiscal year 2008-2009. It is further found that, because the Department has never attempted to ascertain the Counties' actual costs and provided no such data to this tribunal, the record of this proceeding offers insufficient evidence to establish the actual costs for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008- 2009 for Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. The Department conceded that its annual reconciliation and the adjustment thereto were based on inaccurate data and included significant errors. The January 12, 2011, analysis was based on a definition of "commitment" that has since been found in derogation of section 985.686(5), Florida Statutes. None of the analyses performed by the Department went beyond the calculation of the number of detention days to the calculation of any county's actual costs of providing detention care. The Department bears the burden of providing a reconciliation to each of these three counties that reflects their actual costs of providing secure juvenile detention care. Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties are each entitled to an accounting of their actual costs without regard to the costs of any other county.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order that: Reinstates the amounts set forth in the Department's December 7, 2009, annual reconciliation letter for the following Counties: Alachua, Orange, Escambia, City of Jacksonville, Bay, Seminole, and Okaloosa; Reinstates the amounts set forth in the Department's March 23, 2010, adjustment letter for the following Counties: Pinellas, Brevard, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa; and Provides that the Department will, without undue delay, provide a revised assessment that states the actual costs of providing predisposition secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 for the following Counties: Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 22nd day of August, 2012.
The Issue Whether the petitioner abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service System under the circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a permanent full-time employee in the Bureau of Workers' Compensation within the Division of Risk Management in the Department of Insurance. Her job title was Secretary Specialist. Her immediate supervisor was Lawrence Sharp, Chief of the Bureau. However, on February 6, 1985, Mr. Sharp was on annual leave, and Ms. Peggy Veigas was the acting supervisor. On February 6, 1985, Petitioner took two hours of authorized leave from work from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., in order to attend a Leon County Court hearing on charges of cashing bad checks. The checks had been repaid in advance of the hearing: however, petitioner was immediately adjudicated guilty of writing bad checks, sentenced to 12 days in jail, and taken into custody. Petitioner was due to return to work at 10:00 a.m., but was unable to do so because of circumstances beyond her control. She was taken directly from her court appearance to the Leon County Jail. However, prior to being transported to the jail, she was able to ask her husband, who had accompanied her to court, to call her employer and ask for emergency leave to cover the 12 days she would be serving her sentence. Mr. Penney called petitioner's office at about 2 p.m. on February 6, 1985, and in the absence of Mr. Sharp the call was referred to Ms. Veigas, the acting supervisor. Mr. Penney explained that Mrs. Penney would not be at work for the next eight to ten days and requested emergency leave for that period of time. Mr. Penney was very vague about the nature of the emergency and Mrs. Penney's whereabouts. He did not explain that Mrs. Penney was in jail because he felt it would be embarrassing to Mrs. Penney. Ms. Veigas stated that emergency leave could be granted but she would have to talk to Mrs. Penney. She told Mr. Penney to have Mrs. Penney call her. Mr. Penney stated that Mrs. Penney could not call in and implied that Mrs. Penney was out of town. Ms. Veigas explained that Mrs. Penney needed to call her as soon as she could get to a phone and, if necessary, for her to call collect. Mr. Penney interpreted Mrs. Veigas' statement, that she could grant the leave but Mrs. Penney would have to call as soon as possible, as meaning that the leave was approved and that Mrs. Penney had to call work as soon as she was able to do so. However, in making the statement, Mrs. Veigas meant only that there was a possibility that leave would be granted and Mrs. Penney needed to call and explain the nature of the emergency. The subsequent actions of both Mr. Penney and Mrs. Veigas were consistent with their respective conceptions of the conversation. That afternoon, after the telephone call, Ms. Veigas went to the personnel office and discussed the matter with Ms. Cooper. Ms. Veigas wanted to find out how she should handle the request for leave and whether she should wait for Mr. Sharp to return from his vacation. Mr. Yohner, the Chief of Personnel Management, was consulted, and he stated that when Mrs. Penney called, Ms. Veigas would have to determine whether she would approve the leave or not. Ms. Veigas was told by Ms. Cooper to wait until Ms. Veigas heard from Mrs. Penney "so we would know whether it was an illness or whatever it was." (T-47) However, the nature of the emergency was determined without the necessity of a call from Mrs. Penney. Within a short period of time after the call from Mr. Penney, Ms. Veigas mentioned the request for emergency leave to Ms. Benefield. Ms. Benefield told Ms. Grissom about the call from Mr. Penney, and the two speculated that Mrs. Penney might be in jail. They were aware that Mrs. Penney had financial problems. While Ms. Grissom stood