Findings Of Fact Respondent, Teresa D. Mejico, was certified as a correctional officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, on February 17, 1988, and issued certificate number 03-87-502-02. At approximately 2:45 a.m., on October 3, 1988, respondent, while employed as a correctional officer at the Broward Correctional Institute, was observed by her supervisor leaning on her desk in the officer's station at Dormitory H-4. Sitting in a chair at respondent's side was Inmate Deronda Lemmonds, who was observed holding respondent's right arm, and kissing, licking and nuzzling it, while her right hand was between respondent's legs in the area of her crotch. Respondent was immediately relieved of duty, and later that day was discharged from her employment at Broward Correctional Institute for her failure to comply with Florida Department of Corrections Rule 33-4.002(28), Florida Administrative Code. That rule provides: Employees shall maintain a professional relationship with all persons in the custody or under supervision of the Department, and their immediate family or visitors. No personal or business relationships are permitted. Marriage between employees and inmates is prohibited. That respondent was fully aware of the foregoing rule, and the standard of conduct it established, cannot be gainsaid for she acknowledged such at hearing. Notwithstanding such knowledge, however, respondent persisted in fostering the personal relationship which existed between her and Inmate Lemmonds despite denials to her superintendent that any such relationship existed and counseling from her superintendent to avoid any such relationships. Following the termination of her employment at Broward Correctional Institute, respondent maintained contact with Inmate Lemmonds through the mail and by telephone, and variously expressed her affection and love for the inmate. On one occasion, she mailed the inmate 20-25 photographs of herself, including some photographs that captured respondent in partially nude and suggestive poses. In all, the proof demonstrated that respondent was romantically involved with Inmate Lemmonds while she was employed at Broward Correctional Institute, and continued to be so involved as of the date of hearing. It further demonstrated that she was untruthful with her superintendent, failed to abide the rules of conduct for correctional officers, and neglected her duty to guard Dormitory H-4 while engaged in a liaison with an inmate under her charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking respondent' s certification. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of May 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 24th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6410 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2-4. Adopted in paragraph 4. 5-9. Not material or not necessary to result reached. 10-14. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Teresa D. Mejico 7502 S.W. 5th Street North Lauderdale, Florida 33068 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Invitation to Negotiate No. 12/13-010, issued by Respondent for the operation and management of Bay Correctional Facility, Graceville Correctional Facility, and Moore Haven Correctional Facility, is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, or policies.
Findings Of Fact Parties/Interested Persons Petitioner, CCA, is a private corporation specializing in the design, construction, expansion, and management of correctional facilities. CCA currently operates 61 facilities for the United States federal government and state governments. Respondent, DMS, is authorized to contract for private correctional services under specified circumstances. As a prerequisite to entering into a contract for private correctional services, DMS must find the contract will result in a 7% cost savings to the State over public operation of a substantially similar facility. DOC, a non-party, currently operates 48 public correctional facilities and contracts with private vendors for operation of seven private correctional facilities. With respect to privatized facilities, DOC has the duty and responsibility to calculate the cost per inmate per day (per diem rate) for public operation of a substantially similar correctional facility. The per diem rate must be based on the costs of operating a correctional facility of a similar size, type, and location as the facility sought to be privatized. Brief Background Per Diem Workgroup The Florida Legislature first authorized private correctional facility operation in 1993, adopting the Correctional Privatization Act, chapter 957, Florida Statutes (the Act). As adopted, the Act included a cost-savings requirement: the State must find that private operation of a correctional facility would result in a savings of at least 7% over public provision of a similar facility. In 2001, the Legislature created the Prison Per-Diem Work Group, composed of the staffs of the Auditor General, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), and the Appropriations Committee of the Florida Senate and of the House of Representatives (the Work Group). The Legislature directed the Work Group to convene, beginning in 2002 and each year thereafter, for the purpose of developing consensus per diem rates for privately operated facilities. See ch. 01-379, § 2, Laws of Fla. In 2002, the Work Group published a Report of Consensus Per Diem Rates (the Report). The Report included a set of Overall Per Diem Rates for each of the three main population types (adult male, youthful offender, and female), as well as Alternative Per Diem Rates and Program Per Diem Rates. The Overall Per Diem Rates represent an average daily operating cost of all publicly operated facilities. The Alternative Per Diem Rates exclude the costs of operating specialty facilities such as death row and work release, which are not operated by private vendors. The Program Per Diem Rates represent the average cost to provide educational and substance abuse programs to inmates within each of the three population groups. By way of example, the 2002 Work Group developed an Overall Per Diem Rate of $50.53 to operate an adult male correctional facility. The 2002 Work Group explained that the Alternative Per Diem Rates provided examples of adjustments that could be made to the Overall Per Diem Rates to facilitate a more direct comparison between public and private correctional facility costs. The Work Group made a location adjustment to remove the cost associated with a Competitive Area Differential paid to correctional officers in South Florida. Further, the Work Group made a series of size adjustments to reflect the extent to which public facilities of similar size to private facilities are above the location-adjusted average operating per diem. By way of example, the 2002 Work Group calculated an Alternative Per Diem Rate of $44.93 for operation of an adult male correctional facility, a location-adjusted rate of $44.83, and size-adjusted rates of $47.71 on the low end, to $57.60 on the high end. The 2002 Work Group did not adjust the calculated consensus per diem rates to account for cost differentials in private correctional facility operation such as credits for property tax payments, corporate income and sales tax payments, and payments to a maintenance reserve fund. The Report notes that such adjustments were outside the scope of the Work Group’s responsibility, which was limited to identifying public facility operation costs. In 2005, the Work Group convened again and developed consensus per diem rates utilizing the same methodology as used in 2002. The Work Group developed the following Per Diem Rates for operation of an adult male facility: an Overall Per Diem Rate of $51.90; an Alternative Per Diem Rate of $44.84; and Size-Adjusted Per Diem Rates of $51.26 on the low end, to $52.66 on the high end. The 2005 Report on Operating Per Diem Rates does not mention further adjustment of the Adjusted Per Diem Rates to account for cost differentials in private facility operations such as credits for property tax payments, corporate income and sales tax payments, and payments to a maintenance reserve fund. However, the Report does include a note that public correctional facilities realize economies of scale by operating above their design capacity, an advantage that private facilities cannot obtain. Private facilities are limited, by both contract and the standards of the American Correctional Association, to operation at no greater than their design capacity. The 2005 Report notes that the Work Group had not attempted to estimate the impact of economies of scale unavailable to private facilities. In 2006, the Legislature removed the requirement that the Work Group convene on a yearly basis and replaced it with convention upon the call of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. See ch. 06-32, § 4, Laws of Fla. 2010 Procurement In 2010, DMS rebid the contracts for Moore Haven and Graceville, which were previously operated by GEO Group, as well as the contract for Bay Correctional Facility, which was operated by CCA. CCA was awarded the contract to operate all three facilities. To prepare the 2010 ITN, DOC first selected public correctional facilities similar in size, type, and location to the private facilities which were the subject of the ITN. DOC selected the New River Correctional Institution as similar to Bay and Moore Haven, and Wakulla Correctional Institution as similar to Graceville. DOC separated the programming costs of those facilities from the security and indirect costs, arriving at the base per diem operating costs for the two comparable facilities. Next, DOC added in the costs for educational, health, and other programs based on the level of service required by the contract in the ITN. CCA Deputy Chief Development Officer Lucibeth Mayberry testified that she did not recall whether CCA was aware of the methodology used to calculate the per diem rates for the 2010 ITN. She explained that the per diem rates are the bottom line of any competitive correctional facility procurement, and the 2010 rates allowed CCA to put in a competitive bid. No direct evidence was introduced as to the advertised per diem rates included in the 2010 ITN. However, Ms. Mayberry testified that the current per diem rates by contract for Bay and Moore Haven are around $48.00, while that for Graceville is around $34.00. Post-2010 Cost Reductions Since 2010, DOC has significantly reduced its cost to operate Florida’s public correctional facilities. According to an April 2013 report by OPPAGA, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2012, per diem rates for operation of adult male correctional facilities housing inmates similar to the private facilities decreased an average of over 8% from the prior year. The average per diem rate for operation of an adult male public correctional facility for FY 2011-2012 was $42.00. The DOC operating cost reductions are the result of the closure of several public facilities, including three adult male non-specialty facilities; consolidation of inmates from closed facilities; and workforce eliminations and reductions. OPAGGA concludes that the primary cause of the decrease in per diem rates was the reduction in the amount contributed by the State to employee retirement. OPAGGA estimates that the statewide requirement for employee to contribute 3% to their retirement, together with the State decrease to special risk retirement, resulted in a savings of $88 million to DOC. DOC has also reduced costs at public correctional facilities by changing its operations. The State maintains an 8% vacancy rate in correctional officer positions, allowing wardens flexibility to staff security posts according to highest priority on a daily basis, while leaving lower priority posts vacant. In FY 2011-2012, DOC began working its housing officers on 12-hour shifts, which allowed for further reduction in security costs. By consolidating inmates from closed facilities with those in operational facilities, DOC has realized an economy of scale in some facilities where more inmates are housed without increasing security costs. The 2010 contracts for operation of Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville correctional facilities expire in 2013. In January 2013, DMS released the per diem rates for operation of similar facilities to be included in the ITN at issue. The published rates are 17% lower than the rates CCA is paid under the current contract to operate those facilities. Hence, the present controversy. The 2012 Per Diem Development Process Michael Weber, DMS Bureau Chief of Private Prison Monitoring, contacted DOC Deputy Secretary Michael Crews on September 21, 2012, to obtain “key information” from DOC to prepare a document with which to solicit vendors for private correctional facility services at Bay, Moore Haven and Graceville correctional institutions. Key information includes the type of inmate (i.e., male, female, or youth), the custody level (i.e., close, medium, minimum, or community), inmate programs to be offered (e.g., re-entry and education, substance abuse), and the medical profiles of inmates to be housed at each of the three facilities. On October 3, 2012, DOC Director of Institutions James Upchurch responded to DMS with a chart showing inmate type, custody, medical profiles, and programmatic profiles for each of the three facilities operating under the current contracts. DOC later notified DMS of adjustments in both custody and programmatic services for the Bay and Moore Haven facilities during the next contract period. Eventually, DOC decided against changing custody type of inmates housed at those facilities. On October 9, 2012, DOC clarified the need to include within the ITN program services for up to 18% psychological grade three (S3) inmates at Bay and Moore Haven. No changes were made to correctional services provided at the Graceville facility under the current contract. On October 10, 2012, DMS issued the ITN. As issued, responses to the ITN were due November 13, 2012, at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time. The ITN includes the proposed contract and requires that proposals must be 7% less than the DOC-calculated per diem rate to be considered responsive. However, the ITN as issued did not contain the per diem rate for facilities substantially similar to Moore Haven, Bay, and Graceville. On October 22, 2012, DOC Secretary