The Issue The issues are presented based upon an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent accusing the Respondent of entering into a drug trafficking agreement with an inmate in a correctional facility where the Respondent worked. This is in violation of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes, per the Administrative Complaint, in that should the allegations be proven, Respondent is not felt to be qualified to hold a certificate as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, in that he has committed conduct unfitting for a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wayne A. Thomas, was a correctional officer employed at the Union Correctional Institution from August 4, 1981 through March 3, 1983. He served there under the authority of a certificate as correctional officer, which certificate had been issued by the State of Florida. At present, the Respondent's correctional officer certificate is in an inactive status. This case was presented for formal hearing based upon the Respondent's timely request for such treatment of the controversy. On March 2, 1983, Sergeant Sterling M. Esford, a correctional officer in the Union Correctional facility, was approached by an inmate, Ronald Thompson. Thompson was a person whom Esford had used as a confidential informant in the past and had found to be reliable. Thompson told Esford he had information to the effect that the Respondent was bringing quaaludes into the correctional facility to be sold. In exchange for assistance to be given an inmate Bell who was having difficulty with the prison authorities related to certain charges that they had brought against him, Thompson agreed to assist the internal security section of the institution in its efforts to investigate allegations against the Respondent. Lieutenant R. T. Lee, internal security officer, was made aware of the claims of Thompson related to Respondent's alleged drug activities and the offer by Thompson to help in the apprehension of the Respondent. Thompson told the authorities that he would need $50 to make a drug Purchase from Respondent. Lee gave Thompson $50 of money in which the serial numbers had been recorded prior to the transfer of the currency, money which had been dusted with a powder which could not be detected unless subject to ultraviolet light. Thompson then took the money on March 3, 1983 and later met with the Respondent. At the time of the meeting between Thompson and the Respondent, Thompson did not tell the Respondent that he wished to purchase drugs as he had indicated to the internal security officers that he would do. Thompson instead asked that the Respondent transmit the $50 in currency to a Marvin Jackson who was being held in a confinement section of the institution. Thompson made it known that this money was being transmitted for the benefit of one Doyle Heard, a friend of Jackson's. Thompson then gave money to the Respondent. The exact amount of the money given was not revealed, in that only $45 of the money was ever recovered and it is uncertain whether the remaining $5 was kept by Thompson, the Respondent or Marvin Jackson, who received the $45. Authorities searched the person of the Respondent and Jackson and did not find the $5. Thompson was not searched. (Respondent claims that the transmittal of the currency was in exchange for information which Thompson gave him on the subject of unauthorized weapons, which were hidden in the institution. He further claims that Thompson assisted him in searching for those weapons, although none were found. Given the testimony of other witnesses to the effect that those kinds of weapons were readily discoverable through routine searches by authorities and the fact that doing favors for inmates in exchange for information was a matter done under the guise of official sanction by authorities within the institution, which was not the case here, and the failure of the Respondent to disclose to authorities his alleged transmittal of the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of weapons in the institution, Respondent's explanation is not believed. In other words, Respondent is not found to have told the truth when he says that he transmitted the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of illegal weapons within the institution.) When the Respondent gave the money to Jackson, he told him that the money had been sent to him by Doyle Heard, his acquaintance. He further stated that the money was being given to him because Jackson was being transferred from that institution to another. In carrying this money from Thompson to Jackson, Respondent recognized that it was contrary to law and policy to do so, in that United States currency is considered contraband if found in the hands of an inmate and to assist in its transmittal, as opposed to turning in the contraband is a specific violation of the laws and rules of the institution. After the money transfer, Thompson indicated that he had conferred with the Respondent about the purchase of marijuana for $50 to be delivered at a later time. The authorities were led to believe from Thompson's remark that the purchase was quaaludes in exchange for $50. (Thompson denies ever having met Jackson at the time of the money being provided to Jackson in this incident.) He said he subsequently became aware of Jackson's existence. Considering his demeanor and his other testimony presented in the course of the hearing, Thompson is not believed when he says that a drug transaction took place between he and the Respondent on March 3, 1983, related to the exchange of $50 in return for drugs to be delivered at a future date. The facts demonstrate that Thompson misled the authorities about the reason for obtaining the $50 and did so to benefit Heard and Jackson. Thompson established a "scam" in order to obtain $50 for the benefit of those two inmates, and to facilitate those purposes lied about the Respondent's involvement in the subject drug deal which supposedly occurred on March 3, 1983. When the Respondent was leaving the institution on the evening of March 3, 1983, he was confronted by Lieutenant Lee and denied knowing Thompson and denied any involvement in a drug deal. The powder from the marked money was later discovered on his trousers and when confronted with that discovery, the Respondent acknowledged knowing Thompson and stated that he had delivered money to Marvin Jackson. In this interview, Respondent acknowledged that the transmittal of the currency was in violation of institutional policy. As identified by Sergeant Esford and confirmed by other correctional officers who gave testimony in the hearing, transmittal of the contraband, i.e., the U.S. currency, caused the Respondent to lose his effectiveness as a correctional officer. Respondent resigned his post following the incident. At the time of the departure, officials within the institution had found his overall performance to have been satisfactory.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner was incarcerated at Union Correctional Institition within the custody and control of the Department of Corrections. On or about March 1, 1983, Petitioner submitted a request to be admitted to the Mutual Participation Program, also known as ''Contract Parole." Thereafter, Petitioner was considered for eligibility for that program by a classification specialist employed by the Department of Corrections and a parole examiner employed by the Parole and Probation Commission. On April 22, 1983, these two officials recommended against Petitioner's request based on Petitioner's "extensive criminal history," "history of drug abuse in the past," his escape from minimum custody while a patient at the Veteran's Administration hospital in Gainesville in December of 1979, and his involvement in a prison disturbance at Marion Correctional Institute in 1978. Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative code, entitled Mutual participation Program was first adopted by Respondent on September 10, 1981. Respondent conducted rulemaking proceedings in 1982 which resulted in amendments to various portions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code. These amendments became effective October 1, 1982. During the course of the rulemaking proceeding, Respondent published notice of the proposed changes in the Florida Administrative Weekly and, in addition, forwarded copies of the proposed changes to all Department of Corrections offices, including each correctional institution. The record in this cause is unclear as to whether these proposed changes were ever posted in the law library or other office at Union Correctional Institution. Petitioner contends that he was never afforded notice of the proposed amendments to Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, and library officials at Union Correctional Institution do not specifically recall ever having seen such proposed amendments. There are no facts of record in this proceeding from which it could be concluded with any certainty whether any of the provisions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, either as it was initially adopted or as it was amended effective October 1, 1982, were applied to Petitioner's request for participation in that program.
The Issue Whether Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l), 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioners, William Van Poyck, Mike Ramadanovic and Kenneth Boudreaux, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioners are subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rules challenged in these cases, Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l), 33-3.0083(9)(i), and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rules"). Petitioner Van Poyck is on death row, which is considered administrative confinement. All exercise privileges for Petitioner Van Poyck have been suspended for almost three years. Petitioner Ramadanovic at the time of the final hearing was in close management confinement. All exercise privileges for Petitioner Ramadanovic have been suspended for almost one year. Petitioner Bourdreaux at the time of the final hearing was in close management confinement. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. The Challenged Rules. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "administrative confinement". Administrative confinement is the removal of an inmate from the general inmate population for one or more specified reasons. Rule 33-3.0081(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (l) Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a 24-hour basis excluding showers and clinic trips may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a 30-day period, an exercise schedule shall be implemented to ensure a minimum of two hours per week of exercise out of doors. Such exercise periods shall be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted. The superintendent or assistant superintendent may restrict exercise for an individual inmate when the inmate continues to pose a serious threat to the safety, security and order of the institution by recent demonstrations of violence, by continuing threats of physical harm, written and spoken, toward staff and other inmates; by involvement in acts which seriously interfere with the staff's daily security functions, or by actions demonstrating an extreme escape risk. Inmates shall be notified in writing of this decision and may appeal through the grievance procedure. The denial of exercise shall be for the shortest length of time to accomplish the goal of safety, security and order within the institution and shall be documented on Form DC4-814. Medical restrictions may also place limitations on the exercise periods. Recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period provided such equipment does not compromise the safety or security of the institution. Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "close management". Close management is the "long-term single cell confinement of an inmate apart from the general inmate population, where the inmate, through his own behavior, has demonstrated an inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of other inmates or disturbing the security, order or operation of the institution." Rule 33-3.0083(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a 24-hour basis, excluding showers and clinic trips, may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a 30-day period, an exercise schedule should be implemented to ensure a minimum of 2 hours per week of exercise outside of cell. Such exercise periods will be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted. Medical restrictions may also place limitations on the exercise periods. Recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period provided such equipment does not threaten the safety or security of the institution. Rule 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "disciplinary confinement". Rule 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (n) Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a twenty- four hour basis (excluding showers and clinic trips) may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a thirty-day period, an exercise schedule should be implemented to ensure a minimum of two hours per week of exercise outside of the cell. Such exercise periods should be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts show that such exercise periods should not be granted. Restrictions may also be placed on the exercise periods by medical staff. The reason for any exercise restrictions shall be documented. Period of Outdoor Exercise. The Challenged Rules all provide that inmates may exercise in their cells and that "a minimum of two hours per week of exercise outside of the cell" should be provided to inmates in administrative confinement, close management and disciplinary confinement. Unless specified otherwise, all references to "inmates" in this Final Order are to an inmate in administrative confinement, close management or disciplinary confinement. At Florida State Prison, non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules are given an opportunity to attend one, two-hour exercise session a week. If an inmate misses a session for medical or attorney "call out", a holiday or inclement weather, the session is not made up. The Challenged Rules do not specifically require that missed sessions be made up. On their face, the Challenged Rules provide that two hours of exercise should be provided without indicating any exceptions. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, is mandatory: two-hours of exercise must be provided each week. The amount of time inmates are allowed to exercise is affected by the budget and staff of the Respondent. Because of lack of funds and staff, the Respondent is not able to provide more exercise time to non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules. At Florida State Prison, a maximum security prison, there are thirteen wings housing inmates. Ten wings house inmates (including four housing inmates on death row) in various types of confinement status. Nine of the ten wings have a separate area, referred to as a "yard", in which inmates may exercise outdoors. There are two correctional officers on duty at each of the yards during the outdoor exercise period for non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules. One sergeant also rotates between the yards. Four to five correctional officers are required to take inmates in and out of the yards. Each inmate must be strip searched, handcuffed with his hands behind his back and then escorted into the yard. Exercise Yards. The Challenged Rules do not specify the size of the area in which outdoor exercise to be provided to inmates. The Challenged Rules also do not specify the number of inmates that may be placed in an area for outdoor exercise. Yards at Florida State Prison consist of a fenced concrete slab. The yards for non-death row inmates are approximately 24' by 33', or 792 square feet. Usually 17 inmates are placed in the yard next to the inmates' wing at a time. The number of inmates in the yard on occasion may be 20 to 25. This is the exception, rather than the rule. Recreational Equipment. The Challenged Rules do not require that recreational equipment be provided to non-death row inmates. Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, provide that recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period if it does not compromise the safety or security of the institution Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, is silent concerning recreational equipment. Recreational equipment is not provided to inmates during exercise at Florida State Prison. Inmates tend to fight over recreational equipment and to abuse it when it is provided. In light of the findings of fact, infra, concerning death row inmates, the evidence failed to prove that the failure to provide non-death row inmates with recreational equipment is arbitrary or capricious. Although there is a rational and reasonable reason for not providing recreational equipment to inmates who have proven to be a disciplinary problem (including some death row inmates) the Respondent is evidently prohibited from withholding recreational equipment for death row inmates by court decree. No such decree applies to non- death row inmates. Yard Suspension. The Challenged Rules provide that exceptions to the provision for outdoor exercise may be made "only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted." Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, contain very similar language. Rules 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, do not specify who may decide who is to be denied exercise in the yard, referred to as being placed on the "yard suspension list", or the specific reasons for placing an inmate on such a list. The various institutions are given discretion to decide who will place an inmate on the yard suspension list and the reasons for such suspensions. Rules 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, also do not specify the procedures for placing an inmate on the yard suspension list, do not require periodic review of the list, do not specify a maximum period of time an inmate may be on the list and do not specify the conditions which must be met for an inmate to be removed from the yard suspension list. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, provides who may restrict exercise, requires that there be a "serious threat to the safety, security and order of the institution by recent demonstrations of violence, by continuing threats of physical harm, written and spoken, toward staff and other inmates" and other acts, requires that inmates be notified in writing and provides that denial of exercise be for the shortest length of time possible. There is a list of inmates at Florida State Prison who have been denied yard exercise. Inmates are placed on the yard suspension list because of security problems similar to those specified in Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, caused by an inmate. The procedure for placing an inmate on the yard suspension list is as follows: The chief security officer recommends that an inmate be placed on the list. The recommendation of the chief security officer is reviewed by a team of senior correctional officers and the superintendent. The superintendent makes the final decision of whether an inmate is placed on the yard suspension list. Any inmate placed on the list is notified in writing and may appeal the decision through the grievance procedure. Chapter 33-29, Florida Administrative Code. The following procedure is followed to determine whether an inmate is removed from the yard suspension list: The list is reviewed monthly by the team of senior correctional officers that recommends the placement of an inmate on the list. If an inmate's behavior demonstrates that he has adapted to the institution and is no longer acting out in such a manner to create a security problem, a recommendation is made to the superintendent to remove the inmate's name from the list. The superintendent makes the final decision of whether an inmate's name is removed. Inmates are placed on the yard suspension list for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the goal of changing the inmate's behavior and to eliminate the threat to security caused by the inmate. Inmates on the yard suspension list are still allowed to exercise in their cells. Although cells are small and exercise is not necessarily easy in the cells, inmates may do elevated push-ups, step-ups, and jog in place. There are at any given time approximately 100 inmates at Florida State Prison on the yard suspension list. Inmates may be kept on the yard suspension list for years. Inmate Jimmy Stephens has been on the yard suspension list since February, 1990, and was previously on the yard suspension list for over fifteen years. Petitioner Van Poyck was placed on the yard suspension list upon his arrival at Florida State Prison on December 28, 1988, and remained on the list until January 7, 1992. Death Row Inmates. Inmates on death row are in administrative confinement and are, therefore, subject to Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Inmates on death row are provided two, two-hour exercise sessions each week. A total of four hours of exercise. If an exercise session is missed by a death-row inmate, the session is made up. The yards provided to death row inmates are larger than the yards provided to non-death row inmates. The yards for death row inmates at Florida State Prison are 71' by 69' (4,899 square feet), 80' by 64' (5,120 square feet), 62' by 91' (5,642 square feet) and 74' by 80' (5,920 square feet). Approximately 24 to 30 death row inmates are placed in the yard next to the inmates' wing at a time. Death row inmates are provided with a variety of recreational equipment. The amount of exercise time, the size of the yards and the amount of recreational equipment provided to death row inmates was agreed to in a consent decree in a federal court proceeding involving the Department of Corrections.
Findings Of Fact At all times materiel hereto petitioners were inmates et Lake Correctional Institution (LCI) and were subject to discipline for failure to obey orders. Piccirillo was disciplined for failure to comply with an order to report to the infirmary or sick call. Piccirillo was aware that his name was posted on the bulletin board directing him to report to the medical department and et the time specified he failed to so report, was disciplined, and he lost gain time. A doctor visits LCI twice per week and inmates with medical problems can be seen by the doctor on these days. No patient is required to undergo medical treatment for minor ills if he so elects. Because of the limited time a doctor is available to LCI it is necessary that those inmates so designated see the doctor at the scheduled time. Inmates who do not understand an order may request clarification. If the inmate cannot read he is not punished for failure to obey written orders. Prior to disciplinary action being taken against an inmate for disobedience of orders, the disciplinary report is investigated and, after the investigator finds the charge to be true, discipline may be administered. Additionally, the