by, Ms. Benefield telephoned the jail and was told that Mrs. Penney was in jail for passing bad checks. They immediately communicated the information to Ms. Veigas, and the three of them, along with a woman named Edna, discussed the situation for about five or ten minutes. Ms. Veigas then conveyed the information to Mr. Yohner, Ms. Cooper and Mr. Beardon, the Director of the Division of Risk Management, who had previously been informed of the call from Mr. Penney. The following day Mr. Sharp returned to work and was informed of the entire situation. Mr. Sharp discussed the matter with Mr. Beardon. Mr. Beardon had his assistant call the State Attorney's Office to verify that Mrs. Penney was in jail. Thus, by the end of the workday on February 7, 1985, Mrs. Penney's co-workers, her immediate supervisor, the Chief of Personnel Management, and the Director of the Division of Risk Management were all aware that Mrs. Penney, through her husband, had requested emergency leave, and they were all aware that the emergency leave had been requested due to Mrs. Penney's incarceration. On either February 6th or 7th, Mr. Yohner notified Mr. Gresham, the Director of the Division of Administration and Mr. Yohner's supervisor, that a possible abandonment of position situation existed. Mr. Gresham was not informed that petitioner had requested emergency leave. On Friday, February 8th, or on the following Monday, Mr. Sharp called a friend of his in the Department of Administration, Don Bradley, to gain advice on application of the rule relating to abandonment of position. He was told that when someone missed three days of work without having authorization, it was the same thing as resigning and required termination. Mr. Sharp relayed the information to Mr. Beardon. Mr. Sharp did not consider petitioner's leave request and did not know whether he had the authority to approve the leave since at least a portion of the leave requested would have been without pay.2 After three days expired and Mrs. Penney had neither reported for work nor called the office, Mr. Beardon contacted Mr. Yohner to discuss the situation. He also discussed the situation with his superior in the Department. Though Mr. Beardon was aware that Mrs. Penney had requested leave through her husband and was aware that she was absent from work only because she had no choice, Mr. Beardon did not consider her request for leave. His reason was that Mrs. Penney did not personally request the leave. He did not consider the possibility that Mrs. Penney was not able to call in person. Mr. Beardon felt that a call from Mrs. Penney was necessary to find out "all of the pertinent facts and why the request was needed." However, it is apparent that Mr. Beardon already knew why the requested leave was needed and had already discovered the pertinent facts. Nevertheless, Mr. Beardon determined that, under the abandonment rule,3 petitioner had abandoned her job and her employment should be terminated. He recommended that the personnel office proceed with the action in accordance with the rule. Mr. Yohner informed Mr. Gresham of Mr. Bearden's recommendation that petitioner be terminated from the Career Service via the abandonment rule. A letter was prepared for Mr. Gresham's signature, notifying Petitioner of her termination from the Career Service. Mr. Gresham signed the letter and mailed it to petitioner at her home address. By the letter dated February 11, 1985, and then by an amended letter dated February 12, 1985, petitioner was notified that she had been absent without authorized leave for three consecutive days, and therefore she was deemed to have abandoned her position pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and to have resigned from the Career Service. Meanwhile, Mr. Penney was under the impression that the emergency leave had been granted. He was able to speak with his wife for the first time on February 9, 1985, and the first question petitioner asked her husband was whether the leave had been granted. He told her that it had been, and she displayed visible signs of relief at the knowledge. Petitioner's husband also told her that she should call Ms. Veigas at her earliest opportunity. Mrs. Penney made diligent attempts to contact her employer both before and after she spoke with her husband on February 9, 1985. On each day of her incarceration she made written requests to the Captain at the jail for permission to use the telephone to call her employer. However, she received no response. In accordance with jail policy, which allowed one phone call per week at a set time, she was permitted use of the telephone on only one occasion, on February 11, 1985 at about 11 p.m. in the evening. Mrs. Penney's sentence was reduced by Judge McClamma and she was released from jail on February 14, 1985. She received the termination letter that evening when she got home. The next morning she called Mr. Yohner and stated that she wanted to return to work. Mr. Yohner informed her that she was no longer an employee of the Department. Mrs. Penney's position was advertised on February 19th and readvertised on March 4, 1985. Sometime after March 4, 1985, a replacement was hired. Although the workers compensation bureau had a very heavy case load, Mrs. Penney's work performance had been satisfactory. Indeed, she had been promoted to the position of Secretary Specialist from her previous position of Clerk-Typist III with the bureau. Petitioner had no intent to abandon her position in the Career Service, and she had no intent to resign her position. The Department had actual knowledge of the petitioner's whereabouts during her absence from work, and had actual knowledge that she intended to return to work as soon as she could. Further, the Department was aware that petitioner had