The Issue Whether Proposed Rule 33.9007(9), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Steven Rivera, Petitioner, is currently serving a prison sentence at Walton Correctional Institution at DeFuniak Springs, Florida. He is on his fifth commitment to prison. Respondent supervises the operation of correctional institutions in Florida and promulgates rules governing the operation of the prisons and various subjects relating to inmates of these prisons. The proposed rule here under challenge provides: Any inmate who is serving his fourth commitment to prison or higher shall be excluded from work release if the inmate has previously been given the opportunity to participate in work release, except that an inmate may be given consideration if the inmate has demonstrated outstanding institutional adjustment and if extenuating circumstances exist. Petitioner has been admitted to the work release program in a prior commitment and, with more than four prison commitments is in the class of prisoner covered by this rule. Accordingly, he has standing to challenge the rule. The work release program is intended to motivate the individual offender toward self improvement, to ease the transition from prison into the community, place the inmate in employment to which he or she may return after release from the institution, permit the offender to contribute towards his own support and the support of his or her family, help determine the prisoner's readiness for parole, preserve family and community ties, and permit the offender to develop or maintain occupational skills. (Exhibit 6) The Florida work release program has been in effect for many years allowing Department of Corrections officers the opportunity to gain experience in the effectiveness and efficacy of the program. First commitment offenders are more likely to benefit from work release than are those who have three or more prior commitments. Inmates who have been given one chance in the work release program and are subsequently recommitted to the prison institution have thereby demonstrated that they did not obtain the anticipated benefit of remaining crime free subsequent to being admitted to the work release program. Following a murder committed by a prisoner who escaped from the work release program at another institution, a Task Force was set up to study the work release program and prepare recommendations affecting this program. As a result of this Task Force's recommendations, wide ranging changes to the rules affecting the work release program were promulgated of which the rule here challenged is only one small subsection. Furthermore, prior to the commission of the crime referred to above, there were approximately 4000 prisoners admitted to the work release program. Legislative changes since that time have limited the maximum number of prisoners admitted to the work release program to 2100. Although Petitioner contends that there is no rule definition of commitment, this is a word that is well recognized in the prison community. As defined by one of Respondent's witnesses in these proceedings, each time a prisoner is committed following a release from a prior commitment whether in Florida or in another jurisdiction, this counts as an additional commitment. If the inmate commits an offense while in confinement, is taken to court and receives an additional sentence, this is not counted as an additional commitment. This method of counting commitments inures to the benefit of the prison inmates. Petitioner also contends that the phrase "has demonstrated outstanding institutional adjustment and if extenuating circumstances exist" is arbitrary and vests unbridled discretion in the prison officials. However, admission to the work release program is a privilege which all prisoners admitted to such program must earn. They earn this privilege by adhering to the code of conduct established for prisoners, by participating in education, drug and alcohol abuse programs, and by other acts contributing to earning gain time. Certain classes of prisoners, e.g. those who have committed serious crimes, sex crimes, and crimes evincing a violent disposition must demonstrate more clearly than does the less violent criminal that he is eligible for work release. No one act can show that one prisoner is better deserving for the limited number that can be admitted to the work release program than is another prisoner. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider innumerable factors to determine which are the prisoners most likely to benefit from work release based upon their history and their current conduct in the prison system. A finite list of factors to be considered in determining those most eligible for work release is impracticable because the list would be too numerous and could still omit factors deserving consideration. The proposed rules, including the rule in issue here, provide that certain prisoners are not eligible for work release; but the rule provides two exceptions to this general disqualification, to wit: those who "demonstrate outstanding institutional adjustment and extenuating circumstances." By providing these exceptions, the rule removes the arbitrary exclusion of certain prisoners from work release regardless of their good conduct in prison and demonstration that they have totally reformed and are most unlikely ever to again commit a crime.
The Issue Whether Respondent was overpaid for 27.5 hours in the amount of $271.70, originally credited as administrative leave?
Findings Of Fact The DJJ is an agency with a centralized personnel office in Tallahassee, Florida. All the records of its personnel are kept and maintained in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner, Jennifer Carter Nicholson, was employed in the category of an Other Personnel Services (OPS) employee by DJJ from May 8, 2002 until September 12, 2002, at the Marion Juvenile Detention Center as a Juvenile Detention Officer. As an OPS employee, Petitioner did not earn sick or annual leave credit. Petitioner was employed by DJJ as a Career Service employee from September 13, 2002 until October 6, 2002, at the Alachua Juvenile Detention Center. As a Career Service employee, Petitioner earned three hours' credit of annual leave and three hours' credit of sick leave during her employment from September 13, 2002 until October 6, 2002. Petitioner did not work from September 23, 2002 until the effective date of her resignation on October 6, 2002, because of complications from asthma, which was why she tendered her resignation. During the last week of her last pay period, Petitioner worked 12.5 hours. A time sheet appears to have been submitted in her behalf by a person or persons unknown claiming 27.5 hours of sick leave. The payroll clerk apparently determined that Petitioner was not entitled to 27.5 hours of sick leave, and erroneously credited Petitioner with 27.5 hours of administrative leave. Upon that basis, Petitioner was paid for a full week's work. This amounted to $855.87, or 80 hours at a rate of $10.70 per hour. However, the records indicate, and Petitioner does not deny, that she did not work 27.5 hours during the second week of the period. Thereafter, an audit of her account revealed that Petitioner was not entitled to administrative leave, and this action was initiated within the statute of limitations to seek re-payment of $271.70. During the period in question, Petitioner's attendance and leave record reflects that Petitioner earned three hours of annual leave and three hours of sick leave. See Respondent's Exhibit 6.1/ This leave was not credited against the 27.5 hours. Therefore, crediting Petitioner with the six hours of leave she had earned, the time actually taken in the status of leave without pay should have been 21.5 hours. At Petitioner's rate of pay, this would have been an over-payment of $230.05, minus the $22.51 originally deducted for miscellaneous deductions, or $217.44.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order directing the repayment of $217.44 from Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 6th day of November, 2003.
