The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since November 29, 2001, certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. She holds Correctional Certificate Number 2000056. Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick are Respondent's brothers. Respondent has lived in the same residence as her brother Javeres her entire life. Since February of 1999, when they were placed on probation for committing the felony crime of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16 years of age, Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick have been under the supervision of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC). On or about November 27, 2000, Respondent completed and submitted to the Department of Corrections (DOC) a Correctional Officer/Correctional Probation Officer Supplemental Application. At the time, she did not have any training or experience as correctional or probation officer. Question 4 on this employment application asked: Do you have a business or personal relationship with anyone presently incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system? If yes, give name, relationship, and place of incarceration/supervision. Respondent answered this question by checking "No." In doing so, she believed that she was providing accurate information to DOC. Although she was aware that her brothers were on probation, she did not understand them to be "incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system," within the meaning of the question, because they were not in state prison. Furthermore, in her mind, she had a familial, not a "business or personal relationship" with her brothers.3 Respondent was ultimately employed by DOC as a correctional officer and assigned to Broward Correctional Institution (BCI). On September 18, 2003, a team of DOC correctional probation officers (Team), consisting of Raul Fernandez, Sara Bermudez, and Juan D'Elia, accompanied by local law enforcement officers, including David Torres of the Miami-Dade County Police Department, went to the residence of Javeres Kendrick at 4270 Northwest 197th Street, Miami, Florida, to conduct a "pre- planned sex offender compliance check." The purpose of the Team's visit was to ascertain whether Mr. Kendrick was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. When the Team arrived at the residence, Mr. Kendrick was outside washing a vehicle. The Team members exited their vehicles and walked up to Mr. Kendrick. They identified themselves as correctional probation officers and told Mr. Kendrick that they were there to make sure that he was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. To do so, they advised him, they needed to search his bedroom (which they were authorized to do by the court order placing Mr. Kendrick on probation). Mr. Kendrick responded that his bedroom was "a mess" and that he wanted "to go and clean [it] up" before the Team conducted its search. Despite being told that he "couldn't do that," Mr. Kendrick "bolted" away from the Team members and went "inside the house." Officers Fernandez and D'Elia followed Mr. Kendrick to the front door of the residence, where they were met by Respondent, who "intercepted" them and blocked their paths, thereby "prohibit[ing] [them] from entering [the residence] immediately." While standing in their way and interrupting their pursuit of Mr. Kendrick, Respondent, using profanity, yelled at Officers Fernandez and D'Elia in a "hostile and belligerent" manner, expressing her strong displeasure over their presence at the residence. She told them that they "had no right to be there," adding that "every time [they] show[ed] up there [they] always w[ound] up arresting her brother."4 Respondent was asked at least twice to "please move," which she finally did, albeit "in a very slow and deliberate manner." Officer Fernandez instructed Respondent to "take the children out of the residence and to wait outside until [the Team] conducted [its] search." With Respondent out of the way, Officer Fernandez and D'Elia entered the residence. Officer D'Elia spotted Mr. Kendrick "in the second bedroom on the left." Mr. Kendrick had his hand in a chest drawer. While Officer D'Elia "secured" Mr. Kendrick, Officer Fernandez searched the drawer and found "paraphernalia used for the pack[ag]ing of narcotics" and baggies containing what appeared to be cocaine and marijuana. After this discovery was made, Respondent came into the bedroom (contrary to the instructions she had been given) and asked "how much longer [the Team] had left." A conversation between Officer Fernandez and Respondent ensued, during which Officer Fernandez informed Respondent about "the narcotics that were in the drawer." Upon being so informed, Respondent, with the intent to deceive the Team, falsely claimed that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found was not her bother Javeres' bedroom. Rather, she told Officer Fernandez and the other Team members, the bedroom had last been occupied by her uncle, who "had wound up going to jail." As the Team was leading him away from the residence, Mr. Kendrick asked Respondent to "retrieve" for him from "his room" a pair of pants, socks, and tennis shoes that he could wear in jail. Complying with this request, Respondent, followed by Officer Bermudez, went straight to the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found (which was Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, contrary to what Respondent had previously claimed) and "retrieve[d]" the items her brother had requested. During her dealings with the Team that day, Respondent revealed that she was a correctional officer at BCI. Upon returning to his office, after having "finished processing Mr. Kendrick and logging in the evidence" seized from Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, Officer Fernandez complained to his supervisor about Respondent's hostile and obstructive conduct during the Team's "compliance check" at Mr. Kendrick's residence earlier that day. Inasmuch as Respondent was a DOC employee, Officer Fernandez's supervisor referred the matter for an internal affairs investigation pursuant to DOC policy. Scott Thomas, a senior prison inspector with DOC, conducted the investigation. As part of his investigation, Inspector Thomas reviewed the contents of Respondent's DOC personnel file (including the employment application she had submitted on November 27, 2000) and obtained sworn affidavits from Officers Fernandez, Bermudez, and D'Elia. In addition, on November 12, 2003, he interviewed Respondent under oath. During the interview, among other things, Respondent repeated the falsehood that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" was not her brother Javeres' bedroom. In addition, she falsely denied ever having used "profanity towards the [Team] members" conducting the "compliance check" and further falsely denied that that the Team members, during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check," ever told her to "wait outside the house." Respondent made these statements to Inspector Thomas knowing that they were not true. Inspector Thomas determined from his investigation that Respondent had "provided untruthful information" on her November 27, 2000, employment application and that she had engaged in "conduct unbecoming" a DOC employee during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" at her residence. Based on the findings of Inspector Thomas' investigation, Respondent's employment with DOC was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Allegation Two and Three and, based on these findings of guilt, revoke her certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2004.