Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Ronald Winkfield was employed as a detention care worker with the Hillsborough Regional Juvenile Detention Center in February of 1982, and was assigned to work the midnight to 8:00 A.M. shift. On or about June 8, 1981, Mr. Winkfield was involved in an automobile accident, received injuries and returned to work on or about August 17, 1981. He claims that he still suffers severe headaches as a result of the accident and that his work with delinquents caused him mental strain. The logs of the Detention Center illustrate that Mr. Winkfield missed four days of work during the first week of February, and called in sick on the first two of those four days. On February 7, 8, 9 and 10, 1982, Mr. Winkfield again did not appear for duty and did not call in sick on any of those days. Employees of the Detention Center working the midnight to 8:00 A.M. shift were instructed to call in before 6:00 P.M. if they were not going to report for work that night. Petitioner admits that he did not report for work on February 7, 8, 9 or 10, 1982, and that he did not call in on those dates to report his absence. He explains that he did not call in because an employee told him during the first week of February that she would not accept his calls unless he brought in a doctor's certificate stating that he was unable to work. About 11:45 P.M. on February 10, 1982, Mr. Winkfield was seen at a doughnut shop getting out of a Tampa Tribune truck. Petitioner was employed by the Tampa Tribune to deliver papers in February of 1982. A week or two before February 7, 1982, a personnel officer discussed with Mr. Winkfield the procedure for obtaining time off without pay. Mr. Winkfield never formally applied for leave without pay. By letter dated February 12, 1982, the Assistant Supervisor of the Hillsborough Regional Juvenile Detention Center advised Mr. Winkfield that he was deemed to have abandoned his position and to have resigned from the Career Service because of his failure to report to work for four consecutive workdays without authorized leave.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered concluding that petitioner Ronald Winkfield has abandoned his position of employment and resigned from the Career Service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Winkfield 5914 82nd Street Tampa, Florida 33619 Amelia M. Park, Esquire District VI Legal Counsel Department of HRS 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 David Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, failed to maintain good moral character as required by chapter 943, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.011, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional officers and taking disciplinary action against them for failing to maintain good moral character as required by section 943.13(7). § 943.1395, Fla. Stat. (2009).2/ Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by Petitioner on July 8, 2009, and holds Correctional Certificate Number 284876. In February through May, 2010, the time frame relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at Miami-Dade Correctional Institute ("Miami-Dade CI"). Incident Giving Rise to this Proceeding On or about July 29, 2010, Captain Eric Parrish, a midnight shift supervisor at Miami-Dade CI, convened a meeting of several employees under his supervision. Among those present at the meeting were Respondent and Officer Demetrices Demeritte. The purpose of the meeting was to address rumors regarding alleged sexual activity among staff members while present or on duty at Miami-Dade CI.3/ Ultimately, these rumors were determined to be unsubstantiated. However, at the meeting, Demeritte informed Parrish that Respondent had exposed his penis to her while they both were on duty at Miami-Dade CI. Respondent verbally admitted at the meeting that he did show Demeritte his penis, but stated that she had wanted to see it. Parrish ordered everyone in attendance at the meeting to complete an incident report after the close of the meeting.4/ Consistent with Petitioner's standard practice regarding the completion of incident reports, Parrish requested that the reports be submitted by the end of the shift.5/ This gave the employees approximately four hours to complete their reports. Ultimately, Parrish collected completed incident reports from all in attendance at the meeting, including Respondent. In his incident report, Respondent stated that he and Demeritte had engaged in discussions regarding sexual matters on more than one occasion. Respondent acknowledged that he exposed his penis to Demeritte on one occasion when they had discussed its size, and that upon seeing it, Demeritte took off in her post vehicle. The next day she asked him not to do that again because he was not "her man." Respondent stated that he apologized to Demeritte and considered the matter resolved between them as friends. Based on the information provided in the incident reports, Parrish recommended that Respondent and others be reviewed for disciplinary action. On or about December 6, 2011, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, alleging that he had failed to maintain good moral character, as required by section 943.17, by having engaged in acts that constitute indecent exposure pursuant to section 800.03. Violation of section 800.03 is a misdemeanor of the first degree. § 800.03, Fla. Stat. (2009). There is no evidence in the record that Respondent was arrested or prosecuted for, convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to, a violation of section 800.03. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing At hearing, Demeritte testified that while she and Respondent were on duty inspecting the fence line or refueling vehicles or at other posts, Respondent exposed his penis to her on four separate occasions. In doing so, he would tell her to "look" and would watch her while exposing himself. Demeritte testified that on one of these occasions, he stroked his penis. Demeritte testified that she was uncomfortable and offended by Respondent's actions, that she considered his actions vulgar, and that on each occasion, she drove away. After she finally confronted Respondent, he apologized and never exposed himself to her again. The undersigned finds Demeritte's testimony credible and persuasive. Demeritte reported the incidents to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, not until the July 29, 2010, meeting did she report the incidents to Petitioner. Demeritte claimed that she did not report the incidents due to a "breach of confidentiality." No specific explanation was provided regarding what the breach of confidentiality entailed or why it deterred Demeritte from reporting the incidents before July 29, 2010. At the hearing, Respondent recanted his statement in his July 29, 2010, incident report that he had exposed his penis to Demeritte on one occasion. Respondent testified that the statements in his report were "sarcastic" and that he had needed more time to complete his incident report. However, Parrish credibly testified that near the end of the shift, Respondent told him he was still working on the incident report, but that at the end of the shift, Respondent provided the completed, signed, dated report and did not ask for more time to complete the report. Respondent denied having exposed his penis to Demeritte while on duty, and testified that he previously had performed as a dancer at private functions and that she may have seen his penis under those circumstances. Respondent's testimony on these points was not credible. Consistent with his incident report, Respondent testified that he and Demeritte engaged in discussions of a sexual nature on several occasions. There is no other evidence in the record directly corroborating or refuting this claim. However, the evidence does establish that around the time of the incidents at issue in this proceeding, there was discussion of, and rumors regarding, sexual matters between officers employed on the midnight shift at Miami-Dade CI. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds credible Respondent's account that he and Demeritte engaged in discussions of a sexual nature. The undersigned does not find credible any claim by Respondent that Demeritte wanted or asked him to expose his penis to her. However, the undersigned finds it plausible that Respondent may not have understood that Demeritte was offended by his actions, particularly if they engaged in discussions of a sexual nature, and also given that she did not tell him, until after the fourth incident, to not expose himself to her. Indeed, once she told him not to expose himself to her, his behavior ceased and he apologized. There is no evidence in the record that Respondent previously has been subject to disciplinary action by Petitioner. Findings of Ultimate Fact Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent exposed his penis to Demeritte on four separate occasions, in violation of section 800.03, and that in doing so, he failed to maintain good moral character, as required by section 943.13(7). Respondent's behavior in exposing himself to Demeritte was inappropriate and unacceptable. However, the undersigned finds that the circumstances afoot around the time of Respondent's actions——specifically, discussions and rumors of sexual matters between staff, discussions of a sexual nature between Respondent and Demeritte, and the fact that Demeritte did not tell Respondent to stop exposing himself to her until after he had done so four times——may have created an atmosphere that led Respondent, mistakenly, to believe that such behavior was not a significant departure from the accepted norm on the Miami-Dade CI midnight shift at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order suspending Respondent's correctional officer certification for a period of six months, imposing two years' probation, and ordering Respondent to undergo counseling. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 6th day of August, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, failed to maintain good moral character by pleading guilty to the felony charge of child neglect pursuant to Subsection 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (2002), as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Veronica A. Smith, is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. She was issued Correctional Officer Certificate No. 135464 on December 11, 1992. Respondent was employed by the Lee County Sheriff's Office as a correctional officer during the period September 21, 1992, through June 24, 2002. On or about June 12, 2002, Respondent was charged by Information with two counts of felony child neglect in violation of Subsection 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (2002), by the state attorney for the Twentieth Circuit Court, Lee County, Florida. On or about May 27, 2003, Respondent, while represented by counsel and in open court, withdrew her previous plea of "not guilty" to the Information and entered a plea of guilty to one count of felony child neglect before the circuit court for Lee County, Florida, State of Florida v. Veronica Smith, Case No. 02-1878CF. Said plea was accepted and the court entered an Order Withholding Adjudication dated May 27, 2003, which withheld adjudication of guilt but placed Respondent on probation for a period of two years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. Following notification of her arrest, the Lee County Sheriff's Office opened an internal affairs investigation relating to the underling charges which resulted in her termination on June 24, 2002, from her position as Bailiff Corporal with the Lee County Sheriff's Department. By pleading guilty to felony child neglect, Respondent has failed to uphold her qualifications to be a correctional officer by failing to maintain her good moral character. Although Respondent's employment record does not show any prior disciplinary violations, she has failed to produce any evidence in explanation or mitigation of the conduct which resulted in her arrest and plea before the circuit court or in her termination of her employment with the Lee County Sheriff's Office.
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 as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002). Respondent's certification as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Veronica A. Smith Post Office Box 6812 Fort Myers, Florida 33911 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services 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 shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses; and, if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact APD serves clients with disabilities such as autism, intellectual disabilities, Downs Syndrome, and Prader-Willi Syndrome. APD's clients range from those needing total care to those who can live on their own with minimal assistance. The services APD provides to its clients include personal care, respite care, adult day training, supported living, and a wide variety of other services. The aforementioned services are provided by APD's vendors in individual homes, group homes, and supported living arrangements. Petitioner is seeking to work as a direct service provider in a group home for persons with developmental disabilities. Section 435.06(2), Florida Statutes, mandates that an employer may not hire someone for a position requiring contact with any "vulnerable person" until a completed background screening "demonstrates the absence of any grounds for the denial or termination of employment." The Department of Children and Families ("DCF") administers the background screening process for APD. APD's Action Petitioner's background screening identified three felony counts that are disqualifying criminal offenses, and all for resisting an officer with violence to his person. On November 14, 2016, DCF notified Petitioner that she was disqualified from employment due to her criminal history and specifically because of the three counts of resisting an officer with violence to his person from a November 26, 1975, Miami Dade incident. On or around December 1, 2016, Petitioner submitted a request for exemption, which included the exemption application and questionnaire to DCF. The instructions provided: "[f]or EACH criminal offense appearing on your record, please write your DETAILED version of the events and be specific. Attach extra pages as needed and please type or write legibly. When Petitioner filled out the questionnaire, she provided the following answers to each question on the exemption questionnaire: Question #1 asked for "disqualifying incident(s)." Petitioner responded "3 Counts of Resisting Arrest with Violence." In response to Question #2 "Non-disqualifying Offenses(s)," Petitioner again provided none of the details surrounding these offenses. She listed two non-disqualifying offenses, "Battery" and "Petit Theft" to which she had criminal dispositions. Question #3 asks, "What is the current status in the court system?" Petitioner responded, "N/A." In Response to Question #4 on her Exemption Questionnaire, regarding "the degree of harm to any victim or property (permanent or temporary), damages or injuries," Petitioner indicated "N/A." In answering Question #5, about whether there were "any stressors in [her] life at the time of the disqualifying incident," Petitioner again indicated "N/A." Question #6 asked whether there are any current stressors in her life, Petitioner responded: "[D]ivorced living at home with my 3 minor children. I am a spokes-person for the SEIU union. Fight for Fifteen. I feed the homeless in my community." As confirmed at hearing, Petitioner listed educational achievements and training as the following: Fla College of Business – Certified Nursing Assistant (1985) National School of Technology – Surgical Tech (1998) Food Service – Brevard C.C. Under Question #8 of the Exemption Questionnaire, in response to the question whether she had ever received any counseling, Petitioner indicated "N/A." Question #9 of the Exemption Questionnaire asks, "Have you ever used/misused drugs and alcohol? Please be specific and list the age at which you started and how you started." Petitioner again responded "N/A." Question #10 of the Exemption Questionnaire asks whether Petitioner was involved in any community activities. Petitioner responded, "I have volunteered with Senator Dwight Bullard, Fla. State Rep. McGhee, Mayor Woodard, Joe Garcia, etc." Question #11 asks the applicant to "Document any relevant information related to the acceptance of responsibility for disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses." Petitioner responded as follows: "Yes. I accept responsibility at the time of this offense I was 17 years of age and trying to fit in with my friends. I have learned when you know better you do better." The Exemption Questionnaire also requested Petitioner to provide her three prior years' work history. Petitioner provided detailed information about her 18-year work history in the health care field, which included care of the vulnerable community. Petitioner has worked in a hospital, nursing home, private home, and with both mental health and hospice patients. Petitioner's answer also outlines how she had performed some of the same job responsibilities as a direct service provider for the following employers: JR Ranch Group Home LLC: C.N.A 10/3/16 to present-Companion to individual bathing, feeding, dressing, grooming, etc. Nurse Plus Agency: C.N.A. 3/12/08 to 9/7/15- Working in private homes with hospice patients bathing, feeding grooming, shaving, R.O.M. T.C.C. vital signs, doctor's appointments, etc. Gramercy Park Nursing Home: C.N.A. 2/15/05 to 3/12/08-Working in skilled nursing facility doing patient care, vitals, charting, lifting, bathing, feeding, dressing, physical therapy, etc. Jackson M. Hospital: C.N.A. 1/7/98 to 5/8/2001-Working on HIV unit, patient care, R.O.M., bed making, bathing, feeding, dressing, shaving, oral care, transferring, lifting, etc. On December 15, 2016, DCF sent a letter to Petitioner requesting additional documentation to complete the exemption application. Petitioner was asked to "provide the arrest report (from arresting agency) and CERTIFIED court disposition JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE" for the following offenses appearing on [her] criminal history screening report: 05/20/2013 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BW DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED 5/11/2002 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 5/11/2002 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 12/22/2001 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, COUNTY ORD VIOL 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATT-POL OFF 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESISTING OFFICER 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESISTING OFFICER 4/11/1994 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGG ASSLT - WEAPON 4/11/1994 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGG ASSAULT –WEAPON 01/14/1991 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SHOPLIFTING 11/07/1981 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ASSAULT 11/07/1981 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESISTING OFFICER 11/07/1981 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISORDERLY CONDUCT The DCF letter also instructed Petitioner that if she could not obtain the arrest report and/or court disposition, she might submit a notarized written "detailed statement on each arrest explaining why you were arrested. You must include the victim's age and relationship to you and the sentence you received (probation, jail, prison, etc)." Additionally, the letter requested proof of income, an affidavit of good moral character, two to five letters of recommendation, and a personal history explaining what happened with each arrest, current home life, education, training, family members, goals, and community involvement. The letter provided Petitioner a 30-day deadline and notified Petitioner "[n]o further action [would] be taken on [her] application for exemption until we receive the requested information." (emphasis added). On or about December 21, 2016, Petitioner complied with the DCF letter and provided 99 pages of documents including Florida Criminal History Record requested, certified police arrest reports, notarized printed dockets of her criminal offenses with court dispositions, notarized document from the Clerk of Circuit and County Court Harvey Ruvin listing all Petitioner's criminal charges and court dispositions available in Miami-Dade, certificate of parole, 2009 certificate of restoration of civil rights, taxes, nursing assistant certification, certificate of liability insurance, continuing education certificates, program certificates, June 13, 2015, White House Conference on Aging program listing Petitioner as a speaker at the White House, 2015 newspaper articles detailing Petitioner's substantive work in minimum pay raise advocacy nationwide for the Fight for Fifteen campaign, letters of recommendation, driving history records, ACHA exemption to work in the healthcare field as a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA"), and a personal statement. Petitioner's personal statement and testimony at hearing provided a comprehensive history of how she has been a caregiver since 1982 "working [i]n hospitals, nursing homes, mental health, hospice, private homes, SLF, etc." Petitioner's statement further detailed that she became a Certified Nursing Assistant in 1985 after the disqualifying offense incident and became a surgical technician in 1997. Petitioner also provided the requested following explanations for each of her arrests: 1.) 11/26/1975: I was arrested for (3) counts of resisting arrest with violence. At the time I was 17 years of age hanging with the wrong crowd. 2.) 11/07/1981: Was at a party drinking got in fight with boyfriend. No case action. 3.) 01/14/1991: In store buying groceries didn't realize there were a pair of socks in my buggy charged with petty theft no way I would have stolen a pair of one dollar socks. Judge was dumbfounded. 4.) 04/11/1994: Got into argument with my mother in which she was drinking she called police to say I had a gun. In which was not true. Office[r] ask me had I ever been to jail I stated yes he then said put your hands behind your back then placed me under arrest. My Mom was there next morning to bond me out. Case No Action. 5.) 09/28/1996: I was witness to a murder I told officer what I seen but didn't want to speak in front of people, also did not want to be labeled as a snitcher. I told the officer I would come to talk but I would not walk with him. I proceeded to walk away the officer grabbed me by the back of my hair, the officer and I proceeded to fight at that time other people got involved. The lead detective asked the officer why he did that. The lead detective promise me he would come to court with me in which he did case was dismissed. Case No Action. 6.) Boyfriend and I got into argument he was drinking and he wanted to drive I told him no he wouldn't give me my keys, so I proceeded to knock head lights out. Case No Action. 7.) 01/13/1998: Got in fight with boyfriend. Case No Action. Petitioner responded to the best of her ability to each of DCF's requests for information. DCF summarized Petitioner's 99 document submission in an Exemption Review Summary ("summary") and forwarded the application, questionnaire, and supporting documents to APD for review. The summary correctly identified Petitioner's 1975 acts of resisting an officer as the disqualifying offenses. The summary outlined twelve non-disqualifying offenses with which Petitioner was charged. However, the summary categorized one non-disqualifying offense as a driving charge and outlined an additional nine non-disqualifying offenses as dismissed or dropped, as Petitioner had reported in her personal statement when she said "no action" was taken. The summary only listed a 1991 shoplifting charge and a 2001 county ordinance violation for which Petitioner was prosecuted. On March 17, 2017, Agency Director Barbara Palmer advised Petitioner by letter that her request for an exemption from the disqualification has been denied. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of her rehabilitation. On May 1, 2017, Petitioner requested to appeal APD's denial. Hearing At hearing, as well as in the exemption package, Petitioner took full responsibility for her disqualifying offenses. At hearing, Cunningham also showed remorse. In her personal statement she stated she "paid her debt to society . . . learned from [her] mistakes." Petitioner also credibly explained the circumstances at hearing for her 1975 disqualifying convictions and testified that she was 17 years old when she broke into the neighbor's empty house across the street and was hanging out there. When she was arrested they were handling her roughly. She was originally charged with burglary, larceny and resisting arrest. The burglary and larceny charges were dropped and she pled to three counts of resisting an officer with violence to his person. Petitioner was sentenced to a youth program but left it, was bound over as an adult, and was sentenced to prison where she served three and a half years. Petitioner successfully completed her parole on August 23, 1981, and her civil rights were restored on May 8, 2008. Petitioner testified to her other non-disqualifying offenses as she had detailed in her personal statement. She explained that the 1981 criminal charge was dropped and stemmed from a fight with her boyfriend while at a party where she had been drinking. In 1994, her mom, who was a drinker, was acting out and called the police on Petitioner. Her mother lied and told the police Petitioner had a gun, which she did not. The police asked Petitioner if she had been to jail previously and she answered yes and was arrested. Her mother came and got her out of jail the next morning and the case was dismissed. Petitioner verified that in 1996, she would not tell the police officer what she saw regarding a murder because she was going to the police station to report it privately. The officer grabbed her from behind, they fell to the ground, and she was arrested for Battery on an Officer. The next day the lead detective came to court and testified on Petitioner's behalf that the officer's behavior was inappropriate and Petitioner was released and the charges were dropped. Petitioner also explained that she received another arrest because her boyfriend was drunk and took her car keys and was going to drive. Petitioner testified she could not stop him so she knocked the headlights and windows out of her car to prevent him from driving and ultimately the charges were dropped. Petitioner confirmed at hearing that at least nine of the criminal charges she obtained were either dismissed or dropped and she had not been arrested in over 10 years. Petitioner's credible detailed testimony during the hearing was information that APD did not have the benefit of having while reviewing her application. Petitioner affirmed that she had a July 1999 public assistance fraud case on which adjudication was withheld for her trading food stamps to pay her light bill. DCF failed to ask Petitioner about the case in the request letter with the list of other charges. Petitioner admitted that the public assistance fraud case was the only case in which Petitioner had to make restitution. She paid back the total amount of food stamps she sold and then her food stamps were reinstated. Evelyn Alvarez ("Alvarez"), APD Regional Operations Manager for the Southern Region, made an independent review of Petitioner's Request for Exemption, Petitioner's Exemption Questionnaire, and documentation submitted on December 21, 2016. Among the factors identified by Alvarez as a basis for the recommendation of denial of the exemption was the perception that Petitioner's application was incomplete. Alvarez determined Petitioner did not take responsibility for her arrests or show any remorse. Alvarez testified that APD needs to be able to rely on the answers provided by the applicant in the Exemption Questionnaire to get the information needed to decide whether to grant an exemption. Although she relied on other information gathered as well, what the applicant stated in the Exemption Questionnaire is very important. Alvarez explained that she considered both Petitioner's disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses, the circumstances surrounding those offenses, the nature of the harm caused to the victim, the history of the applicant since the disqualifying incident, and finally, any other evidence indicating whether the applicant will present a danger to vulnerable APD clients if employment is allowed. Alvarez also testified that she looked for consistency in the applicant's account of events in her Exemption Questionnaire, whether or not the applicant accepted responsibility for her actions and whether the applicant expressed remorse for her prior criminal acts. Alvarez concluded that there were inconsistencies between Petitioner's account of her disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses compared with those found in the police reports. Alvarez further testified she was concerned that Petitioner had numerous traffic citations. Alvarez explained the citations concerned her because individuals who are granted exemptions would potentially be in positions to transport clients and an applicant that maintains a good driving record demonstrates an ability to ensure the health and safety of clients being served. At hearing, Petitioner testified that her driving record "was not the best." The summary detailed that the 2008 infractions included failure to pay required tolls, improper left, and lack of proof of insurance. Petitioner also had other driving offenses, such as a DWLS and Driver License in 2007 and a safety belt violation in 2006. After her review, Alvarez decided that Petitioner had exhibited a continuing pattern of criminal offenses over an extended period of time, many of which were violent and involved fights, and she concluded Petitioner had not demonstrated rehabilitation. At hearing, Tom Rice ("Rice"), APD Program Administrator for Regional Supports/Licensing, testified that an individual's good character and trustworthiness is important for individuals who provide direct care for APD because service providers are frequently responsible for assisting individuals in making decisions of a financial, medical, and social nature. APD must weigh the benefit against the risk when considering granting an exemption. Rice explained that APD's clients are susceptible to abuse because they are reliant on others to assist with intimate tasks, such as getting dressed, going to the bathroom, feeding, medicine, and funds. Direct service providers need to care and keep clients safe. Rice verified that Petitioner was eligible to work in an APD group home as a CNA. Rice also testified that APD was concerned with Petitioner's failure to disclose details in her accounts regarding her criminal offenses because it calls into question her trustworthiness. He further testified such factors demonstrate a pattern of poor judgment and decision-making and provide cause for APD to question Petitioner's fitness for providing services to the vulnerable individuals for which it is responsible and that is why Petitioner was denied. Findings of Ultimate Fact Upon careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses of resisting an officer with violence to his person and that she will not present a danger to disabled or otherwise vulnerable persons with whom she would have contact if employment in a group home were allowed. Petitioner has shown she is a responsible individual by successfully holding jobs in the health field for approximately 18 years. Her employment has been in positions where she cared for vulnerable persons and no evidence was presented that Petitioner was a danger while doing so. Instead, Petitioner's exemption package mirrors her credible testimony of her previous employment serving as a companion, bathing, feeding, dressing, grooming, taking vital signs, transporting patients to doctor's appointments, and working in a private home, which are personal care services that some direct service providers also supply. Petitioner was honest and forthright about her past and supplied 99 pages detailing her past to comply with DCF's request to complete her application. Petitioner testified convincingly that she has turned her life around. Petitioner's only disqualifying offenses occurred over 40 years ago. Even though she was arrested at least twelve times since then, nine of the charges were dismissed and Petitioner's last criminal arrest was 2002. Petitioner also obtained three certificates after her disqualifying offenses. Petitioner received licensure as a CNA and she has been successfully practicing under her license with an ACHA exemption in the health care field. Some of Petitioner's work has even been with vulnerable adults in both a hospital and nursing home. The undersigned further finds that denial of Petitioner's exemption request would constitute an abuse of discretion. As discussed above, it appears Respondent relied heavily on the initial application submitted, hearsay in the police reports, and traffic infractions, and failed to adequately consider the 99 pages and nine dismissed charges Petitioner provided regarding her rehabilitation. In doing so, Respondent failed to properly evaluate Petitioner's disqualifying offenses having occurred over 40 years ago and the last non-disqualifying criminal arrest being at least 15 years ago and the majority of the charges being dismissed. The evidence also indicates that Petitioner has performed successfully in a healthcare work setting, including some care of vulnerable individuals. Additionally, Petitioner has gone above and beyond to contribute in the community. She volunteers with the homeless and also volunteers with legislators and a mayor, and advocated nationally for a minimum wage increase in the Fight for Fifteen campaign, serving as the spokes-person. In 2015, the White House also extended an invitation to Petitioner to speak because of her advocacy, and Petitioner passed the background check and screening that the secret service conducted. As Petitioner testified at hearing, had she been any type of threat or been dangerous or violent based on her previous arrests, she would not have passed the high security screening and been allowed in the White House to speak. Petitioner also testified she does not have anything to hide. She demonstrated, by credible and very compelling evidence, that she made wrong decisions and took the initiative to turn her life around. For these reasons, it is determined that no reasonable individual, upon fully considering the record in this proceeding could find that Petitioner is not rehabilitated. The concerns expressed by Respondent in formulating its intended action, without the benefit of hearing testimony, particularly with those regarding her untruthfulness and lack of remorse for her actions, were effectively refuted by the credible testimony at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order granting Petitioner, Molita Cunningham's, request for an exemption from disqualification from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 13th day of September, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt Eric Ahrendt, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Molita Cunningham 12437 Southwest 220th Street Miami, Florida 33170 (eServed) Jada Williams, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 335E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Randolph Scott, began his employment with petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), on October 25, 1985. He held the position of detention child care worker 1 at the Dade Regional Juvenile Detention Center (Center) in Miami, Florida. When Scott began work, he was given a copy of HRS Pamphlet 60-1, the employee handbook which contained attendance and leave policies. According to the Center's superintendent, Dwight D. Coleman, Scott had attendance and punctuality problems from the onset of his employment. Scott was disciplined on several occasions in 1986 and 1987 for missing work without authorization and being late to work. This is confirmed in various memoranda introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibits 1-3 and 7. To accommodate Scott and alleviate his attendance problems, Coleman reassigned Scott to a facility closer to his residence. This was because Scott had complained that the traffic congestion between his residence and the Center was responsible for him being late to work. However, the reassignment did not resolve the problems, and Scott eventually returned to the Center in March 1988. After returning to the Center, Scott's attendance was "sporadic" at first but, after April 23, Scott never returned to work except to pick up his paycheck. On those occasions, Coleman asked Scott for an explanation of his absences but received no satisfactory reply. At no time after April 23 did Scott give a reason for his absence in writing or prepare and submit a written leave request as required by HRS rules. Also, Scott was never authorized by a supervisor to be absent from work. At hearing, Coleman explained that he continued to allow Scott to remain on the payroll after April 23 because he was trying to help Scott work out his problems and Scott was a career service employee. According to Scott, he was paid through May 27, 1988. On May 27, 1988 Coleman sent Scott a letter by certified mail advising Scott that his absences since April 23 were not authorized, career service system rules provided that an employee was deemed to have abandoned his job after being absent three consecutive days without leave, and that he must "report to work immediately and provide an explanation for (his) absences." Scott denied receiving the letter since he maintained it was mailed to the wrong address. However, when Scott returned to the Center on June 8 to pick up a paycheck, he was given a copy of the letter. At that time, he declined to fill out a leave form as required by HRS rules and gave no valid reason for being absent. Although Scott made an oral request to take leave, no leave was authorized, and he did not return to work again. On June 13, 1988 Coleman sent Scott a second letter by certified mail advising him that he had been deemed to have abandoned his job effective June 8 by virtue of being absent for three consecutive workdays. Scott acknowledged that he received this letter. On July 21, 1988 Scott requested a hearing to contest the agency's decision. Prior to his termination, Scott had numerous conferences with Coleman and Ernestine W. Thurston, personnel manager for the Center. Despite these meetings, and instructions by them that he comply with HRS leave and attendance policies, Scott never submitted a formal written request for leave. At hearing Scott acknowledged that he did not attend work after April 23 and that he did not fill out a leave request. He declared he had verbally asked for time off but that his assistant supervisor did not "understand" his problems. These problems included being evicted from his apartment, a fear of being arrested at the job site for failing to make child support payments and a death in his fiance's immediate family. Finally, Scott admitted receiving a copy of the employee handbook when he began employment and conceded he was aware of the agency's leave and attendance policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Administration concluding that respondent has abandoned his job. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officers 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 18th day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from certain employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for screening the employment of individuals employed in certain occupations within this state. Petitioner, Jose Ramon Arazo, is married to Stephanie Arazo, who at the time and for a number of years prior to the marriage, operated a child day care center in Largo, Florida. Under the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, various positions of trust require screening of federal and state law enforcement records to see if the applicants for such positions have a record of charge or disposition. Various positions have differing requirements for screening. Those positions classified as Level II require a finger print and agency check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Those positions classified as Level I do not. If the agency check discloses the applicant has been charged with a criminal offense, the Department then determines the disposition of the allegation and obtains court records regarding the court action and verifying any probation imposed. The Department's District V Director has promulgated a policy to be followed in that District that stipulates that an exemption from disqualification will not be granted to any individual who is on probation after conviction of a felony and for three years after release from probation. If probation is not imposed by the court, the same policy provides that an exemption will not be granted within three years of a felony conviction, as is provided for in the statute governing exemptions. Petitioner has been charged with several felonies in the past. On July 18, 1983, he was arraigned on a charge of grand theft, to which he pleaded not guilty. However, on August 29, 1983, he changed his plea to guilty and was placed on probation for three years. Thereafter, in December 1985, a warrant was issued for his arrest alleging various violations of the conditions of his probation, including such offenses as being delinquent in the payment of the cost of his supervision; moving from his residence without the prior consent of his probation supervisor; failing to work diligently at a lawful occupation; and failing to make required restitution. In July 1986, he was again the subject of an arrest warrant for ten further probation violations of a similar nature. No evidence was presented as to what action was taken for those violations, but on April 4, 1986, he pleaded guilty in Circuit Court in Pinellas County to grand theft and was again placed in a community control program for two years. There is also evidence in the record to indicate that in September 1986, he was sentenced to confinement for 18 months as a result of the grand theft in Pinellas County. In May 1989, Petitioner was arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with possession of cocaine, a second degree felony, and with obstructing an officer without violence, a first degree misdemeanor. He entered a plea of guilty to the offenses and on May 2, 1989, was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in Florida State Prison. In an indictment dated December 3, 1991, Petitioner was charged with one count of grand theft in Hillsborough County. He entered a plea of nolo contendere and on October 14, 1994, was sentenced to five years imprisonment. When Petitioner was released from prison in 1998, he was placed on probation for a period of two years and is currently on probation status. He indicates he has successfully participated in this period of probation and was told the probation authorities plan to recommend his release from probation in the near future. No independent evidence to support this contention was offered, though Petitioner presented a statement from correctional officials who supervised him while he was incarcerated at the Tampa Community Correction Center and at the institutional level, that he has shown a significant reformation of character and a good ability to deal with everyday problems in a professional manner. From their joint unsworn statement, it would appear these individuals consider Petitioner a likely candidate to be a productive member of society in the future. Petitioner's wife has been put out of business because Petitioner lives with her in their home which was her place of business. Because of his presence, even though he works outside the home most of the time the children are there, she cannot care for children in the home because of regulations prohibiting it. She has been in business for a number of years and apparently her center has a good reputation in the community. One client, Mrs. Perry, by unsworn written statement commends Mrs. Arazo's performance and indicates that even though she saw Petitioner only a few times, he was one of her daughter's favorite people. He also had a positive influence on her son, preaching the virtue of hard work. Mrs. Perry does not consider Petitioner a threat, and she has no fear of his being near her children. In fact, she is of the opinion it a good thing for the children to see the loving and supportive interplay between Petitioner and his wife. Another client, Mrs. Mineo, has been a foster parent to a number of children over the years, many of whom she has placed in Mrs. Arazo's care, agrees. During the time she has known Petitioner, she has never seen him to be other than very professional. She describes him as a hard worker, well-mannered, and deserving of a chance. She believes him to be trying hard. Mrs. Arazo asserts that Petitioner is no threat to the well-being of any of the children who attend her center. He has, to her knowledge, never hurt a child, and she would have nothing to do with anyone who would. His relationship with the children in her care is very positive, and the children love him when he is there, which is not often. He is not an employee of the center and, in fact, has nothing to do with it. He has made mistakes in the past, has paid for them, and has worked hard to overcome them. In her opinion, he deserves a chance. Petitioner admits he has done wrong in the past on multiple occasions, and he is not proud of the things he has done wrong. He does not believe in rehabilitation except in the physical sense, but he believes in the power of an individual to recognize his wrong ways and reform himself. He believes he has done this. He took the opportunity to learn better life-skills while he was in jail and has reformed his way of thinking and his attitudes. During the total six years he spent in prison, he was given only one disciplinary referral. He learned a trade and has a full-time job. He is doing the best he can and wants a chance to prove himself, so as not to hurt his wife's business.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is eligible for an exemption from disqualification from working with children.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 15, 1987, Petitioner Patsy R. Stewart (“Stewart”) was found guilty on a felony charge of conspiring to traffic in cocaine. On or about July 24, 2002, in connection with an application for employment in a program for children or youths, Stewart executed an Affidavit of Good Moral Character in which she acknowledged the drug-related felony conviction in her criminal record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order denying Stewart an exemption from disqualification from working with children. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 10th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Davidson, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Patsy Rose Stewart 36 Southwest Avenue F Belle Glade, Florida 33430 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, regarding secure detention care provided for juveniles. With the exception of Intervenor Florida Association of Counties, Inc., the Petitioners and Intervenors (collectively referenced herein as the "Counties") are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. The specific counties that have petitioned or intervened in these proceedings are not "fiscally constrained" as that term is defined in section 985.686(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Each county is required by section 985.686 to contribute its actual costs for predisposition secure detention services for juveniles within its jurisdiction. The Counties are substantially affected by the Department's determinations of the number of secure detention days that are predisposition, and by the Department's allocation of those days among the Counties, an allocation that further determines each county's share of the cost for pre-disposition secure detention. The Counties are further substantially affected by the allocation method itself, which they assert is not authorized by section 985.686. Statutory and rule framework Section 985.686(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the "state and counties have a joint obligation, as provided in this section, to contribute to the financial support of the detention care provided for juveniles." Section 985.686(2)(a), defines "detention care," for purposes of this section, to mean "secure detention."2/ Section 985.03(18)(a), defines "secure detention" to mean "temporary custody of the child while the child is under the physical restriction of a detention center or facility pending adjudication, disposition, or placement." Section 985.686(3), provides in relevant part that each county "shall pay the costs of providing detention care . . . for juveniles for the period of time prior to final court disposition. The department shall develop an accounts payable system to allocate costs that are payable by the counties." In summary, section 985.686 requires each non-fiscally restrained county to pay the costs associated with secure detention during predisposition care, and the Department to pay the costs of secure detention during post-disposition care.3/ The Department is charged with developing an accounts payable system to allocate costs payable by the counties. Section 985.686(5), sets forth the general mechanism for this allocation process: Each county shall incorporate into its annual county budget sufficient funds to pay its costs of detention care for juveniles who reside in that county for the period of time prior to final court disposition. This amount shall be based upon the prior use of secure detention for juveniles who are residents of that county, as calculated by the department. Each county shall pay the estimated costs at the beginning of each month. Any difference between the estimated costs and actual costs4/ shall be reconciled at the end of the state fiscal year. Section 985.686(10), provides that the Department "may adopt rules to administer this section." Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Department promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009, effective July 16, 2006. Rule 63G-1.004 provides the detailed method by which the Department is to calculate the counties' estimated costs: Each county's share of predisposition detention costs is based upon usage during the previous fiscal year, with the first year's estimates based upon usage during fiscal year 2004-05. Estimates will be calculated as follows: All youth served in secure detention during the relevant fiscal year as reflected in the Juvenile Justice Information System will be identified; Each placement record will be matched to the appropriate referral based upon the referral identification code. Placements associated with administrative handling, such as pick-up orders and violations of probation, will be matched to a disposition date for their corresponding statutory charge; The number of service days in secure detention is computed by including all days up to and including the date of final disposition for the subject referral. Each county will receive a percentage computed by dividing the number of days used during the previous year by the total number of days used by all counties. The resulting percentage, when multiplied by the cost of detention care as fixed by the legislature, constitutes the county's estimated annual cost. The estimated cost will be billed to the counties in monthly installments. Invoices are to be mailed on the first day of the month prior to the service period, so that an invoice for the August service period will be mailed on July 1. Rule 63G-1.008 provides the method by which the Department is to reconcile the estimated payments with the actual costs of predisposition secure detention: On or before January 31 of each year, the Department shall provide a reconciliation statement to each paying county. The statement shall reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period. If a county's actual usage is found to have exceeded the amount paid during the fiscal year, the county will be invoiced for the excess usage. The invoice will accompany the reconciliation statement, and shall be payable on or before April 1. If a county's actual usage was less than the estimated amounts paid during the fiscal year, the county will be credited for its excess payments. Credit will be reflected in the April billing, which is mailed on March 1, and will carry forward as necessary. Under the quoted rules, the Department determines an estimate for each county's share of predisposition secure detention costs. This estimate is provided to the counties prior to the start of the fiscal year in order to allow each county to "incorporate into its annual county budget sufficient funds" to pay for the costs of predisposition secure detention care for juveniles who reside in that county. To prepare this estimate, the Department utilizes the county's actual usage of secure detention facilities for the most recently completed fiscal year.5/ The amount of this usage is shown as that county's percentage of the total usage of predisposition secure detention care by all counties. The resulting percentage for each county is then multiplied by the "cost of detention care as fixed by the legislature" to arrive at the estimated amount due for each county. Rule 63G-1.002(1) defines "cost of detention care" as "the cost of providing detention care as determined by the General Appropriations Act." The term "cost of detention care" is used in rule 63G- 1.004, which sets forth the method of calculating estimnated costs. The term is not used in rule 63G-1.008, which addresses the annual reconcilation by which the Department purports to arrive at the "actual cost of the county's usage" for the fiscal year. The definition of "cost of detention care" references the Legislature's annual General Appropriations Act, which appropriates revenues for the operation of various state functions. An "appropriation" is "a legal authorization to make expenditures for specific purposes within the amounts authorized by law." § 216.011(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008-2009 