The Issue The primary issue for determination is whether Dr. Jones violated provisions of Chapter 458, F.S. by violating terms of his probation, more specifically, those terms requiring attendance at Grand Rounds and monitoring by a local, Board certified pediatrician. If those violations occurred, an appropriate disciplinary action must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dr. Jones, is now, and has been at all relevant periods, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0017104. His practice is located in Seminole, Florida. On April 21, 1986, a Final Order was entered by the Board of Medical Examiners, resolving by an amended stipulation, a twenty-count Administrative Complaint that had been filed against Dr. Jones on December 1, 1983. Pertinent provisions of the Final order included: Placement on probation for a period of five years commencing with the effective date of the order; Attendance at Grand Rounds weekly during probation at both All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida and the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida; and, Monitoring by a local Board-certified pediatrician, John H. Cordes, Jr., M.D., who was to make visits to Dr. Jones' office every two weeks and to randomly select 15 percent of Dr. Jones' medical charts to verify appropriateness of care and thoroughness of record-keeping. Dr. Jones was out of the country, in Antigua, when the order arrived, and it was in his office when he returned on May 4, 1986. Approximately two weeks later, around May 19th, Dr. Jones tried to call Dr. Cordes, the designated monitoring physician, and was told he was out of town. When he reached Dr. Cordes in early June, Dr. Cordes told him that under no circumstances would he serve as his monitoring physician and that he had written a letter to DPR advising them of such. After making some unspecified and unsuccessful efforts to locate a substitute, Dr. Jones contacted Lewis A. Barness, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of South Florida. In a letter to Dr. Jones dated July 11, 1986, Dr. Barness agreed to review "about ten or fifteen percent of your charts on a biweekly basis." (Petitioner's exhibit #4) Dr. Jones was out of the country again the last two weeks of July, and the monitoring by Dr. Barness began on August 15, 1986. Dr. Barness was approved by the Board of Medical Examiners as a substitute on August 2, 1986. Dr. Jones continues to be monitored by Dr. Barness at Dr. Barness' office at the University. Dr. Jones brings his appointment book (although Dr. Barness never reviews it) and his charts, and Dr. Barness pulls, at random, fifteen to twenty percent of the charts and reviews them. Grand Rounds, lectures on pediatric medical topics, are held at 8:00 A.M. on Fridays at the University of South Florida Medical Center, and at 12:30 P.M. on Fridays at All Children's Hospital. Between his receipt of the Final Order and June 15, 1986, (the date specified in the amended complaint) Dr. Jones never attended Grand Rounds at the University of South Florida. He attended once, June 6th, during this period at All Children's Hospital. The basis for non-attendance is specified for each Friday session during the relevant period as follows: May 9, 1986 (the first Friday after Dr. Jones returned and saw the Final Order)--Dr. Jones' van was broken. His wife, a part-time employee at an interior design shop, was called in for work that day, so he did not have transportation. Further, he met with the mother of one of his patients at noon on this date. May 16 and 23, 1986--Dr. Jones' recently-widowed mother was visiting, and since she was also quite ill, he spent time with her. Further, Grand Rounds were cancelled at the University of South Florida on May 16th. May 30, 1986--Dr. Jones' van was again broken and his wife was called to work leaving him without transportation. June 6, 1986--Dr. Jones awoke with gastroenteritis, so he did not attend the morning session at the University of South Florida; he did attend the session at All Children's Hospital. June 13, 1986--Grand Rounds were cancelled at the University of South Florida on this date. Dr. Jones decided to take his children to Disney World as they lived out of state and were leaving the next day. June 15, 1986 was the close of the relevant period regarding attendance at Grand Rounds, according to the Administrative Complaint, as amended. From the testimony and evidence, I am unable to determine conclusively whether Dr. Jones has attended regularly since that date. Except for weekends and the trips out of country, Dr. Jones continued to practice medicine as a pediatrician between April 21, 1986 and July 1986, the date of the Administrative Complaint. He stipulated that he understood the terms and conditions of the Board's Order regarding probation. His testimony at the hearing revealed that he was thoroughly familiar with the details of the order. Nevertheless, he violated the terms of probation. Although he knew that the Board had approved the Stipulation in January 1986, and that the stipulation specified Dr. Cordes as the monitoring physician, he waited until the last minute (two weeks after he received the order) to contact Dr. Cordes about commencing the monitoring. While Dr. Cordes' refusal to participate is not attributable to Dr. Jones, the delay in obtaining a substitute could clearly have been eliminated with better planning by Dr. Jones. Technically, the monitoring conducted by Dr. Barness does not comply with the terms of the probation order, as Dr. Jones brings the charts to him for review. Dr. Barness has impressive credentials and is understandably unable to visit Dr. Jones' office every two weeks. However, Dr. Jones admitted that he never asked the Board to modify the terms of his probation in that regard. Dr. Jones' lack of judgment regarding the terms of probation is also reflected in his uncontroverted excuses for non-attendance at Grand Rounds. With the obvious exception of the cancellation of the lectures, the excuses fail to mitigate the violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Archbold M. Jones, M.D. violated subsections 458.331(1)(h) and (x) F.S.. Suspending Dr. Jones' license for three months (conforming to the approximate period that he practiced without supervision). Requiring Dr. Jones to appear before the Board with Dr. Barness to outline the details of the monitoring process and insure that proper review can be made at Dr. Barness' office, rather than Dr. Jones' office. Providing for Dr. Jones' immediate notification to the Board in the event Dr. Barness is unable to continue with monitoring consistent with the Board's direction. Outlining specific guidelines for excused non-attendance at Grand Rounds and providing for notification by Dr. Jones to the Board each time he fails to attend, and the reason for such failure. Providing that future violations will result in nullification of the stipulation and immediate proceeding on the original multi-count complaint. Providing that all other terms and conditions of the April 21, 1986 Order remain in full force and effect. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3920 The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in paragraph #1. 2. Rejected as unnecessary. 3. Adopted in substance in paragraph #2. 4. Rejected as unnecessary. 5-6. Adopted in substance in paragraph #2. 7-8. Adopted in paragraph #7. 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph #4. 10-11. Adopted in paragraph #9. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in paragraph #1. 2-3. Adopted in substance in paragraph #2. The closing date is addressed in paragraph #7, however the June 15, 1986, date relates only to attendance at Grand Rounds and not to the period during which monitoring did not occur. (See motions to amend complaint.) Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #6. 7-15. Adopted in substance in paragraph #7. However, the characterization of a "medical emergency" in paragraph #9 is unsupported by the record, as are the characterizations, "justification" for not attending Grand Rounds and "legitimately prevented" from attendance. Respondent was not unable to attend Ground Rounds, except when the rounds were cancelled. He chose rather not to attend for various reasons which to him were more important than his attendance. Adopted in paragraph #4. Adopted in paragraph #5, except however the "diligence" of the search was not established by competent credible evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph #5. 19-27. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. The "diligence" is unsupported by competent credible evidence. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Suite 100, Capitol Office Center 119 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's temporary directive, which requires probation officers to request and obtain supervisor approval on a case-by-case basis before incurring travel expenses for certain field visits, meets the definition of a "rule" in section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ which should have been promulgated as such.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency with "supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of the inmates, buildings, grounds, and property, and all other matters pertaining to [specified correctional facilities and programs] for the imprisonment, correction, and rehabilitation of adult offenders[.]" § 945.025(1), Fla. Stat. (setting forth Respondent's jurisdiction). By far, Respondent's resources, including personnel, are primarily devoted to Respondent's responsibilities over correctional facilities and programs. There are approximately 17,000 certified officers on the correctional institution side. Respondent also is the state agency responsible for supervising offenders who are granted conditional release from incarceration or who are granted parole by the Parole Commission (chapter 947, Florida Statutes), as well as the state agency responsible for supervising probationers placed on probation (or in community control, known commonly as house arrest) by a court (chapter 948, Florida Statutes). Collectively, persons who have been conditionally released, parolees, and probationers will be referred to as "offenders." A relatively small percentage of Respondent's resources, including personnel, are devoted to the supervision of offenders. There are approximately 2,100 certified parole and probation officers providing community supervision. Organizationally, Respondent's supervisory functions fall under the umbrella of Community Corrections. The supervision of offenders statewide is divided into a northern and southern region, each covering ten of the state's 20 judicial circuits. Each region is headed by a regional director, who oversees the supervision of offenders within the region's ten judicial circuits. Each of the 20 judicial circuits has a circuit administrator. Each circuit also used to have a deputy circuit administrator, but that position was eliminated in 2009. Reporting to the circuit administrators are probation supervisors, who supervise and coordinate the activities of individual probation officers and probation officer specialists. Offenders are assigned to certified probation officers and probation officer specialists, who directly carry out the supervisory functions. See § 948.01(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (an offender on probation or community control is to be supervised by an officer meeting the qualifications in section 943.13, Fla. Stat.). A probation officer specialist is a probation officer with a certain level of experience to whom the offenders with the most serious criminal records are assigned. Unless otherwise specified, the term probation officer will be used, in the broad sense, to include both probation officers and the more experienced probation officer specialists. In carrying out its community supervisory functions, Respondent's goals are all of the following: to ensure compliance with the conditions of supervision imposed by the court or by the Parole Commission; to ensure public safety; to foster rehabilitation of the offender; and to reduce or eliminate future victimization. Probationers may be placed on probation, in lieu of incarceration, or as part of a split sentence that includes incarceration followed by probation. §§ 948.011 and 948.012. The starting place for supervision of a probationer is the court's order of supervision, which specifies the terms and conditions of probation. Respondent is charged with preparing a form order of supervision for the courts to use. § 948.01(1)(b). The form order prepared by Respondent and used by the courts reflects the standard conditions of probation which may be imposed by the courts, enumerated in section 948.03. The form order also provides options for the court to exercise its authority and discretion to impose special terms and conditions. See, e.g., §§ 948.031 through 948.039. The standard conditions of probation that may be imposed by a court in its order of supervision are broadly worded and general in nature and include the following: Report to the probation and parole supervisors as directed. Permit such supervisors to visit him in his or her home or elsewhere. Work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as possible. Remain within a specified place. Live without violating the law. The statutes and standard terms of probation do not dictate or specify how, precisely, Respondent is to carry out its supervisory function in monitoring offenders to serve the goal of ensuring compliance with these terms. The concept of "supervision" is not quantified, such as by specifying how often an offender must report to his or her probation officer or whether and how often probation officers may or will visit an offender in his or her home or elsewhere. A court's order of supervision could theoretically provide a condition specifying that a probationer must go to his or her probation officer's office twice a month or five times a month. However, the one sample order of supervision entered in evidence in this case did not impose any such terms quantifying the number of office visits or other visits that the unidentified probationer had to make with his or her probation officer. With respect to "supervision," section 948.12 provides a distinction for violent offenders who are on probation following incarceration by providing that these offenders "shall be provided intensive supervision by experienced probation officers." However, just as the statutes do not purport to specify or quantify what is meant by "supervision," there is no statutory specification for what is meant by "intensive supervision." Respondent has had, apparently as far back as 2002, internal procedures in place to provide detailed processes for probation officers to follow in carrying out their duty to supervise offenders assigned to them. These procedures are published in a 41-page document called Procedure 302.303, which Respondent considers a "restricted access" document for internal use only. One subject addressed in Procedure 302.303 is an offender classification system. The current classification system was designed in-house and then validated by the Florida State University School of Criminology. The system considers a number of variables and is used by Respondent as a way to group offenders in an effort to ensure that supervision is provided at a level commensurate with the danger or risk the offender represents to the community. This offender classification system, which is not promulgated as a rule, is not the subject of Petitioner's challenge. Procedure 302.303 also addresses the subject of contacts expected to be made by a probation officer with individual offenders assigned to the officer. In general terms, Procedure 302.303 specifies minimum contacts, by type and frequency, that probation officers are expected to make, or try to make, for each of their assigned offenders. The types of contacts include office visits, meaning the offender comes into the probation officer's office for a meeting; other kinds of visits, scheduled or unscheduled, when the probation officer travels outside the office to visit or attempt to visit the offender in his home, in his place of employment, or another place; and field visits with third parties, when the probation officer travels outside the office to visit or attempt to visit the offender's employer, treatment providers, family, neighbors, or other third persons who might have information about the offender. Different minimum contact requirements, by type and frequency, are provided for each of the different offender risk classification categories in Procedure 302.303. The minimum contact standards are performance standards that apply to probation officers; without the minimum contact requirements, some probation officers might do less than the minimum. These minimum contact standards, which have not been promulgated as a rule, are also not the subject of Petitioner's challenge. Instead, Petitioner's challenge is