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on a perceived disability and retaliated against her in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by Respondent at the Liberty Correctional Institution (LCI). She was hired as a Correctional Officer in LCI's Security Department effective December 21, 1990. In February 1991, Petitioner was counseled regarding her failure to report for duty or to notify the institution of an intended absence. On April 1, 1996, Petitioner's supervisor counseled her regarding her failure to report to work in a timely manner. Petitioner had been tardy to work three times in March 1996. On May 30, 2001, Respondent counseled Petitioner regarding her excessive absenteeism. Petitioner had five unscheduled absences. Respondent promoted Petitioner to Correctional Officer Sergeant effective November 1, 2001. In October 24, 2003, Respondent gave Petitioner an oral reprimand for abuse of sick leave. Petitioner had developed a pattern of absenteeism in conjunction with her regular days off. In December 2004, Respondent gave Petitioner a written reprimand. The reprimand was based on Petitioner's failure to follow oral and/or written instruction, continued absenteeism, and abuse of sick leave. On July 7, 2007, Petitioner sustained an on-the-job injury. The injury was diagnosed as carpel tunnel syndrome. Petitioner underwent surgery for this condition in December 2007. On or about April 8, 2008, Petitioner reached statutory Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI). Petitioner had a Permanent Impairment Rating (PIR) of six percent. On April 15, 2008, a functional capacity evaluation revealed that Petitioner was able to perform light work with lifting restrictions. The restrictions prevented Petitioner from performing the essential functions of a Correctional Officer. Pursuant to policy, Respondent immediately conducted a job search. At that time, a Clerk Typist Specialist position was available at LCI. Petitioner was qualified to perform that job. She submitted an application for the position on or about June 5, 2008. In a letter dated June 10, 2008, Respondent offered Petitioner the Clerk Typist Specialist position in LCI's Classification Department. On June 26, 2008, Petitioner signed an Acknowledgement, accepting a voluntary demotion from Correctional Officer Sergeant to Clerk Typist Specialist and stating that she agreed to perform the duties of the new position to the best of her ability. Petitioner returned the Acknowledgement to Respondent. At the same time, Petitioner questioned whether she would be able to perform the duties of a Clerk Typist Specialist due to her carpel tunnel condition. In a letter dated June 27, 2008, Respondent requested that Petitioner take an essential functions form to a July 8, 2008, doctor's appointment. Respondent wanted the physician to complete the essential functions form and return it to Respondent by July 18, 2008. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether Petitioner was able to perform as a Clerk Typist Specialist. On or about July 24, 2008, Petitioner advised Respondent that she was going to have a nerve conduction test on July 30, 2008. She advised Respondent that she would provide the results to Respondent as soon as possible. In a letter dated August 20, 2008, Respondent advised Petitioner that, pending the results of a pre-determination conference, Petitioner could be dismissed from her employment as a Correctional Officer effective September 11, 2008. Respondent proposed this action because Petitioner had not provided Respondent with a doctor's report regarding Petitioner's ability to perform the essential functions of a Clerk Typist Specialist. A pre-determination conference was held on August 27, 2008. In a letter dated September 12, 2008, Warden Douglas advised Petitioner that she would not be dismissed because she had provided medical documentation of her ability to perform the position of a Clerk Typist Specialist. Petitioner began working in that capacity on September 19, 2008. In December 2008, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Respondent's Secretary, Walt McNeil. In the e-mail, Petitioner complained that Respondent had not returned her to work as a Correctional Officer Sergeant after being medically cleared to work in that capacity. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner had been medically released to work as a Correctional Officer in December 2008. Additionally, there is no evidence that Petitioner had made a request or filed an application to return to work as a Correctional Officer at that time. Respondent subsequently requested Petitioner's doctor to provide an updated opinion regarding Petitioner's ability to work as a Correctional Officer. On or about January 15, 2009, Petitioner's doctor approved Petitioner's return to work as a Correctional Officer with no restrictions. In a memorandum dated February 9, 2009, Respondent advised Petitioner that she was medically cleared to work as a Correctional Officer but that she would need to apply for openings. The memorandum stated that Petitioner had to be reprocessed as a Correctional Officer, including having a drug test and physical examination. The February 9, 2009, memorandum also reminded Petitioner that she would be required to serve another probationary period if she received an appointment as a Correctional Officer. There is no promotion track between the Security Department and the Classification Department. Petitioner applied for four Correctional Officer positions between February and May 2009. Two of the applications were for positions located at LCI. The third application was for a position at Calhoun Correctional Institution (CCI). The fourth application was for a position at Franklin Correctional Institution (FCI). On February 10, 2009, Warden Chris Douglas at LCI declined to interview or rehire Petitioner as a Correctional Officer for position number 7002037. Warden Douglas made this decision based on Petitioner's previous and current employment history showing attendance problems. Petitioner's testimony that she never applied for this position is not persuasive. Petitioner's application for a Correctional Officer position at FCI was never completely processed. In a letter dated April 9, 2009, Respondent advised Petitioner that she needed to provide additional information to support her application for employment in position number 70039564 at FCI. Petitioner did not respond to the request because she decided that she did not want to commute to work so far from her home. On April 23, 2009, Petitioner received her Performance Planning and Evaluation. Her direct supervisor, Kim Davis, Respondent's Classification Sentence Specialist, rated Petitioner as performing "Above Expectation" in all applicable categories. On April 30, 2009, Petitioner requested Warden Douglas to let her complete her mandatory firearm training because her weapons qualification was about to expire. Warden Douglas promptly responded that she could be scheduled to take the next firearms class. Petitioner re-qualified with specified weapons on May 11, 2009. On May 28, 2009, Petitioner was interviewed for a position as a Correctional Officer at LCI. She gave correct and appropriate answers to all questions during the interview. Even so, Warden Douglas decided not to hire Petitioner due to her past and current attendance problems. Warden Adro Johnson did not give Petitioner an interview for Correctional Officer position number 70041507 at CCI. He made his decision in July 2009 based on information indicating that Petitioner was already employed at LCI. In July 2009, Respondent's supervisor counseled Petitioner regarding her attendance. She had been absent for four unscheduled absences in the past 90 days. She had missed approximately 40 work days or eight weeks of work during the 11 months she was in the position of Clerk Typist specialist. On August 3, 2009, Petitioner filed her initial complaint with FCHR. Ms. Davis was the person who trained Petitioner as a Clerk Typist Specialist. Petitioner's job included filing documents related to approval or disapproval of inmate visitation. The original documents were sent to the inmates. Respondent was supposed to file copies of the documents in the inmates' classification files. During the time that Petitioner worked as a Clerk Typist Specialist, Ms. Davis had to counsel Petitioner approximately ten times regarding the filing of the inmate visitation documents. Ms. Davis stressed the importance of Petitioner completing her work and filing the documents in a timely manner. Additionally, Ms. Davis noted that Petitioner occasionally failed to properly file the documents. Petitioner was trained to remove duplicate copies of documents from inmate files. Duplicate copies of documents could be shredded. Petitioner was not instructed to shred the inmate visitation documents. If the documents were not legible, another copy was supposed to be made, using the copy machine to darken the print. Willie Brown is one of the Assistant Wardens at LCI. His office was close to Petitioner's work area. Assistant Warden Brown occasionally counseled Petitioner regarding the need to file the papers on her desk. On August 18, 2009, Assistant Warden Brown observed a large amount of paperwork that Petitioner had not filed. Once again, Assistant Warden Brown told Petitioner that she needed to file on a timely basis. He explained that Petitioner could file on the schedule she developed, but that it might be necessary to file everyday. Later on August 18, 2009, Heather Barfield, a Correctional Sentence Specialist, observed Petitioner feeding a large amount of paper into a shredder, causing the shredder to jam. Ms. Barfield subsequently attempted to clear the shredder jam and noticed that the papers belonged in the inmates' files. Ms. Barfield reported her observations to Assistant Warden Brown and Cynthia Swier, the Classification Supervisor. Assistant Warden Brown confirmed that the partially shredded documents were legible and should have been filed. Ms. Davis was informed about the shredding incident when she returned to work the following day. Ms. Davis verified that the shredded documents had been legible and were not duplicates of documents in the inmates' files. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner intentionally shredded the documents in order to clear her desk. Petitioner's testimony that she was shredding them because they were not legible is not credible and contrary to more persuasive evidence. On August 26, 2009, Respondent terminated Petitioner employment as a Clerk Typist Specialist. Because she was on probationary status, she had no appeal rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 11th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Gertrude Berrieum 5032 Martin Luther King Road Bristol, Florida 32321 Todd Evan Studley, Esquire 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Walter A. McNeil, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen Von Hoene, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 13-84-002-01 on July 14, 1984. On September 1, 1988, Respondent was employed as an investigator with the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit working in the misdemeanor division. While on duty and driving his employment car on the evening of September 1, 1988, Respondent was in the area of Lee Street and 20th Street in Orlando, Florida. He was in the area attempting to locate a witness as part of a criminal investigation he was conducting. He had previously made the acquaintance of a person named Ruby Burk. He would on occasion drive past her house and stop and they would talk and once previously had engaged in a sex act. On the night of September 1, 1988, he went to Burk's house, talked with her and then left on a futile attempt to locate a witness. He then returned to Burk's residence, picked her up and proceeded to a dark secluded area on an unpaved street which borders an elementary school. Shortly thereafter, while on routine patrol, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff observed Respondent sitting behind the wheel of the state vehicle in a complete state of undress. When she shined her bright lights into the vehicle, the Deputy observed the head of a black female pop up from the direction of the Petitioner's lap. The Deputy recognized Burk and observed that she was fully clothed. The Deputy permitted Respondent to put his pants on before he exited his vehicle. Respondent and Burk were engaging in fellatio in the front seat of the state vehicle. At the time of the incident, Respondent was having marital problems which caused him to be despondent. In mitigation, Respondent demonstrated that he had been a certified law enforcement officer for over four years at the time of this incident and has had no prior disciplinary problems. He has performed his job in private security and as an investigator in an exemplarily capacity. In September 1988, Respondent was discharged by the State Attorney, but was given a favorable recommendation He is presently employed as a Child Protective Investigator with HRS. He is respected by his peers and in his community. The violation of the law and rules by the Respondent was an isolated incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the following offense: Failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be suspended for a period of six months, followed by a probationary period of one year, subject to the successful completion of such career development training and counseling as the Commission may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (in part), 17, 18, 19 (in part), 21. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant: Paragraphs 7 (that Burk had been convicted of engaging in prostitution on Westmoreland Street), 11, 16 (in part), 19 (in part), 20, 22. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (in part), 6, 7. Rejected as irrelevant or as argument: Paragraphs 5, 8 and 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa L. Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Leon B. Cheek, Esquire 101 Sunnytown Road Suite 306 Casselberry, FL 32707 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice is entitled to repayment for a salary overpayment made to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department is charged with planning, coordinating, and managing the delivery of all programs and services within the juvenile justice continuum. Mr. Young was an employee of the Department during times pertinent. The Department pays its personnel every two weeks. During pay periods ending January 1, 2004; January 29, 2004, February 12, 2004; and February 26, 2004, Mr. Young, perhaps believing he could be absent using leave from the sick leave pool, did not work and did not qualify for the salary payments he received. Because state salary warrants are paid by exception, he received payments even though he did not submit a time sheet. Subsequently the Department prepared time sheets for Mr. Young. He did not sign these time sheets. By November 3, 2005, the Department determined that five warrants had been issued inappropriately and that he owed the State of Florida $3,875.34. Subsequently, the Department reviewed the records, and after taking into consideration Mr. Young's annual leave and the federal tax paid on his behalf, determined that he owed $2,214.12. The Department, through personnel records, demonstrated that this money was paid in error and should be returned by Mr. Young. Nothing in the evidence indicated otherwise.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered stating that Charles D. Young, II, owes the State of Florida $2,214.12, and requiring the repayment of said sum forthwith. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Linville Atkins, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Charles D. Young, II 5364 Young Lane Marianna, Florida 32448 Anthony Schembri, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue Did Respondent violate the provisions of Section 817.567, Florida Statutes (2004), or any lesser included offenses, Section 943.1395(6) and/or (7), Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and/or (c), by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2004), requiring maintenance of good moral character?
Findings Of Fact Undisputed Facts: Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September 5, 1995, and was issued Correctional Certificate Number 157626. Additional Facts: Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A11 is a copy of an interoffice memorandum from Respondent to the "Personnel Dept." This reference to the personnel department is taken to refer to the Florida Department of Corrections, in view of other proof in this record. The interoffice memorandum goes on to describe as the subject "transcript and diploma." The interoffice memorandum says "I have enclosed a copy of my diploma and transcript. Please place these in my personnel file and update my records and incentive. Thank you, W.S.D." The exhibit reflects in a handwritten note of unknown origins, "This diploma & transcript are ineligible for CJIP because this is not an accredited college." Nothing else in this record describes the nature of the transcript and diploma referred to in the interoffice memorandum concerning the particulars of the transcript and diploma that was mentioned on January 31, 1999, nor can it be reasonably inferred. As evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A15, Respondent prepared and signed an employment application with the Florida Department