requested leave to cover the period of time she would be gone. However, instead of taking action on the request, one way or the other, the Department left the request in limbo. A decision was never made to approve or disapprove the request. The only explanation given for not considering the request was that Mrs. Penney had not made it personally. However, it is quite clear that at the time of Mr. Penney's call the Department considered the call a legitimate request for leave from Mrs. Penney even though the call was not made by her. Ms. Veigas did not tell Mr. Penney that the leave could not be granted because Mrs. Penney had not called in person. Indeed, the first thing Ms. Veigas did after the telephone call was go to the personnel office to find out how she should "process the request". The only reason that the Department wanted to talk to Mrs. Penney personally, prior to determining whether leave should be granted, was to discover the nature of the emergency. Although Mr. Penney explained that there was an emergency, that Mrs. Penney was unable to call, and that leave was being requested to cover the period of time that Mrs. Penney would be unable to work, he was very vague about the nature of the emergency. The Department understandably wanted to know the reason for the request before deciding to grant leave. However, once the Department discovered Mrs. Penney's circumstances, it was in a position to make an informed decision on the leave request, and there was no rational basis for its failure to do so. Although the granting of leave is discretionary, the discretion must be exercised. Apparently, the Department officials believed that Mrs. Penney's absence from work for three consecutive days mandated termination notwithstanding the pending request for leave. Because the Department failed to take any action on the leave request, Mrs. Penney was never notified that her request for leave had been denied. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, it must be concluded that Mrs. Penney did not abandon her position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ruling that the circumstances presented by this case do not constitute abandonment of position as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a) and directing that the petitioner be reinstated to her former position as of February 15, 1985. DONE and ENTERED this ;26th of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 1985.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to recover salary that it claims that it overpaid Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employs Respondent as a detention care worker in a juvenile detention center in Miami. She is presently classified as a Senior Juvenile Detention Officer. Respondent's highest education is a high school diploma. She has worked 27 years for Petitioner and its predecessor agency, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In early January 2004, Respondent was hospitalized at least a couple of times for surgery. Upon her release from the hospital, Respondent's physician directed her to rest and not to return to work. She remained under these doctor orders, and thus out of work, continuously until April 29, 2004, when Respondent returned to work. Respondent exhausted her sick and annual leave prior to returning to work. The sole issue in this case is whether Respondent and her coworkers effectively completed transfers of their sick leave to her. Due to its payroll administration procedures, Petitioner paid Respondent her normal salary for a period of time for which Petitioner did not work and had no remaining sick or annual leave, so, absent an effective transfer of sick leave from coworkers, Respondent would have received overpayments during this time. The salary payments in dispute are $409.70 for the pay period ending March 25, 2004; $1399.71 for the pay period ending April 8, 2004; $1477.53 for the pay period ending April 22, 2004; and $518.08 for the pay period ending May 6, 2004. These payments total $3805.02. Petitioner has adopted a policy governing the transfer of sick leave between employees. Petitioner Policy 1002.03, Part III.F, Procedures for Sick Leave Transfer (Sick Leave Transfer Policy), sets forth the procedures applicable to leave donors, leave recipients, and Petitioner's Bureau of Personnel. With respect to the leave recipient, Sick Leave Transfer Policy provides: In order to receive donation of sick leave, the employee (recipient) must complete the Interagency Sick Leave Transfer Request (Request to Use) Form (Attachment 2) and submit it to the Bureau of Personnel on or before the pay period the employee is eligible to use the leave. The receiving employee (recipient) must submit medical certification to the Bureau of Personnel of the continued illness of the employee and the inability to return to work, by completing the Sick Leave Transfer Request (Request to Use) Form. The Request to Use Form is incorporated into the Sick Leave Transfer Policy. It is a one-page preprinted form consisting of two parts. Entitled "Request to Use Donated Sick Leave," Part I is a signed, dated statement from the employee that states the date on which the absence began or will begin and adds: I certify that I have suffered an illness, accident or injury. I further certify that I have expended all my personal leave credits and this is to request use of donated sick leave hours to cover my absence due to my current personal illness, accident or injury. I authorize my employer to use my name and release a general description of the medical circumstances in order to determine my eligibility in accessing this benefit. Entitled "Medical Documentation," Part II of the Request to Use Form comprises two subparts. The first part of the form consists of a