The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for her acts as a correctional officer in association with an inmate?
Findings Of Fact In response to requests for admissions, Respondent admitted the following: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 6, 1992, and was issued correctional number 94229. Between June 1 and July 31, 1994, the Respondent was employed as a Correctional Officer with the North Florida Reception Center. On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Inmate Dean Richardson. (D) On October 16, 1995, during an interview with Inspector H. McBride, the Respondent denied knowing Toyia Kelly. E) On March 6, 1996, Respondent resigned her position at North Florida Reception Center. Between June 1, 1994 and July 31, 1994, Inmate Dean Richardson was committed to the North Florida Reception Center as a permanent inmate. In that period Respondent came in contact with Mr. Richardson in her capacity as a correctional officer and his capacity as an inmate at North Florida Reception Center. Their contacts occurred while Respondent was on duty as a correctional officer. In a conversation that took place between Respondent and Mr. Richardson in a recreation room within the prison, Respondent told Mr. Richardson that she was "having a problem moving." Mr. Richardson responded by offering to give Respondent money. At first Respondent declined the offer. A week to two weeks later after Mr. Richardson "pushed the issue," Respondent agreed to accept the money. Mr. Richardson had approached Respondent about a dozen times before Respondent was willing to accept the money. Under the terms of their arrangement, Respondent gave Mr. Richardson a post office box address to send the money and a name at that address. The name was Toyia Kelly. In furtherance of the agreement between Mr. Richardson and the Respondent, Mr. Richardson caused a $200 draft from his inmate bank fund to be sent to Toyia Kelly on June 8, 1994, at the address Respondent had provided . After Mr. Richardson sent the $200, he asked Respondent if Respondent had received the money. She answered "no." This conversation took place within the institution where Mr. Richardson was housed. When Respondent told Mr. Richardson she did not receive the $200, Mr. Richardson told Respondent that he would send more money. Mr. Richardson did send more money, but this time he sent the money to a different post office box than before. Respondent had provided Mr. Richardson the new post office box address. On June 24, 1994, Mr. Richardson withdrew $150 by draft from his inmate bank fund and paid it to the order of Toyia Kelly at the new post office box address. Mr. Richardson did not confirm with Respondent whether Respondent had received this $150 that had been paid directly to Toyia Kelly. Of his own volition Mr. Richardson determined to send an additional $150 by a draft from his inmate bank fund. Again this was paid to the order of Toyia Kelly at the second post office box address that had been provided by Respondent. This draft was made on July 11, 1994. On this occasion Mr. Richardson asked Respondent if she had received the second $150 draft. In response Respondent nodded her head in the affirmative.
Recommendation Upon consideration the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes Respondent's correctional certificate number 94299. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sandra Griffin 2852 Wayne Drive Lake City, Florida 32055 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Invitation to Negotiate No. 12/13-010, issued by Respondent for the operation and management of Bay Correctional Facility, Graceville Correctional Facility, and Moore Haven Correctional Facility, is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, or policies.
Findings Of Fact Parties/Interested Persons Petitioner, CCA, is a private corporation specializing in the design, construction, expansion, and management of correctional facilities. CCA currently operates 61 facilities for the United States federal government and state governments. Respondent, DMS, is authorized to contract for private correctional services under specified circumstances. As a prerequisite to entering into a contract for private correctional services, DMS must find the contract will result in a 7% cost savings to the State over public operation of a substantially similar facility. DOC, a non-party, currently operates 48 public correctional facilities and contracts with private vendors for operation of seven private correctional facilities. With respect to privatized facilities, DOC has the duty and responsibility to calculate the cost per inmate per day (per diem rate) for public operation of a substantially similar correctional facility. The per diem rate must be based on the costs of operating a correctional facility of a similar size, type, and location as the facility sought to be privatized. Brief Background Per Diem Workgroup The Florida Legislature first authorized private correctional facility operation in 1993, adopting the Correctional Privatization Act, chapter 957, Florida Statutes (the Act). As adopted, the Act included a cost-savings requirement: the State must find that private operation of a correctional facility would result in a savings of at least 7% over public provision of a similar facility. In 2001, the Legislature created the Prison Per-Diem Work Group, composed of the staffs of the Auditor General, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), and the Appropriations Committee of the Florida Senate and of the House of Representatives (the Work Group). The Legislature directed the Work Group to convene, beginning in 2002 and each year thereafter, for the purpose of developing consensus per diem rates for privately operated facilities. See ch. 01-379, § 2, Laws of Fla. In 2002, the Work Group published a Report of Consensus Per Diem Rates (the Report). The Report included a set of Overall Per Diem Rates for each of the three main population types (adult male, youthful offender, and female), as well as Alternative Per Diem Rates and Program Per Diem Rates. The Overall Per Diem Rates represent an average daily operating cost of all publicly operated facilities. The Alternative Per Diem Rates exclude the costs of operating specialty facilities such as death row and work release, which are not operated by private vendors. The Program Per Diem Rates represent the average cost to provide educational and substance abuse programs to inmates within each of the three population groups. By way of example, the 2002 Work Group developed an Overall Per Diem Rate of $50.53 to operate an adult male correctional facility. The 2002 Work Group explained that the Alternative Per Diem Rates provided examples of adjustments that could be made to the Overall Per Diem Rates to facilitate a more direct comparison between public and private correctional facility costs. The Work Group made a location adjustment to remove the cost associated with a Competitive Area Differential paid to correctional officers in South Florida. Further, the Work Group made a series of size adjustments to reflect the extent to which public facilities of similar size to private facilities are above the location-adjusted average operating per diem. By way of example, the 2002 Work Group calculated an Alternative Per Diem Rate of $44.93 for operation of an adult male correctional facility, a location-adjusted rate of $44.83, and size-adjusted rates of $47.71 on the low end, to $57.60 on the high end. The 2002 Work Group did not adjust the calculated consensus per diem rates to account for cost differentials in private correctional facility operation such as credits for property tax payments, corporate income and sales tax payments, and payments to a maintenance reserve fund. The Report notes that such adjustments were outside the scope of the Work Group’s responsibility, which was limited to identifying public facility operation costs. In 2005, the Work Group convened again and developed consensus per diem rates utilizing the same methodology as used in 2002. The Work Group developed the following Per Diem Rates for operation of an adult male facility: an Overall Per Diem Rate of $51.90; an Alternative Per Diem Rate of $44.84; and Size-Adjusted Per Diem Rates of $51.26 on the low end, to $52.66 on the high end. The 2005 Report on Operating Per Diem Rates does not mention further adjustment of the Adjusted Per Diem Rates to account for cost differentials in private facility operations such as credits for property tax payments, corporate income and sales tax payments, and payments to a maintenance reserve fund. However, the Report does include a note that public correctional facilities realize economies of scale by operating above their design capacity, an advantage that private facilities cannot obtain. Private facilities are limited, by both contract and the standards of the American Correctional Association, to operation at no greater than their design capacity. The 2005 Report notes that the Work Group had not attempted to estimate the impact of economies of scale unavailable to private facilities. In 2006, the Legislature removed the requirement that the Work Group convene on a yearly basis and replaced it with convention upon the call of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. See ch. 06-32, § 4, Laws of Fla. 2010 Procurement In 2010, DMS rebid the contracts for Moore Haven and Graceville, which were previously operated by GEO Group, as well as the contract for Bay Correctional Facility, which was operated by CCA. CCA was awarded the contract to operate all three facilities. To prepare the 2010 ITN, DOC first selected public correctional facilities similar in size, type, and location to the private facilities which were the subject of the ITN. DOC selected the New River Correctional Institution as similar to Bay and Moore Haven, and Wakulla Correctional Institution as similar to Graceville. DOC separated the programming costs of those facilities from the security and indirect costs, arriving at the base per diem operating costs for the two comparable facilities. Next, DOC added in the costs for educational, health, and other programs based on the level of service required by the contract in the ITN. CCA Deputy Chief Development Officer Lucibeth Mayberry testified that she did not recall whether CCA was aware of the methodology used to calculate the per diem rates for the 2010 ITN. She explained that the per diem rates are the bottom line of any competitive correctional facility procurement, and the 2010 rates allowed CCA to put in a competitive bid. No direct evidence was introduced as to the advertised per diem rates included in the 2010 ITN. However, Ms. Mayberry testified that the current per diem rates by contract for Bay and Moore Haven are around $48.00, while that for Graceville is around $34.00. Post-2010 Cost Reductions Since 2010, DOC has significantly reduced its cost to operate Florida’s public correctional facilities. According to an April 2013 report by OPPAGA, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2012, per diem rates for operation of adult male correctional facilities housing inmates similar to the private facilities decreased an average of over 8% from the prior year. The average per diem rate for operation of an adult male public correctional facility for FY 2011-2012 was $42.00. The DOC operating cost reductions are the result of the closure of several public facilities, including three adult male non-specialty facilities; consolidation of inmates from closed facilities; and workforce eliminations and reductions. OPAGGA concludes that the primary cause of the decrease in per diem rates was the reduction in the amount contributed by the State to employee retirement. OPAGGA estimates that the statewide requirement for employee to contribute 3% to their retirement, together with the State decrease to special risk retirement, resulted in a savings of $88 million to DOC. DOC has also reduced costs at public correctional facilities by changing its operations. The State maintains an 8% vacancy rate in correctional officer positions, allowing wardens flexibility to staff security posts according to highest priority on a daily basis, while leaving lower priority posts vacant. In FY 2011-2012, DOC began working its housing officers on 12-hour shifts, which allowed for further reduction in security costs. By consolidating inmates from closed facilities with those in operational facilities, DOC has realized an economy of scale in some facilities where more inmates are housed without increasing security costs. The 2010 contracts for operation of Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville correctional facilities expire in 2013. In January 2013, DMS released the per diem rates for operation of similar facilities to be included in the ITN at issue. The published rates are 17% lower than the rates CCA is paid under the current contract to operate those facilities. Hence, the present controversy. The 2012 Per Diem Development Process Michael Weber, DMS Bureau Chief of Private Prison Monitoring, contacted DOC Deputy Secretary Michael Crews on September 21, 2012, to obtain “key information” from DOC to prepare a document with which to solicit vendors for private correctional facility services at Bay, Moore Haven and Graceville correctional institutions. Key information includes the type of inmate (i.e., male, female, or youth), the custody level (i.e., close, medium, minimum, or community), inmate programs to be offered (e.g., re-entry and education, substance abuse), and the medical profiles of inmates to be housed at each of the three facilities. On October 3, 2012, DOC Director of Institutions James Upchurch responded to DMS with a chart showing inmate type, custody, medical profiles, and programmatic profiles for each of the three facilities operating under the current contracts. DOC later notified DMS of adjustments in both custody and programmatic services for the Bay and Moore Haven facilities during the next contract period. Eventually, DOC decided against changing custody type of inmates housed at those facilities. On October 9, 2012, DOC clarified the need to include within the ITN program services for up to 18% psychological grade three (S3) inmates at Bay and Moore Haven. No changes were made to correctional services provided at the Graceville facility under the current contract. On October 10, 2012, DMS issued the ITN. As issued, responses to the ITN were due November 13, 2012, at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time. The ITN includes the proposed contract and requires that proposals must be 7% less than the DOC-calculated per diem rate to be considered responsive. However, the ITN as issued did not contain the per diem rate for facilities substantially similar to Moore Haven, Bay, and Graceville. On October 22, 2012, DOC Secretary Kenneth Tucker sent a letter to the Auditor General requesting an audit and certification of an attached set of spreadsheets calculating the per diem rates for public provision of correctional services at facilities comparable to Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville. The per diem rate for each facility was formulated by DOC in three steps: First, DOC selected a comparable facility; broke out the operating costs by security, administration, and programmatic services; and deducted costs for programmatic services (education, substance abuse, and health services) at the comparable facility. This calculation yielded a per diem rate for the comparable facility based solely on security costs and indirect, or administrative, costs. This rate is referred to as the “above-the-line” number for purposes of interpreting the spreadsheets for each of the three facilities. The above-the-line per diem rate for each facility, as submitted to the Auditor General, was as follows: Bay and Moore Haven -- $41.76; Graceville -- $36.62. Second, DOC multiplied the operations per diem for the comparable facility by the contracted population number for each facility. This calculation yielded operational costs for each of the three contracted facilities. DOC then added to that figure the costs associated with providing the programmatic services requested for the inmate population at each of the three facilities based on the proposed contract. This step yielded the unadjusted operational costs for each facility. Third, DOC adjusted the total cost to account for cost savings realized by DOC through its policy of 12-hour shifts (which private providers cannot match), and deducted costs associated with work camps and work squads at the comparable facilities (private corrections providers do not operate work camps). The total costs to operate were adjusted to provide a per diem rate for operation at a private correctional facility that is comparable to operation at a public correctional facility. This step yielded the total adjusted operational cost for each facility. The total adjusted cost was divided by the contract population for each facility to arrive at the adjusted per diem rate for each of the three facilities, as follows: Bay -- $43.22; Moore Haven -- $42.38; Graceville -- $40.51. For each facility, the adjusted per diem rate was slightly higher than the “above-the-line” per diem rate. On October 26, 2012, DMS published on the State VBS a copy of the October 22, 2012, DOC letter to the Auditor General requesting certification of the per diem rates. CCA staff testified they were shocked by the low per diem rates that DOC requested the Auditor General to certify. The published per diem for Bay and Moore Haven was 17% lower than the per diem certified by the Auditor General for the 2010 procurement in which CCA was awarded the current contract. On October 31, 2012, Ms. Mayberry sent a letter to DMS outlining concerns with the proposed per diem rates in the DOC October 22, 2012, letter to the Auditor General. On November 1, 2012, Petitioner’s competitor, GEO Group, sent a letter to DMS raising similar concerns. By letter dated January 24, 2013, the Auditor General’s office notified the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of its completion of the audit of the DOC per diem rate calculations. In the intervening period, DMS issued 10 Amendments to the ITN, the majority of which extended the deadline for Responses from the original deadline of November 13, 2012. The Auditor General’s letter reads in pertinent part: The Auditor General performed selected procedures to evaluate the 2011-12 fiscal year operating costs provided by the Department for the State-operated Holmes and Okeechobee Correctional Institutions that were identified by the Department as substantially similar to the privately- operated facilities. Operating per diems are primarily a function of costs and inmate population. * * * Based on the procedures performed, we concluded, pursuant to Section 957.07(1), Florida Statutes, that the 2011-12 fiscal year Holmes Correctional Institution operating per diem of $41.76 provided by the Department was reasonably consistent with the State’s accounting and budgeting records . . . . The Holmes Correctional Institution operating per diem of $41.76 is an appropriate amount to which necessary adjustment may be made for variations in Bay Correctional Facility and Moore Haven Correctional Facility operations. The letter proceeds with the same findings regarding the FY 2011-2012 operating per diem of $36.62 for Okeechobee Correctional Institution as “reasonably consistent with the State’s accounting and budgeting records” and “an appropriate amount to which necessary adjustment may be made for variations in the Graceville Correctional Facility operations.” As such, the Auditor General’s process evaluated only the “above-the-line” per diem rates in each of the DOC spreadsheets and certified those amounts as the starting point for an adjusted per diem rate for each of the contract facilities. On January 24, 2013, DMS posted the Auditor General’s letter as Amendment 11 to the ITN, as well as a spreadsheet for each of the three contract facilities titled “Public Per Diem with Adjustments.” There are two substantive differences between this publication and the October 22, 2012, spreadsheets provided to the Auditor General by DOC. First, the health care per diem rate was adjusted for both Bay and Moore Haven to account for increased health care costs to house up to 18% S3 inmates at those two facilities. Second, that change increased the adjusted per diem rates for the two facilities. As published on January 24, 2013, adjusted per diem rates for the contract facilities were as follows: Bay -- $43.76; Moore Haven -- $42.91; Graceville -- $41.05. Notably, DMS published at the bottom of the spreadsheet for the Bay Correctional Institution, “Respondents must submit a per diem bid for the Bay Correctional Facility that is no greater than $40.69 to be considered responsive.” The spreadsheets for Moore Haven and Graceville contain the same language specifically incorporating the adjusted per diem rate as a term of the ITN and require bids be 7% below the adjusted per diem rate to be considered responsive. On Monday, January 28, 2013, at approximately 5:30 p.m., DMS again posted Amendment 11 and noted as follows: On January 24, 2013, the Department posted on the VBS two changes regarding the above- mentioned competitive solicitation. However, Amendment 11 was not completely posted. As such, the Department hereby posts Amendment 11 in its entirety.[1/] Petitioner filed a notice of intent to protest the specifications of the ITN on January 30, 2013, and filed its Formal Bid Protest Petition on January 31, 2013. Petition and Issues CCA challenges the ITN on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, CCA alleges DMS is authorized to procure contracts for the operation of private correctional facilities only by Request for Proposal (RFP) pursuant to section 957.07, Florida Statutes. Procedural Challenge/Waiver DMS maintains CCA is precluded from challenging DMS’ choice to procure the private correctional institutional contracts by ITN rather than RFP. The ITN was issued on October 10, 2012, and no intent to protest was filed within 72 hours. DMS argues that the issue of method of procurement has been waived. DMS is correct, as more fully explained in the Conclusions of Law. In order to challenge DMS’ choice to procure private correctional facility operation through ITN rather than RFP, CCA should have filed a notice of intent to protest within 72 hours of DMS posting the ITN on October 10, 2012. Since CCA did not file a notice of intent to protest until January 28, 2013, that issue has been waived. DMS also alleges that CCA waived many of the issues contained in its Petition because CCA did not file notice of intent to protest particular specifications of the ITN within 72 hours of DMS posting the amendments which incorporated those specifications. DMS maintains that CCA is limited in its challenge to whether the per diem rate published on January 28, 2013, accurately accounts for the cost of housing S3 inmates at Bay and Moore Haven. DMS reasons that the only change between the per diem amount published on October 26, 2012, and that published on January 28, 2013, is the small adjustment made to account for S3 inmates and, therefore, it is the only issue timely raised by CCA. DMS’ position on this issue is not supported by the facts. The DOC letter to the Auditor General was not posted as an Amendment to the ITN; did not contain a notice of rights, pursuant to chapter 120.57(3), Florida Statutes; and was not incorporated into the ITN as a term thereof. Neither the above- the-line nor the below-the-line per diem rates had been reviewed or certified by the Auditor General on October 26, 2013, and the certification process was not complete. In fact, the certification process was not completed until January 24, 2013, some 90 days later. DMS represents that CCA’s corporate representative admitted at hearing that CCA could have filed a bid specification protest on October 26, 2012, in response to DMS posting the letter to the Auditor General. However, the testimony of Ms. Mayberry does not bear that out: Q: Was that a discussion that was had internally with regard to different options and vendor relationships about how that might change with filing a protest as opposed to sending a letter? A: At that time, I don’t believe we had -– we knew a protest was possible in Florida and we had filed an intent to protest before which we had withdrawn. But at that time –- we didn’t have a certified per diem. We thought this was going to be fixed. We thought that when we raised concerns, that would be addressed. So I am giving you information because I don’t honestly remember exactly –- I don’t think a protest –- a protest seemed premature to us at that point because we didn’t have certified per diems, as that wasn’t –- we didn’t have the real per diem at that point. We just had the letter from DOC, which we felt certain was going to be adjusted.