of Corrections for the position of Correctional Probation Officer on June 14, 2004. In the course of this application Respondent listed under the section related to college university or professional school "Southern Mississippi" at "Hattiesburg, Mississippi", which he allegedly attended from August 1996 through August 2003, participating in a course of study referred to as "Criminal Justice" at which, according to the application, he earned an M.S. degree. In fact Respondent had never attended the University of Southern Mississippi as explained in correspondence dated July 6, 2004, from Greg Pierce, University Registrar at the University of Southern Mississippi directed to Terry Foskey, a payroll specialist with the Department of Corrections, Region I Service Center, who had inquired of the University of Southern Mississippi concerning Respondent's status as a student. This correspondence is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A9. Moreover, a transcript, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A3, which Mr. Foskey had supplied a verification specialist in the registrar's office at the University of Southern Mississippi, Trudy Stewart or Steward, was found not to resemble a transcript from that university, as explained by Mr. Pierce in his correspondence. The transcript, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A3, had been received by Mr. Foskey on June 28, 2004. Mr. Foskey was uncertain of the information contained in the transcript. This led to his inquiry to the University of Southern Mississippi, with the determination being made that the transcript did not come from that university. While Mr. Foskey was attempting to clarify the status of the transcript with the University of Southern Mississippi, he was contacted by Respondent who asked if Mr. Foskey had received the transcript. Mr. Foskey replied that he had and asked what Respondent wanted done with that transcript. Respondent answered that he had pulled up information on a program known as ATMS, which the Florida Department of Law Enforcement uses to track certified officers, Respondent among them. As a result Respondent said that he needed this document, meaning the transcript, entered into the ATMS because he was transferring from his present position into another position he referred to as security. There was a series of e-mails as reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A8 from Respondent to Mr. Foskey. The first was on July 1, 2004. It says "Per telephone call, please place information in ATMS 2 and in my personnel file Thanks." Then the name and position of Respondent as Classification Officer at Santa Rosa CI-119 is provided. On that same date another e-mail was dispatched from Mr. Foskey back to Respondent which said "Thank you for the follow-up." As reflected in the exhibit, on July 7, 2004, Respondent sent an e- mail to Mr. Foskey, with the subject line being "Re: Transcript," which said in its text, "Mr. Foskey, how long does it take for the information to be entered into ATMS 2?" The change in employment position by Respondent that was being described for Mr. Foskey related to the application, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A15. Pertinent to this inquiry, the Correctional Probation Officer job being sought by Respondent required a bachelor's degree level of education as a prerequisite to filling the position. The reference made by Respondent to the M.S. degree from University of Southern Mississippi is perceived as Respondent's attempt to show that he had the necessary level of education to apply for the job. In relation to his pursuit of the Correctional Probation Officer position, on June 8, 2004, Respondent had filed a request for demotion with the Regional I Service Center Department of Corrections for personal reasons, requesting permission to move from his position of Senior Classification Officer to that of Correctional Probation Officer. This is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A15A. As a result of the incident concerning the purported transcript from the University of Southern Mississippi, the Department of Corrections, Office of the Inspector General investigated. That investigation was conducted by David Ellis. In a discussion between Mr. Ellis and Respondent concerning the subject transcript, Respondent acknowledged that he had the documentation sent to personnel, taken to mean the personnel office with the Department of Corrections. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that he had requested that the transcript be sent to personnel and had supplied information to a company to have it sent. Respondent did not remember the name of the company, as he explained to Mr. Ellis. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that he had read a personnel memorandum on the Department of Corrections website about a university in southern Florida that would accept life experience for college credits and that he, meaning Respondent, searched the web and found that the University of Southern Mississippi did likewise. The memorandum about the university in southern Florida, refers to Florida Southern College, and is found to be that as reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered A5. Respondent then sent an e-mail to the internet company requesting information about college degrees. The company sent him a package explaining the process and he sent something back about his life experiences, with a check of $800.00 and a list of other college credits earned elsewhere. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that he then received the subject transcript at his home from the University of Southern Mississippi on a later date. This is found to be as arranged through the internet company. The transcript that he received at home, Respondent compared to the one that had been received by Mr. Foskey and Respondent told Mr. Ellis they were the same with the exception that his transcript copy had a seal in the middle. Respondent acknowledged to Mr. Ellis that he had not taken any of the courses on the transcript that has been described and had not earned any grades for any of those courses reflected on the transcript. When Mr. Ellis asked Respondent why he would send something to personnel that he had never officially done, Respondent replied because he thought it was all right. Mr. Ellis asked Respondent to give him information about the internet company that Respondent had referred to and any information regarding payment to that company by Respondent. Respondent called Mr. Ellis back and told him that the name of the company was CustomDegrees.com. It is found that Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 is information from CustomDegrees.com that Respondent relied on. Nothing about this information from CustomDegrees.com provided to Respondent, and for which Respondent paid a service fee, could reasonably be interpreted to serve as the functional equivalent of having earned the degree from the University of Southern Mississippi for which Respondent intended to take credit. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A3A constitutes a handwritten educational history which Respondent provided to CustomDegrees.com for them to provide the degree which was falsely portrayed as having been issued by the University of Southern Mississippi.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding violations of the Statutes and Rules referred to and suspending Respondent's Correctional Certificate Number 157626 for 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry, P.A. 1308-B Dunmire Street Pensacola, Florida 32504 Michael Crews, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that he is of good moral character, and should be granted an exemption from employment disqualification, thereby allowing him to work in a position of special trust or responsibility pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1995, the Orlando Police Department responded to an emergency call from Petitioner's residence. Petitioner was arrested and charged with domestic violence, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. The domestic violence and false imprisonment charges were subsequently dropped. Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the reduced misdemeanor charge of simple assault upon his wife, an act of domestic violence. On September 18, 1996, adjudication of guilt was withheld by the Orange County Circuit Court. Petitioner was given credit for 43 days time served in the Orange County Jail. He was also ordered to pay court costs. Petitioner was not placed on probation and was not ordered to attend domestic violence counseling. Petitioner disputes the narrative contained in the charging affidavit and claims that at no time did he threaten his wife, and that the firearm was present in the room only for cleaning, and was not displayed inappropriately. Petitioner's description of the events is not credible. Petitioner began work as a detention care worker at the Orange Regional Juvenile Detention Center in October 1995. The position required a level 2 background screening be conducted. On August 23, 1996, Petitioner submitted an affidavit of Good Moral Character which did not disclose his arrest or sentence. In August of 1996, a background screening request packet was submitted to the Background Screening Unit of Respondent's Inspector General's office. A preliminary FCIC/NCIC screening check conducted on Petitioner revealed that he had a disqualifying offense (assault on a spouse). His background screening received a rating of "Unfavorable Disqualifying." In a letter from Respondent dated August 7, 1997, Petitioner was notified that he had been disqualified and was, therefore, ineligible to work in a caretaker's position with Respondent. This disqualification was based upon the 1995 domestic assault charge. Petitioner is a 52-year-old Divinity School graduate and former church minister. Petitioner holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Bethune-Cookman College in Daytona Beach, and a Master of Divinity Degree from Morehouse School of Religion in Atlanta. Prior to commencing his employment with Respondent, Petitioner had successfully worked with juveniles for many years in a variety of capacities, to-wit: school teacher, counselor, youth group leader, civic leader, and minister. Petitioner received numerous awards and certificates documenting his involvement with and commitment to the welfare of his community and of juveniles in particular. After starting his work as a Detention Care Worker at the Orlando Regional Juvenile Detention Center, several Juvenile Detention Center workers in both supervisory and co-worker roles testified to the exceptional quality and caliber of Petitioner's work with juveniles. Since the alleged incident of domestic violence three years ago, no claim of any other alleged illegal conduct has been made against Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy Terry, Esquire 1407 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 536914 Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynne Winston, Esquire Inspector General's Office 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's temporary directive, which requires probation officers to request and obtain supervisor approval on a case-by-case basis before incurring travel expenses for certain field visits, meets the definition of a "rule" in section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ which should have been promulgated as such.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency with "supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of the inmates, buildings, grounds, and property, and all other matters pertaining to [specified correctional facilities and programs] for the imprisonment, correction, and rehabilitation of adult offenders[.]" § 945.025(1), Fla. Stat. (setting forth Respondent's jurisdiction). By far, Respondent's resources, including personnel, are primarily devoted to Respondent's responsibilities over correctional facilities and programs. There are approximately 17,000 certified officers on the correctional institution side. Respondent also is the state agency responsible for supervising offenders who are granted conditional release from incarceration or who are granted parole by the Parole Commission (chapter 947, Florida Statutes), as well as the state agency responsible for supervising probationers placed on probation (or in community control, known commonly as house arrest) by a court (chapter 948, Florida Statutes). Collectively, persons who have been conditionally released, parolees, and probationers will be referred to as "offenders." A relatively small percentage of Respondent's resources, including personnel, are devoted to the supervision of offenders. There are approximately 2,100 certified parole and probation officers providing community supervision. Organizationally, Respondent's supervisory functions fall under the umbrella of Community Corrections. The supervision of offenders statewide is divided into a northern and southern region, each covering ten of the state's 20 judicial circuits. Each region is headed by a regional director, who oversees the supervision of offenders within the region's ten judicial circuits. Each of the 20 judicial circuits has a circuit administrator. Each circuit also used to have a deputy circuit administrator, but that position was eliminated in 2009. Reporting to the circuit administrators are probation supervisors, who supervise and coordinate the activities of individual probation officers and probation officer specialists. Offenders are assigned to certified probation officers and probation officer specialists, who directly carry out the supervisory functions. See § 948.01(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (an offender on probation or community control is to be supervised by an officer meeting the qualifications in section 943.13, Fla. Stat.). A probation officer specialist is a probation officer with a certain level of experience to whom the offenders with the most serious criminal records are assigned. Unless otherwise specified, the term probation officer will be used, in the broad sense, to include both probation officers and the more experienced probation officer specialists. In carrying out its community supervisory functions, Respondent's goals are all of the following: to ensure compliance with the conditions of supervision imposed by the court or by the Parole Commission; to ensure public safety; to foster rehabilitation of the offender; and to reduce or eliminate future victimization. Probationers may be placed on probation, in lieu of incarceration, or as part of a split sentence that includes incarceration followed by probation. §§ 948.011 and 948.012. The starting place for supervision of a probationer is the court's order of supervision, which specifies the terms and conditions of probation. Respondent is charged with preparing a form order of supervision for the courts to use. § 948.01(1)(b). The form order prepared by Respondent and used by the courts reflects the standard conditions of probation which may be imposed by the courts, enumerated in section 948.03. The form order also provides options for the court to exercise its authority and discretion to impose special terms and conditions. See, e.g., §§ 948.031 through 948.039. The standard conditions of probation that may be imposed by a court in its order of supervision are broadly worded and general in nature and include the following: Report to the probation and parole supervisors as directed. Permit such supervisors to visit him in his or her home or elsewhere. Work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as possible. Remain within a specified place. Live without violating the law. The statutes and standard terms of probation do not dictate or specify how, precisely, Respondent is to carry out its supervisory function in monitoring offenders to serve the goal of ensuring compliance with these terms. The concept of "supervision" is not quantified, such as by specifying how often an offender must report to his or her probation officer or whether and how often probation officers may or will visit an offender in his or her home or elsewhere. A court's order of supervision could theoretically provide a condition specifying that a probationer must go to his or her probation officer's office twice a month or five times a month. However, the one sample order of supervision entered in evidence in this case did not impose any such terms quantifying the number of office visits or other visits that the unidentified probationer had to make with his or her probation officer. With respect to "supervision," section 948.12 provides a distinction for violent offenders who are on probation following incarceration by providing that these offenders "shall be provided intensive supervision by experienced probation officers." However, just as the statutes do not purport to specify or quantify what is meant by "supervision," there is no statutory specification for what is meant by "intensive supervision." Respondent has had, apparently as far back as 2002, internal procedures in place to provide detailed processes for probation officers to follow in carrying out their duty to supervise offenders assigned to them. These procedures are published in a 41-page document called Procedure 302.303, which Respondent considers a "restricted access" document for internal use only. One subject addressed in Procedure 302.303 is an offender classification system. The current classification system was designed in-house and then validated by the Florida State University School of Criminology. The system considers a number of variables and is used by Respondent as a way to group offenders in an effort to ensure that supervision is provided at a level commensurate with the danger or risk the offender represents to the community. This offender classification system, which is not promulgated as a rule, is not the subject of Petitioner's challenge. Procedure 302.303 also addresses the subject of contacts expected to be made by a probation officer with individual offenders assigned to the officer. In general terms, Procedure 302.303 specifies minimum contacts, by type and frequency, that probation officers are expected to make, or try to make, for each of their assigned offenders. The types of contacts include office visits, meaning the offender comes into the probation officer's office for a meeting; other kinds of visits, scheduled or unscheduled, when the probation officer travels outside the office to visit or attempt to visit the offender in his home, in his place of employment, or another place; and field visits with third parties, when the probation officer travels outside the office to visit or attempt to visit the offender's employer, treatment providers, family, neighbors, or other third persons who might have information about the offender. Different minimum contact requirements, by type and frequency, are provided for each of the different offender risk classification categories in Procedure 302.303. The minimum contact standards are performance standards that apply to probation officers; without the minimum contact requirements, some probation officers might do less than the minimum. These minimum contact standards, which have not been promulgated as a rule, are also not the subject of Petitioner's challenge. Instead, Petitioner's challenge is directed to a recent temporary directive by Respondent that suspended some aspects of the (unpromulgated) minimum contact standards in Procedure 302.303. In lieu of these minimum contact standards, Respondent's directive provides that probation officers need to request and receive permission of their supervisors on a case-by- case basis to incur travel expenses for certain field visits. As a related part of the directive, supervisors are given discretion to approve travel expenses for any field visit if there is reason to believe there may be a violation of a condition of supervision or if there is reason to believe that there is a threat to public safety. The challenged directives were first communicated verbally on February 29, 2012, in a telephone conference call between Jenny Nimer, assistant secretary of Community Corrections, and the Community Corrections regional directors, and then reduced to writing in the following memorandum dated March 2, 2012, on the subject of "Reduced Travel" (Reduced Travel Memo) from Assistant Secretary Nimer to Community Corrections regional directors and circuit administrators: On 2/29/12 directives were provided for adjustments to be made on some non-critical supervision activities. As these directives are temporary and related to "restricted" policy areas they were given verbally; existing written policy will not be changed. Our goal is to reduce the travel budget by focusing on mission critical activities without compromising public safety. Travel related to core operational duties will continue; however all travel will be reviewed for efficiency. NO adjustments have been made to travel that involves investigation of known or suspected violations, violation proceedings/subpoenas, investigations or instruction of offenders in correctional facilities. Adjustments are focused on reduction of department established minimum contact standards and administrative duties. There is an urgent need to reduce travel costs for the remainder of the fiscal year; however public safety is the utmost priority and supervisors maintain the discretion to approve any travel that is needed to accomplish officer safety and protection of the community. For the months that adjustments are in place (March, April, May and June) officers will annotate electronic field notes for offenders requiring field contacts during the month, as follows: CN--"Contact Standards Adjusted". Alternative methods to verify (and re-verify) residence and employment during this period, including making telephone calls to the landlord and employer or instructing the offender to provide bills and paychecks to show proof of residence and employment will be utilized. Contact codes for purposes of electronic case notes for residence and employment verification will be HV, EN, or EV and text should indicate the alternative method utilized for verification. Planned Compliance Initiatives will continue; partnerships established with local law enforcement remain essential to enhance surveillance and contacts made in the community. These contacts should always be documented in case notes. Circuit Administrators are directed to reach out to judiciary, state attorney and law enforcement to ensure that they are aware of the limited scope of this reduction and that contacts required to ensure offender supervision and/or threats to public safety will not be compromised. Thank you for your cooperation during this difficult time. The Reduced Travel Memo was distributed to probation officers as the means by which Respondent communicated to its probation officers that they would not be expected to comply with all of the minimum contact requirements set forth in Procedure 302.303 between March 1, 2012, through the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2012. The expectation was, at the time of the challenged statement, that this cost-saving measure was temporary and that the (unpromulgated) minimum contact requirements in Procedure 302.303 would resume as of the new fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. As of the final hearing on June 6, 2012, Respondent's expectation was unchanged. The announced temporary replacement of minimum contact requirements based on risk category with a procedure for supervisor review and approval of field contacts remained just that--temporary--and the expectation was that the minimum contact standards set forth in Procedure 302.303 would resume for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. Petitioner hinted at, but offered no evidence to prove the notion that Respondent did not really intend to resume the minimum contact standards in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012.4/ The Reduced Travel Memo and a March 2, 2012, letter from Secretary Kenneth S. Tucker (Tucker Letter), represent the challenged agency statements in that these two documents memorialize the temporary directive.5/ As explained in the Tucker Letter: Due to a 79 million dollar deficit, the Department has had to make temporary modifications to field contact requirements in order to reduce travel expenditures by probation officers. . . . Our probation officers will continue to make field contacts with sex offenders and community control offenders in order to closely monitor sex offender conditions and/or house arrest requirements. Probation officers will continue to monitor other supervised offenders' compliance with conditions of supervision and probationers will still be required to meet monthly with their probation officer at the office. In addition, probation officers will make field contacts in the community as necessary to investigate non-compliance or possible violations. Probation officers will also continue to participate with law enforcement in Planned Compliance Initiative (PCI's) in the community. Probation officers will