inmate has a grievence procedure he may follow after the investigator recommends disciplinary action be taken. Occasionally, inmates are given orders by correctional officers which are unlawful. The inmate may obey the order and say nothing, he may obey the order and file a grievance, or he may refuse to obey he order and successfully defend the disciplinary report for failure to obey the order. It is not an offense for an inmate to refuse to obey an unlawful order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Joseph Redman, Stanley Blanding, and Douglas Laverne Adams are inmates at UCI. Blanding lives in the southwest unit housing and three times a day is required to walk from that facility to the central mess facility. He is not issued thermal underwear or a raincoat even though he works outside a great deal of the time. Issuance of those items is discretionary with the inmates' supervisor who has consistently refused to draw and issue these items. Blanding contends that during the past winter, he became so cold working outside in the rain and cold, he caught a cold for which he was treated only with aspirin. Because of the situation, he refused to work without additional clothing and was, because of his actions, placed in confinement. Blanding also contends that thermal underwear and rain gear is issued in a discriminatory fashion. He states that the people who work in the laundry get raincoats and thermal underwear, yet he travels the same distance in the outside and does not receive it. His quarters are inadequately heated and in many instances the windows are broken out. Inmates tried to put up cardboard to keep out the cold on occasion and even tried to close the inner doors to preserve what warmth they could. They were; allegedly, told they could not do this. He has repeatedly tried to convince his supervisor to issue the thermal and rain gear on an equitable basis but has been unsuccessful. Nobody in his shift who works outside has received this clothing even though his supervisor has repeatedly promised to get it for them. His letters and a personal visit to Mr. Connors, the laundry manager and clothing supply officer, to explain that he and his co-workers worked outside without adequate protection met with no success. Blanding is an outside laborer whose duties entail any manual labor that has to be accomplished outside. DOC has a rule which provides that when the temperature falls below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, including the chill factor, outside work is terminated. In practice, however, Blanding works 8 to 9 hour shifts which include outside work regardless of the 40 degree rule if the supervisor so directs. He admits, however, that during the cold weather this past winter, he worked outside only approximately 30 percent of the time. Even so, when he went to the doctor and requested a letter to authorize thermal underwear, he says he was advised that such a request was outside the doctor's authority. Joseph Redman lives in the west unit at UCI and is required to participate in outside activities as exercise for his back condition. However, on those days when the weather is inordinately cold or rainy, he has to cancel this beneficial exercise because of the lack of either thermal or rain clothing. If he desires to eat, it is necessary for him to make a 400 yard round trip to the dining facility several times a day. Respondent's rule does not take into consideration an individual's physical condition or how far he has to go to eat. Even if he does not work outside, it is still necessary for him to spend extended periods of time outside in cold or inclement weather. Redman says that the doctor agrees that this clothing is appropriate but denies that he has the authority to request its issue. Petitioner Adams' job requires him to travel around to the various compounds and to attend various call- outs approximately 120 yards from his quarters. Cold weather can often keep him inside, however, he is required to go outside to eat each meal. In practice, even though they do not have raincoats, in rainy weather the inmates are prohibited from standing under available shelter but must remain in line in the rain even if suffering from a bold or other illness in order to eat. Inmates also are not allowed to provide any type of protection for themselves such as a towel or other headcovering unless it Is issued and in most cases, it is not. Adams contends his dormitory is one in which the heating system is inadequate for cold weather. He wrote to the inspector for DOC and talked to the Assistant Superintendent who, in all fairness, tried to correct the problem but could not. When Adams asked for thermal underwear to be used as pajamas, his request was denied because he does not work outside and therefore fall within the category of individual to who this clothing is normally issued. Though not a Petitioner here, inmate Tommie Greene has been at UCI for approximately four weeks and has not had any cold weather experience at that facility. However, for the year prior to coming to UCI, he was an inmate at the Florida State Prison, adjoining UCI. In that facility, some cells were adequately warm and some were not. This situation was the same at Baker Correctional Institution where he was also incarcerated for a time. Depending on the floor level the heat may or may not be adequate. No thermal underwear was issued and it was several hundred yards from his living area to the dining facility. In order to eat, inmates had to line up outside the dining facility without raincoats. If it was raining and one wished to eat, one stood out in the rain. This same procedure, according to Greene, applies to UCI where the distance from his housing to the dining facility is more than 100 yards. If it is cold, he must be in it if it rains, he must also be in it, and the only way to avoid getting wet is not to eat. There are approximately 90 people in his area who eat at the same time and they go from the cell area to the dining facility in line with an officer leading. The standard clothing issue provided to inmates at UCI is outlined in UCI Operating Procedure No. 85-02, revised in March, 1985. This procedure calls for each inmate to be issued: 1 blue jacket 3 blue shirts 3 pairs blue trousers 1 web belt 1 pair boxer shorts 1 pair socks pair high top shoes In addition, some prisoners whose work calls for it, are issued white shirts and trousers instead of the blue. The shirts, trousers, and jacket are made of a polyester cotton blend of light weight. The jacket is lined with a light flannel. For linen each inmate is issued: sheets 1 towel 1 blanket 1 pillow case According to Mr. Conner, the laundry manager and the individual responsible for the issue of clothing to the inmates, thermal underwear is issued only to those inmates who work outside 8 hours a day. This is because of a lack of money. However, he contends that if a doctor prescribed it, he would issue thermal underwear to individuals who do not meet the other criteria. T- shirts for use as underwear were not being issued until recently. However, they are now a part of the issue and will be provided to any inmate who wants one. Straw hats are issued to outside workers through their supervisors who make the determination as to which inmates get them. Raincoats are not issued but are available for purchase by inmates in the institution canteen at a cost of under $3.00 each. According to Mr. Gunning, inmates who work outside can get raincoats if the department head draws them directly from the warehouse and issues them. The same applies to thermal underwear. When prisoners are dissatisfied with the procedure for issuing clothing and equipment, they can either file a formal grievance or write an informal note