directed to a recent temporary directive by Respondent that suspended some aspects of the (unpromulgated) minimum contact standards in Procedure 302.303. In lieu of these minimum contact standards, Respondent's directive provides that probation officers need to request and receive permission of their supervisors on a case-by- case basis to incur travel expenses for certain field visits. As a related part of the directive, supervisors are given discretion to approve travel expenses for any field visit if there is reason to believe there may be a violation of a condition of supervision or if there is reason to believe that there is a threat to public safety. The challenged directives were first communicated verbally on February 29, 2012, in a telephone conference call between Jenny Nimer, assistant secretary of Community Corrections, and the Community Corrections regional directors, and then reduced to writing in the following memorandum dated March 2, 2012, on the subject of "Reduced Travel" (Reduced Travel Memo) from Assistant Secretary Nimer to Community Corrections regional directors and circuit administrators: On 2/29/12 directives were provided for adjustments to be made on some non-critical supervision activities. As these directives are temporary and related to "restricted" policy areas they were given verbally; existing written policy will not be changed. Our goal is to reduce the travel budget by focusing on mission critical activities without compromising public safety. Travel related to core operational duties will continue; however all travel will be reviewed for efficiency. NO adjustments have been made to travel that involves investigation of known or suspected violations, violation proceedings/subpoenas, investigations or instruction of offenders in correctional facilities. Adjustments are focused on reduction of department established minimum contact standards and administrative duties. There is an urgent need to reduce travel costs for the remainder of the fiscal year; however public safety is the utmost priority and supervisors maintain the discretion to approve any travel that is needed to accomplish officer safety and protection of the community. For the months that adjustments are in place (March, April, May and June) officers will annotate electronic field notes for offenders requiring field contacts during the month, as follows: CN--"Contact Standards Adjusted". Alternative methods to verify (and re-verify) residence and employment during this period, including making telephone calls to the landlord and employer or instructing the offender to provide bills and paychecks to show proof of residence and employment will be utilized. Contact codes for purposes of electronic case notes for residence and employment verification will be HV, EN, or EV and text should indicate the alternative method utilized for verification. Planned Compliance Initiatives will continue; partnerships established with local law enforcement remain essential to enhance surveillance and contacts made in the community. These contacts should always be documented in case notes. Circuit Administrators are directed to reach out to judiciary, state attorney and law enforcement to ensure that they are aware of the limited scope of this reduction and that contacts required to ensure offender supervision and/or threats to public safety will not be compromised. Thank you for your cooperation during this difficult time. The Reduced Travel Memo was distributed to probation officers as the means by which Respondent communicated to its probation officers that they would not be expected to comply with all of the minimum contact requirements set forth in Procedure 302.303 between March 1, 2012, through the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2012. The expectation was, at the time of the challenged statement, that this cost-saving measure was temporary and that the (unpromulgated) minimum contact requirements in Procedure 302.303 would resume as of the new fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. As of the final hearing on June 6, 2012, Respondent's expectation was unchanged. The announced temporary replacement of minimum contact requirements based on risk category with a procedure for supervisor review and approval of field contacts remained just that--temporary--and the expectation was that the minimum contact standards set forth in Procedure 302.303 would resume for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. Petitioner hinted at, but offered no evidence to prove the notion that Respondent did not really intend to resume the minimum contact standards in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012.4/ The Reduced Travel Memo and a March 2, 2012, letter from Secretary Kenneth S. Tucker (Tucker Letter), represent the challenged agency statements in that these two documents memorialize the temporary directive.5/ As explained in the Tucker Letter: Due to a 79 million dollar deficit, the Department has had to make temporary modifications to field contact requirements in order to reduce travel expenditures by probation officers. . . . Our probation officers will continue to make field contacts with sex offenders and community control offenders in order to closely monitor sex offender conditions and/or house arrest requirements. Probation officers will continue to monitor other supervised offenders' compliance with conditions of supervision and probationers will still be required to meet monthly with their probation officer at the office. In addition, probation officers will make field contacts in the community as necessary to investigate non-compliance or possible violations. Probation officers will also continue to participate with law enforcement in Planned Compliance Initiative (PCI's) in the community. Probation officers will use this opportunity to spend more time with offenders in the office or on the telephone, assisting with job referrals or other resources and services needed. Community Corrections undertook an analysis of its budget in an effort to identify expenditures where cost savings might be realized to help reduce the budget deficit. The three significant budget categories of expenditures were salaries, leases, and expenses. There had been a hiring freeze in place for some time already, and so an effort was made to not cut personnel to save salary costs. There also had been a concerted effort to reduce lease costs by consolidating offices to eliminate some leases. The viable short-term option to cut costs for the remainder of the fiscal year was in the expense category, which was predominately travel reimbursement. It was determined that, over the year, Community Corrections was averaging between $250,000 and $300,000 per month in travel reimbursement. Some travel reimbursement had already been reduced before the temporary directive challenged here. For example, Community Corrections personnel, including probation officers, might travel to participate in training programs. However, training had already been greatly limited. Some travel reimbursement could not be reduced, such as reimbursing probation officers for necessary travel for court appearances. In these instances, efforts were made to use state cars and to encourage carpooling, if possible. Community Corrections assessed the number of field contacts and attempted contacts that were being made by probation officers to comply with Respondent's minimum contact standards and the travel reimbursement associated with them (i.e., the contacts). Respondent estimated that its temporary directive, challenged here, would reduce travel costs by $150,000 per month for each of the four months in which the directives would be in place. In total, Respondent expected to save $600,000. Respondent's actual experience following issuance of the Reduced Travel Memo and Tucker Letter shows that Respondent's estimates were on target. In February 2012--the last month before the temporary suspension of some of the minimum contact standards--travel reimbursement totaled $277,000. After switching to a procedure of case-by-case probation officer request and supervisor review to approve field visits, travel reimbursement was down to $99,000 in March 2012, a savings of $187,000, compared to February. In April 2012, travel reimbursement dropped to $80,000. The evidence established that the discretion afforded probation supervisors in the Reduced Travel Memo is true discretion vested in supervisors to review requests and act on a case-by-case basis to approve field visits. That