was House Bill 5001, codified as chapter 2008-152, Laws of Florida. Within chapter 2008-152, Specific Appropriations 1073 through 1083 set forth the appropriations for the juvenile detention program. These items included the cost of operating the secure detention centers and identified specific funding sources for the program. These funding sources were the General Revenue Fund ("General Revenue"), the Federal Grants Trust Fund, the Grants and Donations Trust Fund, and an amount identified under the Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund ("Shared Trust Fund"). Section 985.6015(2), states that the Shared Trust Fund "is established for use as a depository for funds to be used for the costs of predisposition juvenile detention. Moneys credited to the trust fund shall consist of funds from the counties' share of the costs for predisposition juvenile detention." A total of $30,310,534 was appropriated from General Revenue to the Department for the operation of secure detention centers. This amount was intended to cover the Department's costs in providing post-disposition secure detention services, including the state's payment of the costs for detention care in fiscally constrained counties. See § 985.686(2)(b) & (4), Fla. Stat. A total of $99,583,854 was set forth as the appropriation for the Shared Trust Fund. This amount was not an "appropriation" as that term is defined by statute because it did not authorize a state agency to make expenditures for specific purposes. Rather, this number constituted the amount to be used in the preparation of the preliminary estimates that the Department provides to the counties for the purpose of budgeting their anticipated contributions toward the secure detention costs for the upcoming fiscal year. As will be discussed at length below, a refined version of this number was also improperly used by the Department as a substitute for calculating the counties' actual cost at the time of the annual reconciliation described in rule 63G-1.008. As set forth in rule 63G-1.004, the Department determines the estimate, then it notifies the counties of the estimated amount. The counties make their payments in monthly installments. Rule 63G-1.007 requires the Department to prepare a quarterly report for each county setting forth the extent of each county's actual usage. The counties receive their reports 45 days after the end of each quarter. Subsection (1) of the rule provides that the quarterly report "is to assist counties in fiscal planning and budgeting, and is not a substitute for the annual reconciliation or grounds for adjusting or withholding payment." At the end of the fiscal year, and no later than January 31, the Department must prepare an annual reconciliation statement for each county, to reconcile the difference, if any, between the estimated costs paid monthly by the county and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period. If the county's actual cost is more or less than the estimated payments made during the fiscal year, the county will be credited or debited for the difference. Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-1.008. Because a county is billed prior to the start of the fiscal year, the Department's initial estimate obviously cannot be based on actual costs for that fiscal year. However, the amount ultimately owed by each county following the annual reconciliation should assess the county's actual costs for predisposition secure detention care during that year, in accordance with section 985.686(5). Prior DOAH litigation The Department's manner of assessing the counties for predisposition secured detention services has been the subject of five prior DOAH cases, all of them involving Hillsborough County. Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 07- 4398 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 7, 2008; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. June 4, 2008)("Hillsborough I") dealt with the methodology used by the Department to determine the amount that Hillsborough County owed for predisposition secure detention services for fiscal year 2007-2008. Administrative Law Judge Daniel Manry found that the Department's practice of calculating a per diem rate for service days in secure detention was inconsistent with the Department's rule 63G-1.004(2). Instead of limiting Hillsborough County's contribution to a percentage of the amount "appropriated"6/ by the Legislature to the Shared Trust Fund, the Department was including its own General Revenue appropriation in the calculation, which inflated the county's assessment. Hillsborough I at ¶ 24. Judge Manry's findings led the Department to conclude, in its Final Order, that the calculation of a "per diem" rate for the counties should be abandoned as inconsistent with rule 63G-1.004. In a companion case to Hillsborough I, Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 07-4432 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 10, 2008; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. June 4, 2008)("Hillsborough II"), Judge Manry dealt with Hillsborough County's challenge to the Department's determination of utilization days allocated to the county for predisposition care. In this case, Judge Manry found that the Department had failed to comply with the requirements of section 985.686(6), which provides: Each county shall pay to the department for deposit into the Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund its share of the county's total costs for juvenile detention, based upon calculations published by the department with input from the counties. (Emphasis added). The Department had allocated 47,714 predisposition utilization days to Hillsborough County, which was reduced to 47,214 after the reconciliation process. The county argued that the correct number of predisposition days was 31,008. The Department identified 16,206 challenged days under nine categories: contempt of court; detention orders; interstate compacts; pick up orders; prosecution previously deferred; transfer from another county awaiting commitment beds; violation of after care; violation of community control; and violation of probation. Hillsborough II, ¶¶ 25-27. Judge Manry found that the Department had allowed input from the counties during the rulemaking workshops for chapter 63G-1, but had "thwarted virtually any input from the County during the annual processes of calculating assessments and reconciliation." Id. at ¶ 28. The data provided by the Department to the county each year did not include final disposition dates, making it virtually impossible for the county to audit or challenge the Department's assessments. Judge Manry also found that the absence of disposition dates deprived the trier-of-fact of a basis for resolving the dispute over the nine categories of utilization days that the Department had categorized as "predisposition." Id. at ¶ 30. Judge Manry rejected the Department's contention that the county's allegation of misclassification was a challenge to agency policy. He found that the issue of the correct disposition date was a disputed issue of fact not infused with agency policy or expertise that could be determined through conventional means of proof, including public records. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32. The Department failed to explicate "any intelligible standards that guide the exercise of agency discretion in classifying the nine challenged categories of utilization days as predisposition days." Id. at ¶ 34. Judge Manry made the following findings of significance to the instant proceeding: The trier-of-fact construes the reference to placement in Subsection 985.03(18)(a) to mean residential placement. Secure detention includes custody in a detention center for both predisposition and post-disposition care. Predisposition care occurs prior to adjudication or final disposition. Post-disposition care occurs after adjudication or disposition but prior to residential placement. Post-disposition care also includes custody in a detention center after final disposition but prior to release. Although this type of post-disposition care comprises a small proportion of total post-disposition care, references to post-disposition care in this Recommended Order include care after final disposition for: juveniles waiting for residential placement and juveniles waiting for release. (Emphasis added). Judge Manry found that "secure detention after final disposition, but before residential placement for the charge adjudicated, is post-dispositional care." Id. at ¶ 36. He recommended that the Department enter a final order assessing the county for the costs of predisposition care within the county "in accordance with this Recommended Order and meaningful input from the County." The Department adopted Judge Manry's recommendation. In Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 09-1396 (Fla. DOAH June 30, 2009; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. Sept. 17, 2009) ("Hillsborough III"), the dispute between Hillsborough County and the Department centered on 9,258 detention days that the Department had assigned to the county for which no disposition dates were available. Hillsborough III at ¶ 2. The Department took the position that it could identify disposition dates for all juveniles who had been transferred to its care and supervision, and that the "no date" cases indicated that those juveniles had not been transferred to the Department and were therefore the responsibility of the county. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5. Hillsborough County contended that any court order in a juvenile detention case is a dispositional order, after which the Department becomes responsible for the expenses related to retaining the juvenile. Id. at ¶ 5. Administrative Law Judge William F. Quattlebaum found that neither section 985.686 nor previous Final Orders suggest that fiscal responsibility for a juvenile is transferred to the Department upon the issuance of any court order. Id. at ¶ 6. He concluded that it is . . . reasonable to presume that the [Department] would have disposition information about juveniles who had been committed to [its] custody, and it is likewise reasonable to believe that, absent such information, the juveniles were not committed to the [Department's] custody. The [Department] has no responsibility for the expenses of detention related to juveniles who were not committed to the [Department]'s care and supervision. Id. at ¶ 13. However, the evidence also indicated that in some of the "no date" cases, the Department's records identified addresses of record that were facilities wherein the Department maintained offices. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Judge Quattlebaum recommended that the Department amend the annual reconciliation to give the Department responsibility for the disputed cases which lacked disposition dates but included Department addresses, and to give Hillsborough County responsibility for those cases with no disposition dates and no Department addresses. In its Final Order, the Department accepted the recommendation to the extent that cases lacking disposition dates were properly assigned to Hillsborough County. However, the Department concluded that "there is no legal authority to assign responsibility for detention stays based upon proximity to a Department office location," and therefore declined to amend the annual reconciliation as recommended by Judge Quattlebaum. In Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 09-4340 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 18, 2009; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. Jan. 20, 2010) ("Hillsborough IV"), the issue was the Department's authority to issue multiple annual reconciliations. On January 30, 2009, the Department issued an annual reconciliation to Hillsborough County along with an invoice for a sizable credit due the county for having made estimated payments in excess of its actual costs for fiscal year 2007- 2008. The county did not object to this reconciliation statement. Hillsborough IV at ¶ 8. On February 24, 2009, the Department issued a second annual reconciliation that increased the county's assigned predisposition days and decreased the county's credit. Id. at ¶ 9. On March 18, 2009, the county sent a letter to the Department requesting clarification as to the two annual reconciliations. The Department did not respond to the letter. Id. at ¶ 10. On May 1, 2009, the county sent a second letter to the Department disputing a portion of the assigned utilization days. The Department did not respond to the letter. However, on May 14, 2009, the Department issued a third annual reconciliation to the county that again increased its assigned predisposition days and reduced its credit. Id. at ¶ 11. On June 4, 2009, the Department issued a fourth annual reconciliation. This reconciliation decreased the county's assigned predisposition days but nonetheless again reduced the county's credit. Id. at ¶ 12. On July 17, 2009, the Department finally responded to the county's May 1, 2009, letter by advising the county to file an administrative challenge to the allocation of predisposition days. Id. at ¶ 13. With these facts before him, Judge Quattlebaum reviewed section 985.686 and the Department's rules and then arrived at the following conclusions: There is no authority in either statute or rule that provides the [Department] with the authority to issue multiple annual reconciliation statements to a county. The [Department] is required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.008 to issue an annual reconciliation statement on or before January 31 of each year. The rule clearly requires that March bills (payable in April) reflect any excess payment credit due to a county and that any additional assessment related to excess usage must be paid by a county on or before the following April 1. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the annual reconciliation statement issued pursuant to the rule is final unless successfully challenged in an administrative proceeding.... * * * 28. At the hearing, the parties suggested that the issuance of multiple annual reconciliation statements is the result of the resolution of objections filed by counties in response to the annual reconciliation statement. The resolution of such objections can result in additional costs allocated to another county. There was no evidence that counties potentially affected by resolution of another county's objections receive any notice of the objections or the potential resolution. The county whose allocated costs increase through the resolution of another county's objections apparently receives no notice until the [Department] issues another annual reconciliation statement for the same fiscal period as a previous reconciliation statement. * * * 30. Perhaps the most efficient resolution of the situation would be for the [Department] to require, as set forth at Section 120.569, Florida Statutes (2009), that protests to quarterly reports and annual reconciliations be filed with the agency. Such protests could be forwarded, where appropriate, to DOAH. Related protests could be consolidated pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.108. Where the resolution of the proceedings could affect the interests of a county not a party to the proceeding, the county could be provided an opportunity to participate in the proceeding (and be precluded from later objection) pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.109. As is apparent from the lengthy inset quotation, Hillsborough IV touched upon the subject of the Department's "tethering" of the counties, explained at Findings of Fact 50- 53, infra, though the validity of the practice was not directly at issue. Judge Quattlebaum addressed the due process concerns in counties' having no notice of administrative proceedings that could result in the allocation of additional costs to those counties, but did not address the underlying issue of the Department's authority to reallocate costs in the manner described. Judge Quattlebaum recommended that the Department issue a Final Order adopting the January 30, 2009, annual reconciliation for fiscal year 2007-2008. The Department adopted the recommendation and directed that "all successive reconciliations for that fiscal year shall be disregarded and expunged." In Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 09-3546 (Fla. DOAH Feb. 26, 2010; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. Mar. 23, 2010) ("Hillsborough V"), the main issue was Hillsborough County's contention that the Department had unilaterally and without authority increased the counties' per diem rate for detention care. The undersigned found that the Department had abandoned the calculation of a per diem rate in light of the findings in Hillsborough I, and that the increased "per diem" rate alleged by the county was simply the result of the Department's recalculation of the counties' estimated costs in accordance with its own rule.7/ Fiscal year 2008-2009 assessments and reconciliation By letter dated June 3, 2008, the Department issued its calculation of the amounts due from each county for their estimated share of the predispositional detention costs for fiscal year 2008-2009, which would run from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. As noted at Finding of Fact 19, supra, the predispositional budget was estimated at $99,583,854. The estimate was based on county utilization during the most recently completed fiscal year, 2006-2007, and the amount identified in the chapter 2008-152, Laws of Florida. The Department made the following estimates for the Counties' shares of predispositional days and costs: Days Percentage of Days Estimated Cost Miami-Dade 47,450 8.56% $8,522,140 Santa Rosa 5,213 0.94% $936,268 Alachua 10,957 1.98% $1,967,905 Orange 43,330 7.81% $7,782,177 Pinellas 32,627 5.88% $5,859,892 Escambia 15,044 2.71% $2,701,940 Hernando 2,978 0.54% $534,856 Broward 38,490 6.94% $6,912,901 City of Jacksonville8/ 28,957 5.22% $5,200,750 Bay 5,409 0.98% $971,470 Brevard 13,760 2.48% $2,471,331 Seminole 12,857 2.32% $2,309,150 Okaloosa 4,612 0.83% $828,327 Hillsborough 44,577 8.04% $8,006,142 43. The Counties incorporated the