to the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent. Admittedly, until recently, the institution's package rule prohibited inmates from receiving any type of civilian clothing through the mail and as a result, sweat shirts, jogging suits; and other items of a similar nature were prohibited and returned to the sender if sent in. Recently, however, the rule was changed so that inmates are now allowed to receive gray or white sweat shirts from outside correspondents even though jogging suits are still prohibited. Mr. Gunning admits that certain buildings at UCI, including the dormitory identified by Petitioners, do have problems with heat, but it is not, he says, a chronic problem. There is a chronic problem regarding broken windows which are broken by the inmates as fast as they are repaired. Since cold and climate conditions are considered a health and comfort item, available repairs to the living areas are made as quickly as possible on a priority basis. He does not see wet clothing as a problem. If it were, he would have heard about it sooner because the inmates would, without question, complain about it. He has heard no complaints about this subject and notwithstanding the allegations by inmates at the hearing that they are not allowed to change their clothing if wet, they are allowed to change if necessary. Mr. Singletary indicated that the rule on the issue of clothing calls for each inmate to have three sets of clothing in his possession notwithstanding the Petitioner's claim that they are issued only one set at a time. It is more likely that Mr. Singletary's isolation from the inside conditions at UCI renders his opinion less than valid. Accordingly, it is found that most likely the inmates are not issued all their uniforms at one time. This has no real bearing on the ultimate issue of the adequacy of the rule however. He admits that thermal underwear is not issued to all inmates. It is seasonal and issued to those inmates who work outside and need it. Raincoats are issued as needed for work and those inmates who are not issued raincoats can buy them at a reasonable price. Many inmates who work for PRIDE and the canteen receive direct pay. These include inmates working at the furniture factory, the tag plant, the abattoir, and other facilities and many other inmates receive money from outside sources. While some buildings may be underheated in the coldest weather, Mr. Singletary contends that in general, the buildings are warm enough. Recognizing that the package permit rule now permits inmates to receive sweatshirts through the mail, Mr. Singletary indicated that the rule may again be amended to permit inmates to receive thermal underwear through the mail.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Henry A. Faircloth holds certificates as a correctional officer, No. 05-83-599-01, and as a law enforcement officer, No. 16-89-222-03, both issued by petitioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission; and has held them at all pertinent times. In the spring of 1988, he worked for the Florida Department of Corrections at Holmes Correctional Institution, where he held the rank of major. On May 25, 1988, he was in a meeting about ongoing construction at the prison, when Glenda Parmer told him he was needed in his office, elsewhere in the same building. She had seen James T. Watson and Charles W. Pumphrey, correctional officers who worked as sergeants at Holmes Correctional Institution, escorting Samuel Collier, an unruly and, as it turned out, intoxicated inmate toward the security complex. After Ms. Parmer, a correctional officer who worked as an administrative lieutenant, recounted events to Major Faircloth and told him "that we had some problems," (T.224) she accompanied him on the walk back toward his office. Before they reached the hall onto which Major Faircloth's office opened, they encountered the obstreperous inmate, his hands in handcuffs behind him, (T.234) a sergeant on either side. Although she came within three or four feet of the inmate, Ms. Parmer did not observe any injuries. T.220. The mail room officer, who was also within three or four feet of the inmate about this time, saw no injuries on the inmate's face, either. T.233-4. Neither did Sergeant Pumphrey, at this point. T.541. Major Faircloth, both sergeants and the inmate started down the hall and Ms. Parmer "stepped out of the way so they could go down the hallway." T.220. As he walked by them, Major Faircloth turned to Sergeants Michael Sheppard and William Paul and Inspector William T. Nobles, who were in a group talking, and told them "to wait right there, [and not to] let any inmates come down" (T.66) the hall toward Major Faircloth's office. After he had given this order, Respondent Faircloth entered his office and closed the door. T.43. Messrs. Collier, Watson and Pumphrey had preceded him through the door into the office. From outside the office, the inmate was heard interrupting Major Faircloth, cursing loudly "and raising sand." Id. During the three or four minutes that elapsed before Major Faircloth came back out of his office, four to six noises that "sounded like licks being passed," (T.44) were audible through the closed door at intervals of 30 seconds to a minute. "It sounded like flesh meeting flesh." T.150; T.178. The inmate yelled, "[D]on't hit me anymore." T.235. Major Faircloth emerged from his office without the inmate or Sergeants Pumphrey and Watson, reentering the hall where Sergeants Sheppard and Paul and Inspector Nobles still stood. Sergeant Sheppard noticed spatters of blood on Major Faircloth's shirt, although Major Faircloth was not bleeding, as far as he could see. T.46. Ms. Hutching, the mailroom officer, told Major Faircloth he needed to change shirts, "[b]ecause he had blood spattered all over his shirt." T.238. Sergeant Paul was asked "to go get three shirts . . . two white shirts and one brown shirt . . . [o]fficers' uniform shirts." T.151. Major Faircloth walked toward the control room, then stopped in front of the mailroom and flexed his right hand. When the mailroom officer inquired about his swollen knuckles, Major Faircloth responded, "I knocked that son of a bitch's tooth out." T.238. Frederick Terrell Kirkland, a classification supervisor who is not related to the assistant superintendent, saw Major Faircloth that day and noticed his hand and his blood-spattered shirt. Deposition of Kirkland. When assistant superintendent Kirkland arrived, he spoke to respondent Faircloth, then accompanied him as he went back into the office where the inmate and sergeants Pumphrey and Watson remained. At some point Lieutenant Benny Chesnut entered Major Faircloth's office. After a few minutes, Mr. Kirkland, opening then closing the office door behind him, left to go down the hall to the bathroom. When he returned, Sergeant Sheppard opened Major Faircloth's office door to let the assistant superintendent back in. As he opened the door for Mr. Kirkland, Sergeant Sheppard "saw Major Faircloth slap the inmate in the face." T.482. Samuel Collier was seated in a chair at the time, his hands still behind him in handcuffs. Standing behind Mr. Collier, Sergeant Pumphrey rested his hands on the inmate's shoulders, facing Major Faircloth, who stood in front of inmate Collier. Sergeant Watson stood by the office door. Nothing obstructed his view of Major Faircloth's striking Samuel Collier, although he turned his head and looked at Sergeant Sheppard when the door opened. T.51. "[D]id you see the son of a bitch kick me?" Major Faircloth asked the assistant superintendent. T.83. He later apologized to Mr. Kirkland for hitting the inmate in front of him. T.330, 343. After Samuel Collier had been taken away, Major Faircloth asked William Paul "to get an inmate to go clean the