discretion has been exercised on numerous occasions to authorize a field contact. There was no evidence of any probation officer having submitted a request to make a field visit to investigate a possible violation of a probation condition or where there was a public safety issue that was not approved by his or her supervisor. To the contrary, the evidence established that requests are being made and leeway is being provided to probation officers to travel, if they can articulate a reason for doing so. However, for one or two probation officers who do not accept that they must request approval and justify their travel expense on a case-by-case basis and who simply ask for block reinstatement of the minimum contact standards, without articulating any reason why field visits are needed for particular offenders, those requests have been denied. As the Reduced Travel Memo and Tucker Letter suggest, there are other tools available to probation officers besides incurring the expense of field visits, which are often equally effective to accomplish the goal. For example, a field visit to an offender's employer is certainly one way to verify employment and to verify the offender's attendance, but telephone calls may well suffice to obtain the same information at much lower costs. There are also other ways to attempt to verify residence besides a personal home visit. An offender can be required to present documentation, such as a utility bill, rental agreement, or pay stub showing the offender's address. An offender can be made to come in for office visits more frequently than once a month. A probation officer can telephone the offender frequently, and the voice mail message or background noise may give some reason to believe there is a need for a field visit. A probation officer can call family members and neighbors to check on an offender and to verify information. A probation officer can enlist the help of a local law enforcement officer to check on an offender. In short, for the period of Respondent's urgent need to reduce costs, probation officers have been asked to work a little harder and more creatively from their desks, while reserving travel expenses for field visits to the cases where they have some reason to think a field visit is needed. Petitioner presented the testimony of one probation officer specialist, Kimberly Schultz. As a specialist, this officer handles a case load disproportionately made up of sex offender probationers (for whom the temporary directives did not suspend minimum contact standards) and the next category down on the risk scale--maximum offenders. Officer Schultz testified that she believes that public safety is best served by the old minimum contact standards in (unpromulgated) Policy 302.303. Officer Schultz suggested, but failed to prove, that public safety is compromised by the temporary directive. Under the temporary directive, Officer Schultz has only requested approval once from her supervisor to make a field contact based on a suspicion she developed that the offender may be in violation of his probation requirements. That single request was approved. Officer Schultz did not identify any instance in which public safety was jeopardized because a field contact was not allowed. Instead, Officer Schultz spoke to the increased possibility that allowing more travel to make surprise visits to offenders' homes or places of employment would reveal suspicious behavior or incorrect information. Certainly, Officer Schultz has the experience to draw on to offer the view that, in a general sense, increased field visits would serve to increase the possibility of discovering probation violations or other issues with offenders. In an ideal situation with unlimited resources, a probation officer following every move an offender makes could well come to find that the offender is not "liv[ing} without violating the law," as required in a standard probation condition. However, such an ideal situation obviously does not exist. Instead, Respondent has taken action to manage its limited resources. The evidence did not show that Respondent's temporary directive has threatened public safety. Officer Schultz attempted to suggest that, in the single instance when she requested a field contact, she would have discovered sooner that the offender was not living where he said he was, if she had made the minimum field contacts under Procedure 302.303. Her testimony did not bear that out. Officer Schultz testified that an offender assigned to her in March 2012, came in for the required office visits in March and in April, and he filled out the required monthly reports giving his address, telephone number, and other contact information. When the offender came in for his May office visit, the offender was supposed to stay for a drug test, but he left. Officer Schultz tried to call the offender at the number he had provided to check to see if he had misunderstood. That is when she learned that the phone number the offender had given her "wasn't a good number." Officer Schultz requested and was given approval to incur travel to investigate and learned, then, that the offender was not living where he said he was. While Officer Schultz contends that, in the above example, a field visit to verify the offender's address would have identified the problem sooner, Officer Schultz admitted that she had not previously tried to call the offender. Indeed, she said that she never calls her offenders on their cell phones. Thus, instead of incurring travel expense for a field visit, Officer Schultz could have attempted to verify the offender's office report immediately in March through other ways, such as calling the phone number provided and learning much sooner that the offender had provided a phone number that was not good. Officer Schultz might have checked for a home phone number associated with the address the offender gave; she learned when she went there that the offender's cousin lived there, and the cousin volunteered that the offender did not live there. Officer Schultz could have required this offender, and could require all of her offenders, to come into the office multiple times per month. She could have required this offender to bring in a utility bill for his residence, whether in his name or someone else's name. Had Officer Schultz tried alternative verification means, she may have been able to contact the cousin sooner. It was evident from Officer Schultz' testimony that she has become accustomed to operating under the guidance provided in unpromulgated Procedure 302.303 and does not like being asked temporarily to work harder and more creatively from her office to find other ways to conduct surveillance and monitor offenders that do not cost Respondent as much in travel expenses as her travel in the field used to. It seemed that rather than trying to replace the field visit time with alternative investigation techniques, Officer Schultz has done little to fill the gap with constructive methods to monitor her offenders using alternative means. Indeed, when Officer Schultz was asked how she was making use of her new-found office time since she is spending less time in the field, her first response was, "I'm organizing my closed files." Officer Schultz expressed concern that a probation officer could be subject to discipline if he or she were to not follow the temporary directive. However, there was no evidence that any probation officer had refused to request supervisor review and approval for a field visit, much less that discipline resulted. Officer Shultz did not represent that she had refused to follow the temporary directive or that she intended to in the few weeks remaining in the fiscal year. Petitioner's representative testified that the temporary directive harms its 2,100 certified probation officer members, although the directive does not apply to the other approximately 17,000 certified members who serve on the correctional institution side of Respondent. Thus, the temporary directive applies to only about 12 percent of Petitioner's members. Nonetheless, Petitioner's representative asserted that its members are affected by the temporary directive because they are all members of communities with a concern for public safety.
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ Petitioner forfeited his Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) Investment Plan account by entering a nolo contendere plea to two counts of violating section 893.13(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes, a second-degree felony.
