Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Donald Eugene Halpin, Richard Edward Jackson and Jeffery Lynn Fowler, are inmates under the supervision of the Respondent. Petitioners Halpin and Fowler are incarcerated at Glades Correctional Institution. Petitioner Jackson is incarcerated at Martin Correctional Institution. The Respondent is the Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Petitioners have challenged Rules 33-6.003, 33-6.0045 and 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rules govern transfers of inmates and custody classification of inmates. The Challenged Rules were amended by the Respondent after the Respondent enacted and applied several emergency rules governing inmate transfers and custody classification of inmates. These emergency rules were adopted during 1990 and 1991. The Petitioners have alleged that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious as applied to the Petitioners . . . ." The Petitioners have also alleged that the Challenged Rules are invalid because they were amended "through prohibited acts as defined in Chapter 120.54(9)(c), Fla. Stat., when the Respondent ran two emergency rules (33ER91-1 & 33ER91-2) back-to- back so that Amended Chapter 33-6, etc. (1991) could be implemented."
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner was an inmate incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution within the custody and control of the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. Respondent stipulated at final hearing that Petitioner has "standing" to maintain the rule challenge proceeding. The parties also stipulated that the rule under challenge in this proceeding is a rule adopted by Respondent in accordance with the settlement reached in a previous administrative rule challenge proceeding in which Petitioner was a party. The parties further stipulated that ". . . inmates within the Respondent's care enjoy meaningful access to the courts." There are presently approximately 2,500 inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution. There is one Xerox machine located in the law library at Union Correctional Institution, and the librarian has two inmate clerks assigned to assist in the operation of the library. There is insufficient money in the library budget to fund either additional copying machines or additional personnel to assist in copying materials other than those authorized under Respondent's rule.
The Issue The issues are whether, in violation of sections 120.54(1)(a) and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Respondent has made an agency statement that is an unadopted rule in implementing a 2017 statutory amendment broadening the category of first-time test-takers to be counted when calculating the passing rate of the graduates of Petitioner’s prelicensure professional nursing education program (Program) and whether, pursuant to section 57.111, Petitioner may recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Respondent. At Petitioner’s request, the parties presented evidence concerning constitutional challenges that Petitioner intends to present to a district court of appeal.
Findings Of Fact The Program is a prelicensure professional nursing education program that terminates with an associate degree. Respondent approved the Program in 2013, thus authorizing Petitioner to admit degree-seeking students into the Program, as provided in section 464.019. As provided by section 464.019(5)(a)1., the passing rate of the Program’s graduates taking the NCLEX for the first time must meet or exceed the minimum passing rate, which is ten points less than the average passage rate of graduates taking the NCLEX nationally for the first time. Until June 23, 2017, the passing rate of a Florida program was based only on first-time test-takers who had taken the exam within six months of graduating (New Graduates). Chapter 2017-134, sections 4 and 8, Laws of Florida, which took effect when signed into law on June 23, 2017 (Statutory Amendment), removes the six-month restriction, so that the passing rate of a Florida program is now based on all first-time test-takers, regardless of when they graduated (Graduates). The statutory language does not otherwise address the implementation of the Statutory Amendment. For 2015 and 2016, respectively, the minimum passing rates in Florida were 72% and 71.68%, and the Program’s New Graduates passed the NCLEX at the rates of 44% and 15.79%. As required by section 464.019(5), Respondent issued the Probationary Order. The Probationary Order recites the provisions of section 464.019(5)(a) specifying the applicable passing rate, directing Respondent to place a program on probation if its graduates fail to pass at the minimum specified passing rates for two consecutive years, and mandating that the program remain on probation until its passing rate achieves the minimum specified rate. The Probationary Order details the 2015 and 2016 passing rates of Petitioner’s relevant graduates and the minimum passing rates for these years. The Probationary Order makes no attempt to describe the condition of probation, which might have included a reference to New Graduates, other than to refer to section 464.019(5)(a)2., which, unchanged by the Statutory Amendment, specifies only that a program must remain on probation until and unless its graduates achieve a passing rate at least equal to the minimum passing rate for the year in question. For 2017, the minimum passing rate for a Florida program was 74.24%. If, as Respondent contends, the new law applies to all of 2017, six of the fifteen of the Program’s Graduates failed the NCLEX, so the Program’s passing rate was inadequate at 60%. If, as Petitioner contends, the old law applies to all of 2017, twelve of the Program’s test-takers were New Graduates, and only three of them failed, so the Program’s passing rate was adequate at 75%. Respondent clearly applied the Statutory Amendment retroactively to January 1, 2017, in the Order Extending Probation because the order states that that the passing rate of the Program’s Graduates for 2017 was only 60% and therefore extends Petitioner’s probationary status for 2018. The Order Extending Probation provides Petitioner with a clear point of entry to request an administrative hearing. Each party applies the Statutory Amendment without regard to the effective date of June 23, 2017, but Respondent reaches the correct conclusion: the passing rate of the Program’s graduates for 2017 was inadequate. The NCLEX is administered throughout the year, and the dates of graduation are available for Petitioner’s Graduates taking the NCLEX in 2017, so it is possible to calculate a combined passing rate, using only New Graduates under the old law for testing dates through June 22 and all Graduates under the new law for testing dates after June 22. From January 1 through June 22, 2017, five of the Program’s test-takers were New Graduates and they all passed. From June 23 through December 31, 2017, four of the eight Graduates taking the NCLEX passed the test. Combining these results for all of 2017, the Program’s passing rate was nine divided by thirteen, or 69%, which was inadequate for 2017.