blood up out of his office. But then he said, no not to get the inmate, that the inmate didn't need to see that mess, for [Paul] to clean it up [him]self." T.153. In order to place Samuel Collier in solitary confinement, which was the course decided upon, he had to be sent elsewhere, because appropriate facilities were not then available at Holmes Correctional Institution. Karen Roberts, a nurse who worked at Holmes Correctional Institution, was summoned. After she drew blood, took the inmate's temperature and pulse, and made notes recording his vital signs, Mr. Collier was driven in a van to Okaloosa Correctional Institution. When Michael G. Foley, M.D., chief health officer at Okaloosa Correctional Institution, saw him shortly after lunch on May 25, 1988, Samuel Collier still had "alcohol on his breath." The parties stipulated that laboratory tests on the blood Ms. Roberts took from the inmate "revealed a .17 blood alcohol content." T.10. He had reportedly been drinking "buck," a home brew concocted from prison foodstuffs. Ms. Roberts had noticed a laceration of the upper lip which she felt "did not need suturing" (T.111) and swelling around the eyes, which she testified she attributed to the fact that Mr. Collier was crying. She "[w]anted to put ice on his eyes . . . [but] it was impossible to keep ice" (T.113), or so she testified, so she did not try it. Samuel Collier's injuries, including loose teeth Ms. Roberts overlooked, are consistent with blows received in a fight and could not have been caused by a fall against a fence post coupled with a fall out of a chair onto the floor. T.188. Samuel Collier's injuries resulted at least in part from blows Major Faircloth administered. T.188, 196. When Dr. Foley examined Mr. Collier, both of the inmate's upper eyelids were swollen. An area of his scalp was swollen. There was "a massive hematoma to the upper lip, which is a massive swelling" (T.186) that made it protrude. He "had tenderness, abrasions and contusions to both cheeks. . . [and] some loose upper incisors." T.187. Dr. Foley ordered x- rays "to make sure there w[ere] no fractures." T. 184. The radiologist concluded that no bones were broken, according to Dr. Foley. Meanwhile, Major Faircloth told some correctional officers that they "were supposed to say that he had hurt his hand doing yard work." T.294. When Sergeant Sheppard asked about filing a report, Major Faircloth told him not to "worry about it, you didn't use force," (T.58) "you're not on the duty roster, they don't even know you were here" (T.94) or words to that effect. Major Faircloth's directive contravened Department of Corrections policy, which requires any correctional officer observing force being used against an inmate to prepare a "use of force report . . . and forward it to the Inspector General's office." T.59. The next day, Major Faircloth filed a written report, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, reciting that Sergeants Watson and Pumphrey and Lieutenant Chesnut had used force against Samuel Collier, but omitting any mention of the force he himself had used. On June 28, 1988, while he was interrogated by Inspector G. L. McLain, he falsely denied under oath that he had hit Samuel Collier and injured his own hand. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Inspector McLain had authority to administer the oath in the course of his official duties, and did so to respondent before interrogating him on June 28, 1988, and on July 6, 1988. On July 6, 1988, respondent again answered questions under oath and falsely answered affirmatively when asked whether he had been truthful during the earlier interrogation.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's certificates both as a correctional officer and as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 92-1395 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 4-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24-30 and 32-47 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 3 and 31 are immaterial as to respondent Faircloth. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, it was not clear that a fence and gate were in place at the time. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, Major Faircloth first joined the group before they reached his office. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 23, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish the exact number of times respondent hit Collier. Sergeant Sheppard saw respondent slap Collier only once. But the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that respondent landed additional blow(s), causing his knuckles to swell. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22 and 23 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5, it was not clear that a fence was up and that there was a need to pass between those two posts. That Collier hit or fell into a post was not established by the weight of the credible evidence. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 7, the weight of the credible evidence did not establish that Collier was bleeding when he reached the security complex. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 10, credible evidence did not establish that Collier leapt from the chair and fell, striking a desk and the floor. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13, the nurse's testimony that she thought Collier's eyes were swollen because he had been crying has not been credited. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 17, the nurse's findings were not "totally inconsistent." She apparently did not examine the inmate's teeth. Some of the swelling she anticipated evidently occurred. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 18, Sheppard's testimony has been credited. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 19, when Sheppard saw Faircloth slap Collier he might have been looking through the clear glass window. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20, the weight of the evidence did not establish that nobody saw Collier's injuries before he left HCI. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Joseph S. White, Esquire Gina Cassidy, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Roy M. Kinsey, Jr., Esquire Kinsey, Troxel, Johnson & Walborsky 438 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Douglas L. Adams is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution. On August 26, 1985, he was awakened early in the morning and brought before a disciplinary hearing for an alleged violation of institutional rules and regulations. Prior to the hearing, he was advised by a correctional officer to pack up all his personal property and to bring it with him to the hearing. Mr. Adams took with him as much as he could which included his clothing and other personal effects, but he was unable to carry all he owned with him at one time. He did not ask for either help in carrying his property or a cart to carry it in prior to leaving his cell area to go to the hearing. When he arrived at the movement center where the hearing was to be held, he advised the authorities there that he did not have all his property with him. At that point, he asked for help or the use of a cart to go get the rest of his property but he was refused because no cart was there. As a result, he went to the hearing leaving some of his property in his cell area and while in the hearing, contends he was required to leave his property in the control center. This property was secured in a storage room behind the control center which, while not locked, was not available for access to other inmates unless they were accompanied by a corrections officer. When the hearing was over and Mr. Adams, who had been directed to administrative confinement requested