Findings Of Fact The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Mr. Combs began working for DOC on May 25, 2001, as a Correctional Officer Level 1 at the Union Correctional Institution (“Union Correctional”) in Raiford, Florida. Union Correctional is a maximum security facility housing approximately 2,000 inmates, and Mr. Combs assisted with their care and custody. In January of 2006, Mr. Combs earned a promotion to Correctional Officer, Sergeant. While his responsibilities were very similar to those of his previous position, Mr. Combs was now supervising other correctional officers. In October of 2011, Mr. Combs earned a promotion to Correctional Officer, Lieutenant, and was responsible for supervising 50 to 70 correctional officers at Union Correctional. In April of 2013, Mr. Combs earned a promotion to Correctional Officer, Captain, and transferred to Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida. A captain is the highest ranking correctional officer on a given shift, and Mr. Combs supervised approximately 50 correctional officers at a time, including sergeants and lieutenants. Like Union Correctional, Florida State Prison is a maximum security facility housing approximately 2,000 prisoners. A colonel manages Florida State Prison, and it has two separate units. One of those units is a work camp housing lower- custody inmates who may work outside the facility, and the main prison is the other unit. Each of the units is run by its own major. In February of 2015, Mr. Combs was promoted to Major and took charge of the work camp at Florida State Prison. At some point in 2014 and prior to his promotion to Major, Mr. Combs had begun taking Oxycodone recreationally. Mr. Combs typically purchased one Oxycodone pill three to four times a week, and Dylan Hilliard (a Correctional Officer 1 at Florida State Prison) was Mr. Combs’ primary source of Oxycodone. Mr. Hilliard usually worked at the main prison, but he occasionally worked at the work camp. Mr. Combs knew Mr. Hilliard because of their employment with DOC. Mr. Combs purchased Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard at the latter’s home in Lawtey, Florida. However, some transactions occurred in Mr. Combs’ state-issued housing on the grounds of Florida State Prison. Mr. Hilliard charged Mr. Combs $35 for an Oxycodone pill, and that was a discount from the $38 price Mr. Hilliard charged others. Mr. Combs allowed his subordinates (Sergeants Jesse Oleveros and Evan Williams) to leave Florida State Prison during their shifts in order to purchase illegal drugs from Mr. Hilliard. After returning from their transactions with Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams would give Mr. Combs an Oxycodone pill free of charge. Operation Checkered Flag was a joint task force led by the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office, and its purpose was to arrest individuals involved with the distribution and use of illegal drugs. The authorities arrested Mr. Hilliard after he engaged in an illegal drug transaction with an undercover agent from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. A subsequent search of Mr. Hilliard’s cell phone revealed text messages between Mr. Hilliard and several other DOC employees, including Mr. Combs. Mr. Hilliard referred to Mr. Combs as “Chicken-Hawk” or “Hawk” in those text messages, and the two of them used car part terminology as a code for different milligram sizes of Oxycodone. Operation Checkered Flag ultimately resulted in the arrest of 10 DOC employees. The authorities arrested Mr. Combs on July 1, 2015, based on allegations that he had committed six felonies relating to the alleged unlawful and illegal purchase and distribution of Oxycodone. DOC fired Mr. Combs on approximately July 1, 2015. Mr. Combs initially denied all of the allegations. However, after spending nearly 56 days in jail, Mr. Combs reached an agreement with the State Attorney’s Office in Bradford County that called for his criminal charges to be reduced in exchange for his cooperation with Operation Checkered Flag. During an interview on August 20, 2015, with members of Operation Checkered Flag, Mr. Combs admitted that he had purchased Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. In addition, Mr. Combs admitted that on six or seven occasions he allowed Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams to leave the prison grounds so that they could purchase Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. The State Attorney’s Office in Bradford County chose to dismiss most of the charges against Mr. Combs. The Information ultimately filed against Mr. Combs set forth two counts alleging that he violated section 893.13(2)(a)1., by illegally purchasing Oxycodone on March 23, 2015, and March 31, 2015. Those purchases occurred approximately 10 miles from Florida State Prison at Mr. Hilliard’s residence in Lawtey, Florida. Neither Mr. Combs nor Mr. Hilliard was on duty during those transactions. On August 25, 2015, Mr. Combs pled nolo contendere. The Bradford County Circuit Court entered judgment against Mr. Combs based on the two violations of section 893.13(2)(a)1., but withheld adjudication. All of the conduct underlying Mr. Combs’ nolo contendere plea occurred while he was employed by DOC. The SBA Determines that Mr. Combs Forfeited his FRS Benefits At all times relevant to the instant case, Mr. Combs was a member of the FRS. The FRS is the legislatively-created general retirement system established by chapter 121, Florida Statutes. See § 121.021(3), Fla. Stat. The SBA is the governmental entity that administers the FRS Investment Plan, a defined retirement benefits contribution plan. § 121.4501(1), Fla. Stat. Via a letter dated August 3, 2015, the SBA notified Mr. Combs that a hold had been placed on his FRS account due to the criminal charges. As a result, no distribution of employer contributions from Mr. Combs’ account would be permitted until the SBA had evaluated the final disposition of those criminal charges. Via a letter dated September 3, 2015, the SBA notified Mr. Combs that he had forfeited his FRS benefits as a result of his nolo contendere plea. In support thereof, the SBA cited section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, which provides for the forfeiture of a public employee’s FRS retirement benefits upon the entry of a nolo contendere plea to certain types of offenses. The SBA’s letter closed by notifying Mr. Combs of his right to challenge the SBA’s proposed action through an administrative hearing. Mr. Combs requested a formal administrative hearing and asserted that the crimes for which he was convicted did not fall within the scope of section 112.3173(2)(e). In other words, Mr. Combs argued that his convictions were not associated with his employment at DOC and thus did not amount to a violation of the public trust. Testimony Adduced at the Final Hearing Mr. Combs testified that he was responsible for the work camp and the supervision of the correctional officers assigned there. He also testified that he would occasionally supervise correctional officers who normally worked in the main prison. Mr. Combs testified that Mr. Hilliard was his primary source of Oxycodone and that Mr. Hilliard occasionally worked at the work camp. Mr. Combs was aware that two Florida State Prison employees who worked directly under him (Sergeant Jesse Oleveros and Sergeant Evan Williams) were purchasing Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs testified that he allowed Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams to leave Florida State Prison grounds six or seven times in order to purchase Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs testified that Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams would give him an Oxycodone pill after returning from their transactions with Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs acknowledged during his testimony that DOC policy prohibits correctional officers from leaving prison grounds during their shift. Mr. Combs acknowledged that it was a violation of DOC policy and Florida law to allow a correctional officer to leave prison grounds during a shift for the purpose of purchasing illegal narcotics. Mr. Combs also acknowledged that it was a violation of DOC policy and Florida law to allow a correctional officer to be on prison grounds with illegal narcotics. Finally, Mr. Combs acknowledged that as a sworn officer with the Department of Corrections, he had an