statement from the employee that he or she is seeking donated sick leave and authorizes any medical practitioner to complete Part II and answer any questions concerning the employee's eligibility. The second part of Part II of the Request To Use Form follows a line stating: "To Be Completed by the Treating Medical Practitioner Only." The information to be supplied by the practitioner is identifying information, the "date of which patient was first examined for current condition," the "date patient is expected to recover or be released to duty," and any restrictions imposed upon the patient's release to duty. The last line of Part II states in boldface: "Return this form (marked confidential) to:" Instructions for Authorized Use of this Form: In order for the patient to comply with eligibility requirements, the treating medical practitioner must complete this form and return it to the patient's employer directly or via the patient. In smaller print, immediately following the last statement, the Request to Use Form states: "Return to Bureau of Personnel, Benefits, 2737 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32399-3100." This case turns on whether Petitioner timely received the Request to Use Form. Petitioner does not dispute that it timely received sufficient Request To Donate Forms to cover the amount of the claimed salary overpayments. On March 31, 2004, Respondent faxed a seven-page package of documents to George Sumpter, who was Petitioner's Sick Leave Donations Coordinator in Petitioner's Benefits group in the Bureau of Personnel in Tallahassee. This package consisted of executed Request to Donate Forms. Respondent faxed these forms to 850-921-6700. On April 30, 2004, the day after she returned to work, Respondent faxed a 12-page package of documents to Mr. Sumpter. This package included an executed Request to Use Form and medical certification. Respondent's Bureau of Personnel thus received sufficient documentation to process the sick leave transfers during the pay period that ended May 6, 2004, as the policy requires that the documentation be submitted "on or before the [subject] pay period." Respondent faxed an executed Request to Use Form in late February or early March. She faxed the materials to the lone Bureau of Personnel liaison present in the Miami facility at which Respondent worked. Respondent believed either that submitting the materials to the Miami liaison would suffice or, if not, the Miami liaison would forward them to where they needed to go. It is difficult to determine what happened to these forms. No one in the Bureau of Personnel was very helpful to Respondent, who was able to obtain copies of the Request to Donate and Request to Use forms from a friend in the Department of Education. Somehow, while still recuperating from surgery and ill health, Respondent was able to obtain a copy of a list of telephone and fax numbers for various groups within Petitioner's Bureau of Personnel in Tallahassee, but the list was old and did not have Mr. Sumpter's name on it, nor did the list clearly indicate which fax number to use for submitting the Request to Use and Request to Donate forms. Learning that Mr. Sumpter claimed not to have received the first package, Respondent refaxed the package to him in March. At some point, Mr. Sumpter acknowledged that he had received the Request to Use Form package, but he told Respondent that he had received it too late for her to be able to use any of the donated sick leave. When Respondent persisted in asking that he allow her to use the donated sick leave, Mr. Sumpter told her to file a complaint with Petitioner's Inspector General's Office. Respondent contacted the Inspector General's Office, where no one was able to help her. Mr. Sumpter did not testify at the hearing. However, a document maintained in the Bureau of Personnel files discloses that Petitioner had received the Request to Use Form on April 1, 2004. However, the same form states that Petitioner did not receive the "Medical Documentation Form" until May 28, 2004. Prior to April 1, 2004, Respondent repeatedly sent faxes to Bureau of Personnel representatives in Miami and Tallahassee. Included in these faxes were all of the documentation necessary to process the sick leave transfers from the donors to Respondent. During the period in question, Petitioner was undergoing significant employee turnover. On this record, it is more likely than not that Respondent timely submitted, by no later than the first pay period in question in this case, all of the duly executed documentation necessary to effect a transfer of the donated sick leave to her.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order dismissing its claim of salary overpayment to Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Schembri, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Linville Apkins Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Elizabeth Judd, Qualified Representative 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 Miami Gardens, Florida 33169 Yvette Demeritte 1730 Northwest 1st Court, Apartment 7 Miami, Florida 33136