[2/] Ms. Mayberry did not admit that CCA had a point of entry to challenge the per diem rates in the October 22, 2012, letter; instead she insisted that the rates were not final and a challenge would have been premature. Even if Ms. Mayberry had admitted that CCA could have challenged the posting on October 26, 2012, her opinion would not have been binding on the undersigned because it would have been a legal conclusion. Substantive Challenge Next, CCA challenges the per diem rates included in the ITN through Amendment 11 on the following bases: The per diem rates are not based on the costs associated with comparable publicly operated correctional facilities. CCA maintains DOC acted arbitrarily in selecting the comparable facilities. DOC erred in adjusting the base per diem rate to account for costs associated with programmatic services to be provided under the contract in the ITN. CCA maintains that some adjustments were too high, while others were too low. DOC erred by not including adjustments to the base per diem rate to account for savings realized by operational changes at public institutions which cannot be made by a private vendor. Finally, CCA argues that the overall accounting methodology utilized by DOC is flawed. In summary, CCA argues that the per diem rates for all three facilities are too low because DOC did not correctly choose substantially similar facilities as the bases for public per diem rates, and DOC did not accurately adjust the base per diem rates to fairly account for differences in public and private correctional facility operations. The Contract Facilities CCA challenges DOC’s selection of the Holmes Correctional Institution for comparison to Bay and Moore Haven because Holmes is not “substantially similar” as required by the governing statute. Likewise, CCA challenges the selection of Okeechobee Correctional Institution for comparison to Graceville because it is not “substantially similar.” Under the governing statute, DOC is charged with selecting a public correctional institution which is similar in “size, type, and location” to the facilities sought to be managed by a private correctional institution. Size equates with inmate population of a correctional facility. Both Bay and Moore Haven have a design capacity of 985 inmates. Graceville is a larger facility designed to house 1513 inmates. All three facilities are under contract to operate at design capacity. There are three types of general correctional facilities: adult male, youthful offender, and female. There are also a number of specialty type institutions in the correctional system, such as reception and medical centers, maximum security, death row, and mental health. Adult male facilities may house inmates at different custody levels (close, medium, minimum, and community) and with different health profiles (medical grades 1, 2, and 3; psychological grades 1, 2, and 3; wheelchair; and special needs). Inmates from different custody levels and health profiles may be housed together without changing the primary mission of the facility to a specialty institution. Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville are all adult male facilities, contracted for similar custody levels. Under the ITN, Bay and Moore Haven may accept inmates of medium, minimum, and community custody levels. Both are currently serving 100% medium custody inmates. Graceville is designated to accept close, medium, minimum, and community custody inmates and currently serves 40% close custody inmates. The three facilities are also designated to accept inmates with similar health profiles. Under the ITN, Bay and Moore Haven will accept 84% medical grades 1 and 2, 16% medical grade 3, 82% psychological grades 1 and 2, 18% psychological grade 3, 2% wheelchair, and 6% special needs inmates. Graceville is designated to accept the same percentages of psychological grade inmates and wheelchair inmates, but may accept up to 5% special needs inmates and a small percentage of medical grade 4 inmates. Location refers to the geographic location of a facility. DOC divides correctional facilities regionally. Both Bay (Bay County) and Graceville (Jackson County) are in Region 1. Moore Haven (Glades County) is located in Region 3. For purposes of comparing correctional facility costs, location is significant when a facility is located in South Florida, where employees are paid a competitive area differential. Location is also a factor when an institution is remote from population centers, which may affect staffing and turnover rates. Substantially similar facilities James Upchurch, DOC Assistant Secretary for Institutions and Reentry, selected the public correctional facilities “substantially similar” to the three contract facilities for purposes of calculating the base per diem. Mr. Upchurch came to Florida as Chief of Security Operations for DOC in 1996 following 26 years in operation of public correctional facilities in Mississippi and Arizona. He served as a warden in three different Arizona correctional facilities, including a super max facility, and was a regional director for the State of Arizona as well. Mr. Upchurch was DOC Chief of Security Operations from 1996 until 2011, when, after a brief stint as warden at Franklin County Correctional Institution, he became DOC Director of Operations. In March 2012, Mr. Upchurch was promoted to Assistant Secretary of Institutions and Reentry and now supervises region directors, the deputy assistant secretary for institutions, and the deputy assistant secretary for reentry. Altogether, Mr. Upchurch has 17 years of experience in Florida’s correctional facility operations. After excluding the DOC specialty institutions, Mr. Upchurch identified two institutions similar to Bay and Moore Haven and two institutions similar to Graceville for further review. He asked Vicki Newsome, DOC Assistant Bureau Chief for Population Management and Classifications Services, to pull the facility profiles for comparison. Bay and Moore Haven In his initial analysis, Mr. Upchurch chose Holmes Correctional Facility and Lawtey Correctional Facility as comparable to Bay and Moore Haven and reviewed their facility profiles. Holmes, Bay, and Moore Haven are all located in Region 1 and house adult male inmates. Lawtey does not house S3 inmates and Holmes only houses one S3 inmate. Both Bay and Moore Haven will house up to 18% S3 inmates under the ITN. According to the data reviewed by Mr. Upchurch, Holmes houses 37% close custody inmates, while Lawtey houses no close custody inmates. Neither Bay nor Moore Haven is contracted to house close custody inmates. Holmes is not a stand-alone facility, but rather includes a work camp which is physically separated from the perimeter of the main facility. Lawtey is a stand-alone facility, as are Bay and Moore Haven. Bay and Moore Haven have similar layouts –- four large dorms housing between 250 and 400 inmates each, and one much smaller dorm housing a small number of segregated inmates. By comparison, Lawtey’s inmate population is spread among 10 dorms, one housing 200 inmates and the remainder housing roughly 80 inmates each. Much like Bay and Moore Haven, Holmes houses its population in a series of larger dorms, one housing 250 inmates, seven housing just under 150 inmates each, and one much smaller dorm housing around 60 segregated inmates. Lawtey is a faith- and character-based institution. Bay, Moore Haven, and Holmes are not faith- or character-based. For the 2010 procurement, DOC had chosen the New River facility as comparable, but that facility has since closed. Holmes and New River are 2 of 15 state correctional institutions built on a prototypical layout –- administration and support at the front of the compound, recreation wellness yard in the back, housing units in the middle, and a separate work camp on the grounds but physically separated from the perimeter of the main compound. In the final analysis, Mr. Upchurch selected Holmes as the facility most comparable to Bay and Moore Haven. He based this selection, in large part, on the fact that Holmes was so similar to the New River facility selected for the prior procurement. Mr. Upchurch ruled out Lawtey in his final analysis because it is a faith- and character-based institution, which he testified increases security costs. Further, the layout and dorm capacities of Lawtey are not as efficient as the larger dorms at Bay and Moore Haven. Mr. Upchurch did not verify that Lawtey actually had higher security per diems because it was faith-based. In fact, he explained that the only way to verify that mathematically would be to remove the faith- and character- based mission and compare the resultant costs with the prior costs. Identifying a public correctional institution substantially similar to Bay and Moore Haven is indeed a difficult task. At a contracted inmate population of 985 each, Bay and Moore Haven are significantly smaller than the average adult male public correctional facility. This was true in 2005 when the Per Diem Workgroup was convened to formulate a consensus per diem rate. This disparity in size has only increased in recent years as many public institutions have been closed and their populations consolidated. In FY 2011-2012, only 7 of the 30 public adult male facilities had an average daily population of fewer than 1,500 inmates. Both Lawtey and Holmes are among the seven. The populations of Lawtey and Holmes differ significantly, however. Holmes averaged 1,466 inmates per day in FY 2011-2012, while Lawtey averaged 805. The difference in population between Bay and Moore Haven and that of Lawtey is 185. The difference in population between Bay and Moore Haven and that of Holmes is 481. The evidence was uncontroverted that facility size is one of the most important variables in determining correctional facility costs. The larger the inmate population, the more security is needed. More security means more salaries and benefits. Mr. Upchurch selected Holmes as comparable to Bay and Moore Haven based on its similarity to New River, one of the same prototypes as Holmes, and the similar inmate housing patterns, which were known to him to require similar staffing patterns. Although Holmes has a work camp, which Bay and Moore Haven do not, Mr. Upchurch expected the security costs associated with the work camp (separate perimeter patrol and additional security staffing) would be removed from the per diem rate. Furthermore, Mr. Upchurch considered the security staffing requirements of Lawtey based on his experience not just in Florida, but in his entire 43-year career in public correctional facility operation. Mr. Upchurch’s decision to select Holmes as substantially similar to Bay and Moore Haven was not made without thought or reason or in an illogical manner. Graceville For Graceville, Mr. Upchurch narrowed the decision down to Everglades and Okeechobee correctional institutions, both adult male facilities in Region 4. Everglades and Graceville are similar in population size and inmate profiles. Both facilities house over 1500 inmates. Both house large percentages of close custody inmates (Everglades –- 54%; Graceville –- 42%), and both house S3 inmates, although at different percentages. Mr. Upchurch eliminated Everglades for two reasons. First, based on its location, the facility has experienced high staffing turnover, which has increased hiring and training costs. Second, Everglades has a higher percentage of S3 inmates (24%) than contracted for at Graceville (18%).3/ The evidence was uncontroverted that S3 inmates increase per diem rates because of the cost of psychotropic drugs administered to those inmates. Mr. Upchurch also testified that the presence of S3 inmates can increase security costs. S3 inmates have more disciplinary problems, are more spontaneous, and are more difficult to manage. Mr. Upchurch testified that when a large number of S3 inmates are housed together, they “feed off one another” and create more disturbance. When asked specifically what percentage of S3 inmates would create an increased security cost, Mr. Upchurch estimated around one-third of the population. The number of S3 inmates housed at Everglades does not rise to that level. Mr. Upchurch selected Okeechobee as the facility most substantially similar to Graceville for comparison. The facilities have similar inmate populations –- both house over 1500 inmates with high percentages of medical grades 1 and 2 inmates, similar numbers of special needs inmates, and no wheelchair inmates. However, as emphasized by CCA, Okeechobee serves no S3 inmates. Mr. Upchurch focused on the design efficiencies of the two facilities. Both Okeechobee and Graceville house a large number of inmates in a small number of dorms. The six “T building” dorms at Okeechobee house up to 230 inmates each. The four main dorms at Graceville house approximately 400 inmates each. This design is intentional and creates efficiencies in the officer-to-inmate ratio. Many of the other DOC facilities have multiple smaller “open bay” dorms with less efficient operation.4/ More inmates in fewer dorms equates with lower security costs. Mr. Upchurch also noted that both Okeechobee and Graceville are stand-alone facilities, meaning only one correctional facility is contained within the perimeter.5/ Upchurch testified that, where possible, it is preferable to compare the per diem rates of stand-alone facilities. Mr. Upchurch disagreed with DOC’s selection of the Wakulla Correctional Facility as comparable to Graceville for the 2010 procurement process. The Wakulla facility is actually three different institutions within one: Wakulla Correctional, Wakulla Annex, and Wakulla Work Camp.6/ The facility operates three separate perimeter security details, three separate control rooms, and three sets of security supervisors. Mr. Upchurch testified that he objected to the selection of Wakulla because no adjustment was made to the Wakulla security per diem rate in 2010 to account for the higher security per diem at Wakulla. Thus, he disagreed that Wakulla was comparable. CCA assigns error to Mr. Upchurch’s choice of Okeechobee over Everglades as comparable to Graceville. CCA highlights that Okeechobee houses no S3 inmates, and, therefore, does not incur costs associated with psychotropic drugs for those inmates. Further, CCA notes that between the two comparable facilities, Mr. Upchurch chose the one with the lower total per diem rate -- $33.23 at Okeechobee versus $45.82 at Everglades. The higher per diem rate at Everglades is a factor in both a higher security per diem and a