Kenneth Tucker sent a letter to the Auditor General requesting an audit and certification of an attached set of spreadsheets calculating the per diem rates for public provision of correctional services at facilities comparable to Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville. The per diem rate for each facility was formulated by DOC in three steps: First, DOC selected a comparable facility; broke out the operating costs by security, administration, and programmatic services; and deducted costs for programmatic services (education, substance abuse, and health services) at the comparable facility. This calculation yielded a per diem rate for the comparable facility based solely on security costs and indirect, or administrative, costs. This rate is referred to as the “above-the-line” number for purposes of interpreting the spreadsheets for each of the three facilities. The above-the-line per diem rate for each facility, as submitted to the Auditor General, was as follows: Bay and Moore Haven -- $41.76; Graceville -- $36.62. Second, DOC multiplied the operations per diem for the comparable facility by the contracted population number for each facility. This calculation yielded operational costs for each of the three contracted facilities. DOC then added to that figure the costs associated with providing the programmatic services requested for the inmate population at each of the three facilities based on the proposed contract. This step yielded the unadjusted operational costs for each facility. Third, DOC adjusted the total cost to account for cost savings realized by DOC through its policy of 12-hour shifts (which private providers cannot match), and deducted costs associated with work camps and work squads at the comparable facilities (private corrections providers do not operate work camps). The total costs to operate were adjusted to provide a per diem rate for operation at a private correctional facility that is comparable to operation at a public correctional facility. This step yielded the total adjusted operational cost for each facility. The total adjusted cost was divided by the contract population for each facility to arrive at the adjusted per diem rate for each of the three facilities, as follows: Bay -- $43.22; Moore Haven -- $42.38; Graceville -- $40.51. For each facility, the adjusted per diem rate was slightly higher than the “above-the-line” per diem rate. On October 26, 2012, DMS published on the State VBS a copy of the October 22, 2012, DOC letter to the Auditor General requesting certification of the per diem rates. CCA staff testified they were shocked by the low per diem rates that DOC requested the Auditor General to certify. The published per diem for Bay and Moore Haven was 17% lower than the per diem certified by the Auditor General for the 2010 procurement in which CCA was awarded the current contract. On October 31, 2012, Ms. Mayberry sent a letter to DMS outlining concerns with the proposed per diem rates in the DOC October 22, 2012, letter to the Auditor General. On November 1, 2012, Petitioner’s competitor, GEO Group, sent a letter to DMS raising similar concerns. By letter dated January 24, 2013, the Auditor General’s office notified the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of its completion of the audit of the DOC per diem rate calculations. In the intervening period, DMS issued 10 Amendments to the ITN, the majority of which extended the deadline for Responses from the original deadline of November 13, 2012. The Auditor General’s letter reads in pertinent part: The Auditor General performed selected procedures to evaluate the 2011-12 fiscal year operating costs provided by the Department for the State-operated Holmes and Okeechobee Correctional Institutions that were identified by the Department as substantially similar to the privately- operated facilities. Operating per diems are primarily a function of costs and inmate population. * * * Based on the procedures performed, we concluded, pursuant to Section 957.07(1), Florida Statutes, that the 2011-12 fiscal year Holmes Correctional Institution operating per diem of $41.76 provided by the Department was reasonably consistent with the State’s accounting and budgeting records . . . . The Holmes Correctional Institution operating per diem of $41.76 is an appropriate amount to which necessary adjustment may be made for variations in Bay Correctional Facility and Moore Haven Correctional Facility operations. The letter proceeds with the same findings regarding the FY 2011-2012 operating per diem of $36.62 for Okeechobee Correctional Institution as “reasonably consistent with the State’s accounting and budgeting records” and “an appropriate amount to which necessary adjustment may be made for variations in the Graceville Correctional Facility operations.” As such, the Auditor General’s process evaluated only the “above-the-line” per diem rates in each of the DOC spreadsheets and certified those amounts as the starting point for an adjusted per diem rate for each of the contract facilities. On January 24, 2013, DMS posted the Auditor General’s letter as Amendment 11 to the ITN, as well as a spreadsheet for each of the three contract facilities titled “Public Per Diem with Adjustments.” There are two substantive differences between this publication and the October 22, 2012, spreadsheets provided to the Auditor General by DOC. First, the health care per diem rate was adjusted for both Bay and Moore Haven to account for increased health care costs to house up to 18% S3 inmates at those two facilities. Second, that change increased the adjusted per diem rates for the two facilities. As published on January 24, 2013, adjusted per diem rates for the contract facilities were as follows: Bay -- $43.76; Moore Haven -- $42.91; Graceville -- $41.05. Notably, DMS published at the bottom of the spreadsheet for the Bay Correctional Institution, “Respondents must submit a per diem bid for the Bay Correctional Facility that is no greater than $40.69 to be considered responsive.” The spreadsheets for Moore Haven and Graceville contain the same language specifically incorporating the adjusted per diem rate as a term of the ITN and require bids be 7% below the adjusted per diem rate to be considered responsive. On Monday, January 28, 2013, at approximately 5:30 p.m., DMS again posted Amendment 11 and noted as follows: On January 24, 2013, the Department posted on the VBS two changes regarding the above- mentioned competitive solicitation. However, Amendment 11 was not completely posted. As such, the Department hereby posts Amendment 11 in its entirety.[1/] Petitioner filed a notice of intent to protest the specifications of the ITN on January 30, 2013, and filed its Formal Bid Protest Petition on January 31, 2013. Petition and Issues CCA challenges the ITN on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, CCA alleges DMS is authorized to procure contracts for the operation of private correctional facilities only by Request for Proposal (RFP) pursuant to section 957.07, Florida Statutes. Procedural Challenge/Waiver DMS maintains CCA is precluded from challenging DMS’ choice to procure the private correctional institutional contracts by ITN rather than RFP. The ITN was issued on October 10, 2012, and no intent to protest was filed within 72 hours. DMS argues that the issue of method of procurement has been waived. DMS is correct, as more fully explained in the Conclusions of Law. In order to challenge DMS’ choice to procure private correctional facility operation through ITN rather than RFP, CCA should have filed a notice of intent to protest within 72 hours of DMS posting the ITN on October 10, 2012. Since CCA did not file a notice of intent to protest until January 28, 2013, that issue has been waived. DMS also alleges that CCA waived many of the issues contained in its Petition because CCA did not file notice of intent to protest particular specifications of the ITN within 72 hours of DMS posting the amendments which incorporated those specifications. DMS maintains that CCA is limited in its challenge to whether the per diem rate published on January 28, 2013, accurately accounts for the cost of housing S3 inmates at Bay and Moore Haven. DMS reasons that the only change between the per diem amount published on October 26, 2012, and that published on January 28, 2013, is the small adjustment made to account for S3 inmates and, therefore, it is the only issue timely raised by CCA. DMS’ position on this issue is not supported by the facts. The DOC letter to the Auditor General was not posted as an Amendment to the ITN; did not contain a notice of rights, pursuant to chapter 120.57(3), Florida Statutes; and was not incorporated into the ITN as a term thereof. Neither the above- the-line nor the below-the-line per diem rates had been reviewed or certified by the Auditor General on October 26, 2013, and the certification process was not complete. In fact, the certification process was not completed until January 24, 2013, some 90 days later. DMS represents that CCA’s corporate representative admitted at hearing that CCA could have filed a bid specification protest on October 26, 2012, in response to DMS posting the letter to the Auditor General. However, the testimony of Ms. Mayberry does not bear that out: Q: Was that a discussion that was had internally with regard to different options and vendor relationships about how that might change with filing a protest as opposed to sending a letter? A: At that time, I don’t believe we had -– we knew a protest was possible in Florida and we had filed an intent to protest before which we had withdrawn. But at that time –- we didn’t have a certified per diem. We thought this was going to be fixed. We thought that when we raised concerns, that would be addressed. So I am giving you information because I don’t honestly remember exactly –- I don’t think a protest –- a protest seemed premature to us at that point because we didn’t have certified per diems, as that wasn’t –- we didn’t have the real per diem at that point. We just had the letter from DOC, which we felt certain was going to be adjusted.[2/] Ms. Mayberry did not admit that CCA had a point of entry to challenge the per diem rates in the October 22, 2012, letter; instead she insisted that the rates were not final and a challenge would have been premature. Even if Ms. Mayberry had admitted that CCA could have challenged the posting on October 26, 2012, her opinion would not have been binding on the undersigned because it would have been a legal conclusion. Substantive Challenge Next, CCA challenges the per diem rates included in the ITN through Amendment 11 on the following bases: The per diem rates are not based on the costs associated with comparable publicly operated correctional facilities. CCA maintains DOC acted arbitrarily in selecting the comparable facilities. DOC erred in adjusting the base per diem rate to account for costs associated with programmatic services to be provided under the contract in the ITN. CCA maintains that some adjustments were too high, while others were too low. DOC erred by not including adjustments to the base per diem rate to account for savings realized by operational changes at public institutions which cannot be made by a private vendor. Finally, CCA argues that the overall accounting methodology utilized by DOC is flawed. In summary, CCA argues that the per diem rates for all three facilities are too low because DOC did not correctly choose substantially similar facilities as the bases for public per diem rates, and DOC did not accurately adjust the base per diem rates to fairly account for differences in public and private correctional facility operations. The Contract Facilities CCA challenges DOC’s selection of the Holmes Correctional Institution for comparison to Bay and Moore Haven because Holmes is not “substantially similar” as required by the governing statute. Likewise, CCA challenges the selection of Okeechobee Correctional Institution for comparison to Graceville because it is not “substantially similar.” Under the governing statute, DOC is charged with selecting a public correctional institution which is similar in “size, type, and location” to the facilities sought to be managed by a private correctional institution. Size equates with inmate population of a correctional facility. Both Bay and Moore Haven have a design capacity of 985 inmates. Graceville is a larger facility designed to house 1513 inmates. All three facilities are under contract to operate at design capacity. There are three types of general correctional facilities: adult male, youthful offender, and female. There are also a number of specialty type institutions in the correctional system, such as reception and medical centers, maximum security, death row, and mental health. Adult male facilities may house inmates at different custody levels (close, medium, minimum, and community) and with different health profiles (medical grades 1, 2, and 3; psychological grades 1, 2, and 3; wheelchair; and special needs). Inmates from different custody levels and health profiles may be housed together without changing the primary mission of the facility to a specialty institution. Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville are all adult male facilities, contracted for similar custody levels. Under the ITN, Bay and Moore Haven may accept inmates of medium, minimum, and community custody levels. Both are currently serving 100% medium custody inmates. Graceville is designated to accept close, medium, minimum, and community custody inmates and currently serves 40% close custody inmates. The three facilities are also designated to accept inmates with similar health profiles. Under the ITN, Bay and Moore Haven will accept 84% medical grades 1 and 2, 16% medical grade 3, 82% psychological grades 1 and 2, 18% psychological grade 3, 2% wheelchair, and 6% special needs inmates. Graceville is designated to accept the same percentages of psychological grade inmates and wheelchair inmates, but may accept up to 5% special needs inmates and a small percentage of medical grade 4 inmates. Location refers to the geographic location of a facility. DOC divides correctional facilities regionally. Both Bay (Bay County) and Graceville (Jackson County) are in Region 1. Moore Haven (Glades County) is located in Region 3. For purposes of comparing correctional facility costs, location is significant when a facility is located in South Florida, where employees are paid a competitive area differential. Location is also a factor when an institution is remote from population centers, which may affect staffing and turnover rates. Substantially similar facilities James Upchurch, DOC Assistant Secretary for Institutions and Reentry, selected the public correctional facilities “substantially similar” to the three contract facilities for purposes of calculating the base per diem. Mr. Upchurch came to Florida as Chief of Security Operations for DOC in 1996 following 26 years in operation of public correctional facilities in Mississippi and Arizona. He served as a warden in three different Arizona correctional facilities, including a super max facility, and was a regional director for the State of Arizona as well. Mr. Upchurch was DOC Chief of Security Operations from 1996 until 2011, when, after a brief stint as warden at Franklin County Correctional Institution, he became DOC Director of Operations. In March 2012, Mr. Upchurch was promoted to Assistant Secretary of Institutions and Reentry and now supervises region directors, the deputy assistant secretary for institutions, and the deputy assistant secretary for reentry. Altogether, Mr. Upchurch has 17 years of experience in Florida’s correctional facility operations. After excluding the DOC specialty institutions, Mr. Upchurch identified two institutions similar to Bay and Moore Haven and two institutions similar to Graceville for further review. He asked Vicki Newsome, DOC Assistant Bureau Chief for Population Management and Classifications Services, to pull the facility profiles for comparison. Bay and Moore Haven In his initial analysis, Mr. Upchurch chose Holmes Correctional Facility and Lawtey Correctional Facility as comparable to Bay and Moore Haven and reviewed their facility profiles. Holmes, Bay, and Moore Haven are all located in Region 1 and house adult male inmates. Lawtey does not house S3 inmates and Holmes only houses one S3 inmate. Both Bay and Moore Haven will house up to 18% S3 inmates under the ITN. According to the data reviewed by Mr. Upchurch, Holmes houses 37% close custody inmates, while Lawtey houses no close custody inmates. Neither Bay nor Moore Haven is contracted to house close custody inmates. Holmes is not a stand-alone facility, but rather includes a work camp which is physically separated from the perimeter of the main facility. Lawtey is a stand-alone facility, as are Bay and Moore Haven. Bay and Moore Haven have similar layouts –- four large dorms housing between 250 and 400 inmates each, and one much smaller dorm housing a small number of segregated inmates. By comparison, Lawtey’s inmate population is spread among 10 dorms, one housing 200 inmates and the remainder housing roughly 80 inmates each. Much like Bay and Moore Haven, Holmes houses its population in a series of larger dorms, one housing 250 inmates, seven housing just under 150 inmates each, and one much smaller dorm housing around 60 segregated inmates. Lawtey is a faith- and character-based institution. Bay, Moore Haven, and Holmes are not faith- or character-based. For the 2010 procurement, DOC had chosen the New River facility as comparable, but that facility has since closed. Holmes and New River are 2 of 15 state correctional institutions built on a prototypical layout –- administration and support at the front of the compound, recreation wellness yard in the back, housing units in the middle, and a separate work camp on the grounds but physically separated from the perimeter of the main compound. In the final analysis, Mr. Upchurch selected Holmes as the facility most comparable to Bay and Moore Haven. He based this selection, in large part, on the fact that Holmes was so similar to the New River facility selected for the prior procurement. Mr. Upchurch ruled out Lawtey in his final analysis because it is a faith- and character-based institution, which he testified increases security costs. Further, the layout and dorm capacities of Lawtey are not as efficient as the larger dorms at Bay and Moore Haven. Mr. Upchurch did not verify that Lawtey actually had higher security per diems because it was faith-based. In fact, he explained that the only way to verify that mathematically would be to remove the faith- and character- based mission and compare the resultant costs with the prior costs. Identifying a public correctional institution substantially similar to Bay and Moore Haven is indeed a difficult task. At a contracted inmate population of 985 each, Bay and Moore Haven are significantly smaller than the average adult male public correctional facility. This was true in 2005 when the Per Diem Workgroup was convened to formulate a consensus per diem rate. This disparity in size has only increased in recent years as many public institutions have been closed and their populations consolidated. In FY 2011-2012, only 7 of the 30 public adult male facilities had an average daily population of fewer than 1,500 inmates. Both Lawtey and Holmes are among the seven. The populations of Lawtey and Holmes differ significantly, however. Holmes averaged 1,466 inmates per day in FY 2011-2012, while Lawtey averaged 805. The difference in population between Bay and Moore Haven and that of Lawtey is 185. The difference in population between Bay and Moore Haven and that of Holmes is 481. The evidence was uncontroverted that facility size is one of the most important variables in determining correctional facility costs. The larger the inmate population, the more security is needed. More security means more salaries and benefits. Mr. Upchurch selected Holmes as comparable to Bay and Moore Haven based on its similarity to New River, one of the same prototypes as Holmes, and the similar inmate housing patterns, which were known to him to require similar staffing patterns. Although Holmes has a work camp, which Bay and Moore Haven do not, Mr. Upchurch expected the security costs associated with the work camp (separate perimeter patrol and additional security staffing) would be removed from the per diem rate. Furthermore, Mr. Upchurch considered the security staffing requirements of Lawtey based on his experience not just in Florida, but in his entire 43-year career in public correctional facility operation. Mr. Upchurch’s decision to select Holmes as substantially similar to Bay and Moore Haven was not made without thought or reason or in an illogical manner. Graceville For Graceville, Mr. Upchurch narrowed the decision down to Everglades and Okeechobee correctional institutions, both adult male facilities in Region 4. Everglades and Graceville are similar in population size and inmate profiles. Both facilities house over 1500 inmates. Both house large percentages of close custody inmates (Everglades –- 54%; Graceville –- 42%), and both house S3 inmates, although at different percentages. Mr. Upchurch eliminated Everglades for two reasons. First, based on its location, the facility has experienced high staffing turnover, which has increased hiring and training costs. Second, Everglades has a higher percentage of S3 inmates (24%) than contracted for at Graceville (18%).3/ The evidence was uncontroverted that S3 inmates increase per diem rates because of the cost of psychotropic drugs administered to those inmates. Mr. Upchurch also testified that the presence of S3 inmates can increase security costs. S3 inmates have more disciplinary problems, are more spontaneous, and are more difficult to manage. Mr. Upchurch testified that when a large number of S3 inmates are housed together, they “feed off one another” and create more disturbance. When asked specifically what percentage of S3 inmates would create an increased security cost, Mr. Upchurch estimated around one-third of the population. The number of S3 inmates housed at Everglades does not rise to that level. Mr. Upchurch selected Okeechobee as the facility most substantially similar to Graceville for comparison. The facilities have similar inmate populations –- both house over 1500 inmates with high percentages of medical grades 1 and 2 inmates, similar numbers of special needs inmates, and no wheelchair inmates. However, as emphasized by CCA, Okeechobee serves no S3 inmates. Mr. Upchurch focused on the design efficiencies of the two facilities. Both Okeechobee and Graceville house a large number of inmates in a small number of dorms. The six “T building” dorms at Okeechobee house up to 230 inmates each. The four main dorms at Graceville house approximately 400 inmates each. This design is intentional and creates efficiencies in the officer-to-inmate ratio. Many of the other DOC facilities have multiple smaller “open bay” dorms with less efficient operation.4/ More inmates in fewer dorms equates with lower security costs. Mr. Upchurch also noted that both Okeechobee and Graceville are stand-alone facilities, meaning only one correctional facility is contained within the perimeter.5/ Upchurch testified that, where possible, it is preferable to compare the per diem rates of stand-alone facilities. Mr. Upchurch disagreed with DOC’s selection of the Wakulla Correctional Facility as comparable to Graceville for the 2010 procurement process. The Wakulla facility is actually three different institutions within one: Wakulla Correctional, Wakulla Annex, and Wakulla Work Camp.6/ The facility operates three separate perimeter security details, three separate control rooms, and three sets of security supervisors. Mr. Upchurch testified that he objected to the selection of Wakulla because no adjustment was made to the Wakulla security per diem rate in 2010 to account for the higher security per diem at Wakulla. Thus, he disagreed that Wakulla was comparable. CCA assigns error to Mr. Upchurch’s choice of Okeechobee over Everglades as comparable to Graceville. CCA highlights that Okeechobee houses no S3 inmates, and, therefore, does not incur costs associated with psychotropic drugs for those inmates. Further, CCA notes that between the two comparable facilities, Mr. Upchurch chose the one with the lower total per diem rate -- $33.23 at Okeechobee versus $45.82 at Everglades. The higher per diem rate at Everglades is a factor in both a higher security per diem and a higher health per diem than at Okeechobee. Everglades’ security per diem is $28.00 while Okeechobee’s is $23.99. Higher recruiting and training costs due to turnover likely account for that difference. The health per diem at Everglades is also higher -- $17.14 compared with $8.64 at Okeechobee. The treatment of 24% S3 inmates likely accounts for this higher rate. Mr. Upchurch was aware that the contract with Graceville required the facility to house up to 18% S3 inmates. He did not ignore that requirement in selecting Okeechobee over Everglades. Mr. Upchurch was aware of the process of adjusting the per diem rate of the selected comparable facility to account for the specific programs under the contract. The cost of housing S3 inmates at Graceville was accounted for in the adjustment process. Mr. Upchurch selected Okeechobee as substantially similar to Graceville based upon his significant knowledge regarding the operations of all the DOC facilities. The choice was informed by the size, type, and location of the facilities, as well as the physical layout, size of dorms, efficiencies of staffing, and similarity of inmate profiles. For FY 2011-2012, DOC operated 30 adult male facilities. Of those, 18 had an average daily inmate population of 1500 or higher, as does Graceville. Both Graceville and Okeechobee are stand-alone facilities housing large numbers of inmates in few dorms, which increases staffing efficiencies. Overall, the undersigned does not find that Mr. Upchurch’s choice of Okeechobee was arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous. CCA further assigns error to DOC’s selection of substantially similar facilities because DOC did not undertake a formal process or analytical exercise to select those facilities. It is true that Mr. Upchurch did not review documentation on all 48 DOC correctional facilities, or otherwise consult DOC records, prior to narrowing the choices to two facilities similar to Bay and Moore Haven and two facilities similar to Graceville. Mr. Upchurch relied upon his 17 years of experience in state correctional facility operations, including his knowledge of the facilities’ design, layout, staffing and programming. Once he narrowed the choices, he requested and reviewed the inmate profiles for comparable facilities to the private facilities. As such, his selections were not arbitrary or capricious. Errors Calculating Program Costs Having identified Holmes as substantially similar to Bay and Moore Haven, and Okeechobee as substantially similar to Graceville, DOC began with each facility’s base security per diem plus administrative costs, and multiplied that figure by the contracted population for each of the contracted facilities. To that base operational cost figure, DOC added costs for health services, educational, substance abuse, and behavioral/transition services based on the draft contract in the ITN. DOC program staff specializing in each area calculated the cost to provide the contracted services. Errors were made in those calculations which were admitted to at the final hearing. The health services per diem of $7.82 added to the Bay security per diem was in error. The correct rate is $8.28. As such, the per diem rate published in Amendment 11 for Bay was incorrect. The health services per diem for Graceville was calculated incorrectly as $12.46 rather than $12.56. As such, the per diem rate published in Amendment 11 for Graceville was incorrect. Next, DOC calculated the mental health programmatic costs associated with housing S3 inmates at Bay and Moore Haven as required by the ITN. CCA alleges DOC made an error in calculating that amount because it relied upon FY 2011-2012 pharmacy expenditure data to determine the amount spent on psychotropic drugs, rather than relying on the data from the state accounting system known as FLAIR. Mark Tallent, DOC Director of Budget and Finance, testified that the pharmacy data is a more accurate accounting of the actual amount DOC spent on psychotropic drugs than the FLAIR data. The state accounting system appropriated approximately $11 million for psychotropic drugs and the FLAIR data shows DOC spent over $6 million out of that category. However, Mr. Tallent testified that DOC paid bills for other types of drugs, such as infectious disease drugs, out of that category, so the number is inflated and unreliable as it relates to psychotropic drugs exclusively. He testified that the pharmacy system is more accurate because it correlates each individual prescription with an inmate at a particular facility, allowing for an accurate accounting of the institutional costs for each specific type of drug. Mr. Tallent’s testimony is accepted as credible and reliable. DOC did not err when it calculated the per diem cost of psychotropic drugs based on the figure of $5,045,018 from FY 2011-2012 pharmacy data. Errors in Additional Adjustments The governing statute requires DOC to “calculate all the cost components that determine the inmate per diem in correctional facilities of a substantially similar size, type, and location that are operated by the Department of Corrections, including administrative costs associated with central administration.” § 957.07(1), Fla. Stat. The statute also directs DOC to make some adjustments to account for the public nature of the operation. DOC must include in the per diem an equivalent cost of services that are provided to DOC by other governmental agencies at no direct cost to the agency. Id. Also, the statute requires DOC to include as a cost savings in the calculation of the per diem rate “reasonable projections of payments of any kind to the state or any political subdivision thereof for which the private entity would be liable because of its status as a private rather than public entity,” including corporate income and sales tax payments. § 957.07(2), Fla. Stat. DOC made a number of additional adjustments to account for operations unique to public correctional facilities to arrive at a per diem rate more comparable to that of a private facility. While all these adjustments are not required by statute, they are examined for their accuracy. 