use this opportunity to spend more time with offenders in the office or on the telephone, assisting with job referrals or other resources and services needed. Community Corrections undertook an analysis of its budget in an effort to identify expenditures where cost savings might be realized to help reduce the budget deficit. The three significant budget categories of expenditures were salaries, leases, and expenses. There had been a hiring freeze in place for some time already, and so an effort was made to not cut personnel to save salary costs. There also had been a concerted effort to reduce lease costs by consolidating offices to eliminate some leases. The viable short-term option to cut costs for the remainder of the fiscal year was in the expense category, which was predominately travel reimbursement. It was determined that, over the year, Community Corrections was averaging between $250,000 and $300,000 per month in travel reimbursement. Some travel reimbursement had already been reduced before the temporary directive challenged here. For example, Community Corrections personnel, including probation officers, might travel to participate in training programs. However, training had already been greatly limited. Some travel reimbursement could not be reduced, such as reimbursing probation officers for necessary travel for court appearances. In these instances, efforts were made to use state cars and to encourage carpooling, if possible. Community Corrections assessed the number of field contacts and attempted contacts that were being made by probation officers to comply with Respondent's minimum contact standards and the travel reimbursement associated with them (i.e., the contacts). Respondent estimated that its temporary directive, challenged here, would reduce travel costs by $150,000 per month for each of the four months in which the directives would be in place. In total, Respondent expected to save $600,000. Respondent's actual experience following issuance of the Reduced Travel Memo and Tucker Letter shows that Respondent's estimates were on target. In February 2012--the last month before the temporary suspension of some of the minimum contact standards--travel reimbursement totaled $277,000. After switching to a procedure of case-by-case probation officer request and supervisor review to approve field visits, travel reimbursement was down to $99,000 in March 2012, a savings of $187,000, compared to February. In April 2012, travel reimbursement dropped to $80,000. The evidence established that the discretion afforded probation supervisors in the Reduced Travel Memo is true discretion vested in supervisors to review requests and act on a case-by-case basis to approve field visits. That discretion has been exercised on numerous occasions to authorize a field contact. There was no evidence of any probation officer having submitted a request to make a field visit to investigate a possible violation of a probation condition or where there was a public safety issue that was not approved by his or her supervisor. To the contrary, the evidence established that requests are being made and leeway is being provided to probation officers to travel, if they can articulate a reason for doing so. However, for one or two probation officers who do not accept that they must request approval and justify their travel expense on a case-by-case basis and who simply ask for block reinstatement of the minimum contact standards, without articulating any reason why field visits are needed for particular offenders, those requests have been denied. As the Reduced Travel Memo and Tucker Letter suggest, there are other tools available to probation officers besides incurring the expense of field visits, which are often equally effective to accomplish the goal. For example, a field visit to an offender's employer is certainly one way to verify employment and to verify the offender's attendance, but telephone calls may well suffice to obtain the same information at much lower costs. There are also other ways to attempt to verify residence besides a personal home visit. An offender can be required to present documentation, such as a utility bill, rental agreement, or pay stub showing the offender's address. An offender can be made to come in for office visits more frequently than once a month. A probation officer can telephone the offender frequently, and the voice mail message or background noise may give some reason to believe there is a need for a field visit. A probation officer can call family members and neighbors to check on an offender and to verify information. A probation officer can enlist the help of a local law enforcement officer to check on an offender. In short, for the period of Respondent's urgent need to reduce costs, probation officers have been asked to work a little harder and more creatively from their desks, while reserving travel expenses for field visits to the cases where they have some reason to think a field visit is needed. Petitioner presented the testimony of one probation officer specialist, Kimberly Schultz. As a specialist, this officer handles a case load disproportionately made up of sex offender probationers (for whom the temporary directives did not suspend minimum contact standards) and the next category down on the risk scale--maximum offenders. Officer Schultz testified that she believes that public safety is best served by the old minimum contact standards in (unpromulgated) Policy 302.303. Officer Schultz suggested, but failed to prove, that public safety is compromised by the temporary directive. Under the temporary directive, Officer Schultz has only requested approval once from her supervisor to make a field contact based on a suspicion she developed that the offender may be in violation of his probation requirements. That single request was approved. Officer Schultz did not identify any instance in which public safety was jeopardized because a field contact was not allowed. Instead, Officer Schultz spoke to the increased possibility that allowing more travel to make surprise visits to offenders' homes or places of employment would reveal suspicious behavior or incorrect information. Certainly, Officer Schultz has the experience to draw on to offer the view that, in a general sense, increased field visits would serve to increase the possibility of discovering probation violations or other issues with offenders. In an ideal situation with unlimited resources, a probation officer following every move an offender makes could well come to find that the offender is not "liv[ing} without violating the law," as required in a standard probation condition. However, such an ideal situation obviously does not exist. Instead, Respondent has taken action to manage its limited resources. The evidence did not show that Respondent's temporary directive has threatened public safety. Officer Schultz attempted to suggest that, in the single instance when she requested a field contact, she would have discovered sooner that the offender was not living where he said he was, if she had made the minimum field contacts under Procedure 302.303. Her testimony did not bear that out. Officer Schultz testified that an offender assigned to her in March 2012, came in for the required office visits in March and in April, and he filled out the required monthly reports giving his address, telephone number, and other contact information. When the offender came in for his May office visit, the offender was supposed to stay for a drug test, but he left. Officer Schultz tried to call the offender at the number he had provided to check to see if he had misunderstood. That is when she learned that the phone number the offender had given her "wasn't a good number." Officer Schultz requested and was given approval to incur travel to investigate and learned, then, that the offender was not living where he said he was. While Officer Schultz contends that, in the above example, a field visit to verify the offender's address would have identified the problem sooner, Officer Schultz admitted that she had not previously tried to call the offender. Indeed, she said that she never calls her offenders on their cell phones. Thus, instead of incurring travel expense for a field visit, Officer Schultz could have attempted to verify the offender's office report immediately in March through other ways, such as calling the phone number provided and learning much sooner