Findings Of Fact On June 19, 1991, the Petitioner, Lemuel L. Cole, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing. The Petitioner challenged a proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.004, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner's challenge was instituted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The notice of the proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.004, Florida Administrative Code, was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, Number 21, page 2318, on May 24, 1991. The Petitioner's Petition challenging proposed amendment to Rule 33- 3.004, Florida Administrative Code, was filed twenty-six days after notice of the proposed amendment to the challenged rule was filed.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.011 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, in violation of section 120.52(8).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, FHBPA, is a Florida not-for-profit corporation created to advance, foster, and promote the sport of thoroughbred horse racing in the State of Florida. FHBPA’s membership includes over 200 Florida-licensed horse trainers and over 5,000 Florida-licensed horse owners, and has associational standing to file and prosecute actions on behalf of its members. Respondent has not challenged FHBPA’s standing to bring this proceeding. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (PMW), is the state agency charged with the regulation of pari-mutuel wagering in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapter 550, Florida Statutes. The question to be decided in this proceeding is what the Legislature meant when it amended section 550.2415(7) in 2015, and whether rule 61D-6.011 carries out the legislative directive it contains. Before the 2015 legislative session, section 550.2415 stated, in pertinent part: (3)(a) Upon the finding of a violation of this section, the division may revoke or suspend the license or permit of the violator or deny a license or permit to the violator; impose a fine against the violator in an amount not exceeding $5,000; require the full or partial return or the purse, sweepstakes, and trophy of the race at issue; or impose against the violator any combination of such penalties. The finding of a violation of this section in no way prohibits a prosecution for criminal acts committed. * * * (7)(e) The division may, by rule, establish acceptable levels of permitted medications and shall select the appropriate biological specimens by which the administration of permitted medication is monitored. * * * The division shall adopt rules to implement this section. The rules may include a classification system for prohibited substances and a corresponding penalty schedule for violations. Except as specifically modified by statute or by rules of the division, the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, revised February 14, 1995, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc., is hereby adopted by reference as the uniform classification system for class IV and V medications. (Emphasis added). During the 2015 legislative session, the Legislature substantially amended section 550.2415. Ch. 15-88, § 1, Laws of Fla. Not all of the changes made are germane to the challenge at issue here, but the amendments to subsections (3) and (7) are critical: (3)(a) Upon the finding of a violation of this section, the division may revoke or suspend the license or permit of the violator or deny a license or permit to the violator; impose a fine against the violator in an amount not exceeding the purse or sweepstakes earned by the animal in the race at issue or $10,000, whichever is greater; require the full or partial return of the purse, sweepstakes, and trophy of the race at issue; or impose against the violator any combination of such penalties. The finding of a violation of this section does not prohibit a prosecution for criminal acts committed. * * * (7)(a) In order to protect the safety and welfare of racing animals and the integrity of the races in which the animals participate, the division shall adopt rules establishing the conditions of use and maximum concentrations of medications, drugs, and naturally occurring substances identified in the Controlled Therapeutic Medication Schedule, Version 2.1, revised April 17, 2014, adopted by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc. Controlled therapeutic medications include only the specific medications and concentrations allowed in biological samples which have been approved by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc., as controlled therapeutic medications. * * * (c) The division rules must include a classification system for drugs and substances and a corresponding penalty schedule for violations which incorporates the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, Version 8.0, revised December 2014, by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc. The division shall adopt laboratory screening limits approved by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc., for drugs and medications that are not included as controlled therapeutic medications, the presence of which in a sample may result in a violation of this section. (Emphasis added). The title page of the ARCI Document states, “Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances and Recommended Penalties and Model Rule.” Each of the remaining pages of the ARCI Document, including those pages that encompass the ARCI Recommended Penalties, identifies the ARCI Document as the “Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances.” The Notes Regarding Classification Guidelines, found at page ii, states that “Where the use of a drug is specifically permitted by a jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction’s rule supersedes these penalty guidelines.” (Emphasis added). Rules 61D-6.011 and 61D-6.008 were amended in 2016, in response to the amendments to section 550.2415. Rule 61D-6.008 addresses permitted medications allowed for horses, and rule 61D- addresses the penalties to be imposed for drug violations. Relevant portions of rule 61D-6.011 provide: The penalties in this rule shall be imposed when the stewards or the Division finds that the following substances have been identified by the state laboratory in a urine sample or blood sample collected from a horse participating in a pari-mutuel event: (a) Any medication listed in subsection 61D-6.008(2), F.A.C. [1.