12-hour shifts DOC adjusted the per diem to account for the cost savings realized at Holmes and Okeechobee by operating housing security personnel on 12-hour shifts. In calculating the 12-hour shift adjustment, DOC failed to add back in the cost of providing security staff at the private facilities associated with covering the 4 hours essentially unmanned when the cost of the 12-hour shifts were removed. In other words, DOC deducted too much cost when making this adjustment. As such, the per diems published in Amendment 11 for Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville were incorrect. Work Squads DOC also adjusted the per diem by backing out the costs associated with the work squads at Holmes. A correctional facility work squad may perform services such as landscaping, maintenance, or other jobs both on the facility grounds and “outside the fence.” DOC removed the costs associated with work squads under the mistaken impression that none of the private facilities operate work squads. However, Bay and Moore Haven operate work squads in the community, which require supervisory security personnel. As such, the per diem amount published in Amendment 11 for Bay and Moore Haven was incorrect. Work Camps Holmes operates a work camp on its grounds, although it is physically separate from the main unit. The work camp requires both separate perimeter security and supervisory security. DOC adjusted the per diem rate for Bay and Moore Haven to exclude the security costs attributable to the work camp at Holmes. CCA argues that DOC erred by deducting only the security costs attributable to the Holmes work camp, but not other costs associated with the inmate population at the work camp, since private correctional facilities do not operate work camps. Mr. Tallent testified there is no way to back out the costs associated with the work camp at Holmes, other than the salaries and benefits of the security officers, because it is the same budget entity as Holmes Correctional Institution and the costs cannot be separated. No evidence was presented regarding the specific costs CCA expected to be removed, or the amount of those costs. Given the accounting structure of the DOC system, and the uncontested fact that security costs are the driving factor in calculation of correctional facility per diem rates, the undersigned does not find that DOC erred in removal of only the security costs at Holmes. Additional Alleged Errors CCA assigns error to DOC for failure to make additional adjustments to the per diem rates in the ITN. 1. Utility service charge Moore Haven pays a monthly utility service charge of $25,000, which is extraordinarily high. This service charge was not disclosed to CCA by the predecessor operator, GEO Group, and CCA did not take it into account in preparing its response to the 2010 ITN. No evidence was presented to establish that this utility surcharge is paid by the operator of Moore Haven because of its status as a private rather than public entity. If it were, DOC would be required by law to include it as a cost savings when calculating the per diem rate. Without that evidence, the undersigned cannot find that DOC erred by not adjusting the per diem to account for it. DOC has offered to make an adjustment in the per diem to account for this service charge. However, DOC’s offer to make an adjustment during negotiations does not prove an error on its part. 2. Lapse Factor/Vacancy Rate Next, CCA argues DOC erred by not adjusting the per diem rate to account for the DOC “lapse factor.” Contradictory evidence was introduced as to the meaning of “lapse factor” and the related term “vacancy rate.” Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the lapse factor is the percentage of DOC security positions which are temporarily vacant due to normal turnover, during which time recruitment and training of new officers occurs. Mr. Upchurch testified that DOC generally runs a 3% lapse factor. A vacancy rate, on the other hand, is the percentage of positions which remain intentionally unfilled due to a hiring freeze or other cost-saving measure. DOC operates with roughly an 8% vacancy rate as part of its budget cutbacks. For the purpose of the contract sought via the ITN, a vacant position is defined to occur “when the employee assigned to that position has resigned, been terminated, or is reassigned to another position.”7/ The terms of the draft contract do not allow the private correctional facility operator to run a blanket vacancy rate. In fact, the operator will incur a vacancy deduction for positions not filled with permanent employees or contracted staff within 30 days after a position becomes vacant, unless a waiver has been granted.8/ Petitioner argues that DMS erred in not adjusting the per diem rate to account for operation of the public correctional facilities with across-the-board vacancies. DMS testified, and has apparently agreed, that such an adjustment would be fair to account for vacancy rates above the normal 3% lapse factor. Moreover, Petitioner argues that the adjustment should be high enough to account for vacancies in actual posts at comparable institutions. Each warden at each public correctional facility has the flexibility to leave positions, or posts, unfilled on a given day based on the security priority of the post. DOC classifies posts into level 1, 2, and 3 priority positions. Level 1 posts are critical to daily operation of a shift. Level 2 posts are essential to the daily normal operation of a facility and allow all activities and programs to be marginally staffed. Level 3 posts are necessary for long term normal operations. In order to fill a level 1 post, a warden may move to a level 1 post an officer assigned to a level 2 or 3 post for that day; limit non-critical activities, such as recreation or work squads; or pay overtime to fill the level 1 post. Level 3 posts are generally utilized prior to level 2 posts to fill level 1 vacancies. Jinanne West, CCA Senior Director of Financial Planning and Analysis, analyzed the security post charts and daily rosters for the Holmes and Okeechobee facilities. She found that for FY 2011-2012, Holmes had an average security post non-fill rate of 17%, with level 3 posts vacant 73% of the time and level 2 posts vacant 39% of the time. During the same time period, Okeechobee ran an average non-fill rate of 26% with level 3 posts vacant 94% of the time and level 2 posts vacant 72% of the time. CCA’s argument, however, assumes private facilities are required to staff their facilities exactly as public facilities do. The draft contract included as part of the ITN does not bear out that assumption. With respect to security staffing, the contract provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Security Staff Utilization: CONTRACTOR shall develop and implement Security staff utilization in accordance with DC policy and procedure that includes, but is not limited to the following: A table of organization for the security staff for the maximum inmate population for the Facility and the position qualifications, job descriptions, pay levels, number of persons per post, distribution by shift, and security staff to inmate ratio in each housing unit by shift. 5.28.6.2 A detailed Security Post Chart outlining how key functions/duties will be staffed. 6.3 PERSONNEL. * * * CONTRACTOR will provide the Department with a finalized staffing pattern prior to the Service Commencement Date. Positions will be staffed with qualified employees in accordance with the staffing pattern attached hereto as in [Exhibit , to be provided by the CONTRACTOR]. CONTRACTOR’S staffing pattern must be submitted and approved by the Contract Manager prior to the Service Commencement Date. Any modifications to the position requirements or the staffing pattern must be approved in writing by the Contract Manager. * * * Sufficient certified security staff shall be employed at all times to assure that all positions identified as critical complement on the approved staffing pattern, are manned, at all times, for each shift, unless a departure from the staffing pattern has been approved in writing by the Contract Manager. . . . CONTRACTOR shall be required to fill critical complement positions by using overtime or other qualified staff members to ensure that staffing levels do not decrease below the established critical complement. (emphasis added) The private contractor is charged with developing the security staffing pattern for its facility, including the job descriptions, pay levels, number of persons per post, distribution by shift, and security staff to inmate ratio per housing unit. While the contract may penalize the private operator for vacant positions left unfilled after 30 days, no evidence was introduced from which the undersigned can infer that private operation lends itself to any higher than normal lapse rate. It is illogical to count as a cost to the private operator the savings realized by public sector cutbacks. The Legislature intends to ensure more efficient private operation by including the 7% cost-saving requirements. CCA also argued that DOC has an advantage because it maintains high vacancies in individual posts at the level 2 and 3 positions, which private operators cannot do without incurring a vacancy deduction penalty. Again, the contract does not bear that out. The vacancy deduction is tied to vacancies of positions due to resignation, termination, or reassignment. There is no evidence from which to conclude that private operators are separately penalized by running vacancies in individual posts at an institution. In fact, the contract specifically provides for flexible staffing of the private correctional facility similar to that of the public facility –- filling critical complement posts at all times, authorizing the movement of employees from other posts and the use of overtime if necessary.9/ 3. Reception and Medical Center Cost Next, CCA argues that the per diem rates published in Amendment 11 are artificially low and should be further adjusted to account for health care administered to inmates at public reception and medical centers (RMCs). RMCs are public correctional facilities which conduct initial health screening of inmates at intake and may provide medical care to existing inmates as well. Inmates at public institutions may receive health care at RMCs, but the state pays for that health care out of a budget separate from the institution’s budget. In other words, public correctional facilities may send an inmate to an RMC for care and not pay for that care out of the facility’s budget. CCA argues that since it will be charged with the cost to treat inmates at an RMC, the per diem rate should account for that difference as a savings to the public correctional facility. What CCA fails to include in the discussion is the fact that a private correctional facility operator is authorized to use the RMC as a cost-saving measure. Private correctional facilities are required to provide health care, including emergency care, to its inmates offsite only when the onsite Chief Health Officer determines an inmate cannot be treated properly in the facility itself. Only then is the private facility authorized to seek offsite hospitalization or other offsite treatment. The vendor is solely responsible for the costs of the offsite treatment, including the security costs of treating or hospitalizing an inmate offsite. The transfer agreement authorizes the private correctional facility to use the RMC, when space is available, as an alternative to minimize security costs for offsite treatment of the private correctional facility’s inmates. Under these facts, the undersigned cannot find that DMS erred by not including an adjustment to the per diem rate to account for treatment costs of private correctional facility inmates at RMCs. 4. PILOT Fees Next, CCA argued that the published per diem rates are in error because they were not adjusted to account for the fees paid by the private correctional facility to the local government as Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs). A PILOT is made to compensate local governments for the tax revenue lost by virtue of the public correctional facility property being used for a governmental function. DOC does not pay property taxes or PILOT fees related to Holmes, and no such fees are included in the Holmes per diem rates. However, the Bay and Moore Haven facilities are subject to PILOT fees required to be paid to local governments. Such fees are deducted from payments due to private correctional facility operators pursuant to the ITN, and are paid directly to the local governments assessing such fees. Pursuant to section 957.07(2), Florida Statutes, [r]easonable projections of payments of any kind to the state or any political subdivision thereof for which the private entity would be liable because of its status as private rather than a public entity, including, but not limited to, corporate income and sales tax payments, shall be included as cost savings in all such determinations. PILOT fee payments for Bay and Moore Haven are clearly included within the definition of section 957.07(2), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, PILOT fee payments for Bay and Moore Haven should have been included as an adjustment in the Amendment 11 per diem rate spreadsheets. Because PILOT fees were not included in the per diem rates published in Amendment 11 for Bay and Moore Haven, the rates were incorrect. 