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 This is a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. In his original petition the Petitioner sought to challenge several rules of the Department, as well as certain Department policy and procedure directives and internal operating procedures of Florida State Prison. At the hearing the scope of the issues was narrowed by agreement of the Petitioner to challenges to the following: Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code; Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directives 4.07.06 and 4.10.51; and Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedure No. 4-86.04.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony at the final hearing and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, Ervin J. Horton, is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is presently confined at Florida State Prison. At the time of the hearing in this case, the Petitioner was on confinement status and he has been on confinement status in the past. Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, has been adopted by the Department of Corrections. The title of the rule is "Legal Documents and Legal and Privileged Mail." The general subject matter of the rule concerns the preparation, mailing, and receipt of legal documents and legal mail by inmates. The rule is applicable to the Petitioner. The Department of Corrections has adopted Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.07.06, which is titled "Preparation And Processing Of Legal Documents And Legal Mail." This directive is for the most part a restatement of many of the provisions of Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code. The directive also includes a provision requiring each prison Superintendent to issue an institutional policy memorandum to effectuate the provisions of the directive. The Department of Corrections has adopted Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.10.51, which is titled "Law Libraries." The directive is in part a restatement of portions of Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code. However, for the most part it sets forth the Department's policies regarding the establishment, operation, and maintenance of prison law libraries. Portions of the directive contain limitations on the time, place, and manner in which inmates may use the law libraries. The Superintendent of Florida State Prison has adopted Institutional Operating Procedure No. 4-86.04, which is titled "Preparation Of Legal Documents By Inmates." This is an institutional policy memorandum required by Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.07.06. IOP No. 4-86.04 addresses the same general subject matter as is addressed by Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.07.06. The IOP includes additional specific details for implementation of Policy And Procedure Directive Number 4.07.06 and Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, at the Florida State Prison facility. As a result of his status as an inmate at Florida State Prison, the Rule, the Policy And Procedure Directives, and the Institutional Operating Procedure described above are applicable to the Petitioner to the extent they regulate his activities within the scope of those documents. The documents described above in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of these findings of fact are the only documents to which this rule challenge proceeding is addressed. The testimony at the hearing consisted largely of anecdotal testimony regarding a long series of Petitioner's alleged individual problems within the State correctional system. Some of his problems have been real; others appear to probably have been imaginary. All of the problems described by Petitioner were largely irrelevant to the issues raised in the petition. And to the extent portions of Petitioner's testimony were relevant to the general subject matter at hand, the testimony did not tend to demonstrate that the challenged documents were invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The exhibits offered by Petitioner were of the same general tenor as his testimony.
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.
Findings Of Fact 1/ The parties to this proeeeding have stipulated that Petitioner has standing as an inmate at Union Correctional Institution to challenge the provisions of Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedures No. 82-69. The parties have further stipulated that all of the provisions contained in the aforementioned operating procedure which are not self-limiting are intended to be either System or institutionwide in their impact. As mentioned above, Respondent and Petitioner have stipulated into evidence the challenged operating procedures and any relevant rules contained in Chapter 33, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ On or about December 15, 1976, Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedures No. 82-69 was initially issued. These procedures were revised on September 13, 1982, and were reviewed and continued in an operational status on May 23, 1983. The challenged operating procedures were issued ". . . to establish criteria for the placement of inmates in an Administrative