-3. provide penalty ranges for first, second, and third offenses] The penalty for any medication or drug which is not described in subsection (1) above shall be based upon the classification of the medication or drug found in the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, revised December 2014, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc., which is hereby incorporated and adopted herein by reference, https://flrules.org/Gateway/ reference.asp?No=Ref-06400, www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pmw or by contacting the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 2601 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. The penalty schedule shall be as follows: Class I substances: First violation of this chapter Second violation of this chapter Third or subsequent violation of this chapter Class II substances: First violation of this chapter $3,000 to $5,000 fine and suspension of license 90 days to one year, or revocation of license; $4,000 to $5,000 fine and suspension of license of no less than one year, or revocation of license. $5,000 to $10,000 fine and revocation of license. $250 to $1,000 fine and suspension of license zero to 180 days; Second violation of this chapter Third or subsequent violation of this chapter Class III substances: First violation of this chapter Second violation of this chapter Third or subsequent violation of this chapter Class IV or V substances: First violation of this chapter Second violation of this chapter $500 to $1,000 fine and suspension of license of no less than 180 days, or revocation of license; $1,000 to $5,000 fine and suspension of license of no less than one year, or revocation of license $300 to $500 fine; $500 to $750 fine and suspension of license zero to 30 days, or revocation of license; $750 to $1,000 fine and suspension of license zero to 180 days, or revocation of license. $100 to $250 fine; $250 to $500 fine and suspension of license zero to 10 days; Third violation of this chapter $500 to $1,000 fine and suspension of license zero to 60 days. The Division may consider mitigation or aggravation to deviate from these penalty guidelines. * * * Absent mitigating circumstances, the stewards or the Division shall order the return of any purse, prize, or award from any pari-mutuel event for redistribution when a positive test for a drug or medication described in paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (2)(a), or (2)(b) is reported by the state laboratory and confirmed through the hearing process. The stewards or the Division may order the return of any purse, prize, or award for redistribution when the positive test of a drug or medication reported by the state laboratory is not described in paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (2)(a), or (2)(b) of this rule. In the event the stewards or Division orders the return of the purse, prize, or award for redistribution as described in this subsection, the reason(s) for the redistribution shall be provided in writing. (Emphasis added). Rule 61D-6.011 varies from the penalty provisions in the ARCI Recommended Penalties in several respects. First, in the drug classification tables in the ARCI Document, which the rule incorporates by reference, there are columns to identify the drug or substance; trade name, if any; drug class; and penalty class. Not all drugs in a drug class are in the same penalty class. For example, all class 1 drugs are in penalty class A, with the exception of cocaine, morphine, and strychnine, which are in penalty class B. The majority of class 2 drugs are also in penalty class A, with the exception of caffeine, carisoprodol, diazepam, hydroxyzine, ketamine, levamisole, lidocaine, mepivacaine, and romifidine, which are in penalty class B. Class 3 drugs are generally split between penalty classes A and B, and class 4 drugs include both penalty classes B and C. Similarly, class 5 drugs are split between penalty classes C and D. It is clear from the text of the ARCI Document that the drug classifications and the penalty guidelines are intended to work together as a comprehensive approach to the impermissible drugging of racing horses. In the Recommended Penalty and Model Rule portion of the ARCI Document, there are separate penalties recommended for licensed trainers and for owners. For trainers, class A penalties include a minimum fine of $10,000 or 10% of the total purse, whichever is greater, absent mitigating circumstances, to a maximum of $25,000 or 25% of the purse with aggravating factors for a first offense. For a second offense in any jurisdiction, the fine amount is $25,000 or 25% of the total purse, whichever is greater, absent mitigating circumstances, and may increase with aggravating circumstances to a maximum of $50,000 or 50% of the purse, whichever is greater. For a third offense in any jurisdiction, the minimum fine is $50,000 or 50% of the total purse, whichever is greater, absent mitigating circumstances, and may increase with aggravating circumstances to a maximum of $100,000 or 100% of the purse, whichever