Department's estimate into their budgets and made monthly payments to the Department. By letter dated December 7, 2009, the Department issued its annual reconciliation for fiscal year 2008-2009. As noted above, the purpose of the annual reconcilation is to "reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period." The annual reconcilation set forth the following as the "Actual Predispositional Days" and the "Share of Trust Fund Expenditures" for the Counties, along with the "Difference Debit/(Credit)" between the estimated sums already paid by the Counties and the amount set forth in the annual reconciliation. Those amounts were as Days follows: Percentage of Days Share of Trust Fund Miami-Dade 38,925 11.45% $10,926,117 Santa Rosa 2,555 0.75% $717,180 Alachua 5,511 1.62% $1,546,919 Orange 25,286 7.44% $7,097,695 Pinellas 19,218 5.65% $5,394,428 Escambia 6,734 1.98% $1,890,211 Hernando 1,383 0.41% $388,203 Broward 31,339 9.22% $8,796,752 City of Jacksonville 21,246 6.25% $5,963,681 Bay 3,824 1.13% $1,073,384 Brevard 10,598 3.12% $2,974,823 Seminole 8,944 2.63% $2,510,551 Okaloosa 3,613 1.06% $1,014,157 Hillsborough 27,120 7.98% $7,612,493 The Department's letter advised the counties as follows, in relevant part: . . . Any counties that have a debit amount owed will find enclosed with this correspondence an invoice for that amount. This amount is due by March 1, 2010. A credit amount . . . means the county overpaid based on their utilization and a credit invoice is enclosed with this correspondence. (If the credit amount is larger than the amount currently being paid by the county, the credit will be applied to future invoices until the credit is applied in total.) It is critical that all credits be taken prior to June 30, 2010. . . . (emphasis added). In comparing the estimated costs with the "Share of Trust Fund Expenditures," an untutored observer might expect a correlation between the absolute number of predisposition days and the money assessed by the Department. However, it is apparent that no such correlation was present in the Department's calculations. Dade County, for example, had 8,525 fewer actual predisposition days than the Department estimated at the outset of fiscal year 2008-2009, yet was assessed $2,403,976.89 in the annual reconciliation over and above the $8,522,140 in estimated payments that the county had already made over the course of the year. (For all 67 counties, the Department had estimated 538,836 predispositional days for the fiscal year. The actual number of predispositional days was 339,885.) The correlation, rather, was between a county's percentage of the total number of predispositional days and the money assessed. Though its actual number of days was less than estimated, Dade County's percentage of predispositional days was 2.89% higher than its estmated percentage. Therefore, the Department presented Dade County with an annual reconcilation assessment of $2.4 million. The correlation between percentage of days and the final assessment was caused by the Department's practice of treating the Shared Trust Fund appropriation of $95,404,5799/ as an amount that the Department was mandated to raise from the counties regardless of whether the counties' actual predisposition days bore any relation to the estimate made before the start of the fiscal year. At the final hearing, the Department's representatives made it clear that the Department believed that the Legislature required it to collect the full Shared Trust Fund appropriation from the counties. Reductions in actual usage by the counties would have no bearing on the amount of money to be collected by the Department. The Department views its duty as allocating costs among the counties, the "actual cost" being the Legislature's appropriation to the Shared Trust Fund. Beth Davis, the Department's Director of the Office of Program Accountability, testified that if all the counties together only had one predispositional secure detention day for the entire year, that day would cost the county in question $95 million.10/ In practice, the Department treated the Shared Trust Fund "appropriation" as an account payable by the counties. In this view, the appropriation is the Department's mandate for collecting the stated amount from the counties by the end of fiscal year 2008-2009, even while acknowledging that the Shared Trust Fund number in the General Appropriations Act was no more than an estimate based on the actual usage for the most recently completed fiscal year, which in this case was 2006-2007. Because the Department felt itself bound to collect from the counties the full amount of the Shared Trust Fund appropriation, any adjustment to one county's assessment would necessarily affect the assessments for some or all of the other counties. A downward adjustment in Orange County's assessment would not effect a reduction in the absolute number of dollars collected by the Department but would shift Orange County's reduced burden proportionally onto other counties. The Department has "tethered" the counties together with the collective responsibility to pay $95,404,579 for fiscal year 2008-2009. Richard Herring is an attorney and longtime legislative employee, including 16 years as a deputy staff director to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and was accepted as an expert in the appropriations process. Mr. Herring was knowledgeable and persuasive as to the appropriations process and the circumstances surrounding the passage of the legislation at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Herring testified as to a "disconnect" in the way the Department treats the Shared Trust Fund program. The Shared Trust Fund appropriation is not an amount of money; rather, it is an authorization to spend money from that trust fund. Mr. Herring found that the Department mistakenly "treats appropriations almost as though it were a revenue-raising requirement." Mr. Herring could not think of any other example in which a state legislative appropriation mandates that another governmental entity such a county spend its own funds.11/ The Department allocates 100% of the Shared Trust Fund appropriation to the counties and collects that amount, even though section 985.686(5) limits the Department's collections to "actual costs." Mr. Herring clearly and correctly opined that the Appropriations Act cannot amend a substantive law on any subject other than appropriations. Therefore, the Department cannot rely on the appropriation made in chapter 2008-152, Laws of Florida, as authority for substituting the appropriated amount for the "actual costs" that the substantive statutory provision allows the Department to collect. Mr. Herring found that it is "a huge stretch to say an appropriation means that I will, no matter what, collect that amount of money." He concluded: [O]ther than this program, I'm not aware of any place in the budget where somebody takes an appropriated amount, where it's not another State agency involved, and tries to true up at the end of the year to make sure that every penny of that . . . authorization to expend, that the cash has come in to match the authorization. * * * Again, an appropriation is not an authorization to levy taxes, fees, fines. It's not an authorization to raise revenues, to collect revenues. It may provide, where there are double budgets between two agencies or within an agency, it may be authority to move money from one pot within the State treasury . . . to another. But to go out and extract money from someone who's not a State agency, who's not subject to receiving appropriation, I don't know any place else that we do that. And I can't come up with another example. Fiscal year 2008-2009 challenges In a letter to the counties dated January 26, 2010, Ms. Davis wrote as follows, in relevant part: I am writing this letter to ensure everyone understands the proper procedure for handling any challenges to the annual reconciliation data sent to you in December 2009 for FY 2008-09 and any future year's reconciliation. As a result of the State of Florida, division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) challenge in case no. 09-4340 between Hillsborough County (Petitioner) and the Department of Juvenile Justice (Respondent), the reconciliation completed for FY 2008-09 is considered "final" and adjustments can only be made to the reconciliation using the following steps. Counties have 21 days from receipt of the reconciliation to file their challenges to the reconciliation with the Department. The Department will review the challenges and determine if any adjustments need to be made and which counties will be affected by those potential changes. All affected counties will be notified of the potential adjustments even if those counties did not submit a challenge. If challenges to the reconciliation cannot be resolved with the concurrence of all affected counties, the Department will file a request for a hearing with DOAH. Affected counties will be able to present their case regarding the adjustments at the hearing. . . . Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.009 set forth the Department's dispute resolution process. It provided that the quarterly report "marks the point at which a county may take issue with the charges referenced in the report," but that such an objection was not a basis for withholding payment. All adjustments based on a county's objections to quarterly reports would be made in the annual reconciliation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-1.009(1). Though the rule was silent as to counties' ability to file challenges or disputes to the annual reconciliation, the Department interpreted the rule as allowing such challenges. Twelve counties, Pasco, Sarasota, Brevard, Lee, Polk, Broward, Santa Rosa, Pinellas, St. Johns, Hillsborough, Hernando, and Miami-Dade, filed disputes using the form prescribed by the Department, providing specific reference to the disputed charges and setting forth specific charges for the Department to reconsider. The remaining counties did not file challenges to the annual reconciliation. At least some of these counties, including Orange, Alachua and Escambia, had already accepted their overpayment credit in the manner required by the Department's December 7, 2009 letter. See Finding of Fact 46, supra. The record contains letters that Ms. Davis sent to Broward, Hernando, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Santa Rosa Counties on different dates in January and February 2010, but containing substantially the same text. The letter sent to the deputy director of Broward County's human resources department, dated February 19, 2010, is representative: The Department has received challenges to the 2008-2009 reconciliation from 12 counties, including your challenge. In keeping with the Final Order from DOAH case no. 09-4340 [Hillsborough IV] the Department is evaluating all of the challenged assessments. If the Department determines there are any adjustments that need to be made, we will attempt to reach agreement with all of the counties affected by the changes. However, if we cannot reach agreement, the Department will combine all of the challenges and request an administrative hearing from the DOAH at which all of the issues can be resolved. Because of the number of challenges involved, and time constraints in working on next year's budget, we anticipate the review process taking about 30 days. This time period exceeds the general requirement for referring challenges to DOAH for those counties that have requested an administrative review. We are asking that the counties seeking administrative review will allow the Department additional time. If after the review it is necessary to proceed with an administrative hearing, we will notify all potentially affected counties so that one final resolution can be reached in a timely manner. The Department reviewed the disputes filed by eleven of the twelve counties. In reviewing the disputes, the Department looked only at challenges to specific cases and did not consider broader policy disputes raised by the counties. Ms. Davis testified that Miami-Dade's dispute was not reviewed because Miami-Dade failed to include specific individual records. Ms. Davis stated that Miami-Dade was making a conceptual challenge not contemplated by rule 63G-1.009. Barbara Campbell, the Department's data integrity officer, testified that she reviewed every record that was disputed by a county. Ms. Campbell stated that her review for Hillsborough County alone took about a month. Hillsborough County disputed 50,528 days in 6,963 entries for the following reasons: adults in juvenile status (493 days), charges not disposed (22,495 days), invalid disposition end date (5 days), non-adjudicatory charges (2,987 days), extended period of detention (763 days), invalid zip code (352 days), invalid address (63 days), out of county (88 days), institutional address (1,560 days), escape after disposition (78 days), guardian (21,552 days), transfer after adjudication (45 days), no criminal charge (13 days), and duplicated entry (34 days). Ms. Campbell concluded that Hillsborough County should remain responsible for 45,873 of the rejected 50,528 days. Despite Ms. Campbell's conclusion, the annual reconciliation assessed Hillsborough County for only 27,120 days. This discrepancy was not explained at the hearing. Ms. Campbell testified that one of the corrections she made for Hillsborough County related to the waiting list for placement of juveniles in committed status. At that time, the waiting list was used to determine the commitment date for billing purposes, but Ms. Campbell found that the list contained commitment dates that were several days after the actual commitment dates. This error resulted in a substantial number of extra days being billed to Hillsborough County.12/ Ms. Campbell testified that this sizable error as to Hillsborough County did not prompt a review of the records of all counties to determine if the error was across the board. The Department lacked the time and manpower to perform such a review for all counties. The Department was already stretched thin in reviewing the specific challenges made by the counties. In a letter to the counties dated March 23, 2010, Ms. Davis wrote as follows, in pertinent part: The Department has concluded it [sic] analysis of challenges submitted by counties for the 2008-09 final reconciliation for detention utilization. A total of twelve counties submitted challenges. After reviewing all the data, resulting adjustments affect a total of 45 counties, ten of which are fiscally constrained. Enclosed with this letter is a document outlining the specifics regarding adjustments as they pertain to your county. For counties that filed a challenge with the Department, each type of dispute category is addressed. Counties subsequently affected by the original twelve counties' challenges are impacted by either address corrections and/or as a result of their percentage of the total utilization being changed by adjustments made. An adjustment to a county's percentage of utilization occurs when days challenged are subsequently found to be the responsibility of the State or another county. Changes made based on address corrections are listed on the enclosed disc, if applicable to your county. Each county is asked to review the adjustments and respond back to the Department indicating agreement or disagreement with the findings. If a county has issue with the proposed adjustments they will need to file a petition with the Department to initiate proceedings with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to 28-106-201 [sic] Florida Administrative Code. For the few counties that have already filed a petition with the Department, still complete the attached form and return to the Department but an additional petition is not required. Responses from the counties must be postmarked by April 9, 2010. . . . Ms. Davis' March 23, 2010, letter was the first notice given to non-disputing counties by the Department that twelve counties had filed disputes to the annual reconciliation. Thus, counties that believed they had closed their ledgers on fiscal year 2008-2009 were forced to reopen their books to deal with the Department's "adjustments" to the amounts of their final annual reconciliations. Attached to the letter was a spreadsheet containing the "08-09 Pending Challenge Adjustments" containing the following information for the Counties: Adjusted Adjusted Days Percentage Share of Trust Fund Miami-Dade 38,944 11.77% $11,229,123 Santa Rosa 1,980 0.60% $570,914 Alachua 5,581 1.67% $1,589,043 Orange 27,048 8.17% $7,799,027 Pinellas 15,523 4.69% $4,475,906 Escambia 6,734 2.04% $1,941,683 Hernando 1,327 0.40% $382,628 Broward 31,231 9.44% $9,005,154 City of Jacksonville 21,300 6.44% $6,141,647 Bay 3,830 1.16% $1,104,343 Brevard 8,816 2.66% $2,542,008 Seminole 8,965 2.71% $2,584,970 Okaloosa 3,613 1.09% $1,041,773 Hillsborough 22,465 6.79% $6,477,564 72. In addition to making adjustments to the accounts of the challenging counties, the Department modified the amounts set forth in the annual reconciliation for all 38 non-fiscally constrained counties.13/ A total of 9,010 days were reclassified as post-dispositional and therefore shifted from the counties' to the Department's side of the ledger. This shift did nothing to lessen the overall burden on the counties in terms of absolute dollars because the overall amount the Department intended to collect remained $95,404,579. Of the twelve counties that challenged the annual reconciliation, five did not contest the Department's adjustment and are not parties to this proceeding: Pasco, Sarasota, Lee, Polk, and St. Johns. The record does not indicate whether these counties notified the Department that they accepted the adjustment. Four counties that challenged the annual reconciliation, and are parties to this proceeding, notified the Department that they accepted the adjustment: Pinellas, Brevard, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa. However, because all affected counties did not accept the adjustments, the Department did not refund monies to the counties that were awarded a credit by the adjustment. In correspondence with Pinellas County's Timothy Burns, Ms. Davis stated that