Confinement status and to establish institutional policy and procedures applicable to such confinement." The operating procedures purport to be issued pursuant to authority contained in Sections 944.28 and 945.21, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-3, Florida Administrative Code. In the briefing process of this proceeding Respondent has conceded that the following portions of the challenged operating procedure constitute unpromulgated rules: That portion of 82-69.7A on pages 4 and 5 dealing with personal property which an inmate will be permitted to retain in his possession while in administrative confinement; 82-69.7B concerning inmate bank withdrawals; 82-69.7C dealing with canteen privileges; 82-69.7D dealing with library privileges; 82-69.7F concerning clothing for inmates in administrative confinement; 82-69.7K concerning religious material available to administrative confinement inmates; 82-69.7M concereing visiting privileges; 82-69.7U governing notarizing of legal papers and materials; and 82-69.8 governing restrictions to be imposed on privileges granted to inmates by virtue of the operating procedure. Further, Petitioner challenges in his memorandum Sections 82-69.4, entitled Criteria for Administrative Confinement, 82-69.70, entitled Medical Procedures, and 82-69.7Q, entitled Inmate Count procedures. Any sections of the operating procedures not argued by Petitioner in his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law have been considered abandoned. Section 82-69.4 of the operating procedures, entitled Criteria for Administrative Confinement, provides as follows: Inmates may be placed in Administrative Confinement who pose an immediate threat of violence or disruption to themselves, other inmates, Department employees, or the institution generally, or as a result of threats of physical harm from other inmates, or other good reasons. Reasons for placing inmates in Administrative Confinement are further defined as follows: Awaiting Disciplinary Action: When the evidence clearly suggests that to allow the inmate to remain in open population would present a clear danger to other inmates or to the security of the institution. Placing inmates in Administrative Confinement to await a disciplinary hearing is permitted only when there is a danger to the welfare of the inmate or other inmates in the population, or when the security and good order of the institution is in jeopardy. Pending Trial: For a crime committed in the Department when the facts clearly suggest that to allow the inmate to remain in open population would present a clear danger to the inmate, other inmates, or to the security of the institution. Custody Risk: Cases when the facts clearly indicate the inmate cannot be housed in the general inmate population. Inmates who, after removal from disciplinary confinement, clearly appear to the Classification Team to be a potential assaultive or disruptive factor if placed in the inmate population and who, therefore, cannot reasonably and safely be returned to the inmate population. For protection of the inmate or other inmates. The aforecited provisions of Section 82-69.4 of the operating procedures are a virtual recapitulation of the requirements currently contained in Rule 33-3.081(1) and (4) Florida Administrative Code. The requirements of the challenged operating procedures neither create, add to, nor detract from the rights of inmates at Union Correctional Institution. Section 82-69.7 0.1. of the operating procedures provide as follows: 1. Health Appraisal Prior to placement in confinement the inmate shall be escorted to the outpatient clinic for health appraisal. (In cases of combative or assaultive behavior, the appraisal shall be done as soon as possible after being confined.) Inmates who are acutely ill or whose mental condition or behavior shows sudden, rapid change (which may be due to the ingention[sic] of stimulants, drugs, alcohol, medications, or other toxic sub- stances, whether taken legally or illegally) who exhibit acute personality changes or other markedly bizarre behavior, or who have exhibi- ted a recent, serious intent to harm themselves, shall not be confined until the inmate's health status has been evaluated by the medical professional or paraprofessional on duty. If it is feasible to initially confine such persons in the clinic for observation, the medical staff member on duty will monitor the health status of the inmate in confinement at least every two hours, and more often as indicated in individual cases. The health appraisal must include as a minimum, the following: A brief review of health record Determine any medication the inmate is currently on that mustbe continued while in con finement, and essential scheduled health appointments for call-out. Vital signs, including temperature, blood pressure, pulse and respiration Determine any health complaints Perform physical examination as necessary based especially on any noted complaints For inmates in Medical Grades III or IV, determine any necessary continuity of care while in confinement An overall statement as to the fitness of the inmates' confinement will be based on the findings above No such specific procedure dealing with health appraisal was contained in