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Roger Smith, is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, the Florida Parole Commission, including the Challenged Rule. The Petitioner is serving a "parole eligible sentence." The Petitioner's eligibility for parole has been determined by the Respondent. The Petitioner was convicted of the offense of escape and, therefore, the Respondent applied the Challenged Rule to the Petitioner. The Respondent. Sections 947.07 and 947.13, Florida Statutes, authorize the Respondent to adopt rules governing the parole of inmates in the State of Florida. Among other things, Section 947.13, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Respondent to determine who is placed on parole and to fix the time and conditions of parole. Pursuant to Sections 947.07 and 947.13, Florida Statutes, the Respondent promulgated the Challenged Rules. Rule 23-21.018(1) and (7), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 23-21.018(1) and (7), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Vacation of presumptive or effective parole release date: The exiting of an inmate from the incarceration portion of his sentence, which shall include but not be limited to bond, escape, parole or MCR release, expiration of sentence, or transfer to a mental health facility, shall vacate any established presumptive parole release date. Any subsequent return to incarcerations will require an initial interview to establish a presumptive parole release date. Provided, however, inmates returning to court for modification of a previously imposed sentence or as witnesses shall not have their presumptive parole release dates vacated. Inmates returning to courts outside of Florida's jurisdiction, i.e, Federal or other state, shall not have their presumptive parole release dates vacated. However, information resulting from disposition of cases in court may be used as new information in accordance with applicable law and these rules. Inmates transferred to a Mentally Disordered Sexual Offender Program shall not have their presumptive parole release dates vacated. . . . . Conviction for crimes committed while incarcerated: Escape or any other crime committed during incarceration with an ensuing conviction and sentence vacates any previously established presumptive parole release date and shall cause the inmate to be considered a new admission. If the inmate is found to be eligible for consideration for parole, the Commission shall aggregate.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Ronald Winkfield was employed as a detention care worker with the Hillsborough Regional Juvenile Detention Center in February of 1982, and was assigned to work the midnight to 8:00 A.M. shift. On or about June 8, 1981, Mr. Winkfield was involved in an automobile accident, received injuries and returned to work on or about August 17, 1981. He claims that he still suffers severe headaches as a result of the accident and that his work with delinquents caused him mental strain. The logs of the Detention Center illustrate that Mr. Winkfield missed four days of work during the first week of February, and called in sick on the first two of those four days. On February 7, 8, 9 and 10, 1982, Mr. Winkfield again did not appear for duty and did not call in sick on any of those days. Employees of the Detention Center working the midnight to 8:00 A.M. shift were instructed to call in before 6:00 P.M. if they were not going to report for work that night. Petitioner admits that he did not report for work on February 7, 8, 9 or 10, 1982, and that he did not call in on those dates to report his absence. He explains that he did not call in because an employee told him during the first week of February that she would not accept his calls unless he brought in a doctor's certificate stating that he was unable to work. About 11:45 P.M. on February 10, 1982, Mr. Winkfield was seen at a doughnut shop getting out of a Tampa Tribune truck. Petitioner was employed by the Tampa Tribune to deliver papers in February of 1982. A week or two before February 7, 1982, a personnel officer discussed with Mr. Winkfield the procedure for obtaining time off without pay. Mr. Winkfield never formally applied for leave without pay. By letter dated February 12, 1982, the Assistant Supervisor of the Hillsborough Regional Juvenile Detention Center advised Mr. Winkfield that he was deemed to have abandoned his position and to have resigned from the Career Service because of his failure to report to work for four consecutive workdays without authorized leave.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered concluding that petitioner Ronald Winkfield has abandoned his position of employment and resigned from the Career Service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 7th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Winkfield 5914 82nd Street Tampa, Florida 33619 Amelia M. Park, Esquire District VI Legal Counsel Department of HRS 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 David Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on his physical disability, and if so, to what relief is he entitled.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began working as a correctional officer at Franklin Work Camp, a facility operated by Gulf Correctional Institution, in April of 1994. At that time, he had no physical condition which would interfere with his ability to perform the duties of a correctional officer. A correctional officer's principle duties include being responsible for the supervision, custody, care, control and physical restraint of inmates when necessary. A correctional officer must be able to sit, walk, stand, bend, stoop, squat, kneel, run, lift, carry and drag heavy objects (such as an inmate). A correctional officer is subject at all times to assignment at any one of several security posts. Whatever the circumstances, the officer must be willing and able to perform the duties and follow the post orders of an assigned post without physical limitation. There are assignments which may not require an officer to perform all of the duties of a correctional officer on a daily basis. However, there always is the possibility that an emergency may require an officer to perform any or all of those duties. Almost all posts require prolonged standing, and running as needed. Respondent has established an alternate duty policy for employees which provides as follows in pertinent