higher health per diem than at Okeechobee. Everglades’ security per diem is $28.00 while Okeechobee’s is $23.99. Higher recruiting and training costs due to turnover likely account for that difference. The health per diem at Everglades is also higher -- $17.14 compared with $8.64 at Okeechobee. The treatment of 24% S3 inmates likely accounts for this higher rate. Mr. Upchurch was aware that the contract with Graceville required the facility to house up to 18% S3 inmates. He did not ignore that requirement in selecting Okeechobee over Everglades. Mr. Upchurch was aware of the process of adjusting the per diem rate of the selected comparable facility to account for the specific programs under the contract. The cost of housing S3 inmates at Graceville was accounted for in the adjustment process. Mr. Upchurch selected Okeechobee as substantially similar to Graceville based upon his significant knowledge regarding the operations of all the DOC facilities. The choice was informed by the size, type, and location of the facilities, as well as the physical layout, size of dorms, efficiencies of staffing, and similarity of inmate profiles. For FY 2011-2012, DOC operated 30 adult male facilities. Of those, 18 had an average daily inmate population of 1500 or higher, as does Graceville. Both Graceville and Okeechobee are stand-alone facilities housing large numbers of inmates in few dorms, which increases staffing efficiencies. Overall, the undersigned does not find that Mr. Upchurch’s choice of Okeechobee was arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous. CCA further assigns error to DOC’s selection of substantially similar facilities because DOC did not undertake a formal process or analytical exercise to select those facilities. It is true that Mr. Upchurch did not review documentation on all 48 DOC correctional facilities, or otherwise consult DOC records, prior to narrowing the choices to two facilities similar to Bay and Moore Haven and two facilities similar to Graceville. Mr. Upchurch relied upon his 17 years of experience in state correctional facility operations, including his knowledge of the facilities’ design, layout, staffing and programming. Once he narrowed the choices, he requested and reviewed the inmate profiles for comparable facilities to the private facilities. As such, his selections were not arbitrary or capricious. Errors Calculating Program Costs Having identified Holmes as substantially similar to Bay and Moore Haven, and Okeechobee as substantially similar to Graceville, DOC began with each facility’s base security per diem plus administrative costs, and multiplied that figure by the contracted population for each of the contracted facilities. To that base operational cost figure, DOC added costs for health services, educational, substance abuse, and behavioral/transition services based on the draft contract in the ITN. DOC program staff specializing in each area calculated the cost to provide the contracted services. Errors were made in those calculations which were admitted to at the final hearing. The health services per diem of $7.82 added to the Bay security per diem was in error. The correct rate is $8.28. As such, the per diem rate published in Amendment 11 for Bay was incorrect. The health services per diem for Graceville was calculated incorrectly as $12.46 rather than $12.56. As such, the per diem rate published in Amendment 11 for Graceville was incorrect. Next, DOC calculated the mental health programmatic costs associated with housing S3 inmates at Bay and Moore Haven as required by the ITN. CCA alleges DOC made an error in calculating that amount because it relied upon FY 2011-2012 pharmacy expenditure data to determine the amount spent on psychotropic drugs, rather than relying on the data from the state accounting system known as FLAIR. Mark Tallent, DOC Director of Budget and Finance, testified that the pharmacy data is a more accurate accounting of the actual amount DOC spent on psychotropic drugs than the FLAIR data. The state accounting system appropriated approximately $11 million for psychotropic drugs and the FLAIR data shows DOC spent over $6 million out of that category. However, Mr. Tallent testified that DOC paid bills for other types of drugs, such as infectious disease drugs, out of that category, so the number is inflated and unreliable as it relates to psychotropic drugs exclusively. He testified that the pharmacy system is more accurate because it correlates each individual prescription with an inmate at a particular facility, allowing for an accurate accounting of the institutional costs for each specific type of drug. Mr. Tallent’s testimony is accepted as credible and reliable. DOC did not err when it calculated the per diem cost of psychotropic drugs based on the figure of $5,045,018 from FY 2011-2012 pharmacy data. Errors in Additional Adjustments The governing statute requires DOC to “calculate all the cost components that determine the inmate per diem in correctional facilities of a substantially similar size, type, and location that are operated by the Department of Corrections, including administrative costs associated with central administration.” § 957.07(1), Fla. Stat. The statute also directs DOC to make some adjustments to account for the public nature of the operation. DOC must include in the per diem an equivalent cost of services that are provided to DOC by other governmental agencies at no direct cost to the agency. Id. Also, the statute requires DOC to include as a cost savings in the calculation of the per diem rate “reasonable projections of payments of any kind to the state or any political subdivision thereof for which the private entity would be liable because of its status as a private rather than public entity,” including corporate income and sales tax payments. § 957.07(2), Fla. Stat. DOC made a number of additional adjustments to account for operations unique to public correctional facilities to arrive at a per diem rate more comparable to that of a private facility. While all these adjustments are not required by statute, they are examined for their accuracy. 12-hour shifts DOC adjusted the per diem to account for the cost savings realized at Holmes and Okeechobee by operating housing security personnel on 12-hour shifts. In calculating the 12-hour shift adjustment, DOC failed to add back in the cost of providing security staff at the private facilities associated with covering the 4 hours essentially unmanned when the cost of the 12-hour shifts were removed. In other words, DOC deducted too much cost when making this adjustment. As such, the per diems published in Amendment 11 for Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville were incorrect. Work Squads DOC also adjusted the per diem by backing out the costs associated with the work squads at Holmes. A correctional facility work squad may perform services such as landscaping, maintenance, or other jobs both on the facility grounds and “outside the fence.” DOC removed the costs associated with work squads under the mistaken impression that none of the private facilities operate work squads. However, Bay and Moore Haven operate work squads in the community, which require supervisory security personnel. As such, the per diem amount published in Amendment 11 for Bay and Moore Haven was incorrect. Work Camps Holmes operates a work camp on its grounds, although it is physically separate from the main unit. The work camp requires both separate perimeter security and supervisory security. DOC adjusted the per diem rate for Bay and Moore Haven to exclude the security costs attributable to the work camp at Holmes. CCA argues that DOC erred by deducting only the security costs attributable to the Holmes work camp, but not other costs associated with the inmate population at the work camp, since private correctional facilities do not operate work camps. Mr. Tallent testified there is no way to back out the costs associated with the work camp at Holmes, other than the salaries and benefits of the security officers, because it is the same budget entity as Holmes Correctional Institution and the costs cannot be separated. No evidence was presented regarding the specific costs CCA expected to be removed, or the amount of those costs. Given the accounting structure of the DOC system, and the uncontested fact that security costs are the driving factor in calculation of correctional facility per diem rates, the undersigned does not find that DOC erred in removal of only the security costs at Holmes. Additional Alleged Errors CCA assigns error to DOC for failure to make additional adjustments to the per diem rates in the ITN. 1. Utility service charge Moore Haven pays a monthly utility service charge of $25,000, which is extraordinarily high. This service charge was not disclosed to CCA by the predecessor operator, GEO Group, and CCA did not take it into account in preparing its response to the 2010 ITN. No evidence was presented to establish that this utility surcharge is paid by the operator of Moore Haven because of its status as a private rather than public entity. If it were, DOC would be required by law to include it as a cost savings when calculating the per diem rate. Without that evidence, the undersigned cannot find that DOC erred by not adjusting the per diem to account for it. DOC has offered to make an adjustment in the per diem to account for this service charge. However, DOC’s offer to make an adjustment during negotiations does not prove an error on its part. 2. Lapse Factor/Vacancy Rate Next, CCA argues DOC erred by not adjusting the per diem rate to account for the DOC “lapse factor.” Contradictory evidence was introduced as to the meaning of “lapse factor” and the related term “vacancy rate.” Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the lapse factor is the percentage of DOC security positions which are temporarily vacant due to normal turnover, during which time recruitment and training of new officers occurs. Mr. Upchurch testified that DOC generally runs a 3% lapse factor. A vacancy rate, on the other hand, is the percentage of positions which remain intentionally unfilled due to a hiring freeze or other cost-saving measure. DOC operates with roughly an 8% vacancy rate as part of its budget cutbacks. For the purpose of the contract sought via the ITN, a vacant position is defined to occur “when the employee assigned to that position has resigned, been terminated, or is reassigned to another position.”7/ The terms of the draft contract do not allow the private correctional facility operator to run a blanket vacancy rate. In fact, the operator will incur a vacancy deduction for positions not filled with permanent employees or contracted staff within 30 days after a position becomes vacant, unless a waiver has been granted.8/ Petitioner argues that DMS erred in not adjusting the per diem rate to account for operation of the public correctional facilities with across-the-board vacancies. DMS testified, and has apparently agreed, that such an adjustment would be fair to account for vacancy rates above the normal 3% lapse factor. Moreover, Petitioner argues that the adjustment should be high enough to account for vacancies in actual posts at comparable institutions. Each warden at each public correctional facility has the flexibility to leave positions, or posts, unfilled on a given day based on the security priority of the post. DOC classifies posts into level 1, 2, and 3 priority positions. Level 1 posts are critical to daily operation of a shift. Level 2 posts are essential to the daily normal operation of a facility and allow all activities and programs to be marginally staffed. Level 3 posts are necessary for long term normal operations. In order to fill a level 1 post, a warden may move to a level 1 post an officer assigned to a level 2 or 3 post for that day; limit non-critical activities, such as recreation or work squads; or pay overtime to fill the level 1 post. Level 3 posts are generally utilized prior to level 2 posts to fill level 1 vacancies. Jinanne West, CCA Senior Director of Financial Planning and Analysis, analyzed the security post charts and daily rosters for the Holmes and Okeechobee facilities. She found that for FY 2011-2012, Holmes had an average security post non-fill rate of 17%, with level 3 posts vacant 73% of the time and level 2 posts vacant 39% of the time. During the same time period, Okeechobee ran an average non-fill rate of 26% with level 3 posts vacant 94% of the time and level 2 posts vacant 72% of the time. CCA’s argument, however, assumes private facilities are required to staff their facilities exactly as public facilities do. The draft contract included as part of the ITN does not bear out that assumption. With respect to security staffing, the contract provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Security Staff Utilization: CONTRACTOR shall develop and implement Security staff utilization in accordance with DC policy and procedure that includes, but is not limited to the following: A table of organization for the security staff for the maximum inmate population for the Facility and the position qualifications, job descriptions, pay levels, number of persons per post, distribution by shift, and security staff to inmate ratio in each housing unit by shift. 