either Chapters 944 or 945, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 33, Florida Administrative Code. These procedures are mandatory, and must be completed before an inmate may be placed in administrative confinement. The remaining provisions of Section 82-69.7 0 relate to Respondent's internal management of routine sick call, emergency medical procedures, medication, and inmate visits by the institution medical director. These sections do not purport to create or otherwise affect any individual inmate right. Section 82-69.7Q, entitled Inmate Count Procedures, provides, in part, that: The special nature of inmates confined on Administrative Confinement require maximum supervision and control. Consequently, there will be a total of six counts con- ducted throughout the day . . . . This section of the operating procedures goes on to establish the times and procedures for conducting the six inmate counts: an 8 a.m. response count; 12 noon response count; a 4:30 p.m. response count; a 9 p.m. master count; a 12 midnight body count; and a 4 a.m. body count. The only act required of inmates in this section is that they present themselves at their cell door and respond with their inmate number when their name is called at the 8 a.m., 12 noon, and 4:30 p.m. response counts.
Findings Of Fact Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law and not a Finding of Fact. 3-4. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 2-4. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 9-10. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 5-6. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as argument and not a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley Blanding, #036207 Liz Cloud, Chief Mark Dingle, #073356 Bureau of Administrative Code William Roberts, #908378 1802 The Capitol Virgil Page, #073743 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Union Correctional Institution P. O. Box 221 Raiford, Florida 32803 William Joel Keel, #060263 Carroll Webb, Exec. Director Union Correctional Institution Administrative Procedures P. O. Box 221 Committee Raiford, Florida 32083 120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julia Forrester, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louie Wainwright Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner herein, Michael J. Hunter, was employed by the Apalachee Correctional Institution (ACI) in Sneads, Florida in November, 1979. Immediately after his employment he was given five weeks training at Raiford, Florida and served as a correctional officer at ACI from that point until July 7, 1983. The four performance reports rendered on him during the period of employment were all satisfactory or above and other than the instant case, he was subject to no disciplinary action during the entire period he worked for the Respondent. His function as a corrections officer was to maintain order in the dormitories, security for the area, and to protect inmates' safety. He worked the evening shift from 4 pm to midnight for three years and on the midnight shift from midnight to 8 am for 6 months. During the period of his employment he was instructed, and it was his understanding, that a corrections officer may touch a prisoner in the line of duty only to maintain order, to break up a fight, and to protect the safety of himself, the prisoner, or others but not to abuse a prisoner or to administer punishment. On June 3, 1983, he was instructed by his supervisor, Sgt. Hines, to proceed to the basement of the dormitory in which he was working to open up the TV room and the clothing line. When he arrived there, he found that the people assigned to operate the clothing line had not shown up yet so he went to the TV area to check on it. When he came back to the clothing room, he saw that two inmates, Wilkins and Ashbury, had broken into the room and stolen some underwear. He apprehended them and told all the prisoners in the area to go upstairs. All did except prisoner Watkins, the victim of the alleged assault in issue here who refused to go. It has been Petitioner's experience that some inmates refuse to obey the directions of anyone holding a rank less than sergeant. In any case, Petitioner was able to convince Watkins to go to the guard room upstairs and while there, Watkins and Petitioner got into a verbal dispute. Just as they were arguing, Petitioner's supervisor, Sgt. Hyatt, came into the office. At this point, Watkins jumped up and yelled at him and accused Petitioner of hitting him. Petitioner categorically denied striking Watkins. He admits telling Watkins he could have his "ass" for this but he does not believe that in the context of which that statement was used and the circumstances under which the situation took place, use of that word was necessarily inappropriate. It is Mr. Hunter's belief that a corrections officer such as he was would be ineffective and ignored if from time to time he did not use this type of language. He based this on his knowledge of the background and character of the inmates as well as their education level for the most part. According to Hunter, when Hyatt came in, Watkins jumped up and moved off to the side and yelled at Sgt. Hyatt to get Hunter "out of his face." Though Mr. Hunter