part: GENERAL POLICIES AND GUIDELINES A. A Department of Corrections employee who sustains a job-connected injury or illness that results in a temporary partial disability shall return to the work setting if the prognosis from the approved physician reasonably indicates a future return to alternate duties and the employee is able to perform some meaningful work. Employees with non-job connected injuries or illnesses shall not be considered for alternate duty. * * * Individuals employed in a Certified Officer's position must be prepared and able at all times to perform all the duties of an Officer. In keeping with that philosophy, if approved for [a]lternate [d]uty, individuals employed in the Certified Officer's position shall be temporarily assigned to non- Certified Officer duties for the period of time that are determined to have a temporary- partial disability by the Division of Risk Management. In no case shall Certified Officer duties be performed by an alternate duty employee. * * * PROCEDURES General Provisions [1.] When an employee is being considered for [a]lternate [d]uty, the Servicing Personnel Office and Appropriate Authority will determine the alternate duties to be performed. 2. These tasks shall be some type of work that is beneficial to the Department and consistent with the employee's disability. Use of Alternate Duty 1. In accordance with Chapter 60K- 5.012(1)(d), F.A.C., an employee who sustains a job connected temporary-partial or temporary-total disability shall be considered as a candidate for alternate duty if the prognosis from the approved physician indicates a future return to full duties within a reasonable amount of time and the employee can perform some type of work. Alternate duty shall be approved by the Appropriate Authority for a period not to exceed 90 calendar days. However, an extension of up to an additional 90 calendar days may be approved by the Appropriate Authority if there is a medical statement from the approved physician indicating the employee's current medical condition and prognosis for full recovery. An employee may be approved for alternate duty beyond 180 [calendar days], but no more than 365 calendar days with the approval of the Regional Director or appropriate Assistant Secretary. Respondent does not have a policy establishing "light duty" positions for correctional officers with non-work related injuries or illnesses or with permanent/chronic disabilities. Petitioner claims that a doctor diagnosed him as having osteoarthritis of the left knee in March of 1995. There is no evidence indicating that Petitioner's alleged illness was or is related to his employment as a correctional officer. Petitioner testified that Dr. Nina Camperlengo at the Veteran's Administration Clinic in Tallahassee, Florida, was his treating physician for osteoarthritis in 1996. According to Petitioner, Dr. Camperlengo recommended that Petitioner use a cane to relieve the pressure on his knee in June of 1996. Petitioner told, Tom Smith, the officer in charge at Franklin Work Camp, about Dr. Camperlengo's alleged recommendation. Mr. Smith informed Petitioner that he would not be allowed to enter the compound while using a cane. Petitioner continued to work at the work camp facility, without the cane, until June 26, 1996. Petitioner took annual leave between June 26 and July 5, 1996. Before he returned to work, Petitioner called the personnel office at Gulf Correctional Institution. During this conversation, Petitioner advised Paul Herbert, a personnel officer, that he had to use a cane and that he would be taking one with him when he reported for work the following Monday. Mr. Herbert stated that Petitioner could not work in the compound if he needed a cane. Mr. Herbert told Petitioner that before he could return to work, he would have to furnish Respondent with a physician's statement clarifying Petitioner's medical condition and any physical limitations necessitated by that condition. Later that day, Petitioner's personnel office gave him a physicians' statement form and a correctional officer position description to take to his physician. Petitioner had an office visit on or about July 8, 1996 with Dr. Camperlengo. Petitioner testified that the doctor used the physician's statement form to outline the restrictions she felt were necessary due to Petitioner's condition. He furnished a copy of the physician's statement to Respondent. The statement included the following restrictions: (1) no prolonged standing; (2) no running; (3) no physical force to be used by or against patient; and (4) needs to use cane. Limitations like the ones imposed by Dr. Camperlengo would make it impossible for Petitioner to perform the duties of a correctional officer. Respondent appropriately informed Petitioner that he could not return to work until the medical restrictions were lifted by a doctor. A letter dated July 8, 1998, advised Petitioner that Respondent was placing him on leave for a non-work related illness, from June 26, 1996, through September 18, 1996. Petitioner was entitled to this leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Respondent's letter informed Petitioner that he would have to furnish Respondent with a doctor's statement of release, returning Petitioner to his regular duties without limitations, when he returned to work. On September 17, 1996, Petitioner provided Jerry Keel, Personnel Manager at Gulf Correctional Institution, a note indicating that his condition had not changed and would not likely change in the future. Petitioner's note stated that he needed a cane to ambulate. Petitioner also furnished Mr. Keel with a note from Second Lieutenant Smith, a physician's assistant assigned to Tyndal Air Force base, limiting Petitioner's return to full duty. According to the note