that the offender had provided a phone number that was not good. Officer Schultz might have checked for a home phone number associated with the address the offender gave; she learned when she went there that the offender's cousin lived there, and the cousin volunteered that the offender did not live there. Officer Schultz could have required this offender, and could require all of her offenders, to come into the office multiple times per month. She could have required this offender to bring in a utility bill for his residence, whether in his name or someone else's name. Had Officer Schultz tried alternative verification means, she may have been able to contact the cousin sooner. It was evident from Officer Schultz' testimony that she has become accustomed to operating under the guidance provided in unpromulgated Procedure 302.303 and does not like being asked temporarily to work harder and more creatively from her office to find other ways to conduct surveillance and monitor offenders that do not cost Respondent as much in travel expenses as her travel in the field used to. It seemed that rather than trying to replace the field visit time with alternative investigation techniques, Officer Schultz has done little to fill the gap with constructive methods to monitor her offenders using alternative means. Indeed, when Officer Schultz was asked how she was making use of her new-found office time since she is spending less time in the field, her first response was, "I'm organizing my closed files." Officer Schultz expressed concern that a probation officer could be subject to discipline if he or she were to not follow the temporary directive. However, there was no evidence that any probation officer had refused to request supervisor review and approval for a field visit, much less that discipline resulted. Officer Shultz did not represent that she had refused to follow the temporary directive or that she intended to in the few weeks remaining in the fiscal year. Petitioner's representative testified that the temporary directive harms its 2,100 certified probation officer members, although the directive does not apply to the other approximately 17,000 certified members who serve on the correctional institution side of Respondent. Thus, the temporary directive applies to only about 12 percent of Petitioner's members. Nonetheless, Petitioner's representative asserted that its members are affected by the temporary directive because they are all members of communities with a concern for public safety.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether the Petitioner is eligible for an exemption from disqualification to work in a position of special trust pursuant to the terms of Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner has worked as a certified nursing assistant at Highland Pines Rehabilitation and Nursing Center in Clearwater for the past six years. A recommendation letter from the Director of Nursing characterizes Petitioner as an excellent, reliable, and trustworthy employee. Petitioner is disqualified from working in a position of special trust as a result of a 1991 conviction for grand theft under Section 812.014, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was also been convicted of petit theft in the same case. Both crimes involved passing forged checks. She was initially given a sentence of four years probation, but was imprisoned in 1992 for violation of her probation conditions. In 1996, Petitioner was found guilty of welfare fraud in violation of Section 409.325(1), Florida Statutes (1995). She was placed on community control for a period of one year, to be followed by three years of probation. A letter from the Department of Corrections indicates that Petitioner’s probation is now scheduled to terminate on April 18, 2000, with a possibility of early termination provided all conditions have been satisfied. Petitioner has not violated the terms of her probation on this conviction. Petitioner testified that her criminal activities were due to “financial difficulties” and drug use. She testified that she now believes herself to be rehabilitated and ready to put her past behind her. Petitioner testified that she has not entered into any sort of structural rehabilitation program or received counseling in connection with her rehabilitation efforts. Her testimony was essentially that she has turned her life around on her own. Petitioner applied to Respondent for an exemption. A hearing was held by the Exemption Review Committee on February 17, 1998. The Exemption Review Committee recommended to the District Administrator that the requested exemption be denied. After reviewing the record and the Exemption Review Committee’s recommendation, the District Administrator concurred with the committee’s recommendation and denied Petitioner’s request by letter dated March 18, 1998. Upon consideration of all available information and the record of Petitioner’s adjudication for felony theft and her current placement on probation for welfare fraud, the District Administrator concluded that, due to the serious nature of the adjudications and her current probationary status, there has not been sufficient opportunity for Petitioner to demonstrate rehabilitation. Petitioner failed to offer any evidence of her rehabilitation, beyond her testimony that she has changed her ways and the fact that she has thus far served her current probation without incident. While several years have passed since the grand theft conviction that compelled disqualification, Petitioner’s subsequent history is also relevant to Respondent’s decision. Petitioner’s conviction in 1996 of welfare fraud certainly provided Respondent with reason to believe that Petitioner had not demonstrated rehabilitation.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order denying Petitioner an exemption to work in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Susan Floyd, pro se 13149 119th Street North Largo, Florida 33778 Amy V. Archibald, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 100 Largo, Florida 33778-1630 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Two, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002), by unlawfully soliciting a woman to commit prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a certified correctional officer since 1990. He holds Correctional Certificate Number 53627. On December 8, 1999, Respondent was operating his motor vehicle in a light rain in the vicinity of 68th Avenue and 17th Street at approximately 8:45 p.m. He saw a young female standing alongside the road. Respondent stopped his car and rolled down the passenger side window. He asked the woman if she needed a ride. She replied, "Do I ride?" This response implied to Respondent that she would assume the superior position in any sexual activity. Respondent repeated his initial question, and the woman replied with the same answer. The woman was a police officer who was conducting a prostitution sting operation with other officers, who were not visible to Respondent. The woman did not testify, and the other officers did not hear the conversation that took place between the woman and Respondent, so the sole source of the conversation is Respondent, who testified at the hearing and gave a statement to investigators. The conversation as described in these findings of fact is derived entirely from Respondent. Respondent replied to the woman, "I got $20." The woman asked, "For what?" Respondent answered, "For a fuck." The woman asked Respondent would he give her a ride back to their current location, and Respondent assured her that he would. The woman then turned away, explaining to Respondent that she was getting her pocketbook, but actually signalling to her fellow officers to take down Respondent. Respondent had felt that something was wrong and had started to drive away, but the officers quickly apprehended him. Following his arrest, Respondent was charged with soliciting a prostitution. However, he completed a pretrial diversion program, and the State Attorney's Office dismissed the case.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and revoking his correctional officer certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Laurie Beth Binder Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William Chennault Chennault Attorneys & Counsellors at Law Post Office Box 1097 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302-1097