obligation to report any criminal activity committed by a correctional officer working at Florida State Prison, regardless of whether that correctional officer reported to him. Findings of Ultimate Fact An examination of the circumstances associated with Mr. Combs’ Oxycodone purchases from Mr. Hilliard demonstrates that there is a nexus between Mr. Combs’ employment as a correctional officer with DOC and his commission of the crimes to which he pled nolo contendere. For instance, Mr. Combs came to know his primary source of Oxycodone (Mr. Hilliard) through their mutual employment with DOC. Indeed, Mr. Combs supervised Mr. Hilliard when the latter was assigned to the work camp at Florida State Prison. Also, Mr. Combs knew that these transactions were illegal. As noted above, he and Mr. Hilliard used a code based on car part references to disguise the actual subject of their communications. Contrary to DOC policy and Florida Law, Mr. Combs allowed two of his subordinates (Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams) to leave Florida State Prison during their duty shifts in order to purchase illegal drugs from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs would then receive a free pill from Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams. Mr. Hilliard sold Oxycodone to Mr. Combs at a reduced price. It is reasonable to infer that Mr. Combs received this discount due to his high-ranking position at Mr. Hilliard’s place of employment and because Mr. Combs facilitated Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams’ purchases of Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs willfully violated DOC policy and Florida law by allowing correctional officers to leave prison grounds during a shift for the purpose of purchasing illegal narcotics. Mr. Combs knowingly violated his obligation as a sworn correctional officer by not reporting the criminal activity committed by Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs defrauded the public from receiving the faithful performance of his duties as a correctional officer. The public had a right to expect that one of its employees would not purchase drugs from someone he supervised. The public also had a right to expect that Mr. Combs would not use his authority at Florida State Prison to facilitate Mr. Hilliard’s illegal drug sales to other DOC employees. In addition, the public had a right to expect that Mr. Combs would not engage in illegal transactions on the grounds of Florida State Prison. Mr. Combs realized a profit, gain, or advantage through the power or duties associated with his position as a Major at DOC. Specifically, Mr. Combs satisfied his Oxycodone habit through purchases made from a DOC employee who he supervised. Also, Mr. Combs used his position to facilitate other sales by Mr. Hilliard, and Mr. Combs’ assistance led to him receiving free Oxycodone and a discounted price on his Oxycodone purchases. The findings set forth above in paragraphs 49 through 57 are the only ones needed to establish a nexus between Mr. Combs’ public employment and the two counts to which he pled nolo contendere. That nexus is evident from Mr. Combs’ testimony, Mr. Combs’ Responses to the SBA’s Requests for Admissions, and the Stipulated Facts. It was not necessary to consider the exhibits to which Mr. Combs raised objections, i.e., the arrest warrant, the warrant affidavit, and the audio recordings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration issue a final order finding that Petitioner was a public employee convicted of specified offenses that were committed prior to retirement, and that pursuant to section 112.3173 he has forfeited all of his rights and benefits in his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account, except for the return of his accumulated contributions as of the date of his termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 10th day of May, 2016.
Findings Of Fact CASE HISTORY This case arises based upon an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against one Alfonso Bach setting forth allegations as established in the Issues portion of this Recommended Order. The date of the Administrative Complaint is May 6, 1981. Following a request for formal hearing the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 13, 1981. After assignment, a formal hearing was held on July 21, 1981, in keeping with Subsection 120.57(l), Florida Statutes. In the course of the hearing no testimony was presented by either party; the Petitioner offered a series of exhibits, 1-3. These exhibits are discussed in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order. MATERIAL FACTS After reviewing the Petitioner's proffered Exhibits 1-3 and upon consideration of argument in support of and in opposition to the admission of these exhibits, the exhibits have not been admitted. Consequently, there being no other basis for determining facts, no material facts are found.
Recommendation It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the prosecution by Administrative Complaint referred to herein, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, PD 0005572, be dismissed. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 28th day of September 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, Florida. As of the date of final hearing in this cause, Petitioner Durham was classified as "close" custody pursuant to Rule 33-6.09, Florida Administrative Code. Although Petitioner Durham's reclassification questionnaire score was initially five points, which would have qualified him for classification as "medium" custody, Respondent used the override provision contained in Rule 33-6.09 to classify Petitioner Durham as "close" custody by virtue of his poor institutional adjustment. Petitioner Adams was likewise classified as "close" custody at the time of final hearing. Petitioner Adams' numerical score on the inmate reclassification questionnaire would have classified him as "medium" custody, but the override provisions of Rule 33-6.09 were utilized in Mr. Adams' case to reclassify him as "close" custody by virtue of the fact that his sentence expiration date is 1990, and at the time of his reclassification he had not served 20 percent of his sentence. Petitioner Piccirillo was classified as "medium" custody at the time of final hearing. His numerical score on his inmate reclassification questionnaire was three points, which would have qualified him for "minimum" custody had this score not been overridden by virtue of the fact that Petitioner Piccirillo escaped from Department of Corrections custody on November 17, 1979, while in a minimum custody setting. Petitioner Farrell was classified as "minimum" custody at the time of final hearing in this cause, and his presumptive parole release date is set for July 24, 1984. It was stipulated at final hearing in this cause that none of the policy and procedure directives challenged in this cause had been promulgated by Respondent as rules, pursuant to the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. It is also apparent from the face of the various challenged policy and procedure directives that they have statewide applicability at all institutions administered by the Department of Corrections. On or about May 6, 1977, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.22, which was subsequently revised on November 30, 1979. This directive is entitled "Reclassification and Progress Reports," and purports to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in various sections of Chapters 921, 944, 945, and 947, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners in this cause challenge two sections of this directive as unpromulgated rules. The first of these is contained in Section X, entitled "Sources of Information," which provides as follows: It is essential that Progress Reviews Reports be accurate, concise and usable. Compiling up-to-date information to go into the report is as important as writ- ing the report. The following source of information should be utilized by the Classification Team in compiling information for the report. Various evaluation Reports (verbal or written) to include work super- visors, medical, dental, education, recreation, quarters, religious, per- sonal observations, etc Nowhere in either the cited chapters of the Florida Statutes or Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code, are there any specific requirements for information to be considered by the Classification