from Second Lieutenant Smith, Petitioner needed to use a cane for ambulation, secondary to pain. Additionally, Second Lieutenant Smith's note stated that Petitioner's condition was chronic but that he could return to work provided he used his cane and was not forced to stand for prolonged periods of time. In a letter dated September 18, 1998, Petitioner stated that he could perform his duties but that he still needed to use a cane to walk. He requested that Respondent afford him the opportunity to work with an accommodation for his handicap or place him in another job assignment. Respondent did not allow Petitioner to return to work on September 19, 1998, because he did not provide a medical release stating that he could perform his duties without physical limitation. Respondent did not request an extension of his medical leave. By letter dated October 11, 1998, Al Solomon, as Acting Superintendent of Gulf Correctional Institution, sent Second Lieutenant Smith a letter asking for clarification of his earlier note. Specifically, Mr. Solomon inquired as to what, if any, physical limitations would prevent Petitioner from performing his duties as a correctional officer. Second Lieutenant Smith did not respond to Mr. Solomon's letter in writing. In a telephone conversation, Mr. Keel informed Second Lieutenant Smith that his response to the written inquiry had to be written, as well. Respondent did not receive a written response from Second Lieutenant Smith prior to Petitioner's dismissal. A copy of Dr. Camperlengo's progress notes dated October 17, 1996, states as follows in its entirety: Mr. David Kelly was seen today in clinic for his ongoing medical conditions. He still requires a cane for ambulation. Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated November 20, 1996, that charges were being brought against him which could result in his dismissal. Specially, Respondent charged him with inability to perform his duties and/or excessive absenteeism. The only medical information available to Respondent at that time indicated that Petitioner had a chronic condition which limited his ability to perform his regular duties due to a non-work related injury. The letter advised Petitioner that Respondent had conducted a job search and found no other position available for which he was qualified. At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted a predetermination conference on December 6, 1998. Petitioner did not present any additional information indicating that his medical condition had improved or would improve so that he could perform, without limitation, the duties of a correctional officer. H.D. Alford, Superintendent of Gulf Correctional Institution, dismissed Petitioner from his employment effective December 10, 1998. Petitioner made no independent effort to identify another position with Respondent for which he would have been qualified. Respondent attempted to find Petitioner another position within the agency's Region One area, but there were no position available to match his qualifications. Petitioner received unemployment compensation for a while. He then sought outside employment and received a job offer. He did not accept the job because he hoped to return to work with Respondent. On April 10, 1997, Respondent received a handwritten note from Second Lieutenant Smith stating that the use of a cane is incompatible with the position description for a correctional officer. Petitioner is able to golf and walk for exercise one or two times a week. He personally does not feel that his osteoartritis is a serious condition. He believes that he has always been physically able to perform a correctional officer's duties. However, Petitioner feels more comfortable when he has the cane to relieve pressure on his knee in case he needs such relief. According to Petitioner, his ability to walk or stand for long periods of time depends on the weather and his level of activity. Petitioner did not present the testimony of a medical expert to establish the following: (1) the exact nature and severity of his disability; (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; or (3) the permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission On Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Russell Scholz, Esquire Rish and Gibson, P.A. Post Office Box 39 Port St. Joe, Florida 32457 Ernest L. Reddick, III, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact On or about November 18, 1994, Petitioner submitted a state employment application for a position as a Detention Care Worker II (DCW II), position number 40756 with the Department of Juvenile Justice. A DCW II is responsible for the care and custody of juvenile offenders and for providing counsel and advise to these offenders. Respondent submitted the application to Alexander Wynn, who was at that time superintendent for the Orlando Regional Juvenile Detention Center. It was the responsibility of Superintendent Wynn to review all the applications submitted for the open position, interview the candidates and submit a recommendation to his superiors for hire in the position. At the time of submission, Petitioner had not answered the questions regarding his background which appear in the first block on page 3 of the application. Petitioner informed Superintendent Wynn during the interview that he was not sure how to answer the questions as he was not aware of the degree of one offense in his background and because his record had been cleared of the charges. Superintendent Wynn instructed Hall to provide him with documents from the court which indicated the nature of the offense and its disposition. Petitioner was asked on his state application whether he had ever pled guilty or nolo contendere to a crime which is a felony or first degree