the credit set forth in the adjustment would not be applied to the county's account "until the final decisions from the DOAH hearing." At the hearing, Ms. Davis explained the Department's action as follows: Each county's utilization is considered a percentage of the total utilization and that percentage is multiplied by the expenditures. So if you change one number in that mathematical calculation, it has a rippling effect and will affect the other-- in this case it's 45 counties. So all of the counties had to accept those changes and agree to the modifications, those pending adjustments, if we were going to modify the reconciliation, the agency's final action. To restate, the following are the estimates, the annual reconciliation each County: amounts, and the adjustment amounts for Miami-Dade: 47,450 8.56% $8,522,140 38,925 11.45% $10,926,117 38,944 11.77% $11,229,123 Santa Rosa: 5,213 0.94% $936,268 2,555 0.75% $717,180 1,980 0.60% $570,914 Alachua: 10,957 1.98% $1,967,905 5,511 1.62% $1,546,919 5,581 1.67% $1,589,043 Orange 43,330 7.81% $7,782,177 25,286 7.44% $7,097,695 27,048 8.17% $7,799,027 Pinellas 32,627 5.88% $5,859,892 19,218 5.65% $5,394,428 15,523 4.69% $4,475,906 Escambia 15,044 2.71% $2,701,940 6,734 1.98% $1,890,211 6,734 2.04% $1,941,683 Hernando 2,978 0.54% $534,856 1,383 0.41% $388,203 1,327 0.40% $382,628 Broward 38,490 6.94% $6,912,901 31,339 9.22% $8,796,752 31,231 9.44% $9,005,154 City of Jacksonville 28,957 5.22% $5,200,750 21,246 6.25% $5,963,681 21,300 6.44% $6,141,647 Bay 5,409 0.98% $971,470 3,824 1.13% $1,073,384 3,830 1.16% $1,104,343 Brevard 13,760 2.48% $2,471,331 10,598 3.12% $2,974,823 8,816 2.66% $2,542,008 Seminole 12,857 2.32% $2,309,150 8,944 2.63% $2,510,551 8,965 2.71% $2,584,970 Okaloosa 4,612 0.83% $828,327 3,613 1.06% $1,014,157 3,613 1.09% $1,041,773 Hillsborough 44,577 8.04% $8,006,142 27,120 7.98% $7,612,493 22,465 77. Overall, the 6.79% Department $6,477,564 had estimated there would be 538,836 predisposition utilization days for all counties. The actual number of predisposition days indicated in the annual reconciliation was 339,885, some 198,951 fewer days than estimated. The number of actual days was further decreased to 330,875 in the Department's March 23, 2010, adjustment. Nonetheless, the absolute number of dollars assessed by the Department against the counties remained unchanged because the only variable in the Department's formula for ascertaining a county's "actual costs" was the county's percentage of the total number of predisposition days. The $95 million set forth in the General Appropriations Act for the Shared Trust Fund remained unchanged. Thus, even if a county's actual number of predisposition days was several thousand fewer than the Department originally estimated, the county's assessment could be higher than the estimate because that lesser number of days constituted a higher percentage of the overall number of predisposition days. The City of Jacksonville, for example, was found by the adjustment to owe $940,897 more than the original estimate despite having actual usage that was 7,657 days fewer than the original estimate. The Counties forcefully argue that Department's use of the General Appropriations Act as a substitute for calculating the counties' actual costs results in a gross disparity between the amounts per day paid by the state and those paid by the Counties for the same services at the same facilities, echoing the argument made by Hillsborough County in Hillsborough V. Robert M. Dunn, the Department's director of policy development for detention services, testified as follows: Q. But in terms of the actual cost of detention, there's no difference in the cost of a predisposition detention day and a post-disposition detention day? A. None. They receive the same services: food, clothing, supervision, mental health, medical, all of those issues. Every youth receives the same services in detention. Ms. Davis testified that the General Appropriations Act provided the Department with General Revenue sufficient to cover roughly 20% of the cost of all secure detention.14/ Ms. Davis conceded that approximately 38% of the secure detention utilization days were post-disposition days that were the Department's responsibility. She further conceded that through the Shared Trust Fund the counties are paying the 18% difference for the state's portion of secure detention. Evidence introduced at the hearing established a downward trend in the use of predisposition detention utilization since fiscal year 2005-2006, but no corresponding decrease in the amount that the counties pay for detention services. Mr. Herring, the appropriations expert, testified that as a result of the manner in which the Department allocates costs, counties pay approximately $284 per day for detention services, whereas the state pays only $127 per day. Mr. Burns, bureau director of Pinellas County's Department of Justice and Consumer Services, calculated that an average per diem rate for all detention days, predisposition and post-disposition, would be $229.56. Ms. Davis testified that if the utilization ratio and the budget ratio were the same--in other words, if the Legislature fully funded the state's share of detention services--then the per diem rates for the counties and the Department would be almost the same. Despite the fact that the counties were partially subsidizing the state's share of secure detention for juveniles, the Department nonetheless reverted $9,975,999 of unspent General Revenue funds back to the state's general revenue in fiscal year 2008-2009. Of that amount, approximately $874,000 had been appropriated for secure detention. Section 985.686(3) requires the counties to pay the costs of providing detention care for juveniles prior to final court disposition, "exclusive of the costs of any pre- adjudicatory nonmedical educational or therapeutic services and $2.5 million provided for additional medical and mental health care at the detention centers." (Emphasis added). The underscored language was added to the statute by section 11, chapter 2007-73, Laws of Florida, the appropriations implementing bill for fiscal year 2007-2008. Vickie Joan Harris, the Department's budget director, testified that the Legislature appropriated an additional $2.5 million for medical and mental health care in 2007-2008, but that no additional money has been appropriated for those services since that fiscal year. For fiscal year 2008-2009, the counties shared these costs with the Department. The Counties are correct in pointing out that the cost of a utilization "day" is the same whether it occurs predisposition or post-disposition, and their desire for a per diem basis of accounting is understandable from a fiscal planning perspective. If the Department announced a per diem rate at the start of the fiscal year, then a county could roughly calculate its year-end assessment for itself without the sticker shock that appears to accompany the annual reconciliation. However, there are two obstacles to such an accounting method, one practical, one the product of the Department's purported understanding of the term "actual cost" as used in section 985.686(5). The practical objection is that the actual cost of maintaining and operating the Department's secure detention system is not strictly related to the number of days that juveniles spend in detention facilities. Robert M. Dunn, the Department's director of policy development for detention services, testified as follows: For whatever reasons, detention population has decreased significantly over the last few years. However, we have to maintain the capability of providing adequate and proper services for 2,007 beds. In our system, we do not staff centers based on the number of beds or the number of youth who are in the center. We typically follow a critical post staffing process. We know that within center, there are certain posts that have to be manned 24/7, such as intake. We have to be able to provide staff to perform intake duty should a youth be delivered to the center for detention. We have to provide someone in our master control unit 24/7. Those people are responsible for outside communications, directing staff to where they are needed within the center, answering the phones inside the center for requests for assistance, monitoring the camera system to provide assistance. So that position, that post has to be staffed 24/7, whether we have one kid in the center or 100 kids. It's irrelevant. Mr. Dunn went on to describe many other fixed costs of operating a secure detention facility for juveniles. He also discussed the Department's ongoing efforts to identify redundant facilities and streamline the program in light of falling usage, but the point remains that the Department's actual costs do not fluctuate significantly due to usage. Simply keeping the doors open carries certain costs whether one child or 100 children come into the facility, and a pure per diem assessment approach might not cover those costs. While the evidence establishes that there is a significant degree of county subsidization of the state's share of juvenile detention costs, there is a lack of credible evidence that a pure per diem approach would capture a given county's "actual costs" in keeping with the mandate of section 985.686.15/ It is apparent that the Counties have seized on the per diem concept not merely because it was the measure used by the Department prior to Hillsborough I, but because the system used for fiscal year 2008-2009 gave the Counties no way to even roughly predict their annual expenses for predisposition secure juvenile detention. At the start of the fiscal year, a non-fiscally constrained county received an estimate of its predisposition days and its estimated portion of the Shared Trust Fund. The county made monthly payments based on those estimates. As the year progressed, it became apparent to the county that its actual usage was proving to be far less than the estimate. The annual reconciliation confirmed that the county had fewer predisposition days than the Department had estimated, which led the county to expect a refund. In defiance of that expectation, the county was presented with a bill for additional assessments. In the case of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, the additional bill was for millions of dollars despite the fact that their actual usage was several thousand days fewer than the Department's estimate. The Counties were, not unreasonably, perplexed by this turn of events. This perceived anomaly points to the second obstacle to the Counties' proposed per diem accounting method: the Department's working definition of "actual costs" is unrelated to anything like a common understanding of the term "actual costs." It is a fiction that renders nugatory any effort by the Counties to limit their assessed contributions to the Shared Trust Fund to the money that was actually spent during the fiscal year. As to fiscal year 2008-2009, the Department simply made no effort to ascertain the counties' actual costs or, if it did, it failed to disclose them to the counties. "One of the most fundamental tenets of statutory construction requires that the courts give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning, unless words are defined in the statute or by the clear intent of the Legislature." City of Venice v. Van Dyke, 46 So. 3d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), citing Reform Party of Fla. v. Black, 885 So. 2d 303, 312 (Fla. 2004). The Legislature did not define the term "actual cost" in section 985.686. "Actual cost" is not a term of art.16/ The Florida Statutes are replete with uses of the term "actual cost" that rely on the common meaning of the words and do not attempt further definition.17/ Those few sections that do provide definitions of "actual cost" indicate that the Legislature is capable of limiting that common term when appropriate to its purposes.18/ Nothing in Section 985.686 gives any indication that the Legislature intended the words "actual costs" to carry anything other than their plain and ordinary meaning. By statute, the Department is obligated to reconcile "any difference between the estimated costs and actual costs . . . at the end of the state fiscal year." § 985.686(5), Fla. Stat. By rule, this reconciliation is to be performed on a county by county basis: On or before January 31 of each year, the Department shall provide a reconciliation statement to each paying county. The statement shall reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period. Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-1.008(1). Nothing in the statute or the implementing rules authorizes the Department to base its annual reconciliation on the anything other than actual costs. Section 985.686(5) speaks in terms of the individual county, not in terms of "counties" as a collective entity. Rule 63G-1.008(1) states that the Department will provide a reconciliation statement to "each paying county." That statement must reflect the difference between the estmated costs "paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period." Like the statute, the rule speaks in terms of the individual county; the rule does not purport to authorize the Department to treat the 67 counties as a collective entity. Neither the statute nor the rule supports the rationale that the Shared Trust Fund liability of one county should in any way depend upon the costs incurred by any other county. At the end of the fiscal year, the amount collected in the Shared Trust Fund should be no more or less than the amounts of the counties' actual costs. Nothing in the statute or the implementing rules authorizes the Department to tether the counties together with the collective responsibility to pay $95,404,579 for fiscal year 2008-2009, as opposed to paying a reconciled amount based on each county's actual costs of providing predisposition secure detention services for juveniles within its jurisdiction.19/ Nothing in the statute or the implementing rules has changed in such a way as to vitiate Judge Quattlebaum's conclusion in Hillsborough IV that "the annual reconciliation statement issued pursuant to the rule is final unless successfully challenged in an administrative proceeding" pursuant to section 120.569, Florida Statutes. See Finding of Fact 37, supra. Therefore, the December 7, 2009, annual reconciliation constituted final agency action as to all counties that did not contest the reconciliation in accordance with the Department's January 26, 2010, letter. The Department did not have the statutory authority to recalculate the amounts set forth in that annual reconciliation for the 55 counties that did not file challenges.20/ As regards the parties to this proceeding, the following Counties did not contest the December 7, 2009, annual reconciliation: Alachua, Orange, Escambia, City of Jacksonville, Bay, Seminole, and Okaloosa. As to these Counties, the annual reconciliation should have constituted final agency action and spared them further involvement in litigation. The amounts set forth for these Counties in the annual reconciliation should be reinstated and their accounts reconciled on that basis, as follows: Reconciled Share of Trust Fund Alachua $1,546,919 Orange $7,097,695 Escambia $1,890,211 City of Jacksonville $5,963,681 Bay $1,073,384 Seminole $2,510,551 Okaloosa $1,014,157 105. The following Counties did contest the reconcilation pursuant to the Department's January 26, 2010, letter: Brevard, Broward, Santa Rosa, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Hernando, and Miami-Dade. By letter dated March 23, 2010, the Department informed all 67 counties that it had completed its analysis of the challenges21/ submitted by 12 counties and was instituting adjustments to the accounts of 45 counties, including 10 that were fiscally constrained. For the reasons stated above, the March 23, 2010, adjustment was effective only as to the 12 counties that challenged the annual reconciliation. Of those 12, seven are parties to this litigation. Of the seven Counties, four accepted the adjustment announced by the March 23, 2010, letter: Pinellas, Brevard, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa.22/ As to these four Counties, the Department's March 23, 2010, adjustment letter should have ripened into final agency action without need for further litigation.23/ The amounts set forth for these counties in the adjustment letter should be reinstated and their accounts reconciled on that basis, as follows:24/ Share of Trust Fund Santa Rosa $570,914 Pinellas $4,475,906 Brevard $2,542,008 Hillsborough $6,477,564 To this point, the resolution of the amounts owed has been based on the simple principle of administrative finality as to 10 of the Counties that are parties to this proceeding: proposed agency action that is accepted, affirmatively or tacitly, by a party becomes final agency action as to that party and as to the agency upon the expiration of the time for requesting an administrative hearing. However, there remain three Counties that challenged the annual reconciliation, contested the later adjustment, and continue to assert their statutory right to be assessed only the "actual costs" associated with predisposition secure detention: Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward. During the course of this litigation, some of the parties asked the Department to perform an alternative calculation of the fiscal year 2008-2009 reconciled amounts. In an email dated January 12, 2011, the Department transmitted to the Counties a speadsheet that the Department titled "2008/2009 Secure Detention Cost Sharing Data Analysis," taking care to point out that the document was "not an amended or revised reconciliation."25/ Several Counties, including the three whose contributions to the Shared Trust Fund remain unresolved, have urged this tribunal to adopt this most recent analysis as the most accurate available measure of their pre-disposition detention days and actual costs of detention. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department also argues that it should be allowed to employ this "more accurate methodology" to amend the annual reconciliation as to all counties. Ms. Campbell, the Department's data integrity officer, testified as to several changes in programming that are reflected in the results of the January 12 analysis. The dispositive change for purposes of this order is that the analysis was performed in accordance with the Department's new rule 63G-1.011(2), which provides: "Commitment" means the final court disposition of a juvenile delinquency charge through an order placing a youth in the custody of the department for placement in a residential or non-residential program. Commitment to the department is in lieu of a disposition of probation. Ms. Campbell stated that in previous reconciliations and adjustments, the Department stopped billing the counties at the point a final disposition was given by the court. Under the new rule, the Department would continue billing the counties if the disposition did not result in the child's commitment to the Department. Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.011 became effective on July 6, 2010, well after the close of fiscal year 2008-2009 and well after the Department's annual reconciliation and adjustments for that fiscal year were performed. Aside from the increased accuracy claimed by the Department, no ground has been cited for its retroactive application in this case. Further, rule 63G-1.011 has recently been found an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the precise ground that its narrow definition of "commitment" is in conflict with section 985.686(5), Florida Statutes, which limits the counties' responsibility to "the period of time prior to final court disposition." Okaloosa Cnty. et al. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 12-0891RX (Fla. DOAH July 17, 2012).26/ In other words, the Department's prior practice was more in keeping with its statutory mandate than was the "correction" enacted by rule 63G-1.011. In fairness to the Department, it should be noted that its revised definition of commitment was at least partly an outcome of Hillsborough III. In that decision, Judge Quattlebaum concluded, "The [Department] has no responsibility for the expenses of detention related to juveniles who were not committed to the [Department]'s care and supervision. Nothing in the statute or the previous Final Orders indicates otherwise." Hillsborough III at ¶ 13. On this point, however, Hillsborough III adopts the position of the Department that was not seriously challenged.27/ However, section 985.686(3) requires the county to pay "the costs of providing detention care... for the period of time prior to final court disposition." The statute does not state that "final court disposition" is equivalent to "commitment to the Department."28/ Okaloosa County provides a more comprehensive analysis statute: the Department is responsible for the expenses of all post-disposition detention, not merely detention of juveniles who are committed to the Department. The evidence in the instant case made it clear that probation is another post- disposition outcome that may result in detention, and that the Department has made a practice of charging the counties for detentions related to this disposition. Judge Anthony H. Johnson, the Circuit Administrative Judge of the Juvenile Division, Ninth Judicial Circuit, testified as to the procedures that a circuit court follows after the arrest of a juvenile charged with delinquency: Okay, we'll begin by the arrest of the juvenile. And the juvenile is then taken to the JAC, the Joint Assessment Center, where a decision is made whether to keep the juvenile in detention or to release the juvenile. That decision is based upon something called the DRAI, the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument. How that works probably is not important for the purpose of this except to know that some juveniles are released, and some remain detained. The juveniles that are . . . detained will appear the following day or within 24 hours before a circuit judge, and it would be the duty judge, the emergency duty judge on the weekends, or a juvenile delinquency judge if it's regular court day. At that time the judge will determine whether the juvenile should be released or continue to be retained. That's also based upon the DRAI. If the juvenile is detained, he or she will remain for up to 21 days pending their adjudicatory hearing. Everything in juvenile has a different name. We would call that a trial in any other circumstance. Now the 21 days is a statutory time limit: however, it's possible in some cases that that 21 days would be extended. If there is a continuance by any party, and for good cause shown, the judge can decide to keep the juvenile detained past the 21 days. That's relatively unusual. It's usually resolved, one way or the other, in 21 days. After the trial is conducted, if the juvenile is found not guilty, of course he or she is released. If they're found guilty, then a decision is made about whether or not they should remain detained pending the disposition in the case. The disposition—- there needs to be time between the adjudication and the disposition so that a pre-disposition report can be prepared. It's really the Department of Juvenile Justice that decides whether or not the child will be committed. We pretend that it's the judge, but it's not really.29/ And that decision is made—- is announced in the pre-disposition report. If the child is committed at the disposition hearing, the judge will order the child committed to the Department. Now, one or two things will happen then. Well, maybe one of three things. If the child scores detention-- let me not say scores. If it's a level eight or above, then the child will remain detained. If it's not that, the child will be released and told to go home on home detention awaiting placement. Here's where things get, I think, probably for your purposes, a bit complex. Let's say at the disposition, the child-- the recommendation of the Department is not that the child be committed, but that the child be placed on probation. Then the child goes into the community. The disposition has then been held, and the child's on probation. If the child violates probation, then the child comes back into the system, and then you sort of start this process again, on the violation of probation. If the child is found to have violated his or her probation, then you go back to the process where the Department makes a recommendation. Could be commitment, it could be something else. The child may be detained during that time period. Often what will happen is the misconduct of the child will be handled in a more informal manner by the court. The court may decide instead of going through the VOP hearing, violation of probation, I'm going to handle this by holding the child in contempt for disobeying the court's order to go to school, to not use drugs, or whatever the violation was. In that case, the child may be detained for contempt, for a period of 5 days for the first offense, or 15 days for a subsequent offense. Judge Johnson testified that "by definition, anything after the disposition hearing would be post-disposition." He went on to explain: You know, the problem here, I think, is we have a couple of different dispositions. We have one disposition that's the initial disposition. And if the child is put on probation, and then violates the probation, then you have a whole other hearing as to whether or not there was a violation of probation. And, if so, you have a whole new disposition hearing as to what the sanction ought to be for violation of probation. The probation issue was a key point of contention between the Counties and the Department. The Department does not consider itself responsible for detentions of juveniles who been given a disposition of probation. Thus, when a juvenile is picked up for a violation of probation, the Department considers that detention to be "pre-disposition" and chargeable to the county. The Counties contend, more consistently with section 985.686(3), that probation is a consequence of "final court disposition," and any subsequent detentions arising from violation of probation should be considered post-disposition and paid by the Department. Aside from the legal barriers, there are practical considerations that render the January 12, 2011, analysis unsuitable as a measure of the Counties' actual costs. Ms. Davis testified that the analysis is "a little deceiving because it only includes an analysis based on commitment." She noted that the analysis did not take into account the adjustments that had been made in light of the twelve counties' challenges to the annual reconciliation. Ms. Davis stated: "We simply ran an analysis per the request of the counties as to what the days would be based on commitment only, using our new programming that we do today. . . [W]e couldn’t submit it as a reconciliation because it's not correct. There are some address errors. We didn't fix those." Ms. Davis testified that the Department never had any intention that the January 12 analysis should be considered a reconciliation. The programming and the data set had changed since the annual reconciliation. The information in the analysis was not the same information that was analyzed in the reconciliation. Comparing the reconciliation to this analysis would be "apples to oranges" in many respects, according to Ms. Davis. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the January 12, 2011, analysis does not establish the "actual costs" of the remaining counties and is not an accurate basis for settling their final accounts for fiscal year 2008-2009. It is further found that, because the Department has never attempted to ascertain the Counties' actual costs and provided no such data to this tribunal, the record of this proceeding offers insufficient evidence to establish the actual costs for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008- 2009 for Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. The Department conceded that its annual reconciliation and the adjustment thereto were based on inaccurate data and included significant errors. The January 12, 2011, analysis was based on a definition of "commitment" that has since been found in derogation of section 985.686(5), Florida Statutes. None of the analyses performed by the Department went beyond the calculation of the number of detention days to the calculation of any county's actual costs of providing detention care. The Department bears the burden of providing a reconciliation to each of these three counties that reflects their actual costs of providing secure juvenile detention care. Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties are each entitled to an accounting of their actual costs without regard to the costs of any other county.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order that: Reinstates the amounts set forth in the Department's December 7, 2009, annual reconciliation letter for the following Counties: Alachua, Orange, Escambia, City of Jacksonville, Bay, Seminole, and Okaloosa; Reinstates the amounts set forth in the Department's March 23, 2010, adjustment letter for the following Counties: Pinellas, Brevard, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa; and Provides that the Department will, without undue delay, provide a revised assessment that states the actual costs of providing predisposition secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 for the following Counties: Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2012.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should grant the Petitioner an exemption from disqualification from employment in positions of special trust.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Thomas seeks employment at the Everglades Youth Development Center, which is a 102-bed residential treatment facility for high-risk male juvenile offenders aged 13 to 18 years. Because of Mr. Thomas's criminal background, he is disqualified from working in positions of trust with the Department and can only work in such positions if he is granted an exemption from the disqualification. Criminal History Mr. Thomas was arrested in August 1987 and charged with lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor. In an Information dated October 7, 1987, issued by the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, Mr. Thomas was charged with three counts of handling and fondling two girls under the age of 16 years in or about July or August 1987, in violation of Section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes (1987).1 At the time, Mr. Thomas was known as Anthony Lee Sanders, "Sanders" being his father's surname. Count I of the Information named Carolyn Coston, a/k/a Carolyn Gordon, as an alleged victim, and Counts II and III of the Information named Lonnette Frazier as an alleged victim. Mr. Thomas first met Ms. Frazier when he played basketball at Gibbs High School in St. Petersburg, Florida; she used to attend the games. Mr. Thomas also knew Ms. Frazier's parents. At the times set forth in the Information, Mr. Thomas was a counselor in the summer recreation program of the Police Athletic League, where he was responsible for supervising and working with children enrolled in the program. Ms. Coston and Ms. Frazier were enrolled in the program and under Mr. Thomas's supervision. Mr. Thomas and Ms. Frazier had dated more than six months before the incident in August 1987 that resulted in his arrest. At the time, Ms. Frazier was 14 or 15 years of age; Mr. Thomas was 19 years of age and a student at Manatee Junior College. Mr. Thomas admits that he and Ms. Frazier had one encounter of a sexual nature in August 1987, but he denies that he and Ms. Frazier had a second such encounter. Mr. Thomas knew Ms. Coston only as a client in the Police Athletic League summer recreation program. He denies ever having had an encounter of a sexual nature with her. After his arrest, Mr. Thomas was jailed for two weeks, then released on his own recognizance. He was represented by a public defender, who advised him and his mother that, if he were convicted of any one of the charges, he could be sent to prison for 25 years. Mr. Thomas was afraid of being sentenced to prison, and he agreed to accept a plea bargain offered by the State Attorney's office. It was his understanding that his attorney tried to convince the State Attorney to dismiss the count in the Information involving Carolyn Coston but was unsuccessful. As a result, Mr. Thomas pleaded guilty to all three counts of the Information, although he insists that he was actually guilty of engaging in only one sexual encounter with Ms. Frazier and that he never had a sexual encounter with Ms. Coston. In an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation, dated January 15, 1988, the court found that Mr. Thomas was "not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct, and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that [he] should presently be adjudged guilty and suffer the penalty authorized by law." Accordingly, the court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed Mr. Thomas on two years of community control and five years of probation. Mr. Thomas was permitted to continue attending classes and athletic games and practices, and he was allowed to travel with his athletic team. He was also required to pay for the duration of his community service and probation $12.00 per year to First Step, Inc., an organization whose function is not explained in the order. In an order entered May 12, 1988, the court modified the terms of Mr. Thomas's community control by changing the remainder of the community-control period to probation, with the sentence of five years of probation previously imposed to follow. Supervision of Mr. Thomas's probation was transferred to Sioux City, Iowa, where Mr. Thomas had received a scholarship to attend Morningside College. The May 12, 1988, order further provided that, "upon the Defendant's arrival in Sioux City, Iowa, he shall be evaluated to determine whether counseling as a sex offender is needed and, if needed, sex offender counseling shall be made a condition of Defendant's probation." Mr. Thomas did not graduate from Morningside College, but transferred to Bethune Cookman in Dayton Beach, Florida. In an undated affidavit prepared on or around August 25, 1992, Mr. Thomas's Florida probation officer stated that Mr. Thomas had violated the terms of his probation in the following respects: Violation of Condition (8) which states: "You will promptly and truthfully answer all inquiries directed to you by the Court or the Probation Officer, and allow the Officer to visit your home, at your employment site or elsewhere, and you will comply with all instructions he may give you." In That, the aforesaid has violated this condition by willfully refusing to attend and successfully complete a Sexual Offender Treatment Program as instructed by his Probation Officer throughout his probation and as ordered by Judge Crockett Farnell on 5-12-88.