to go back to his former cell area to get the rest of his property, his request was refused. His property was inventoried by UCI personnel at that time, but because in his opinion the inventory was not complete, Mr. Adams refused to sign the form. When he was released from administrative confinement he claims he did not get all his property back. He relates that he was told he had forfeited whatever property he had not brought to the hearing. As a result, he filed a complaint on September 16, 1985, which was subsequently denied. Petitioner has been incarcerated in 7 or 8 institutions within the Department of Corrections including Florida State Prison, River Junction Correctional Institution, Baker Correctional Institution, Polk Correctional Institution, Old Unit, the Reception and Medical Center, and DeSoto Correctional Institution. At each one of these institutions a rule similar to this one was in existence. At Baker Correctional Institution, the inmate was required to bring his mattress as well. Robert Craig has been in prison for a total of 27 years and has been incarcerated in almost every major penal institution in the State of Florida that was built prior to the last five years. At Avon Park Correctional Institution he underwent a disciplinary hearing and was told at the time to bring all his personal property with him to the hearing. While in the hearing, he was required to leave all his property outside in the hall. At Cross City Correctional Institution the guards took him to the hearing without his property, bringing his property along afterwards. In essence, at all the institutions where he was incarcerated, there was some variation of the same procedure regarding his personal property. He either had to bring it to the hearing or it was packed up prior to the hearing. At no institution was his property inventoried prior to the hearing. As a result, he has lost personal property including a calculator for which he was subsequently reimbursed by the institution. According to Mr. Craig, if the inmate does not bring his personal property with him he either is given a deficiency report or is precluded from going back to get it when the hearing is over. Sgt. Denmark has worked for approximately 8 1/2 years with the Department of Corrections, all at UCI, where he formerly worked at the movement center. One of the functions he performed there was to handle prisoners coming for a disciplinary hearing. The rule as explained to him regarding the inmates' personal property is that the inmate is required to bring all of it with him to the hearing. Once the property is brought with the inmate to the hearing, the inmate is free to either take it into the hearing with him or to leave it in the storage room in back of the movement center during the hearing. If the inmate is sentenced to disciplinary confinement as a result of the hearing, in that case, and at that point, the inmate's property is inventoried. If the inmate is not sentenced to disciplinary confinement, the property is returned to the prisoner who is returned to his area. In the instant case, Mr. Denmark heard the Petitioner tell Sgt. Howe, when he arrived at the movement center, that he had left some of his property in his cell. However, when Adams went into his hearing, he neither took his property with him nor requested that it be secured. According to Mr. Cunningham, the Chief Classification Supervisor, the Union Correctional Institution Policy, (85-52.9 B1) requires inmates to bring all their property to disciplinary hearings. It is an old policy, and the reason for it is to protect the property from theft. In a disciplinary hearing, there is a chance that an inmate might not get back to his old cell to retrieve his property after the hearing. For security reasons, institution officials prefer not to take a prisoner back to his old cell after a hearing because, at that point, he is often angry as a result of the hearing and disruptive. All Department of Corrections' institutions in the region incorporating UCI, except Florida State Prison, have a similar policy. Inquiry of corrections personnel at the agency headquarters in Tallahassee reveals that most major DOC facilities have a similar policy. There are a total of 33 other facilities which hold less than 100 inmates each. These smaller institutions do not, generally, have a similar policy and Florida State Prison has a different situation because of the different security problems. It is the needs of the institution, however, which determine the use of the policy. Mr. Cunnningham is aware of Mr. Adams' hearing and the complaint filed as a result thereof. Upon inquiry it was determined that Mr. Adams had failed to establish a loss and the complaint was denied. Mr. Cunningham does not know whether there was an investigation into the loss of the property left in the cell. It is Mr. Cunningham's understanding that if the witness cannot carry all his property at one time, normally, if the inmate asks for permission to do so, he will be allowed to go back and get the balance before the hearing. This is not in the procedure approved by DOC, however, nor in the IOP at UCI. Corrections Officer Howe is also aware of the fact that Mr. Adams had a hearing on August 26, 1985. He, in fact, was called to the movement center to escort several prisoners, including Adams, to the confinement barracks after the hearings. A part of this duty involves inventorying the prisoners property. Howe told Adams to get his property and bring it in for inventory. At this point, after the hearing Adams said he did not have all his property with him and asked to be taken back to his old cell to get the rest. Howe declined to do this and explained the security reasons for his decision to Adams. He did advise Adams, however, that he would call down to Adams' old cell area and have his property packed which, in fact, he did. It is standard practice at UCI, according to Howe, that if an inmate has a large amount of property, he can request the use of a cart or wheelbarrow which is assigned to each housing area for carrying this excess property. This cart will be returned by a runner who can also help carry the excess. To his knowledge, inmates are not denied the use of these carts. Howe declined to return Adams to his old cell area after the hearing because, at the time, Adams was belligerent and unstable and presented a security risk in his opinion and also, because Adams had previously been advised to bring all his property with him and had failed to do this even though there was a way for him to accomplish it.
Findings Of Fact The Alachua County Detention and Corrections Department (Exhibit 9) consists of 50 full-time employees (Exhibit 17). Authorized personnel spaces include the Correctional Director, the Correctional Assistant Administrator, the Correctional Inmate Consultant, the Correctional Recreation and Education Consultant, a Correctional Officer V, a Correctional Officer IV, six Correctional Officers III, five Correctional Officers II, and thirty Correctional Officers I (see Exhibit 10). Also authorized are a Secretary III who is the secretary to the Director, three Food Service Employees and one Accounting Clerk I. Alachua County has a total of about 786 County employees, including constitutional officers such as the Sheriff, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Tax Appraiser, Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections and the County Commission Staff. This figure includes 91 professional employees. If employees of constitutional officers were excluded from a single bargaining unit for the County, such a unit would consist of 360 employees. The County is under a unified pay plan for all county employees. It retains the services of a pay plan consultant who does an