5.28.6.2 A detailed Security Post Chart outlining how key functions/duties will be staffed. 6.3 PERSONNEL. * * * CONTRACTOR will provide the Department with a finalized staffing pattern prior to the Service Commencement Date. Positions will be staffed with qualified employees in accordance with the staffing pattern attached hereto as in [Exhibit , to be provided by the CONTRACTOR]. CONTRACTOR’S staffing pattern must be submitted and approved by the Contract Manager prior to the Service Commencement Date. Any modifications to the position requirements or the staffing pattern must be approved in writing by the Contract Manager. * * * Sufficient certified security staff shall be employed at all times to assure that all positions identified as critical complement on the approved staffing pattern, are manned, at all times, for each shift, unless a departure from the staffing pattern has been approved in writing by the Contract Manager. . . . CONTRACTOR shall be required to fill critical complement positions by using overtime or other qualified staff members to ensure that staffing levels do not decrease below the established critical complement. (emphasis added) The private contractor is charged with developing the security staffing pattern for its facility, including the job descriptions, pay levels, number of persons per post, distribution by shift, and security staff to inmate ratio per housing unit. While the contract may penalize the private operator for vacant positions left unfilled after 30 days, no evidence was introduced from which the undersigned can infer that private operation lends itself to any higher than normal lapse rate. It is illogical to count as a cost to the private operator the savings realized by public sector cutbacks. The Legislature intends to ensure more efficient private operation by including the 7% cost-saving requirements. CCA also argued that DOC has an advantage because it maintains high vacancies in individual posts at the level 2 and 3 positions, which private operators cannot do without incurring a vacancy deduction penalty. Again, the contract does not bear that out. The vacancy deduction is tied to vacancies of positions due to resignation, termination, or reassignment. There is no evidence from which to conclude that private operators are separately penalized by running vacancies in individual posts at an institution. In fact, the contract specifically provides for flexible staffing of the private correctional facility similar to that of the public facility –- filling critical complement posts at all times, authorizing the movement of employees from other posts and the use of overtime if necessary.9/ 3. Reception and Medical Center Cost Next, CCA argues that the per diem rates published in Amendment 11 are artificially low and should be further adjusted to account for health care administered to inmates at public reception and medical centers (RMCs). RMCs are public correctional facilities which conduct initial health screening of inmates at intake and may provide medical care to existing inmates as well. Inmates at public institutions may receive health care at RMCs, but the state pays for that health care out of a budget separate from the institution’s budget. In other words, public correctional facilities may send an inmate to an RMC for care and not pay for that care out of the facility’s budget. CCA argues that since it will be charged with the cost to treat inmates at an RMC, the per diem rate should account for that difference as a savings to the public correctional facility. What CCA fails to include in the discussion is the fact that a private correctional facility operator is authorized to use the RMC as a cost-saving measure. Private correctional facilities are required to provide health care, including emergency care, to its inmates offsite only when the onsite Chief Health Officer determines an inmate cannot be treated properly in the facility itself. Only then is the private facility authorized to seek offsite hospitalization or other offsite treatment. The vendor is solely responsible for the costs of the offsite treatment, including the security costs of treating or hospitalizing an inmate offsite. The transfer agreement authorizes the private correctional facility to use the RMC, when space is available, as an alternative to minimize security costs for offsite treatment of the private correctional facility’s inmates. Under these facts, the undersigned cannot find that DMS erred by not including an adjustment to the per diem rate to account for treatment costs of private correctional facility inmates at RMCs. 4. PILOT Fees Next, CCA argued that the published per diem rates are in error because they were not adjusted to account for the fees paid by the private correctional facility to the local government as Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs). A PILOT is made to compensate local governments for the tax revenue lost by virtue of the public correctional facility property being used for a governmental function. DOC does not pay property taxes or PILOT fees related to Holmes, and no such fees are included in the Holmes per diem rates. However, the Bay and Moore Haven facilities are subject to PILOT fees required to be paid to local governments. Such fees are deducted from payments due to private correctional facility operators pursuant to the ITN, and are paid directly to the local governments assessing such fees. Pursuant to section 957.07(2), Florida Statutes, [r]easonable projections of payments of any kind to the state or any political subdivision thereof for which the private entity would be liable because of its status as private rather than a public entity, including, but not limited to, corporate income and sales tax payments, shall be included as cost savings in all such determinations. PILOT fee payments for Bay and Moore Haven are clearly included within the definition of section 957.07(2), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, PILOT fee payments for Bay and Moore Haven should have been included as an adjustment in the Amendment 11 per diem rate spreadsheets. Because PILOT fees were not included in the per diem rates published in Amendment 11 for Bay and Moore Haven, the rates were incorrect. 5. Major Maintenance and Repair Fund The ITN requires payments to be made by private correctional facility operators to the Major Maintenance and Repair Fund (MMRF). MMRF monies are used by the private facilities for maintenance, repairs, and renovations. Payments to the MMRF are deducted by DMS from payments due to private correctional facility operators, thereby reducing the per diem rate paid to private contractors. CCA argues that the per diem rates published in Amendment 11 are erroneous since those rates were not adjusted for MMRF payments. However, if the entire MMRF amount were credited to the private correctional facility, the per diem would not include any costs associated with regular repairs, maintenance, or other facility improvements. The amount paid into the MMRF is returned to the private correctional facility when repairs and maintenance are needed and conducted. There may be better ways to account for the maintenance costs of the private correctional facilities, but the undersigned finds no error in the per diem rate calculation on that basis. 6. Fleet Payments CCA contends the per diem rates should be adjusted to account for the requirement that the private correctional facility acquire a vehicle fleet for each of the three facilities, and that DMS erred in excluding the vehicle fleet costs for Holmes and Okeechobee when calculating the per diem rates. In calculating per diem rates, DMS excluded the one- time fleet cost of $573,986 associated with the purchase of the State vehicle fleet to operate the comparable public correctional facilities. The uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Tallent was that those costs were excluded because the fleets were acquired at the time the Holmes and Okeechobee facilities were first constructed. For example, the Holmes fleet was acquired 24 years ago. Because vehicle costs have changed dramatically during the intervening years, any adjustment to account for fleet cost would be insignificant. Additionally, Mr. Tallent testified that adjusting the per diem rate to account for the fleet charge would provide a windfall to a company, such as CCA, which was currently operating one of the facilities if it was awarded the contract again. At one point, CCA expressed that they were not actually concerned with whether the fleet acquisition cost had been incorporated into the per diem, but rather whether ongoing maintenance costs were included.10/ Mr. Tallent’s testimony was uncontroverted that the operating per diem of the public facilities includes all vehicle maintenance and fuel costs.11/ As such, the undersigned finds that DMS did not exclude vehicle fleet maintenance and fuel costs. The ITN requires private correctional facility operators to provide a fleet of vehicles for use at the Bay, Graceville, and Moore Haven facilities.12/ Given the greater weight of the evidence, the undersigned finds that excluding the fleet costs from the per diem rates incorporated as Amendment 11 was not erroneous. 7. Economies of Scale Last, CCA argues that the per diem rates should be adjusted to account for the economies of scale realized at Holmes and Okeechobee because these facilities are operated above design capacity. CCA maintains this adjustment is necessary since Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville may not exceed design capacity under the contract. Mr. Upchurch agreed that an economies of scale adjustment would be appropriate if a reasonable way to calculate that adjustment could be determined. The 2005 Per Diem Workgroup was convened to establish per diem operating rates for private correctional facilities which would be comparable to operation of public facilities. The report provides, “[t]he workgroup has not attempted to estimate the impact of economies of scale that are not available to private facilities. The workgroup, however, was provided with two estimates ranging from $6.66 per day from the Auditor General’s office to $7.10 per day from Geo Group.”13/ Although the Workgroup report refers to the Auditor General's estimate as an attachment thereto, the estimate was not attached to the report introduced into evidence. Further, no testimony was presented relating to whether the estimates from either the Auditor General or GEO Group were reasonable or otherwise reliable. Given the lack of evidence on whether, and by what methodology, an economies of scale adjustment could be calculated, the undersigned does not find that DMS erred by excluding an adjustment for economies of scale. Accounting Error Jinanne West is CCA’s Senior Director for Financial Planning and Analysis. Ms. West has a master’s degree in accounting and is a certified public accountant. Prior to joining CCA, Ms. West worked for Arthur Andersen for three years, and then taught college accounting. Ms. West evaluated the spreadsheets used to calculate the public comparable per diem rates for Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville and found fundamental accounting errors. To determine DOC’s per diem cost to operate the Bay and Moore Haven facilities, the Amendment 11 per diem rate spreadsheets divided Holmes’ operating costs by its average inmate population of 1,466 to arrive at a per diem rate, but then multiplied the per diem rate by the Bay and Moore Haven inmate populations of 985 to determine the daily costs associated with programming at those facilities. As a result, all operating costs attributable to Holmes were reduced by 33% (1,466 minus 985 divided by 1,466) to arrive at DOC’s projected operating costs to operate a 985-bed facility similar to Holmes. DOC then deducted from the remaining 67% of the Holmes operating costs 100% of the Holmes costs related to Holmes work squads and Holmes work camp staff, and additionally deducted 100% of the savings expected at Holmes due to the transition to 12-hour shifts. However, costs attributable to Holmes work squads and Holmes work camp staff and savings attributable to the 12-hour shift adjustment had already been reduced by 33% in the Amendment 11 per diem rate spreadsheets, given the difference in population between Holmes and the Bay and Moore Haven facilities. By deducting 100% of these costs and expected savings from the remaining 67% of the Holmes operating costs, DOC in effect incorrectly deducted 133% of Holmes’ costs and anticipated savings from the per diem rates. A similar error was found in the spreadsheet for Graceville. The inmate population at Okeechobee is slightly smaller than that at Graceville, leading to erroneous adjustments to the per diem for program costs and adjustments made to account for operational differences at Okeechobee. Due to this error in accounting methodology, the per diem rates published in Amendment 11 for Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville were incorrect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, Department of Management Services, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, and withdraw ITN 12/13-010 for the Operation and Management of Bay Correctional Facility, Graceville Correctional Facility, and Moore Haven Correctional Facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline on Respondent in association with his correctional certificate?