misdemeanor. Petitioner responded to this question in the negative. Petitioner was also asked on his state application whether he had ever had the adjudication of guilt withheld on a crime which is a felony or first degree misdemeanor; again Petitioner responded in the negative. Petitioner was charged in February of 1994 with one court of violating Section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes, battery. A violation of Section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes, is a first degree misdemeanor. The information which was filed on Petitioner specifies that the battery charge resulted from the fact that Petitioner, "on or about the 9th day of November 1993, within Volusia County, Florida, did actually and intentionally touch or strike Lucretia Hall against her will by squeezing victim around the neck and/or forcing victim onto the bed." At the time of the battery, Petitioner was married to and living with Lucretia Hall. The court withheld adjudication of guilt pending Petitioner's successful completion of probation. Petitioner was placed on probation for one year, ordered to participate in marriage counseling, and pay court costs or perform 25 hours of community service. Petitioner successfully completed probation. Probation was terminated and the case was closed. Petitioner provided Wynn with a document indicating his judgment and sentence and his release from probation. Wynn stated that he was satisfied that the documents cleared Petitioner and, accordingly, Petitioner followed Superintendent Wynn's instructions and answered the questions per his direction. Wynn informed Petitioner that he would file the documents in Petitioner's personnel file, and if anyone had any questions regarding the charge to refer them to him. By letter of September 30, 1994, Petitioner was offered a permanent position as a Detention Care Worker II at the Orlando Regional Detention center. He began work on or about November 27, 1994. Petitioner was subsequently fingerprinted and a background screening was conducted. Following the completion of a background screening, Petitioner was notified that he was not eligible for employment in a caretaker's position and was terminated by Respondent on June 14, 1995, pursuant to allegations that he had plead guilty to domestic battery and was the subject of a confirmed abuse report. This was the only allegation of domestic abuse in his nine-year marriage to Lucretia Hall. Petitioner has remarried since the incident and has never exhibited any violent tendencies towards his current wife or his stepchildren. Sufficient time has lapsed since the incident and he has demonstrated rehabilitation. Petitioner has demonstrated that he is a reliable person of good moral character. There is not, nor has there been, any evidence of a confirmed abuse report against the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order granting an exemption to Petitioner, Richard Hall. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5896J To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 (in part) 5 (in part), 6, 7, 8 (in part), 9 (in part), 10 (in part), 11 (in part), 12 (in part), 13, 14 (in part), 15, 16 (in part), and 17. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (in part), 12 (in Preliminary Statement), 13 (in Preliminary Statement), 14 (in Preliminary Statement). Rejected as hearsay or immaterial and irrelevant: paragraphs 4, 5, 11 (in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth W. Williams, Esquire Irvin Williams and Associates 1103 W. Willow Run Drive Port Orange, Florida 32119 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position and thereby resigned his career service at the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Oscar T. Brown was a career service employee at the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center. Mr. Brown was a DCWI and was assigned to the C- shift. On May 4, 1987, Petitioner requested annual leave for the period from June 30, 1987, through July 8, 1987. The purpose of this request was to afford Petitioner with time off. Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Margaret Ann Wilks, approved the leave request. However, the assistant superintendent, Ron Fryer, disapproved the leave request. Petitioner was notified that the leave had been disapproved prior to June 26, 1987. On June 26, 1987, Ms. Wilks asked Mr. Fryer to reconsider his decision to disapprove Petitioner's leave request. Mr. Fryer did not approve the leave request and did not advise Ms. Wilks that the leave could be taken. Petitioner elected to take leave solely on the approval offered by Ms. Wilks. Petitioner did not report to work, as scheduled, for the period he had requested leave. Petitioner did not call in during the time he had requested leave. Neither a DCS III or DCS I approved Petitioner's leave request. Such approval is required prior to annual leave being taken. The Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center houses minors in a totally supervised environment including lockups and hourly review of detainees' security. During the period Petitioner requested leave, the facility held from 140 to 180 minors. Mr. Fryer denied Petitioner's leave request because the facility was overcrowded and due to manpower and staffing problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order affirming the decision that Petitioner had abandoned his position and thereby resigned from the Career Service. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 13th day of November, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Harvey Swickle, Esquire 1031 North Miami Beach Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Larry Kranert, Esquire District Legal Counsel 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