denies intentionally touching Watkins, he admits it is possible that his finger may have touched Watkins' nose because at the time, they were very close. Young John Allen, another corrections officer at ACI, was on duty in the general area of this incident on the night in question. He overheard a disturbance downstairs and thereafter walked into the dormitory office. When he did, he saw 15 inmates come up from downstairs, excited, to see the duty sergeant. In response, Allen called Sgt. Hyatt who came into the room and started talking to the inmates. Just then, according to Allen, Hunter came in. At this point Hunter and Watkins started arguing. Hunter walked up to Watkins and talked to him in strong terms. Allen overheard Hunter say, "Boy, I want you bad." and put his finger in Watkins' face. During this time, the other inmates surrounding the individuals were becoming more and more excited. At this point, according to Allen, Hyatt called Hunter but Hunter did not respond. Notwithstanding Hunter's denial that he hit Watkins, Allen indicates that he saw Hunter hit Watkins with a short, quick punch to the left side of abdomen. Admittedly, this punch was not hard enough to knock Watkins down. While this was all going on, Allen heard Hyatt call to the Petitioner several times to no avail. Finally, Hyatt told Watkins to go outside and sit down. He also got Hunter to come back to the rear of the office. Once this was done, Petitioner again went out to where Watkins was sitting and again called him "Boy" and put his finger in Watkins' face. At this point, another officer came up and prevailed upon the Petitioner to leave. Allen contends that he was in the room with Hunter and Watkins at the time of the incident. Hunter contends that Allen was standing outside the room in the dormitory looking in through a wide glass window. He says that though he was at all times looking directly at Watkins, his peripheral vision is such that he was able to see Allen off to the side where he was standing. Allen contends he was approximately 6 to 8 feet away, slightly off to the side, and there were no obstructions to his view of the incident even though there were a lot of people in the room. Allen also contends that throughout this entire fracas, Watkins never jumped at Petitioner as is claimed but was trying to break away at all times. Watkins was sent for medical evaluation immediately after the incident as a part of standard procedure and it was determined that he received no injuries as a result of it. Watkins, sometime after the incident, but within a short time, came to Allen indicating his displeasure with the way Allen had handled the situation. In this conversation, Watkins indicated to Allen he did not want to see Petitioner fired on the basis of this incident. The structure of the guard force at ACI is quite similar to that of a military organization. The guards do wear uniform but do not carry weapons inside the prisoner area because of the volatile situation that can rapidly develop into a confrontational situation. While the use of bad language is not unusual, corrections officers generally have to, if at all possible, maintain their equilibrium because when an officer is upset and becomes involved in a scene, inmates also get upset. Because no weapons are carried, therefore, the officers have to be careful not to create, encourage, or maintain an explosive situation wherein they or someone else could get hurt. Within the guard structure the lowest or first level is that held by both Petitioner and Mr. Allen, corrections officer 1. Hyatt is a corrections officer 2, equivalent to the rank of sergeant, and in a lead worker position. Both CO 1 and CO 2 positions are in the same collective bargaining unit. A CO 2 has no disciplinary action authority and is not considered to be management. As such, a CO 2 can neither hire nor fire but may recommend either discipline or termination of employment. The supervisory level starts with CO 3, a grade equivalent to that of a lieutenant. This individual can approve leave, assign personnel, and effectively recommend disciplinary action which, ordinarily, is taken by the superintendent of the facility. Al Cook has been the superintendent of ACI for 9 years and as such has the authority to discipline and terminate employees in accordance with Department of Corrections rules and the appropriate statutes. After an investigation into the incident in issue here, he ultimately discharged Petitioner for striking an inmate. During his 15 years as a superintendent at one institution or another he has discharged one other corrections officer for physical abuse. Petitioner here was, he believes, however, the first. The other, a white officer, was discharged for kicking an inmate. Race was not in issue in the dispute here. Hunter and Watkins are both black. After the incident in question, Hyatt allowed Hunter to go see the lieutenant who gave him the opportunity to either go back to work or go home for the evening. Because he did not wish to work with Hyatt any more that evening, Petitioner chose to go home and report the following morning. When he did he was again told to go home, this time for several days, and return the following Tuesday. At this time he was interviewed