annual review of pay, job descriptions and duties of all county employees. It also has a unified classification plan and personnel regulations that govern salaries, work hours, vacation, sick leave, leaves of absence and the like (Exhibits 10,11). The County Administrator is the chief executive officer for the county and, with respect to the Department of Corrections, supervises basic policies and budgetary functions. The department budget is proposed by the Director of the Department, submitted to the County Administrator for review and corrections, and then approved by the County Commission. The Director implements the plan and can change line items only by permission of the County Administrator and the County Commission. The only history of prior collective bargaining in the county was recognition of the Sheriff's office on or about May, 1972. The Police Benevolent Association is the bargaining agent for that unit. The position of the County at this time is that it is a co-employer with the Sheriff as to that unit. The current contract with sworn personnel includes about 133 employees. The Police Benevolent Association declined to be included in a county-wide unit of county employees. Alachua County is the subject of special state legislation which permits it to manage funds allocated to constitutional officers such as the Sheriff, Clerk of Circuit Court, Tax Assessor, and Tax Collector for the county (Exhibits 12-15). The functions of the Corrections Department include the detention of persons awaiting criminal trial, care and housing of prisoners serving sentences, work release and school release programs, classification and diagnostic services, recommendations to the court for referrals to these programs and recommendations for diversionary programs. Unlike most counties, the Corrections Department does not operate within or under the office of the Sheriff. The Department is conducting a modern concept in rehabilitation of offenders through a variety of programs which are designed to re-orient prisoners for more useful lives. To this end, the department secures grants which enable it to fulfill some of these functions. In hiring personnel, it looks for those who have a high school degree and preferably some college work in the social services area. When forming the department in 1973, most of the employees hired came "off the street", although some came from the office of the Sheriff and from other county departments. Correctional Officers carry identification as Special Deputies which empowers them to detain people for corrections only. This status is unique to them. They wear a modified uniform consisting of a blazer, slacks and tie. Correctional Officers carry arms in transporting prisoners to and from court and in supervising their recreational activities outside the correctional facility. The department has tried to get away from a chain of command concept to lessen a law enforcement image. Although it has done away with military titles there are still some personnel who use military titles such as Sergeant and Lieutenant in addressing personnel. Employees of the department have their most continuing contacts with the Sheriff's office because they are in the same building and have similar interests in connection with county prisoners. The Correctional Director is responsible to the County Administrator for all activities, operations and functions of the department. His duties include fiscal, plant, manpower planning, management, organization, staff selection and supervision, policy formulation, the establishment of programs for the department, and for the operation and maintenance of the detention center. He alone has the authority to hire, discharge, promote or discipline personnel of the department. He formulates the budget which is submitted through the County Administrator of the County Commission. He is assisted in the hiring process by a panel which includes himself or the Assistant Administrator, another department employee and either the inmate consultant or a faculty member from the University of Florida. The Assistant Administrator assists the Director by making recommendations as to departmental policy, securing grant applications,. and formulating departmental programs. He also makes recommendations to the Director as to personnel matters and assists in fiscal matters. The Director holds periodic staff meetings at which the Correctional Officers IV and V usually attend. The Correctional Officer V is the Commander of the Detention Center and is thus responsible for direct supervision of all personnel and operations at that facility. He carries out operational policy established by the Director in the form of orders and memoranda. He makes budget recommendations to the Director as to necessary equipment but is not directly involved in the budget process. He makes recommendations to the Director concerning all personnel actions affecting the Detention Center, to include leaves, promotions or terminations. He exercises direct supervision over the Correctional Officer IV and the shift commanders (Correctional Officer III). The Correctional Officer IV is under the general supervision of the Detention Center commander and is responsible for supervision of all logistical and support services of the center. He also assists the Commander in maintaining communication and coordination among shift commanders. He serves as the Acting Commander in the absence of the Correctional Officer V. The Correctional Officers III have direct supervision of Correctional Officers I and II in the operation of the center and related programs. They serve as shift commanders for three shifts of 8 1/2 hours a day each. Correctional Officers I and II perform essentially the same duties which involve primary responsibility to maintain physical custody and control of prisoners within the detention facility and while transporting inmates. Their secondary responsibility is support of program goals through communication and observation of behavior and inmate attitude which is reported to the shift commander or treatment staff. The Correctional Officer II also assists in supervision and on the job training for new employees. In the absence of the shift commander, the Correctional Officer II becomes responsible for the functions of the Detention Center and supervision of correctional officers on duty on that shift. The Correctional Recreation and Education Consultant is preferably an ex-offender who initiates programs and activities for the prisoner population, including various sports and games, competitions among the inmates, and assists the Correctional Inmate Consultant. The Correctional Inmate Consultant is a member of the personal staff of the Director. It is his responsibility to spend great portions of his workday in direct contact with the inmate population and to advise the Director on matters pertaining to the well-being, health, sanitation and programming activities of the inmates. He assists individual inmates with their problems and makes recommendations to the director concerning work release, furloughs, extra "gain time" and, in certain instances, disciplinary matters. He attends all staff meetings except those involving departmental personnel and advises the Director on matters relating to policies of the department with reference to inmate treatment and control. He is an ex-inmate and, in general, advises on the institutional climate. The Food Service personnel are cooks who prepare food for the institution in the cafeteria. They report to the Correctional Officer IV. The Secretary III is the secretary to the director of the department who handles confidential matters for him, including meeting agendas, taking and transcribing dictation, minutes of meetings, conferences and other activities.