Findings Of Fact When Respondent requested a formal hearing he also filed a written document addressing the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. By that response he admitted to being certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. The nature of that certification is as a corrections officer. At the time relevant to the complaint, Respondent worked as a corrections officer at Gadsden Correction Institution (the Institution). At that time Chrysta Rivoire was an inmate in the facility. Respondent came to the bedside where Ms. Rivoire was housed on several occasions. Respondent was observed to try and kiss Ms. Rivoire. She turned her head away to resist his advance. The visits which Respondent made to Ms. Rivoire at her bedside were at a time when he was on duty at the Institution. On those occasions he would sit at her desk or stand at the foot of her bed. Respondent would also come and sit at tables in the dayroom where Ms. Rivoire and Barbara Daugherty, another inmate, were sitting. Respondent was observed showing pictures to Ms. Rivoire while she was incarcerated. Respondent remarked about pictures which Ms. Rivoire had displayed on a desk in the area where she resided. On several occasions Respondent gave Ms. Daugherty letters to pass to Ms. Rivoire. The subject matter of one of the letters discussed different ways Respondent liked sex and ways he "wanted her," referring to Ms. Rivoire. Another letter talked about Ms. Rivoire's kids and Respondent's meeting the kids. A third letter passed from Respondent to Ms. Daugherty to give to Ms. Rivoire was handed over in a small foyer area within the Institution. Ms. Rivoire received this letter from Ms. Daugherty. The letter said: Hello Sweetheart! How are you doing today? Fine I hope. As for me, just going with the flow of things. You know how life goes. I believe you made a statement "You would like to be more than just a friend. I was hopping that you would say such. It lit up my heart when I read those roads [sic]. I am surely [sic] hoping that we can become very close to each other. You seem to be bit shy to me. Is this conclusion drawn [sic] correct, or am I way off base. Your style is so unique. You have a very beautiful and captivating smile. I hope we can take our relationship to a level we would both enjoy and be pleased with each other. I am surely looking forward to knowing you better. You said you trust me, but maybe a little to [sic] much. In a way that may be a good thing. Not that I mean in a negative way, but it's always good to have some type of skepticism of someone. It always keeps you alert of life and other people know [sic] matter what comes. Til [sic] next time, you continue to take good care of yourself. I hope you don't mind me calling you sweetheart. But to me, that exactly [sic] what you are. Besides, calling you friend wasn't something I really wanted to continue. Sweet dreams and thoughts. Hope to get a chance to talk to you soon. May Good Bless and Much Love to you my dear. Yours truely, [sic]
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered revoking the Respondent's certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 27th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry G. Thomas 111 South Ward Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether a proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, William Van Poyck, and the Intervenor, Robert David Roy, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are subject to the rules of the Respondent. The evidence failed to prove that the Petitioner and Intervenor are, or have been, placed in administrative confinement by the Respondent. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, the Florida Department of Corrections, 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. Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, a rule of the Respondent, governs the placement of an inmate in "administrative confinement". "Administrative confinement" is "the removal of an inmate from the general inmate population for . . . " various specified reasons. Rule 33-3.0081(1), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated September 27, 1990, the Respondent advised the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee"), of proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Be letter dated November 5, 1990, M. Catherine Green, an attorney with the Committee, informed the Respondent that a review of the proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, had been completed. Ms. Green also informed the Respondent of certain "technical errors" and "substantive errors" that she found with Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green indicated that a "substantive error" referred to "errors which will result in recommended objections to the committee unless they are eliminated prior to adoption." Among the "substantive errors" identified by Ms. Green, was a comment concerning the following portion of Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code: (3) Placement in administrative confinement shall be for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results. Ms. Green's comment concerning the portion of Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, quoted in finding of fact 9 was, in pertinent part, as follows: What does "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" mean? This has the effect of not notifying the inmate of the length of time in which he will be in administrative confinement and the criteria to be considered in releasing him or her. The rule discusses criteria for placing inmates in administrative confinement, but sets no criteria other than "desired results" as to when an inmate shall be released. If the two criteria are the same, please make that clear. Another of the "substantive errors" identified by Ms. Green, was a comment concerning the following portion of Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code: (4)(a) An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement by the senior correctional officer after an informal hearing when no reasonable alternative exists. The reason for placement shall be explained to the inmate, and he shall be given an opportunity to present his views on the matter to the senior correctional officer. When the senior correctional officer places an inmate in administrative confinement, this action shall be documented on a Report . . ., including the reasons for the action and a summary of the inmate's comments or objections. The inmate may also submit a written statement. Rule 33-3.0081(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for review of the senior correctional officer's "informal hearing" and Rule 33-3.0081(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a 48-hour delay in the "informal hearing" in case of certain emergencies. Ms. Green's comment concerning the portion of Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, quoted in finding of fact 11 was, in pertinent part, as follows: Please provide a cross reference to the rules of procedure for an informal hearing. Does the review procedure conflict with provisions of Chapter 33-29, F.A.C.? Please clarify what the phrase "when no reasonable alternative exists" means in reference to an inmate's confinement after an informal hearing. . . . . In a letter dated January 23, 1991, the Respondent, through a Senior Attorney, responded to Ms. Green's comments. The following response to Ms. Green's comments concerning Rule 33- 3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, was made: The Department of Corrections will delete the phrase "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" and replace it with "continue until the factors which created the need for protective management have been resolved". The Respondent subsequently proposed to amend Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, by deleting the phrase "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" and replacing it with the phrase "continue until the factors which created the need for protective management have been resolved". The proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, does not substantively change the circumstances under which an inmate placed in administrative confinement will be returned to the general inmate population. Under Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, prior to the proposed amendment, "the shortest time possible" occurred when the factors which necessitated placing an inmate in administrative confinement no longer applied. The proposed amendment merely clarifies when "the shortest time possible" has occurred. The following response to Ms. Green's comments concerning Rule 33- 3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, was also made in the January 23, 1991, letter: The Department of Corrections will delete the phrase "an informal hearing" and insert "being advised of an incident or situation which prohibits the inmate from remaining in open population without endangering himself or others or compromising the security of the institution". The Respondent subsequently proposed to amend Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by deleting the terms "informal hearing" and replacing them with the following underlined language: (4)(a) An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement by the senior correctional officer after being advised of a situation or incident which prohibits the inmate from remaining in open population without endangering himself or others or compromising the security of the institution, if the situation cannot be resolved. The reason for placement shall be explained to the inmate, and he shall be given an opportunity to present his views on the matter to the senior correctional officer. When the senior correctional officer places an inmate in administrative confinement, this action shall be documented on a Report . . ., including the reasons for the action and a summary of the inmate's comments or objections. The inmate may also submit a written statement. . . . The proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, does not substantively change the manner in which an inmate is informed that he or she is being placed in administrative confinement. The "informal hearing" previously required in Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, required no more than the proposed amendment provides for. By eliminating the terms "informal hearing" the proposed rule amendment eliminates any confusion as to whether some more formal process is to be followed by the Respondent in informing an inmate that he or she is being placed in administrative confinement. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which contained the proposed amendments at issue in this proceeding was subsequently filed by the Respondent with the Bureau of Administrative Code, for publication, and with the Committee. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included the following "purpose and effect" clause: The proposed amendments are needed in order to correct technical and substantive errors noted by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. The proposed amendments provide clarification of policies and procedures regarding administrative confinement and protective management. The purpose and effect clause is consistent with the substantive changes to Rule 33-3.0081(3) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, at issue in this proceeding. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, at issue in this proceeding are arbitrary or capricious. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any of the suggestions concerning Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, made by Ms. Green were ever approved, adopted, or reviewed by the Committee. In fact, Ms. Green indicates in her letter that "substantive errors" she perceived would be recommended as objections to the Committee only if they were not eliminated prior to adoption. Since the "substantive errors" at issue in this proceeding were eliminated, they were apparently never recommended or considered by the Committee.