by Colonel Jones who advised him to come back and see the superintendent on Wednesday, which he did. After waiting all day on Wednesday to see the superintendent, he was told to come back on Thursday. When he did, after waiting another hour, he was interviewed by Mr. Cook who heard his story. When he was finished, Cook indicated that he believed the other officers' stories over Hunter's and gave him the option to either resign or be fired. When Hunter refused to resign, he was discharged on July 7, 1983. Later that day he was shown the statements signed by 5 inmates and the other officers including Hyatt who said they saw him hit Watkins. These statements were not introduced into evidence at the hearing. However, Petitioner admits in his testimony that he saw them and that they exist. He also admits having come close to Watkins in an altercation which involved the use of bad language and which resulted from high feeling. Though he admits that his finger may have touched Watkins' nose, he denies punching him. However, the testimony of Mr. Allen, if believed, tends to indicate that he did. The inconsistency between the testimony of Petitioner and that of Allen as to where Allen was standing can be resolved easily in favor of Mr. Allen because, in light of the circumstances involving high feeling and the fact that Petitioner admits he saw Allen only out of the corner of his eye, it is most probably that Allen was in the room and not outside as Petitioner contends. In any case, in this specific as in the specific as to whether or not Watkins was hit by Petitioner, the resolution of the dispute if not clear from the evidence must be made on an analysis of the evidence on the basis of, inter alia, who has the most to gain or lose by telling the truth or a falsehood. In this case, it is clear that Petitioner has the most to lose by telling the truth because under the statute in question, if he did in fact unlawfully strike Watkins, he is subject to termination. Another factor to consider is the demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand. Here both Allen and Petitioner appeared to know what it was they were saying and did not appear to be rehearsed. Their testimony appeared spontaneous and was believable. In light of the above, it can be concluded, therefore, considering the nature of the altercation and the high feeling involved, that Petitioner did in fact strike Watkins.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED THAT the Petition of Michael Hunter, to be reinstated to his position of employment and to be awarded back and front pay, benefits, and costs and attorney's fees be denied. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida, this 19th day of February, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Preston T. Everett, Esquire Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Dana Baird, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Bldg. F Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY REMAND ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION OF HUMAN RELATIONS MICHAEL HUNTER, EEOC Case No. 046842030 Petitioner, FCHR Case No. 84-0316 DOAH Case No. 84-2891 vs. FCHR Order No. 86-015 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. / ORDER REMANDING PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE Panel of Commissioners The following three Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: Commissioner John J. Sulik, Panel Chairperson, Commissioner Robert L. Billingslea; and Commissioner Robert R. Joyce. APPEARANCES For Petitioner Michael Hunter: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32325 For Respondent State of Florida, Department of Corrections: Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Preliminary Matters Michael Hunter, Petitioner herein, filed a complaint of discrimination with this Commission pursuant to the Human Rights Act of 197, as amended, Sections 760.01-760.10, Florida Statutes (1985), alleging that State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Respondent herein, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of race (black). In accordance with the Commission's rules, the allegations of discrimination set forth in the complaint of discrimination were investigated and a report of said investigation was submitted to the Executive Director. On June 29, 1984, the Executive Director issued his Determination finding no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred. On July 31, 1984, the petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. The petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the conduct of a formal proceeding pursuant to Rule 22T-8.16(1). The formal proceeding was held on January 3, 1985, in Chattahoochee, Florida, before Arnold H. Pollock, DOAH Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order in this matter on February 19, 1985. Petitioner filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. Respondent filed a response. Pursuant to notice, oral argument was originally held on April 19, 1985, at which time the parties were advised that the Commission was unable to locate the record in this proceeding. The parties ultimately produced a copy of the record 2 and the deliberation was rescheduled to February 28, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida before the aforementioned Panel of Commissioners. After oral argument was presented by counsel for the respective parties, the Panel conducted its deliberation in this matter and determined the action to be taken upon the petition. Petitioner's Exceptions and Respondent's Response Petitioner excepts to the Hearing Officer's failure to find that confrontations with inmates involving Correctional Officers Foran and Mayo were not comparable to Petitioner's confrontation. Petitioner further excepts to the Hearing Officer's failure to consider Petitioner's statistical evidence showing that 17 percent of Respondent's workforce is black, whereas 75 percent of the individuals terminated in 1982 through 1984 at Petitioner's worksite, Apalachee Correctional Institution, were black. Respondent counters by asserting that the confrontations involving Correctional Officer's Foran and Mayo were not comparable to the confrontation involving Petitioner inasmuch as Respondent's internal investigations supported the respective disciplinary actions taken. Respondent further asserts that Petitioner's statistical computations, based upon only four terminations, were meaningless. Analysis and Discussion The record reveals that the Hearing Officer limited the scope of the proceeding to incidents which had occurred at Respondent's Apalachee Correctional Institution where Petitioner was employed at the time of termination. In his findings of fact, the Hearing Officer found that Petitioner was one of two correctional officers to be terminated by the superintendent of the institution for abuse to inmates. Petitioner was the first correctional officer discharged by the superintendent for such offense. The other correctional officer was white. We believe that the Hearing Officer improperly limited the evidence to incidents of like nature at Apalachee Correctional Institution. Petitioner claimed that white correctional officers had engaged in behavior similar to that with which Petitioner was terminated, but the white correctional officers were not similarly punished. If white correctional officers had been engaged in similar improper conduct known to Respondent and those correctional officers were not similarly punished, an inference is raised that Petitioner was disciplined for reasons other than improper conduct. Petitioner should have been allowed to present such evidence before the Hearing Officer because it would have tended to indicate that Respondent's reasons were pretextual. Support for this conclusion is derived from McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 972, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). In McDonnell Douglas, the black plaintiff had been accused of illegal activity against the employer. The employer cited such unlawful conduct as a legitimate, nondis- criminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The supreme Court accepted this reason, but then held that the plaintiff had to be given the opportunity to rebut the legitimate reason. Plaintiff must be afforded a fair opportunity to show that petitioner's stated reason for respondent's rejection was in fact pretext. Especially relevant to such a showing would be evidence that white employees involved in acts against petitioner of comparable seriousness to the "stall-in" were nevertheless retained or rehired. Petitioner may justifiably refuse to rehire one who is engaged in unlawful, disruptive acts against it, but only if this criterion is applied alike to members of all races. Id. at 804. In this cause, Petitioner should similarly be afforded a fair opportunity to show that Respondent's stated reason for Petitioner's termination, corporal punishment of an inmate, was a pretext. The statutory provision governing corporal punishment of inmates which had been in effect from 1957 through the date of Petitioner's termination reads: Corporal punishment prohibited; penalty. It is unlawful for any corporal punishment, any cruel or inhuman punishment, or any punishment by which the flesh of the body is broken, bruised, or lacerated to be inflicted upon any prisoner at any time. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be discharged immediately and shall not again be employed in any capacity in connection with the correctional system and shall be punished as provided by law for whatever offense he may have committed in perpetrating the act. No prisoner shall be punished because of any report or represen- tation which he may have made to any inspector. Section 944.35, Fla. Stat. (1983). Inasmuch as this statutory provision had statewide application, the discipline given for corporal punishment of inmates should have been evenhandedly applied at Respondent's various correctional institutions. Moreover, evidence of Respondent's application of this statutory provision throughout its various institutions becomes especially relevant where the terminations at Apalachee Correctional Institution reflect a proportionately greater number of blacks being terminated at the institution than whites, but where Petitioner was the first person terminated at such institution for that particular offense. Therefore, petitioner should be afforded the opportunity to present evidence that white employees violated the above-cited statutory provision but were nevertheless retained. Remand Accordingly, the panel remands this cause to the Hearing Officer for further evidentiary proceedings consistent with this Order. It is so ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of September, 1986. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS: BY: Commissioner Robert L. Billingslea; and Commissioner Robert R. Joyce. Commissioner John J. Sulik, Panel Chairperson, dissenting. I would limit the scope of the evidentiary inquiry to Apalachee Correctional Institution and/or its superintendent and adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendation of dismissal. FILED this 30th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. Betsy Howard, Clerk of the Commission
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
Findings Of Fact Prior to his termination, Petitioner had been employed as a Correctional Officer by the Respondent, Department of Corrections, at Glades Correctional Institute for approximately two years. On April 3, 1987, Petitioner signed a written statement acknowledging that he was immediately responsible for reading the rules of the Respondent. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Edward Minor, Correctional Officer Supervisor at Glades Correctional Institute. Mr. Chester Lambdin is the Superintendent of Glades Correctional Institute. Although he felt ill, Petitioner reported to work on January 25, 1989 before his scheduled eight hour work shift was to begin at midnight and continue through January 26, 1989. Petitioner left work due to his illness before the end of his January 26, 1989 shift. Petitioner did not report to work after he left on January 26, 1989. On January 26, 1989, Petitioner contacted his supervisor, Mr. Minor, and informed him that he was ill; that he would not report to work for about two days and that he had a doctor's excuse for his absence. Mr. Minor excused Petitioner for two days, January 27, 1989 and January 28, 1989. Petitioner's doctor's excuse covered the period of January 27, 1989 through January 30, 1989. Petitioner gave the excuse to a fellow worker and requested the associate to deliver the excuse to Mr. Minor. Before February 2, 1989, Mr. Minor did not see the excuse. Petitioner did not contact Mr. Minor until the afternoon or evening of February 2, 1989. Petitioner was not scheduled to work on January 30 or January 31, 1989. Petitioner stated that he knew he should contact his supervisor before each work shift if he were ill and would not report to work, but he stated that most of his fellow workers did not follow the procedure and were not penalized for failure to make the required report. Notice before an absence is the standard policy of the Respondent. Petitioner was on unauthorized leave on January 29, 1989, February 1, 1989 and February 2, 1989. On February 3, 1989, Mr. Lambdin drafted a letter to Petitioner, which was posted by certified mail, informing Petitioner that he had been deemed to have abandoned his position as a Correctional Officer I at Glades Correctional Institution and to have resigned from the career service system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a final order that the Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service System as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of May 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-1189 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. The Respondent was the sole party who submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2; rejected in part as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Rejected as conclusion of law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 11. As to first sentence, rejected as irrelevant. As to the remainder, adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Lynne Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Mr. Lewis C. Stewart 692 Waddel Way Pahokee, Florida 33476 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Varga, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue Whether prison inmates' television viewing privileges are a legal interest of which the Administrative Procedure Act takes cognizance?
Findings Of Fact Until the memorandum and institutional operating pro- cedure here challenged were implemented, petitioners and other inmates at Union Correctional Institution were permitted (when not required to be doing something else) to watch television in common areas between three o'clock and eleven o'clock weekday evenings, and on holidays, between eight o'clock in the morning and two or three o'clock the following morning. After somebody donated equipment for cable television at Union Correctional Institution, and after inmates, including Lionel E. Chase, had installed the cable, James D. Stephens, recreation director at Union Correctional Institution, met with six other members of a committee which included Colonel D. E. Jackson, Jim Reddish, Assistant Superintendent for Prisoners, Lieutenant Rothman (phonetic) and an inmate representative who had no say in developing policy. As a result of the meeting, a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, was addressed to the inmate population, stating: T.V. programs including sporting events beginning at 10:00 p.m. or before, shall be viewed to completion. Any program starting after 10:00 p.m. shall be terminated at 11:30 p.m., unless authorized in advance by the T.V. Policy Committee. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3. Earlier, on January 3, 1984, Superintendent Massey signed Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 83-30, "Institutional T.V. Policy" (IOP 83- 30) Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. This document specified "selection and viewing procedures....[for] each respective housing area." With respect to every housing area in Union Correctional Institution, IOP 83-30 provides: On Monday through Friday, sets will be turned on at 3:00 P.M.; on weekends and holidays, sets will be turned on at 8:00 A.M. All t.v.'s shall be turned off exactly at 11:30 P.M. Sports programming and special events that air past the time limit shall be viewed to completion. IOP 83-30.5(D)(4). Although signed by Superintendent Massey on January 3, 1984, IOP 83-30 is dated December 30, 1983. The memorandum and IOP 83-30.5(D)(4) have been enforced against petitioners. In enforcing the new policy, correctional staff have not only turned the television sets off earlier on weekends, they have also closed the dayrooms earlier. The guards now padlock the dayroom doors when they turn off the television sets. In the past, the dayrooms remained open even after television viewing stopped, and inmates were allowed to read, paint, write letters and so forth. The inmates filed a grievance petition protesting this change in practice. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1. Rule Rationale Before installation of the cable, inmates had a choice of two or three programs, but they now have a much wider choice, at least when the cable is in good repair. A person or persons unknown have slashed the cable some half dozen times. There are inmates who believe the guards, some of whom reportedly do not feel inmates should watch television at all, have sabotaged the cable. According to some prison officials, it is the inmates who have slashed the cables, which, they say, is an indication of how high feeling runs between the inmate faction that prefers sports programs and the faction that does not. In any event, according to respondent's witnesses, it was for fear of inmates' quarrelling in choosing among the larger number of options cable television has brought that viewing hours on weekends and holidays were shortened. This does not, of course, explain why they were lengthened on weekdays. Nor was there any evidence that the greater range of television programs has caused any dissension among the inmates. The hearing officer has had the benefit of the parties' posthearing submissions, including petitioners' proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and final order. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, subordinate or cumulative.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Aubrey Minor was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 24, 1986, the day the Commission issued respondent a certificate, No. 23-86-002-01. In the late summer of 1988, Aubrey Minor worked as a correctional officer in the Escambia County Jail. On September 1, 1988, McArthur Young, an inmate, was so slow leaving the visiting area that respondent locked him in and left, in order to avoid further delaying escorting other inmates to their cells. When he returned to retrieve the recalcitrant inmate, and while he was escorting him down the corridor that runs by the control room, he repeatedly asked him his name. Exasperated at the inmate's failure to tell him, respondent Minor grabbed McArthur Young's arm in order to read the name written on the wrist band he wore. When Mr. Young pulled his arm away, Mr. Minor grew still angrier, and swung with full force, hitting McArthur Young in the jaw with the jail keys. Although only two six-inch brass keys were on the stainless steel ring when respondent hit the inmate, each weighed a pound, according to uncontroverted testimony. Shouting by both men had attracted the attention of other Escambia County Jail personnel. Correctional officer Michael D. Miles saw respondent swing while the inmate's arms hung at his sides. Reacting threateningly to the blow, McArthur Young stepped toward respondent Minor. By this time, Corporal Frank Mayo, who had reached the spot where the men stood, stepped between them. While another officer took respondent in hand, Corporal Mayo led the inmate to the infirmary, where the nurse gave him an ice pack. His jaw was red and slightly swollen but the tooth he claimed was loose did not seem loose to the nurse. In the ensuing internal investigation, respondent lied to his superiors, although he conceded that "he got a little bit out of control." T.37. After the investigators concluded that his use of force had not been justified, Escambia County terminated respondent's employment. Jail policy forbids the use of force, even in response to a verbal threat.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Abrey Minor 901 West Massachussetts Lot #17 Pensacola, FL 32505 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1990.