5. Major Maintenance and Repair Fund The ITN requires payments to be made by private correctional facility operators to the Major Maintenance and Repair Fund (MMRF). MMRF monies are used by the private facilities for maintenance, repairs, and renovations. Payments to the MMRF are deducted by DMS from payments due to private correctional facility operators, thereby reducing the per diem rate paid to private contractors. CCA argues that the per diem rates published in Amendment 11 are erroneous since those rates were not adjusted for MMRF payments. However, if the entire MMRF amount were credited to the private correctional facility, the per diem would not include any costs associated with regular repairs, maintenance, or other facility improvements. The amount paid into the MMRF is returned to the private correctional facility when repairs and maintenance are needed and conducted. There may be better ways to account for the maintenance costs of the private correctional facilities, but the undersigned finds no error in the per diem rate calculation on that basis. 6. Fleet Payments CCA contends the per diem rates should be adjusted to account for the requirement that the private correctional facility acquire a vehicle fleet for each of the three facilities, and that DMS erred in excluding the vehicle fleet costs for Holmes and Okeechobee when calculating the per diem rates. In calculating per diem rates, DMS excluded the one- time fleet cost of $573,986 associated with the purchase of the State vehicle fleet to operate the comparable public correctional facilities. The uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Tallent was that those costs were excluded because the fleets were acquired at the time the Holmes and Okeechobee facilities were first constructed. For example, the Holmes fleet was acquired 24 years ago. Because vehicle costs have changed dramatically during the intervening years, any adjustment to account for fleet cost would be insignificant. Additionally, Mr. Tallent testified that adjusting the per diem rate to account for the fleet charge would provide a windfall to a company, such as CCA, which was currently operating one of the facilities if it was awarded the contract again. At one point, CCA expressed that they were not actually concerned with whether the fleet acquisition cost had been incorporated into the per diem, but rather whether ongoing maintenance costs were included.10/ Mr. Tallent’s testimony was uncontroverted that the operating per diem of the public facilities includes all vehicle maintenance and fuel costs.11/ As such, the undersigned finds that DMS did not exclude vehicle fleet maintenance and fuel costs. The ITN requires private correctional facility operators to provide a fleet of vehicles for use at the Bay, Graceville, and Moore Haven facilities.12/ Given the greater weight of the evidence, the undersigned finds that excluding the fleet costs from the per diem rates incorporated as Amendment 11 was not erroneous. 7. Economies of Scale Last, CCA argues that the per diem rates should be adjusted to account for the economies of scale realized at Holmes and Okeechobee because these facilities are operated above design capacity. CCA maintains this adjustment is necessary since Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville may not exceed design capacity under the contract. Mr. Upchurch agreed that an economies of scale adjustment would be appropriate if a reasonable way to calculate that adjustment could be determined. The 2005 Per Diem Workgroup was convened to establish per diem operating rates for private correctional facilities which would be comparable to operation of public facilities. The report provides, “[t]he workgroup has not attempted to estimate the impact of economies of scale that are not available to private facilities. The workgroup, however, was provided with two estimates ranging from $6.66 per day from the Auditor General’s office to $7.10 per day from Geo Group.”13/ Although the Workgroup report refers to the Auditor General's estimate as an attachment thereto, the estimate was not attached to the report introduced into evidence. Further, no testimony was presented relating to whether the estimates from either the Auditor General or GEO Group were reasonable or otherwise reliable. Given the lack of evidence on whether, and by what methodology, an economies of scale adjustment could be calculated, the undersigned does not find that DMS erred by excluding an adjustment for economies of scale. Accounting Error Jinanne West is CCA’s Senior Director for Financial Planning and Analysis. Ms. West has a master’s degree in accounting and is a certified public accountant. Prior to joining CCA, Ms. West worked for Arthur Andersen for three years, and then taught college accounting. Ms. West evaluated the spreadsheets used to calculate the public comparable per diem rates for Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville and found fundamental accounting errors. To determine DOC’s per diem cost to operate the Bay and Moore Haven facilities, the Amendment 11 per diem rate spreadsheets divided Holmes’ operating costs by its average inmate population of 1,466 to arrive at a per diem rate, but then multiplied the per diem rate by the Bay and Moore Haven inmate populations of 985 to determine the daily costs associated with programming at those facilities. As a result, all operating costs attributable to Holmes were reduced by 33% (1,466 minus 985 divided by 1,466) to arrive at DOC’s projected operating costs to operate a 985-bed facility similar to Holmes. DOC then deducted from the remaining 67% of the Holmes operating costs 100% of the Holmes costs related to Holmes work squads and Holmes work camp staff, and additionally deducted 100% of the savings expected at Holmes due to the transition to 12-hour shifts. However, costs attributable to Holmes work squads and Holmes work camp staff and savings attributable to the 12-hour shift adjustment had already been reduced by 33% in the Amendment 11 per diem rate spreadsheets, given the difference in population between Holmes and the Bay and Moore Haven facilities. By deducting 100% of these costs and expected savings from the remaining 67% of the Holmes operating costs, DOC in effect incorrectly deducted 133% of Holmes’ costs and anticipated savings from the per diem rates. A similar error was found in the spreadsheet for Graceville. The inmate population at Okeechobee is slightly smaller than that at Graceville, leading to erroneous adjustments to the per diem for program costs and adjustments made to account for operational differences at Okeechobee. Due to this error in accounting methodology, the per diem rates published in Amendment 11 for Bay, Moore Haven, and Graceville were incorrect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, Department of Management Services, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, and withdraw ITN 12/13-010 for the Operation and Management of Bay Correctional Facility, Graceville Correctional Facility, and Moore Haven Correctional Facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 30982 on December 22, 1989. At all times material hereto, Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 25166 on August 11, 1988. At all times material hereto, Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 71355 on August 24, 1988. At all times material hereto, Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 98281 on March 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, all of the Respondents were employed as correctional officers with the Martin County Sheriff's Department in the Martin County Detention Center. In or around December 1989, a new Detention Center was constructed and opened. Prior to that time, the old Detention Center, called the "stockade," was located in Indiantown approximately 19 miles from the site of the new facility. The stockade contained a commissary which was used by both inmates and correctional officers. The commissary was a separate area of the stockade, which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes, and sodas for the benefit of the inmates of the facility, who could purchase the items with monies maintained in their individual accounts controlled by the Detention Center. 3/ None of the inmates had unsupervised and continuous access to the commissary. Even though the commissary was for the benefit of the inmates, correctional officers from time to time would remove items from it. There existed an unwritten honor policy that any item removed by a correctional officer would have to be paid for by that officer. A container was placed in the commissary and a correctional officer would place money in the container for the item removed. If an officer was unable to pay for the item at the time of its removal, a supervising officer could approve payment at a later time. An inventory was performed on a weekly and monthly basis, with no shortage of money being reported. This honor policy was well known to and acquiesced in by the commanding officer of the stockage, Major Murphy. Respondent Singleton, who was employed at the stockade, frequently used this honor policy. He would remove items from the commissary and put money in the container for the items. At times, he would not be able to pay for an item until payday, and he was allowed to pay for the item at that time by his superior officer on duty at the time. Respondent Blair was also employed at the stockade and used this honor system. When the new facility opened in or around December 1989, the commissary structure and procedure pertaining to inmate use remained the same, but the procedure pertaining to correctional officer use was changed by Major Murphy. Although the commissary continued to be for the benefit of the inmates, no longer were the correctional officers suppose to utilize it. The container for payment by the correctional officers for items removed no longer existed. Now, the correctional officers were suppose to obtain their items from an area within the new Detention Center specifically set-aside for them, which was separate and some distance away from the commissary. This area contained coin-operated machines which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes and sodas. However, although there was suppose to be this new policy, no one, other than administrative personnel and high ranking correctional officers, were aware of the change. No written policy was issued for the new facility to countermand the unwritten policy used at the stockade. This nonaction resulted in no notification to the correctional officers of the new policy. Without the written policy, some correctional officers who worked at the stockade continued their practice in the new facility of removing items from the commissary even though no container existed in which the officers could pay for the items removed. In particular, at the new facility one correctional officer on the night shift had removed some items from the commissary. Being unsure as to how to pay or who to pay for the items, he waited the next morning, before going home, for the person who purchased items for the commissary, so that he could pay for the items. The commissary purchasing person worked only on the day shift. At that time, he was notified by the commissary purchasing person that he no longer could obtain items from the commissary, but she did accept his money for the items and informed the officer's superior of the incident. Then and only then did he become aware of the policy change. Major Murphy continued as the commanding officer at the new Detention Center. He too used the commissary and the honor policy. At the stockade he would order boxes of cigars through the commissary, either prepaying for them or paying for them when they came in. He continued this practice at the new facility, which was at odds with his new unwritten policy of prohibiting correctional officers from using the commissary. Everyone was aware of Major Murphy's practice. Approximately a year and a half after the new facility opened, on June 13, 1991, through an inmate informant, Major Murphy became aware of possible inmate theft of cigarettes from the commissary. The alleged theft occurred the night before on June 12, 1991, which was the usual periodic time that inmates' requests for commissary items were filled by other inmates under the supervision of correctional officers. The inmates who were assigned to fill inmate requests from the commissary were questioned by an officer assigned to the investigation by Major Murphy. Implicated by the inmates interviewed in the June 12, 1991 theft of cigarettes were themselves, other inmates and several correctional officers, including Respondents. Besides officers actually removing cigarettes, one inmate was allegedly directed by one officer to deliver some cigarettes to another room and by another officer, Respondent Piazza, to deliver some cigarettes to her. Possible officer theft was a surprising development. On the basis of only the inmates' statements, on June 13, 1991, Respondents were notified to report to Major Murphy without notifying them about the nature of the meeting. The written procedure for investigating officers was not followed. Major Murphy dictated the procedure to be followed in the investigation. Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed met with Major Murphy and two of his ranking officers. Major Murphy did all the talking at the meeting. He cited the theft statute, notified them of the allegation against them and instructed them to tell what they had done. Major Murphy further told the Respondents that, if they did take the cigarettes, it would be the most expensive pack of cigarettes that they had ever had. At least one of Major Murphy's ranking officers perceived this statement by Major Murphy as a threat to the Respondents. Only Respondent Blair admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes after changing his story several times as to how many packs he had removed. Respondent Sayed denied taking anything but at the conclusion of the meeting requested to meet with Major Murphy privately. In that private meeting, with one of Major Murphy's ranking officers also present, Respondent Sayed admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes and attempted to give Major Murphy the money for the cigarettes. Major Murphy refused to take the money. Respondent Piazza denied taking any cigarettes from the commissary. Respondent Singleton was late for the meeting because he had not received notification of it. Again, Major Murphy did all the talking. He gave Respondent Singleton the same introductory comments regarding the theft statute, what was alleged, and requested his story of what happened. When Major Murphy completed his comments, Respondent Singleton admitted that, during his night shift, he had taken, but not stolen, a pie to eat because he lacked change for the machines and had intended to pay for the pie later. Respondent Singleton also admitted that in the past he had removed snack items from the commissary but had paid the commissary purchasing person for them later. 4/ His statement pertaining to paying for the items later is found not to be credible. If he had engaged in this type of conduct, it is reasonable to assume that the commissary purchasing person would have informed him that he could no longer engage in such conduct, as she had done with the correctional officer discussed in Finding of Fact 15. Respondents were suspended from their positions that same day and subsequently terminated. Prior to the meeting with Major Murphy, there was nothing other than the statements by inmates to connect the Respondents to the theft of cigarettes from the commissary. Moreover, no inventory was performed on the commissary items. No evidence existed to show that any unauthorized items had been taken from the commissary or that Respondents had taken any items from the commissary. Even though Major Murphy found the inmates' statements, standing alone, credible to initiate an investigation against the Respondents and personally question them, he failed to find these same statements from these same inmates credible to investigate any of the other correctional officers named in the statements and question them. Furthermore, no other correctional officer named on that evening shift was disciplined by Major Murphy. One of the inmates from whom the so-called credible statements were taken testified at the hearing that, when he assisted in the new commissary, it was not uncommon for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary. 5/ At the hearing, the inmate refused to name correctional officers other than those named in his investigative statement, which included Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed, because he was fearful of what might happen to him at the new Detention Center at which he was now again incarcerated. Importantly, before he agreed to give a statement during the investigation in which he named officers, he was told by the investigating officer that other inmates had already given statements and named officers. The inmate's testimony at hearing is found to be credible. Regarding Respondent Piazza, this inmate was directed by Respondent Piazza to take some cigarettes to another room within the facility where other officers were located, but none of whom personally accepted or received the cigarettes. Approximately four days after the Respondents' meeting with Major Murphy, on June 17, 1991, he issued a written memo regarding correctional officers removing items from the commissary. Major Murphy indicated in the memo that through an investigation, without revealing the nature of the investigation, "apparently there was a practice of correctional employees removing items from the commissary, on all four shifts, without paying for them but that the practice would not be tolerated." Moreover, he further indicated that employees who had participated in the practice could remain anonymous and pay for the items, describing the procedure to follow, and that in the future a container would be placed in the commissary for the correctional employees who remove items to pay for them at the time they are removed. It is inferred from Major Murphy's memo that he believed, and it is found, that it was common practice for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary without paying for them as described by the Respondents. Even though other correctional officers who participated in the practice were provided an opportunity to pay for the items they had removed from the commissary, Major Murphy denied the Respondents this same opportunity. Prior to the memo of June 17, 1991, and after Major Murphy's meeting with the Respondents, another officer who was named in an inmate statement admitted to Major Murphy that he had removed a cigar from the commissary without paying for it. No disciplinary action was taken against that officer. Also, additional correctional officers were named in additional statements by one inmate. Major Murphy determined the extent of the investigation (limited only to the evening of June 12, 1991), and who would be investigated and disciplined (only Respondents and the inmates). Before issuing the memo of June 17, 1991, Major Murphy had decided not to pursue an investigation of any additional correctional officers because he believed that the disciplining of Respondents had sent a message to the other officers that the practice would not be tolerated and because he did not want to have to suspend and possibly terminate the majority of his staff. No criminal charges were recommended or filed against Respondents. The investigating officer recommended, and Major Murphy agreed, that the incident did not warrant theft charges. Respondents have not been employed as correction officers since June 13, 1991. Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action. The inmates who stole cigarettes on the evening of June 12, 1991, were also disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding the Respondents. Placing the Respondents on probationary status for six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 17th day of June 1994.
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding in which the Petitioner originally sought a determination pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, that Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code, was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. This case began with the filing of a Petition For Administrative Determination on December 23, 1986. On March 26, 1987, this Hearing Officer issued a Final Order of Dismissal which granted the Department's motion to dismiss. The Final Order Of Dismissal concluded that the Petitioner had failed to allege standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006, because his allegations were insufficient to show that his substantial interests were affected by those subsections of the rule. The Final Order Of Dismissal went on to conclude that the Petitioner had sufficiently alleged standing to challenge Subsection (1) of the challenged rule, but also concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sufficiently allege facts sufficient to show the invalidity of the rule. In this regard the Final Order Of Dismissal specifically stated at paragraph 12: In order to sufficiently allege the invalidity of an existing rule, a rule challenge petition must assert, at a minimum, that the challenged rule is in some specified way a departure from statutory authority granted to the rule enacting agency by the Legislature. Where, as here, the rule is nothing more than a repetition of the statutory provision, the rule may be unnecessary, but it is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it does not in any way depart from the statutory mandate. Because of the identical provisions of the subject rule language and the applicable statute, the Petitioner has not, and cannot, allege any facts sufficient to show that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because he has not, and cannot, allege any differences between the statutory mandate and the rule mandate. The Petitioner sought appellate review of the Final Order Of Dismissal. In Diaz v. Florida Department of Corrections, 519 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), appeal dismissed, 525 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1988), the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion which primarily addressed the constitutionality of the statutory authority for the challenged rule. In that opinion the court concluded as follows: Accordingly, we declare section 945.10(2) Florida Statutes (1985), to be unconstitutional. The case is remanded to the DOAH hearing officer for further proceedings to determine the validity of Rule 33-6.006(1) in light of this opinion. On March 21, 1988, the appellate court issued its mandate and the case was once again before the Hearing Officer for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. The appellate court decision left undisturbed the conclusion that the Petitioner lacks standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006. Accordingly, the issue on remand is limited to a determination of the validity of Subsection (1) of Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code. As discussed in the conclusions of law, that determination involves a consideration of statutory amendments which took effect after the appellate court decision and were, therefore, not considered by the appellate court. At the final hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and the Petitioner also offered several exhibits. During the course of the hearing the Petitioner was granted leave to file two late exhibits consisting of selected portions of the Department's Policy and Procedure Directives and selected portions of the Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedures. The Respondent was granted leave to file post-hearing objections to any late-filed exhibits. The late-filed exhibits were submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent promptly filed objections to same. Upon consideration, the objections to the exhibits are overruled and the late-filed exhibits are received as part of the record in this case. Following the hearing, a transcript of tide proceedings at hearing was also filed. Thereafter, both parties filed timely proposed final orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties' proposed final orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this final order. Specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated herein.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings stipulated by the parties Florida Administrative Code Chapters 1S, 22I, 28, and 33, as found in the Florida Administrative Code Annotated, through the April 1988 supplement, are true and correct copies of those rule chapters. The Petitioner's current address is: Enrique J. Diaz Inmate Number 065599 Florida State Prison Post Office Box 747 Starke, Florida 32091 The Respondent's name and address is: Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Department rule on which an administrative determination is sought is Rule 33-6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, which states: No inmate of any institution, facility, or program shall have access to any information contained in the files of the Department. The statutory provisions on which the subject Department rule is based are Sections 944.09 and 945.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's interests are substantially affected by Rule 33- 6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, in that: He is a convicted felon, lawfully confined in the custody of the Department. He wishes to obtain from the Department, for the lawful cost of copying, documents he was once given by the Department, but which he no longer has in his possession, including, but not limited to: Institutional grievances filed by him. Grievance appeals filed by him. Disciplinary Reports issued against him. Disciplinary Report Worksheets issued against him. He wishes to obtain from the Department, for the lawful cost of copying, documents which are public records and which can be obtained by anyone from sources outside the Department, including, but not limited to: His Judgment and Sentence forms. His Uniform Commitment to Custody form. He wishes to obtain from the Department documents which are public records and which are normally provided to any member of the public requesting same, including, but not limited to: The Department's annual report. Ordinary records kept in the normal course of business, such as might be kept by any state agency. He had been refused any and all documents from the Department because of Rule 33-6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code. FINDINGS BASED ON EVIDENCE AT HEARING Inmates are given copies of any disciplinary reports they receive at the time they receive the disciplinary report, plus the results of any subsequent disciplinary hearing. These copies are carbon copies rather than photocopies. Inmates are given answers to inmate requests, institutional grievances, and grievance appeals they file. These answers are given to the inmate with a copy of his original filing. The act of giving an inmate another, identical, copy of any disciplinary report, disciplinary worksheet, inmate request, institutional grievance, or grievance appeal he had previously been given does not create a security problem. The act of giving an inmate another, identical, copy of his Judgment and Sentence forms, which are public documents contained in the files and records of the appropriate Clerks of Court, does not create a security problcm. Copies of the above documents are routinely made for attorneys and the news media. The actual cost of providing these copies is charged. The Department would not provide copies of the above documents if it were