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by the Department of Corrections based on race, religion, disability, age, or in retaliation for participation in an activity protected under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Emory Mosley, is an African-American male (Petitioner). In 1989, Petitioner was hired as a correctional officer by Respondent, the Department of Corrections (Department). Initially, he was assigned to the main unit at Madison Correctional Institution in Madison, Florida. By all accounts, during his first nine years with the Department, Petitioner was well liked by the institution's administration and his fellow officers. He was thought of as a hardworking professional officer and as one of the best officers at Madison Correctional Institution. New officers were routinely sent to Petitioner for him to train. In general and during Petitioner's employment, officers are assigned to different shifts and work assignments at Madison Correctional Institution so that officers can become familiar with all aspects of the Madison Correctional system. However, Petitioner was allowed to remain at the same post and shift for his first nine years. Over nine years, such permanence in Petitioner's assignment caused some resentment among other staff because of the perceived favoritism exhibited by the administration toward Petitioner. At some point in his ninth year with the Department, Petitioner began to perceive problems with other staff members. He concluded that certain rules were not being followed and began to believe that co-workers were in some manner conspiring against him, abusing inmates, and/or committing crimes related to their duties at the institution. His relationships with co-workers became strained. Staff and inmates began to complain about Petitioner's behavior toward them. During this time, Petitioner also complained to the warden about rule violations by staff. However, the details of these complaints were not revealed at the hearing. Petitioner's complaints did appear to be in the nature of "whistle-blowing." The evidence did not demonstrate that any of Petitioner's complaints involved any activity protected under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. In July 1999, Colonel David McCallum transferred Petitioner to the Madison Correctional Institution work camp. The work camp was located a few hundred yards away from the main unit. The duties of a correctional officer at the work camp are primarily the same as those at the main unit with the difference that there are significantly fewer inmates at the work camp. As a result, many officers feel that the work camp is somewhat more relaxed and an "easier" assignment than an assignment at the main unit. To some officers, it is a desirable assignment. To other officers, it is not a desirable assignment. Opportunities for promotion are not diminished at the work camp; pay and benefits remain the same. The evidence did not show that transfer to the work camp was an adverse employment action on the part of the Department. Colonel McCallum, who thinks highly of Petitioner, transferred Petitioner to the work camp because he believed that Petitioner needed a change of scenery because of the problems he was having with staff and inmates at the main unit. He believed that he was doing Petitioner a favor by transferring him because of the more relaxed atmosphere at the work camp. The transfer was also made due to complaints from staff that Petitioner was receiving preferential treatment in that he was allowed to maintain the same post and shift for such a long period of time. Colonel McCallum was not aware of any complaints by Petitioner to the warden of alleged rule violations at the time that Petitioner was transferred. The evidence did not show that Petitioner was transferred in retaliation for any activity protected under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's supervisor at the work camp was Lieutenant Patricia Herring, an African-American female. Herring emphatically denied at the hearing that the work camp was in any manner run as a type of concentration camp as opined by Petitioner and did not relate any race relation problems at the camp. The camp was run in a less strict manner than the main unit, especially in relation to the procedure used during the counting of inmates. These more relaxed methods greatly disturbed Petitioner, and he constantly agitated the work environment about such relaxed methods that he perceived as "rule violations." Herring testified that Petitioner was insubordinate and disrespectful to her during his time at the work camp. She believed that his disrespect came from his unhappiness with having a female supervisor. Petitioner received a written reprimand as a result of his insubordination and disrespect toward Herring. Unquestionably, Petitioner and Herring had a serious conflict between their personalities. There was no evidence that any conflict was based on discrimination or retaliation. Ms. Herring also testified that Petitioner received the same treatment as all other officers, vis-à-vis, shift and post assignments. There was no substantive evidence that Petitioner was treated differently in the assignments he was given at the work camp. There was no evidence that Petitioner sought accommodation for his diabetes or high blood pressure. Petitioner retired from the Department, effective December 1, 1999. He admitted at hearing that his retirement date had nothing to do with any actions allegedly taken against him by the Department; rather, he planned to retire on December 1, 1999, well before any problems with the Department began because that date ensured that he would receive retirement benefits based on ten years of service. There was no substantive evidence presented at the hearing that Petitioner was discriminated or retaliated against. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 24th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Emory L. Mosley Post Office Box 8 Monticello, Florida 32345 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding in which the Petitioner originally sought a determination pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, that Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code, was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. This case began with the filing of a Petition For Administrative Determination on December 23, 1986. On March 26, 1987, this Hearing Officer issued a Final Order of Dismissal which granted the Department's motion to dismiss. The Final Order Of Dismissal concluded that the Petitioner had failed to allege standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006, because his allegations were insufficient to show that his substantial interests were affected by those subsections of the rule. The Final Order Of Dismissal went on to conclude that the Petitioner had sufficiently alleged standing to challenge Subsection (1) of the challenged rule, but also concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sufficiently allege facts sufficient to show the invalidity of the rule. In this regard the Final Order Of Dismissal specifically stated at paragraph 12: In order to sufficiently allege the invalidity of an existing rule, a rule challenge petition must assert, at a minimum, that the challenged rule is in some specified way a departure from statutory authority granted to the rule enacting agency by the Legislature. Where, as here, the rule is nothing more than a repetition of the statutory provision, the rule may be unnecessary, but it is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it does not in any way depart from the statutory mandate. Because of the identical provisions of the subject rule language and the applicable statute, the Petitioner has not, and cannot, allege any facts sufficient to show that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because he has not, and cannot, allege any differences between the statutory mandate and the rule mandate. The Petitioner sought appellate review of the Final Order Of Dismissal. In Diaz v. Florida Department of Corrections, 519 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), appeal dismissed, 525 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1988), the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion which primarily addressed the constitutionality of the statutory authority for the challenged rule. In that opinion the court concluded as follows: Accordingly, we declare section 945.10(2) Florida Statutes (1985), to be unconstitutional. The case is remanded to the DOAH hearing officer for further proceedings to determine the validity of Rule 33-6.006(1) in light of this opinion. On March 21, 1988, the appellate court issued its mandate and the case was once again before the Hearing Officer for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. The appellate court decision left undisturbed the conclusion that the Petitioner lacks standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006. Accordingly, the issue on remand is limited to a determination of the validity of Subsection (1) of Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code. As discussed in the conclusions of law, that determination involves a consideration of statutory amendments which took effect after the appellate court decision and were, therefore, not considered by the appellate court. At the final hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and the Petitioner also offered several exhibits. During the course of the hearing the Petitioner was granted leave to file two late exhibits consisting of selected portions of the Department's Policy and Procedure Directives and selected portions of the Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedures. The Respondent was granted leave to file post-hearing objections to any late-filed exhibits. The late-filed exhibits were submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent promptly filed objections to same. Upon consideration, the objections to the exhibits are overruled and the late-filed exhibits are received as part of the record in this case. Following the hearing, a transcript of tide proceedings at hearing was also filed. Thereafter, both parties filed timely proposed final orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties' proposed final orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this final order. Specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated herein.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings stipulated by the parties Florida Administrative Code Chapters 1S, 22I, 28, and 33, as found in the Florida Administrative Code Annotated, through the April 1988 supplement, are true and correct copies of those rule chapters. The Petitioner's current address is: Enrique J. Diaz Inmate Number 065599 Florida State Prison Post Office Box 747 Starke, Florida 32091 The Respondent's name and address is: Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Department rule on which an administrative determination is sought is Rule 33-6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, which states: No inmate of any institution, facility, or program shall have access to any information contained in the files of the Department. The statutory provisions on which the subject Department rule is based are Sections 944.09 and 945.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's interests are substantially affected by Rule 33- 6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, in that: He is a convicted felon, lawfully confined in the custody of the Department. He wishes to obtain from the Department, for the lawful cost of copying, documents he was once given by the Department, but which he no longer has in his possession, including, but not limited to: Institutional grievances filed by him. Grievance appeals filed by him. Disciplinary Reports issued against him. Disciplinary Report Worksheets issued against him. He wishes to obtain from the Department, for the lawful cost of copying, documents which are public records and which can be obtained by anyone from sources outside the Department, including, but not limited to: His Judgment and Sentence forms. His Uniform Commitment to Custody form. He wishes to obtain from the Department documents which are public records and which are normally provided to any member of the public requesting same, including, but not limited to: The Department's annual report. Ordinary records kept in the normal course of business, such as might be kept by any state agency. He had been refused any and all documents from the Department because of Rule 33-6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code. FINDINGS BASED ON EVIDENCE AT HEARING Inmates are given copies of any disciplinary reports they receive at the time they receive the disciplinary report, plus the results of any subsequent disciplinary hearing. These copies are carbon copies rather than photocopies. Inmates are given answers to inmate requests, institutional grievances, and grievance appeals they file. These answers are given to the inmate with a copy of his original filing. The act of giving an inmate another, identical, copy of any disciplinary report, disciplinary worksheet, inmate request, institutional grievance, or grievance appeal he had previously been given does not create a security problem. The act of giving an inmate another, identical, copy of his Judgment and Sentence forms, which are public documents contained in the files and records of the appropriate Clerks of Court, does not create a security problcm. Copies of the above documents are routinely made for attorneys and the news media. The actual cost of providing these copies is charged. The Department would not provide copies of the above documents if it were known the copies would be given to an inmate. The Department's Administrative Gain Time Manual