Team in compiling an inmate progress report. Department personnel utilized the above quoted section of the challenged directive in preparing reports on inmate progress. The second section of Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.22 challenged in this proceeding is XVI, entitled "Recommendations for Parole or Pre-Parole Work Release," which provides as follows: The Department may in selected cases recom- mend to the Florida Parole and Probation Commission that an inmate be placed on parole or pre-parole work release. How ever, note should be made of an inmate's Presumptive Parole Release Date(PPRD) when considering such possibilities. If it is felt that such significant progress has taken place since the setting of the PPRD that it should be moved forward to an earlier date, then such recommendations should be made to the Parole Commission in a full Progress Report setting forth the basis for recommending a change in the PPRD. If at the time of the Progress Review/Report the team does not see the justification in recommending the PPRD be changed then no comment will be required. All reports contaning [sic] parole or pre-parole work release recommendations will be reviewed and signed by the Classification Supervisor and forwarded to the Superintendent for his concurrence or disapproval. The Superintendent will indicate his decision by placing his signature on the appropriate line of the block to be added at the close of the Progress Report format. Upon approving a parole or pre-parole work release recommendation, the Superintendent will prepare a cover letter of endorsement which will be attached to the normal distribution of the Progress Report and for warded directly to the Parole Commission. The above-quoted language from Section XVI of Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.22 is virtually identical to the language contained in Rule 33-6.09(7)(m) , Florida Administrative Code. On or about September 30, 1977, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.31, entitled "Community Study and Volunteer Service." This directive purports to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners in this cause challenge as rules the following provisions contained in Section III, entitled "Selection": C. The Classification Team should determine if the inmate meets criteria for eligi- bility described in the Program Directive Community Services Programs. When com- parable study programs are available at the institution, community study should not be considered. On-the-job training programs which are limited in scope are not considered comparable. The educational personnel of the Depart- ment should be Particularly involved in referring inmates for community study since they are in a position to evaluate the inmate's desire, ability, and past performance in the education program. The educational personnel will ensure the availability of the requested course of study or training prior to Classification Team action. Inmates considered for community study must have financial assistance from one or more of the following sources for tuition, books and clothing: Vocational Rehabilitation Veterans benefits Personal finances Committed support by the inmate's family Approval for a government grant Proof of financial support must accompany each application. Inmates are not to borrow money from any university, college or private organiza- tion for the purpose of financing their education. Nowhere in either Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code, are the above-cited requirements of Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.31 contained. On or about April 27, 1977, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.40, which was subsequently revised on March 10, 1982. This directive, entitled "Community Work Release general Policies and Procedures" purports to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners in this cause challenge as an umpromulgated rule Section IXB of the directive which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department will permit consideration for work release 18 months prior to release. However, normally such consideration will be given within the last nine months prior to the presumptive parole release date or expiration or[sic] sentence. Should special cases arise which warrant attention prior to the nine months remaining, consideration will be given on an individual basis when there appears[sic] to be appropriate reasons for such. Special cases must be recommended by the Classification Team, approved by the Superintendent and Regional Director, and then forwarded to the Central Office where a Special Review Committee will make the final decision. . . . (Emphasis added) The underlined portion of Section IXB quoted above appears nowhere in either Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, or in Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code. On or about November 30, 1979, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07-90, entitled "Inmate Participation in Outside Activities." This directive purports to be issued pursuant to authority contained in Section 945.21, Florida Statutes. Petitioners in this cause challenge as an umpromulgated rule Section IV of the directive, entitled "Distance Limitations," which provides as follows: The following distance limitations are established as maximums but may be reduced by the Superintendent: Travel to attend civic or religious meeting except the annual statewide meetings will be limited to 100 miles one way. Travel for fund raising projects will be limited to 35 miles one way. Travel to all statewide meetings will be approved by the Regional Director with concurrence of Assistant Secretary of Operations. Nowhere in Section 945.21, Florida Statutes, nor in validly adopted rules of Respondent do the specific requirements contained in Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.90 appear. On or about January 25, 1980, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.42, which was subsequently revised on February 26, 1982. This directive, entitled "Furlough Procedures," purports to be issued pursuant to authority contained in Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33.9, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners in this cause challenge the entirety of this directive as an unpromulgated rule. The directive establishes a special review team to review furlough applications; makes Florida furlough procedures applicable to federal inmates in interstate compact cases placed with the department; establishes types of furloughs which may be granted; establishes eligibility criteria for selecting inmates for furloughs; sets time and distance limitations for furloughs; establishes the maximum number of furloughs for which inmates may be eligible; establishes verification requirements; establishes clothing requirements while inmates are on furlough; establishes types of transportation available for inmates on furlough; establishes release and check-in procedures; and, finally, establishes a procedure for termination of furloughs in the event of a violation of a furlough agreement. None of the specific requirements contained in Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.42 are contained in either Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code, or any other properly promulgated rule of the Department of Corrections.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner, Ernest Walker, was an inmate incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution. Respondent is a state agency charged by law with determining what persons may be placed on parole, fixing the timing conditions of parole, and determining violations of parole. Respondent is charged by Section 947.16, Florida Statutes, with the responsibllity of interviewing inmates, and establishing presumptive parole release dates, and thereafter reviewing those dates. Pursuant to its statutory charge, Respondent conducted an interview of Petitioner, Ernest Walker, and established his original presumptive parole release date to be June 21, 1988, by action certified by Respondent on September 2, 1981. Subsequently, in special Commission action taken on October 17, 1983, Petitioner's PPRD was extended to June 21, 2008, based upon the receipt of a mental health status report, which, according to the record in this cause, was treated as "new information" not available at the time the Petitioner's initial PPRD was established.