known the copies would be given to an inmate. The Department's Administrative Gain Time Manual is made available to the news media, the public, and attorneys. The Department refuses to make this manual available to inmates. The Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedures (IOPs) are public records, but the Department refuses to make copies of them for individual inmates because of Rule 33- 6.006(1), even though some of the IOPs are in the prison law library. The Department's Policy and Procedure Directives are freely available to the public, but the Department refuse to make them available to inmates. Florida State Prison, where the Petitioner is incarcerated, has approximately 1164 inmates. In accordance with state statute, the institution keeps a file on each inmate. Each file consists of from two to eighteen legal size folders of documents. The files include such material as investigation reports, disciplinary reports, special review information, presentence reports, psychological and medical reports, detainers, gain time, and other information. There are three people in the Florida State Prison records department responsible for inmate files. It takes the FSP record department three or four hours daily to file newly received documents. The FSP records department also has other duties, such as posting gain time, cell changes, and disciplinary reports. The FSP records department has received few, if any, requests for information from the public or the news media. Most of their requests come from attorneys. The attorneys' requests for information place additional burdens on the small FSP records department staff. By way of example, it took approximately two hours to "screen" the Petitioner's file at FSP and his file is smaller than that of 75 or 80 per cent of the inmates. Florida State Prison has only three photocopy machines for the entire institution. The machines are used extensively and are subject to frequent malfunctions. The Admissions and Release office maintains the official file on each inmate at the central office. Currently, there are 33,000 inmates in custody. The primary reason that the Admissions and Release office does not want inmates to have hands-on access to their central office files is to maintain the integrity of the record. The Department has had to use the files in court to defend and substantiate the calculations for release dates. The Admissions and Release office has denied all inmate requests for copies of information from its files. The Admissions and Release office is currently shorthanded. Whenever there is a new court decision affecting inmate rights or sentences, the office is flooded with correspondence and requests from inmates. The office has already received some grievances and requests from inmates concerning the appellate court decision in this case. The office expects a flood of requests if inmates are given access to Department records. During the past four years the Admissions and Release office has had very few requests for access to its files from the news media or the general public. The Department's central files contain access codes for the Department's computers. If inmates could obtain the access codes, it would compromise the integrity of the Department's computer records. Before release of any information from the Department's central office files, the information is screened for confidential information. Even documents which appear to be facially innocent have to be read to determine whether they contain information about informants or victims. The Department is concerned that if inmates are allowed broad access to Department files, such access will create security problems. But the Department is even more concerned about the sheer volume of requests that would result from allowing broad access and the impact the expected volume of requests would have on Department staff and copying equipment. The Department is also generally of the view that it is virtually impossible to write a rule which would describe which documents should be available for inmate access and which should not. Rather, the Department is of the view that decisions regarding release of documents to inmates must be made on a case by case basis after review of each document in each file.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Commission as a correctional officer on July 1, 1981, and was issued Certificate Number 33-81-500-00. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was employed by the Collier County Sheriff's Office and was assigned to work with inmates in the county jail. In the course of his duties, Respondent Parks became acquainted with a young female inmate, Melissa Sue Watson. After her release from jail, the Respondent continued to see the woman socially. As part of their relationship, the Respondent would occasionally give the woman money or anything else she requested that he was able to provide for her. While the Respondent and the young woman eventually became sexually intimate, the money was not given to her in direct exchange for sexual services. Instead, the money and other requested items were bestowed as gifts to demonstrate his affection and to assure that she would continue to allow a married man of his years to court her. Due to the fact that Respondent's wife was in charge of the family finances, the sums of money given to the young woman were sparse. These gifts amounted to little more that the Respondent's spare change and lunch money. After the relationship progressed to the stage where the parties had become sexually intimate, the young woman asked the Respondent to get her some marijuana. She was provided with the pipe and marijuana the Respondent had confiscated from his teenaged son. The Respondent smoked the marijuana with the young woman. During her relationship with the Respondent, the young woman had an ongoing relationship of a different kind with another member of the Collier County's Sheriff Department. Melissa Sue Watson was a confidential informer for Linda Leis, a narcotics investigator with the Vice-Intelligence-Narcotics Unit (VIN Unit). She assisted Ms. Leis in the arrest of several narcotics violators prior to her report that Respondent Parks had given her money and marijuana in exchange for sex. Ms. Watson gave the investigator the pipe used to smoke the marijuana. A field test confirmed that it had contained marijuana. The young woman was told to arrange an assignation with the Respondent so his actions could be documented and an arrest made if the allegations were well-founded. Pursuant to instructions from Ms. Leis, the woman placed a telephone call to the Respondent which was recorded by the sheriff's department. The Respondent was asked to join Ms. Watson at White's Motel after work. Ms. Watson requested that the Respondent bring money and marijuana because she needed funds and wanted "to get high." In response to her invitation, Respondent told Ms. Watson that he would meet her and that he had ten dollars she could have. However, he was unable to provide marijuana because he did not know where to get it. When she inquired as to where he got the marijuana in the pipe, he teased her by withholding the information. Eventually, after she prodded him for an answer, he agreed with her suggestion that he had grown the marijuana in order to stop the inquiry. He told her there was no more and closed the topic. In fact, the Respondent had not grown the marijuana. As mentioned previously, he confiscated it from his son. When the Respondent arrived at the hotel, members of the VIN Unit had already installed listening and recording devices in the room. They waited in the adjoining room to take pictures and make an arrest once it was determined that Respondent Parks had given Melissa Sue Watson money for sex. During the motel room conversations between Respondent and Ms. Watson, the Respondent expressed concern about Ms. Watson's failure to appear in court that morning on a new pending criminal charge. She feigned surprise about having been on the court docket and stressed her need for money. She teased the Respondent during their foreplay that she had something for him if he had the money he said he was bringing to her. Because the Respondent was expected home shortly, he handed Ms. Watson the money he brought to give to her when she asked to see it. Based upon their prior relationship and the contents of the recorded conversations, the giving of the money and the sexual activity between the parties were concurrent actions that were not connected to each other. They occurred at the same time because the parties were involved in a clandestine, adulterous affair that allowed them to see each other on an infrequent basis. Once the Respondent stripped down to his underwear in order to proceed further with the sex play, members of the VIN Unit entered the room and placed the Respondent under arrest. After he waived his right to receive the Miranda warning, the Respondent admitted to having had sex with Melissa Sue Watson in the past and having smoked marijuana with her that he had provided at her request.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of unlawfully, delivering less than twenty grams of cannabis to another person and of constructive possession as set forth in Paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of the Administrative Complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having engaged in prostitution with another person, as set forth in Paragraph 2(c) of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent's certificate as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-6766 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #7. 4. Accepted. See HO #7. 5. Accepted. See HO #7. 6. Accepted. See HO #8. 7. Accepted. See HO #9. 8. Accepted. 9. Accepted. See HO #10. 10. Accepted. See HO #10. 11. Accepted. See HO #10. 12. Accepted. See HO #11. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #12-#13. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14. Copies furnished to: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Al Beatty, Qualified Representative c/o Clyde W. Parks 5226 Jennings Street Naples, Florida 33962 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether the correctional officer certification of Steven S. Wright should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Steven S. Wright is a certified correctional officer, having been issued certificate number 43-88-502-05 on December 19, 1988. Mr. Wright was employed as a Correctional Officer I at Lake Correctional Institute in June 1989. On the morning of June 20, 1989, and on other occasions, Mr. Wright had discussed drugs with inmates. He did not encourage or support the use of drugs. He believed these discussions were a useful part of the rehabilitation process. Later on June 20, 1989, Inmate Clinton Gholson approached Mr. Wright in the Food Services area and placed a piece of paper in Mr. Wright's pocket. Mr. Wright was planning to be married in a short time. Gholson had indicated that he and some other inmates wanted to make a wedding present for Wright in Arts and Crafts. Because inmates are generally prohibited from giving gifts to correctional officers, Mr. Wright and Gholson had agreed to a paper work process which was to be followed if Gholson and the others wished to make the gift for Mr. Wright. Authorization was to be sought before Mr. Wright actually received the gift. Gholson was to give Mr. Wright a choice of gifts Gholson could make. Mr. Wright understood that Gholson was to give him a short written list from which to pick. While Mr. Wright was working on June 20, 1989, Gholson approached him from behind and slipped the piece of paper into Mr. Wright's back pocket. Gholson indicated it was the gift list and Mr. Wright was to circle the gift he wanted. Gholson said something like, "You do that and that's what we'll make." Mr. Wright did not look at the note then. He forgot about it and finished his work. When Mr. Wright got home that evening, he discovered the note in his pocket. When he opened it, instead of a gift list, he found $3.00 and a note asking Mr. Wright to smuggle drugs (a "twenty cent piece") into the prison and they would make $240.00 from it. Mr. Wright was scheduled off from work the next two days. He was afraid he would lose his job because of what Gholson had done. When Mr. Wright returned to work on June 23, 1989, he told Sergeant Alexander what had happened. She sent him to Major Collier to make a report. Wright made the report and submitted it. He had forgotten to bring the note and money that day, so he could not attach it to the report. When Mr. Wright returned home that night, the note and money were gone. It was never determined if his wife or his nephew or someone else had thrown it away. Once Gholson knew he had Mr. Wright in a bad position, he used it to his advantage. He began demanding money from Mr. Wright and stated at various times that he had given Mr. Wright $10.00 to buy drugs and that he had loaned Mr. Wright $10.00. Mr. Wright reported these incidents immediately. When Gholson wrote another note demanding $10.00, Mr. Wright immediately turned that note over to Major Collier. A hearsay statement from Gholson in the form of a taped interview was submitted into evidence. It is found that Gholson's statements are so unbelievable as to be unworthy of any credibility. Even if the statements were not hearsay, they would be too unbelievable to form the basis for a finding of fact. Mr. Wright was fired from his job at Lake Correctional Institute as a result of these incidents and Gholson's statements. While there are some insignificant inconsistencies among the various statements and reports given by Mr. Wright, I find that his testimony and account of these events is absolutely credible and worthy of belief. While it is not disputed that Mr. Wright left the correctional institute on June 20, 1989, with a note and $3.00 which Gholson slipped into his pocket, it is affirmatively found that Mr. Wright had unwittingly done so. Mr. Wright had no idea that Gholson had placed money into his pocket until he reached home later that night. Mr. Wright did not knowingly accept money from Gholson.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Steven S. Wright. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 10th day of June, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations concerned herein, Respondent, William M. Floyd has been certified as a corrections officer in Florida under certificate number C- 7585, dated May 23, 1980. He had been certified prior to that time under another Commission procedure. The Commission is the state agency responsible for certifying law enforcement and corrections officers in Florida. Throughout the majority of the year 1986, Respondent was employed as a corrections officer at the Department of Corrections' Tampa Corrections Work Release Center. When he was arrested for grand theft during 1986, he advised his boss that he intended to plead not guilty. Because of his prior eight years of good work and based on his representations, he was not discharged and was allowed to keep his employment. Approximately six months later, Respondent was hospitalized for what his doctors thought was cancer of the spine. While he was in the hospital, his attorneys convinced him that due to his poor health, it would be to his advantage to plead nolo contendere and avoid the stress of a trial and thereafter negotiated an arrangement with the state attorney that in exchange for the plea of nolo contendere, adjudication of guilt would be withheld and Respondent would be placed on two years probation. Respondent entered that plea in open court on November 10, 1986 in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County and was placed on two years probation. He was promised that at the successful completion of his term of probation, his record would be sealed from the public but not from law enforcement officials. Respondent is looking forward to that happening. After his court appearance, Respondent resigned from his position as a corrections officer with the Department of Corrections, he claims, due to his poor health. On December 4, 1986, the Department of Corrections advised the Petitioner, Commission, however, that Respondent had resigned his position due to the fact that he was placed on two years probation for grand theft. The documentation in question was not presented at the hearing, however, but the basis for Respondent's resignation is irrelevant. The seminal issue here is Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to a felony and of that there is no question. Respondent is not now employed as a corrections officer or in any law enforcement capacity. As a result, he does not need his certification. However, because of the nature of the charges against him, and what he believes is a lack of culpability on his part, (not further explained); and because he may some day again want to work as a corrections officer, he wants to keep his certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the certification of Respondent, WILLIAM M. FLOYD, as a corrections officer be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 23rd day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Floyd Post Office Box 1084 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harvey Jackson, in an inmate at UCI and has been at all times pertinent hereto. During the month of September, 1986, consistent with the rules of DOC, Jackson had a list of individuals on file who he desired to be allowed to visit him at the institution. These included members of his family and his fiancee, Ms. Ann Alexander. On September 22, 1986, Ms. Alexander came to visit Jackson at UCI. According to the routine procedure followed for the preparation of visitors' entrance into the Visitor's Park area, Ms. Alexander's purse was searched and she was subject to a pat search prior to being allowed into the secure area. During the search, it was determined she had $50.00 in U.S. currency in her possession and she was permitted to take that money into the Visitor's Park, leaving her purse at the waiting area. While Jackson and Ms. Alexander were together in the Visitor's Park, she purchased two cartons of cigarettes at the canteen and two orange drinks. The cartons of cigarettes were $12.00 each and the drinks were 35 each. Therefore, she spent approximately $24.70 of the $50.00 she brought in. Because she did not have a purse, she claimed later, upon questioning, that she put the change in the brown paper bag she got with the drinks and when she disposed of the bag in a trash can, inadvertently threw out the money as well. When she left the Visitor's Park area, she was subject again to a pat search and requested to indicate how much money she had. At that time, it was determined she had only $3.00 in her possession. According to corrections personnel who interviewed her, she gave several different stories as to what happened to the money she could not account for. Though both Ms. Alexander and Jackson stated she bought him two cartons of cigarettes, when he was searched prior to leaving the Visitor's Park, he had only one carton with him. The strip search conducted of him at that time also failed to reveal any money in his possession. Ms. Alexander was asked to go back into the Visitor's Park and look through the trash cans to try to find the money, and was accompanied by a guard. Because of the heat, however, it was an odious task and she admits her search of six or seven cans was not thorough. Unfortunately, she was unable to locate the money. As a result of this missing money, an incident report, (IR) was prepared. Ms. Alexander was not detained but was orally informed that her visiting privileges might be suspended and Jackson was allowed to return to his quarters. The IR merely outlined the information cited above but did not draw any conclusions as to what happened to the money. Mr. Davis, the corrections supervisor who was in charge of the corrections shift, concluded that Ms. Alexander disregarded the department's rules and regulations and recommended that her visiting privileges be revoked for an indefinite period. This IR was processed through channels to Mr. Cunningham, the Classification Supervisor, who under the provisions of Section 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., had the authority, in the absence of the Superintendent, to approve the suspension. He did so, and made sure that the Superintendent was informed. Thereafter, on September 29, 1986, Mr. K. W. Snow, who worked for Mr. Cunningham, on behalf of the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, sent a letter to Ms. Alexander at her home address on file at the institution, indicating that her visiting privileges were suspended indefinitely beginning that date and would be reinstated on October 31, 1986, one month later. Notwithstanding that inconsistency regarding the length of the suspension, the practice at UCI, in the case of indefinite suspensions, is to reconsider the suspension on receipt of a request for reinstatement. In the case of a suspension for a definite term, they will reinstate upon request at the end of the suspension period. On the afternoon of September 26, 1986, several days prior to the dispatch of the suspension letter to Ms. Alexander, inmate Jackson was called to Mr. Snow's office where he was told that Ms. Alexander's visiting privileges were to be suspended for 30 days. At that time, he was advised that the basis for the suspension was her inability to account for the money she brought into the Visitor's Park on September 22. Though he requested a copy of the IR at that time, Jackson was not given a copy of it until in response to a discovery request after the filing of the rule challenge petition. Jackson was not advised of any opportunity either he or Ms. Alexander might have for a hearing on the matter prior to the suspension, or any appeal rights. Thereafter, Jackson wrote to Mr. Snow asking that he be notified of the suspension in writing, but this request was denied. The September 29, 1986 letter was not received by Ms. Alexander but was returned undelivered because of an erroneous address. On October 1, 1986, however, she wrote to Mr. Cunningham, having been advised by Jackson of the suspension, and the address on her stationery was used to again send her a letter of notification. This second letter was not returned. In her letter, Ms. Alexander explained her reasons for taking so much money into the Visitor's Park, and what she had done with a part of it. She also outlined her efforts to find the extra money. These explanations were not credited by the institution officials, however. Ms. Alexander's suspension has had a bad effect on Jackson, he claims. He felt frustrated and considered that his ability to be heard by the authorities was unnecessarily thwarted. He is of the opinion that the suspension was unfair because neither he nor his fiancee had broken any rules, and neither of them was given any opportunity to explain to the decision maker what had happened other than in writing and after the action was taken. As a result of the suspension, which has now expired, he missed two separate visits from his fiancee. It should be noted, however, that Ms. Alexander's suspension did not place any limits on visits by the other 7 or 8 people on his visitor's list. This suspension action has been utilized frequently as to other visitors as well as Ms. Alexander. Ms. Decker, for example, on September 29, 1986, was notified of the suspension of her visiting privileges on the basis that she had allegedly written a threatening letter to an official at the institution. She found out about her suspension through a phone call from her inmate fiancee. Neither she nor he, initially, was told of the reason for her suspension, and she was given no opportunity to rebut the allegations against her prior to the suspension action. Subsequent to the suspension, she was able to clarify the situation and her visiting privileges have been reinstated, albeit on less convenient days than she had previously. She believes this change in days was intended as punishment, but there is no evidence of this. Ms. Decker denies ever having been told that she could only spend $25.00 in the canteen as is alleged in Ms. Alexander's letter. In fact, there is no rule or policy limiting the amount that visitors may spend in the canteen nor is there a rule or policy which limits inmates to no more than one carton of cigarettes at a time. Mr. Jackson complains of the fact that neither he nor Ms. Alexander was afforded a hearing prior to the imposition of the suspension. There is no provision in the rule for a hearing prior to suspension in this type of case. This suspension was not intended as punishment for improper behavior by Jackson, but more a means of correcting an unauthorized situation and avoiding a security problem. Officials at UCI interpret the provisions of paragraph 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., as permitting the removal of a visitor from the visiting list for criminal activity, for a serious rule violation, for continuous infractions of visiting procedures, for security breaches, or a combination of those. While the instant situation is not considered to be criminal activity, a serious rule violation, or a continuing infraction, it is considered to be a security breach and it was to correct this situation that the institution officials suspended Ms. Alexander. Final action on the issue of a suspension of visiting privileges based on the IR is, by the rule, to be taken by the Superintendent, or the Assistant Superintendent, Classification Supervisor, or the next senior officer present in the chain of command in the absence of the Superintendent. Here, while the suspension letter in question was signed by Mr. Snow, the assistant classification supervisor, and while the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, was present on the day the suspension letter was signed, the letter clearly shows that the action was taken in the name of the superintendent and the testimony of Mr. Cunningham established that it was done with his concurrence. There is nothing in the rule that requires that the inmate or the visitor be afforded a hearing prior to the action suspending visiting privileges. If an inmate feels that the action suspending the visiting privileges of an individual on his list is improper and he can show a direct effect on him as a result thereof, he may file a grievance. Though Jackson indicates he filed a grievance in this case, there is no evidence of it. The incident report in question related strictly to the activity of Ms. Alexander and the action was taken against her even though, in so doing, an adverse effect was felt by Mr. Jackson. No doubt had he desired to do so, he could have grieved that situation, but, as was stated above, there is no evidence that he did so. There is a difference between an IR, as was written here, and a disciplinary report, (DR), which was not involved in this case. A DR involves misconduct on the part of an inmate which may result in disciplinary action, including a suspension of visiting privileges. An IR is nothing more than a memorialization of an unusual incident which is to be brought to the attention of institution authorities. Whereas an inmate is entitled to a hearing before action is taken on the basis of a DR, no hearing is required when an IR is written. If the incident resulting in an IR also results in a DR, a hearing would be afforded the inmate based on the proposed disciplinary action, not on the memorialization in the IR. There is no doubt that the removal of visitors from an inmate's visitors list does have an adverse effect on the morale and possibly the well- being of the inmate involved. However, the action is normally taken on the basis of the conduct of the visitor, not the inmate, and if a decision is made to suspend the visiting privileges of the visitor, the direct effect is on that visitor with a secondary effect only on the innate. In the instant case, officials concluded that Ms. Alexander's inability to account for approximately $20.00 in currency constituted a breach of security which authorized and in fact dictated a need to curtail her entry into the institution for a period of time. There is no evidence that Jackson committed any offense or did anything improper and it is, indeed, unfortunate that he was forced to suffer the deprivation of not being visited by his fiancee for a period of time. Notwithstanding this, it is clear from the testimony of the numerous individuals involved in the investigation of this incident that the action taken under the terms of the rule to suspend Ms. Alexander's privilege to visit was not taken lightly and was based on a bona fide evaluation of a security risk to the institution.