is made available to the news media, the public, and attorneys. The Department refuses to make this manual available to inmates. The Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedures (IOPs) are public records, but the Department refuses to make copies of them for individual inmates because of Rule 33- 6.006(1), even though some of the IOPs are in the prison law library. The Department's Policy and Procedure Directives are freely available to the public, but the Department refuse to make them available to inmates. Florida State Prison, where the Petitioner is incarcerated, has approximately 1164 inmates. In accordance with state statute, the institution keeps a file on each inmate. Each file consists of from two to eighteen legal size folders of documents. The files include such material as investigation reports, disciplinary reports, special review information, presentence reports, psychological and medical reports, detainers, gain time, and other information. There are three people in the Florida State Prison records department responsible for inmate files. It takes the FSP record department three or four hours daily to file newly received documents. The FSP records department also has other duties, such as posting gain time, cell changes, and disciplinary reports. The FSP records department has received few, if any, requests for information from the public or the news media. Most of their requests come from attorneys. The attorneys' requests for information place additional burdens on the small FSP records department staff. By way of example, it took approximately two hours to "screen" the Petitioner's file at FSP and his file is smaller than that of 75 or 80 per cent of the inmates. Florida State Prison has only three photocopy machines for the entire institution. The machines are used extensively and are subject to frequent malfunctions. The Admissions and Release office maintains the official file on each inmate at the central office. Currently, there are 33,000 inmates in custody. The primary reason that the Admissions and Release office does not want inmates to have hands-on access to their central office files is to maintain the integrity of the record. The Department has had to use the files in court to defend and substantiate the calculations for release dates. The Admissions and Release office has denied all inmate requests for copies of information from its files. The Admissions and Release office is currently shorthanded. Whenever there is a new court decision affecting inmate rights or sentences, the office is flooded with correspondence and requests from inmates. The office has already received some grievances and requests from inmates concerning the appellate court decision in this case. The office expects a flood of requests if inmates are given access to Department records. During the past four years the Admissions and Release office has had very few requests for access to its files from the news media or the general public. The Department's central files contain access codes for the Department's computers. If inmates could obtain the access codes, it would compromise the integrity of the Department's computer records. Before release of any information from the Department's central office files, the information is screened for confidential information. Even documents which appear to be facially innocent have to be read to determine whether they contain information about informants or victims. The Department is concerned that if inmates are allowed broad access to Department files, such access will create security problems. But the Department is even more concerned about the sheer volume of requests that would result from allowing broad access and the impact the expected volume of requests would have on Department staff and copying equipment. The Department is also generally of the view that it is virtually impossible to write a rule which would describe which documents should be available for inmate access and which should not. Rather, the Department is of the view that decisions regarding release of documents to inmates must be made on a case by case basis after review of each document in each file.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Gary M. Piccirillo ("Piccirillo"), Douglas L. Adams ("Adams"), and George Crain ("Crain") each are inmates who are presently incarcerated and within the custody of Respondent, Department of Corrections. At the time of final hearing in this cause, each of the Petitioners was incarcerated in Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, Florida. At the time of final hearing in this cause, both Petitioner Adams and Petitioner Crain had been classified as "close custody" in accordance with the provisions of Rule 33-6.09(4), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner Piccirillo had been classified as "medium custody" in accordance with that same rule. The custody status of each of these inmates had been reviewed and established within the last six months prior to final hearing. In addition to challenging the validity of Rule 33-9.07(4), Florida Administrative Code, Petitioners also challenge the validity of Department of Corrections' Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.40 issued April 27, 1977, and revised March 10, 1982, as an unpromulgated rule. Specifically, Petitioners contend that Section IXB conflicts with certain provisions of Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, and is, therefore, invalid. Specifically the Policy and Procedure Directive in the above referenced section provides that: The department will permit considera- tion for work release 18 months prior to release. However, normally such consideration will be given within the last nine months prior to the presumptive parole release date or expiration or [sic]. . . .
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in the case of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Rippy commenced her employment with the Department on June 30, 2000, as a correctional officer, at the Florida State Prison Work Camp at Starke, Florida. She was terminated on June 19, 2001. The Department of Corrections is a state agency that is charged with providing incarceration that supports the intentions of criminal law, among other things. The Florida Commission on Human Relations administers the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. When Ms. Rippy was hired as a correctional officer on June 30, 2000, she, and the Department, believed she was subject to a one-year probationary period. During that time, the parties believed she could be terminated without cause. Subsequent to her employment she had unscheduled but excused absences on as many as 15 occasions. On June 12, 2001, Ms. Rippy requested that her supervisor, Lt. J. L. Oliver, approve leave for her to commence Sunday, June 17, 2001. Lt. Oliver did not approve this request because to approve the request would cause the staffing level at the facility to recede below permitted limits. On Saturday June 16, 2001, at 6:00 p.m., Ms. Rippy called Sergeant K. Gilbert, Third Shift Control Room Sergeant, and told him that she was taking medication prescribed by a doctor that she had seen that day and that she would be sleeping and that as a result, she would be unable to report to work on her shift which began at midnight, June 17, 2001. She also volunteered that she would bring in a doctor's note excusing her absence. On Monday, June 18, 2001, Lt. Oliver asked her if she had a doctor's note explaining her absence on June 17, 2001. She replied that she had not been ill as reported to Sergeant Gilbert, but had in fact attended a party. She told him that she had not seen a doctor, was not on medication, and had attended a "bachelorette party" on June 17, 2001. In other words, she admitted that she had lied about the reason for her absence. She admitted this, under oath, at the hearing. Lt. Oliver informed her that it was his intention to charge her with unauthorized absence without pay, and possibly to take other disciplinary measures. Subsequently, persons higher in the chain-of-command decided to terminate Ms. Rippy. This decision was made because she had excess absences and because she had lied to persons in authority. This occurred 11 days before everyone believed she would have attained the status of permanent career service. On June 21, 2001, Correctional Officer Corey M. McMurry (Officer McMurry), a white male, was arrested in Starke, Florida, for driving under the influence of alcohol. As a result, on July 11, 2001, he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to twelve months supervised probation, and suffered other court-ordered sanctions. Officer McMurry, at the time of his arrest, was a probationary employee. He was served a written reprimand because of his conviction of driving under the influence on December 19, 2001. Ms. Rippy testified, without foundation, that Officer McMurry's probation terminated on November 15, 2001, and that the Department did not learn of his arrest until December 2001. Ms. Rippy's testimony provides a plausible explanation for why more than five months expired from the time of his conviction until the issuance of the written reprimand. Ms. Rippy believes that the circumstances surrounding her offense were substantially similar to those of Officer McMurry. However, the chronic absenteeism of an employee, including unexcused absences, is more likely to disturb the good management of a correctional facility than an employee being convicted of driving under the influence on one occasion. Assistant Warden Doug Watson believes that correctional officers should be trustworthy. He believes that the credibility is critical and that lying is an extremely serious offense, when committed by a correctional officer. Ms. Rippy was paid $13.30 per hour and received substantial fringe benefits when she worked for the Department. Following her termination she was unemployed until January 2002, when she began working for a Wendy's restaurant for $5.75 per hour. In April 2002, she obtained employment with a private security company named Securitas. She started at $6.40 and received an increase to $7.00 per hour at a subsequent unknown date, and she continues to be employed with the company.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that a final order be entered which dismisses Ms. Rippy's Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Henderson, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Juliette C. Rippy 1622 Northeast 19th Place Gainesville, Florida 32609 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Derick Daniel, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioners and Respondent have stipulated to the following facts: The three petitioners are inmates at Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, Florida, in the custody of the Department of Corrections. All three of the petitioners have had their PPRD's established by the respondent-commission as follows: In June of 1982, Mr. Piccirillo's PPRD was established by the commission to be September 30, 1986. In January of 1982, Mr. Adams' PPRD was established by the commission to be November 11, 1991. In December of 1982, petitioner Hemming's PPRD was established by the commission to be September 29, 1993. Subsequent to the commission having established their PPRD's, all three of the petitioners have been transferred from one Florida penal institution to another state institution as follows: Mr. Piccirillo was transferred from Polk Correctional Institution to Union Correctional Institution on August 18, 1982. Mr. Adams was transferred from Polk Correctional Institution to Union Correctional Institution on August 18, 1932. Mr. Hemming was transferred from Avon Park Correctional Institution to Union Correctional Institution on February 16, 1983. The petitioners were not transferred to Union Correctional Institution because of any unsatisfactory institutional conduct at their former institutions. Petitioners are currently scheduled by the commission for biennial interviews to review their established PPRD's as follows: Mr. Piccirillo is scheduled for a biennial interview in March of 1984. Mr. Adams is scheduled for a biennial interview in October of 1983. Mr. Hemming is scheduled for a biennial interview in September of 1984. The following additional findings are made from evidence presented at the hearing: The respondent-commission has not made a finding that any of the petitioner's institutional conduct has been unsatisfactory under the challenged rule nor has respondent extended their PPRD's or refused to authorize their EPRD's. In applying the challenged rule, the fact that an inmate has been transferred to a higher custody or higher level institution is only considered to be unsatisfactory institutional conduct where the commission receives documentation evidencing institutional misconduct as the basis for the transfer. Petitioners transfers from other institutions to Union Correctional Institution would not be considered unsatisfactory institutional conduct under the challenged rule because there is no documentation of institutional misconduct which led to these institutional transfers.