[2] Violation of Condition (9) which states: "You will pay to First Step, Inc. the sum of Twelve Dollars ($12) per year for each year of probation ordered, on or before ninety days from the date of this order." In That, the aforesaid has violated this condition by willfully refusing to pay to First Step, Inc. the sum of $84 or $12 per year as evidenced by a balance of $84.00 as of 8-12-92. Mr. Thomas was at the time attending Bethune Cookman College. He did not enroll in sex offender counseling because he could not afford the fee; he did not make the payments to First Step, Inc., because he believed that these payments were waived because all of the other fees related to his probation had been waived. Mr. Thomas sold his car, paid the monies owing First Step, Inc., and enrolled in the counseling program. On November 6, 1992, Mr. Thomas entered a plea of guilty to the charges that he had violated the terms of his probation. An order was entered in which Judge Grable Stoutamire accepted the plea, continued Mr. Thomas on probation, and imposed the conditions that Mr. Thomas would "[s]uccessfully complete sex offender counseling now enrolled in" and that Mr. Thomas's "[f]our years DOC [Department of Corrections] suspended sentence is reinstated and will be imposed if defendant deliberately fails to complete sex offender course." Mr. Thomas successfully completed counseling, and he was granted early termination of probation on July 26, 1994. Employment history since 1994. Todd Speight, who is currently the Program Director of the Everglades Youth Development Center, has known Mr. Thomas since they met in 1989, when they both attended Morningside College in Iowa. Mr. Speight observed Mr. Thomas work with children when he was in college, and, in 1994, Mr. Speight recruited Mr. Thomas to work as a youth care worker at the Victor Cullen Academy, which is a residential treatment facility for high risk juveniles located in Maryland. At the time he recommended Mr. Thomas in 1995 for employment at the Victor Cullen Academy, Mr. Speight was aware that Mr. Thomas had pleaded guilty to charges of inappropriate sexual conduct with a girl who was a client of an agency that employed him.3 Mr. Speight was also aware that Mr. Thomas, nonetheless, successfully passed the Maryland employee screening process after he was hired at the Victor Cullen Academy. Mr. Thomas ended his employment at the Victor Cullen Academy when he moved back to Florida in 1995. In 1995 and 1996, Mr. Thomas worked briefly for Bridges of America, a drug and alcohol treatment program that was under contract with the Department of Corrections. He left his position with that organization because the Department of Corrections required that employees of the program be released from probation for at least three years. In the latter part of 1996, Mr. Thomas began working as a residential instructor at the Hope Center, which is a residential center for persons with developmental disabilities that operates under contract with the Department of Children and Families. The Hope Center serves males and females from the age of 12 years to the age of 70 years. Most of the residents are adults, but the Hope Center also serves children. Mr. Thomas disclosed his criminal background when he applied for the job at the Hope Center, and he discussed his background during his employment interview. Mr. Thomas worked at the Hope Center for a short time but was let go when the background screening done by the Department of Children and Families confirmed his criminal background. Mr. Thomas requested an exemption from disqualification from employment, and the exemption was granted in May 1997. Mr. Thomas was rehired by the Hope Center, where he worked from 1997 until the summer of 2002, when he was laid off due to budget cuts. At the time of the final hearing in January 2003, Mr. Thomas was employed at the Bayview Center of Mental Health, a residential program for mentally ill persons aged 18 through 60 years that is funded by the Department of Children and Families. Mr. Thomas was hired as a horticulture assistant, but, after six months of employment, he was promoted to a residential supervisor, effective January 20, 2003. First request to the Department for an exemption from disqualification from employment. In 1995, a request was made to the Department for a background check on Mr. Thomas, and, in July 1995, Mr. Thomas submitted to the Department an Affidavit of Good Moral Character in which he failed to disclose his criminal record. The Department learned through its background investigation that Mr. Thomas had pleaded guilty to three counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with two girls under the age of 16 years, offenses that disqualified him from working in positions of trust and responsibility. The Department also determined that Mr. Thomas did not have good moral character based on the submission of the false affidavit. Mr. Thomas did not request an exemption from disqualification. In 1996, Mr. Thomas was offered a job of trust and responsibility at the Everglades Youth Development Center, and Outreach Broward, Inc., submitted a request to the Department for a background check of Mr. Thomas. A form entitled Consent to Background Screening that was signed by Mr. Thomas on October 8, 1996, accompanied the request, and Mr. Thomas completed an Affidavit of Good Moral Character on October 8, 1996, in which he disclosed that he had a disqualifying criminal offense. The screening resulted in a determination that Mr. Thomas had an unfavorable/disqualifying sex offense of fondling a child. Mr. Thomas requested an exemption from disqualification from employment, and, after he was notified of the Department's intent to deny his request for an exemption, he requested an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing was conducted on May 5, 1998, and a Recommended Order was entered in which the administrative law judge found that Mr. Thomas had established by clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of trust. The administrative law judge accordingly recommended that the Department grant Mr. Thomas an exemption so that he could work at the Everglades Academy with youthful male offenders. The Department entered a Final Order dated July 1998, in which it disagreed with the administrative law judge's recommendation and denied the request for an exemption. Second request to the Department for an exemption from disqualification from employment. In or around June 2002, Mr. Thomas wrote to Governor Jeb Bush regarding his efforts to obtain an exemption from disqualification from employment. In a letter dated June 7, 2002, the Secretary of the Department, W.G. Bankhead, responded to Mr. Thomas and advised him that, because more than three years had passed since his 1996 exemption request was denied, he would be allowed "to request an exemption via the desk review process." Secretary Bankhead directed Ray Aldridge, supervisor of the Background Screening Unit, to notify Mr. Thomas in writing of the requirements of the desk review process. Mr. Thomas was further advised that he would be required to undergo a criminal history background and driver's license screening. In early July 2002, Mr. Thomas submitted a Request for Desk Review on Disqualification, in which he checked the statement: "I request a Desk Review of my request for an exemption from disqualification based on the fact that I have clear and convincing evidence to support a reasonable belief that I am of good moral character." As part of the desk review, persons requesting exemptions are required to submit a letter describing the nature of their criminal offenses and their life since they committed the offenses. The following paragraph is contained in a letter to Mr. Aldridge dated July 28, 2002, and signed by Mr. Thomas: On August twenty second, nineteen eighty- seven, I Anthony L. Thomas was charged with sex offenses: two counts against a child, fondling/lewd and lascivious acts. On January fifteenth, nineteen eighty-eight I was found guilty of the two counts against a child, fondling/lewd and lascivious acts. I was sentence to complete seven years probation, which included attending counseling for sex offenders. In the next paragraph of the letter, Mr. Thomas refers to a single victim.4 The results of the Department's background screening were sent to the Department's Inspector General in a memorandum dated August 13. 2002. In the memorandum, Mr. Thomas's criminal history is described as "Sex offense - Against Child Under 16 - Lewd and Lascivious Act," with an arrest date of August 22, 1987. The false Affidavit of Good Moral Character submitted July 10, 1995, was noted in the memorandum as "Other history, which is not disqualifying." On September 9, 2002, the Department's Inspector General indicated on the memorandum that Mr. Thomas's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment was again denied. Subsequent to notice of the intent to deny the exemption request, Mr. Thomas requested the instant administrative hearing. Work record and character of Mr. Thomas. Mr. Speight was a team leader at the Victor Cullen Academy in 1994-1995, and Mr. Thomas worked on his team. Mr. Speight observed Mr. Thomas's job performance and found that the children in his charge were comfortable with Mr. Thomas and that Mr. Thomas did an excellent job with the children. Mr. Speight did not observe Mr. Thomas engage in any inappropriate conduct during his time at the Victor Cullen Academy. During the years he was employed at the Hope Center, from 1997 until the fall of 2002, Mr. Thomas worked in both the residential program supervising the residents and as an assistant in the social services program, arranging for services to residents, planning and supervising residents on outings and field trips, and communicating with residents' families. Aileen Phelan and David Chiverton, two of his supervisors at the Hope Center, consider Mr. Thomas an exemplary employee: He worked exceptionally well with the residents of the Hope Center, was attentive to the needs of the residents, was very caring, had a good work ethic, and was always willing to help where help was needed. Neither Ms. Phelan nor Mr. Chiverton observed Mr. Thomas engage in any inappropriate behavior during the seven years he worked there. Both were aware of his criminal background, including the charges of sexual misconduct with a minor client while he was a counselor in the Police Athletic League and the violation of probation for failing to complete sex offender counseling. They were not, however, aware that Mr. Thomas had pleaded guilty to charges involving two girls under the age of 16 years; Mr. Thomas had told them he had sexual contact with one girl. The knowledge that the criminal charges involved two girls did not alter Ms. Phelan's and Mr. Chiverton's opinions, based on their long association with Mr. Thomas and their familiarity with him as a person and as an employee working with developmentally disabled persons, that he is suitable for employment in a position of trust and that he should be granted an exemption from disqualification from such employment. Mr. Chiverton has such a high opinion of Mr. Thomas and his contributions to the community that, in April 2000, he extended an invitation to Mr. Thomas to serve as a trustee of the Foundation of Community Assistance and Leadership, of which Mr. Chiverton is the Executive Director. As the Program Director of the Everglades Youth Development Center, Mr. Speight would hire Mr. Thomas in an appropriate position at the Everglades Youth Development Center were the Department to grant him an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of trust. In addition to being familiar with Mr. Thomas's work with children at the Victor Cullen Academy, Mr. Speight has spoken with some of Mr. Thomas's supervisors and co-workers over the past seven or eight years. Although Mr. Speight is aware that Mr. Thomas engaged in a sexual act with a minor in 1987, Mr. Thomas has been a good citizen during the years Mr. Speight has known him. In Mr. Speight's opinion, based on his personal knowledge of Mr. Thomas's character and of his work with high-risk juveniles and on the references from his co-workers, Mr. Thomas would be a highly desirable employee at the Everglades Youth Development Center, and he should be granted the exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of trust that will enable him to work at the Everglades Youth Development Center. Mr. Thomas acknowledges that, even though they had been dating for some time and he cared for her, he was wrong to engage in sexual behavior with Lonnette Frazier. He has been in touch with Ms. Frazier over the years and understands that she has been to college and is doing well.5 Mr. Thomas has been married since November 1999 to Francia Thomas, whom he met when he attended Bethune Cookman College in 1990-1991. Ms. Thomas is a high school business education teacher, and she and Mr. Thomas have a four-year-old son. Ms. Thomas has been aware of her husband's criminal history since shortly after they met. Mr. Thomas is currently attending college to complete his bachelor's degree. He believes that he can be a good example to youthful offenders and can show them that life does not end when you get in trouble as long as you change and use your life to do good. Summary The credible and persuasive evidence submitted by Mr. Thomas is sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that he is rehabilitated, that he is of good moral character, that he is currently fit for employment in a position of trust and responsibility with the Department, and that he should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment: Mr. Thomas was 19 years of age when he was arrested and charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with two girls under the age of 16 years, and 15 years have passed since he pleaded guilty to these offenses. At the time, the criminal court judge believed that Mr. Thomas was unlikely to engage in criminal behavior in the future, and he withheld adjudication of guilt. The only subsequent criminal violation in Mr. Thomas's background is the violation of probation in 1992. Mr. Thomas's failure to comply with two conditions of his probation was not the result of a bad and purposeful disobedience. Rather, Mr. Thomas's failure to attend sex offender counseling was the result of a lack of money to pay for the counseling, and his failure to pay a total of $84.00 to First Step, Inc., was the result of a misunderstanding of his obligation to pay the $12.00 per year fee. Mr. Thomas was granted early release from probation in July 1994, having successfully completed all of the conditions of his probation. Mr. Thomas long ago fulfilled the requirements imposed on him by Florida's criminal justice system, and he has no criminal history since the probation violation in 1992 but has, by all accounts, lived a good and productive life. Mr. Thomas has worked in positions of special trust with young people and with developmentally disabled children and adults since his release from probation in 1994: He worked with juveniles in a high-risk treatment facility in Maryland before returning to Florida in 1995; he was employed for seven years at the Hope Center as a residential instructor; and he is currently working as a residential supervisor at a center in Pembroke Pines that serves mentally ill residents. Mr. Thomas has the respect and loyalty of former supervisors and co-workers in these programs, and they describe a man who was an exemplary employee and a caring social service worker with whom adults and children were comfortable. The evidence is, therefore, sufficient to support a firm and unhesitating belief that Mr. Thomas would not pose a threat to children were he permitted to work with juveniles committed to the care of the Department.6 Mr. Thomas is married, he has a child and a stable home life, and he is completing his college education. Mr. Thomas admits that, in 1995, he submitted a false Affidavit of Good Moral Character in which he failed to disclose that he had pleaded guilty to a disqualifying offense. Although the false affidavit Mr. Thomas prepared in 1995 could reasonably serve as a basis for denying his 1996 request for an exemption from disqualification from employment, seven and one-half years have elapsed and Mr. Thomas has fully disclosed and discussed his criminal history with the Department. In light of his personal and employment history since 1995, Mr. Thomas's failure to disclose this criminal history in 1995 is not sufficient to support a finding of fact that Mr. Thomas lacks good moral character. Mr. Thomas's failure to state in the July 28, 2002, letter to Mr. Aldridge that he was charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with two separate girls under the age of 16 years is, likewise, not sufficient to support a finding of fact that Mr. Thomas lacks good moral character. Although Mr. Thomas pleaded guilty to the three counts of lewd and lascivious behavior in 1987, when he was 20 years old, the credible and persuasive evidence establishes that he did so as part of a plea bargain to avoid what he feared could be a prison sentence of 25 years. Throughout the hearing, Mr. Thomas proclaimed his innocence with respect to the charge that he engaged in lewd and lascivious conduct with Carolyn Coston, and he repeatedly asserted that he had actually engaged in conduct of a sexual nature only with Lonnette Frazer, and the omission in the letter of reference to the third count of and the second girl named in the Information is a minor error of omission that is insufficient to outweigh Mr. Thomas's personal and employment history during the past nine years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order granting Anthony L. Thomas an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of trust or responsibility with the Department of Juvenile Justice. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 17th day of March, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner falsified information on his application.
Findings Of Fact Michael James Quinn made application to the Department of State for licensure as an unarmed security guard in February of 1981, and for licensure as an armed security guard in May 1981. Quinn answered "no" to Question #13 on the applications, "Have you ever been arrested?" Quinn admitted, and his FBI record also revealed, that he was arrested on July 9, 1975, for possession of cocaine, sale of cocaine, possession of marijuana and aggravated assault. Quinn admitted, and his FBI record also revealed, that all of the charges were dismissed except that for possession of cocaine, to which adjudication was withheld, and he was placed on five years' probation. Quinn was advised by his attorney and his probation officers that upon satisfactory completion of his probation his record would be expunged. Quinn satisfactorily completed his five years' probation. Quinn was just over 18 years of age when he was arrested. During probation Quinn satisfactorily completed four years of college and received a Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice. Quinn included with his initial application the affidavit of Lola A. Alston to his good character. Alston was Quinn's last probation officer. Quinn has had no arrests since July 9, 1975.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's applications for unarmed and armed guard licenses be approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Michael J. Quinn 4601 Northwest Second Avenue, #801 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