is greater. For owners, the first and second offenses include disqualification and loss of purse. The penalty for a third offense includes disqualification, loss of purse, and a $50,000 fine. For owners and trainers, the monetary penalties may exceed the maximum permitted under section 550.4215(3), which authorizes a fine not exceeding the purse or sweepstakes earned by the animal, or $10,000, whichever is greater. The parties have submitted the House and Senate Bill analyses that address the amendment to section 550.2415 at issue here.1/ The House of Representatives Final Bill Analysis for CS/HB 239 includes the following statements: The bill changes the maximum fine for violations from $5,000 to $10,000 or the amount of the purse, whichever is greater. The bill also reduces the time for the division to begin administrative prosecutions for violations from 2 years to 90 days. The bill requires the division to adopt the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) rules regarding the medications, drugs, and naturally occurring substances given to race animals, including a classification system for drugs that incorporates ARCI’s Penalty Guidelines for drug violations, and updates current methodologies used in testing procedures. . . . * * * Effect of Proposed Changes * * * The bill requires that the penalty schedule for violations must incorporate the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, Version 8.0, revised December 2014, by the ARCI. These guidelines are “intended to assist stewards, hearing offices and racing commissioners in evaluating the seriousness of alleged violations of medication and prohibited substance rules. ” The bill analysis for CS/SB 226 contains similar provisions stating that the ARCI Penalty Guidelines must be incorporated into a rule adopted by Respondent. The penalty guidelines included in rule 61D-6.011 do not incorporate the ARCI Recommended Penalties. The PMW’s website includes a listing of statutes and rules, with links to the rules. Included in that list is a statement that “The Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc. ‘Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances and Recommended Penalties and Model Rule’ is adopted and incorporated by rule.” Notwithstanding this statement, the ARCI Recommended Penalties are not incorporated into rule 61D-6.011 or any other rule identified in this proceeding. The rule provides for consideration of a number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, when warranted, that allow for deviation from the identified penalty guidelines. As noted above, rule 61D-6.011(1) refers to the medications listed in rule 61D-6.008. Rule 61D-6.008 provides in pertinent part: Permitted medications for horses: The prescription medications defined in this rule shall be permitted under the conditions set forth to conserve and protect the health of the horse which is entered to race. All such medications shall be procured and administered by a licensed veterinarian, except where a valid prescription or dispensing occurs in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 474, F.S. The following permitted medications at concentrations less than or equal to the following schedule shall not be reported by the racing laboratory to the Division as a violation of Section 550.2415, F.S. [list of medications and concentration levels for each one]. Thus, subsection (1) of rule 61D-6.011 addresses violations where too much of a permitted medication is found in a race day sample, whereas subsection (2) addresses violations based upon prohibited medications. Petitioner presented the testimony of Scott Hay and Edward Martin in support of its contention that the penalty guidelines adopted by PMW are arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Scott Hay is a veterinarian who has worked with thoroughbred racehorses since 1988. He is a member of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the Florida Veterinary Association. He serves as co-chair on the scientific advisory committee for the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, which worked on the development of the ARCI Document. Dr. Hay was familiar with the ARCI Document and described the process used to determine threshold levels for medications. He testified that the scientific advisory committee relied extensively on the expertise of some of its members to determine the appropriate levels of medications that would be appropriate under the drug classifications. On the other hand, while he is familiar with PMW’s rules and was involved in the rulemaking workshops when the rules were first amended after the 2015 statutory change, he did not believe that he made any comments on these particular rules during that process. He did not provide any testimony that provided information on what methodology PMW used when formulating its penalty guidelines. Mr. Martin works for the Association of Racing Commissioners International as its president and has done so since 2005. He testified that the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium is a consortium of racing industry organizations that advises ARCI and regulatory entities on medication and anti-doping policies. He described the process by which the scientific advisory committee meets and considers recommendations on changes to policies. According to Mr. Martin, the scientific advisory committee relies on the collective judgment of the pharmacologists, chemists, toxicologists, and veterinarians to provide advice and expertise about appropriate public policy. The controlled therapeutic medication schedule is an attempt to provide some consistency in the regulation of some commonly used medications that are considered appropriate for equine care. The schedule recommends a threshold for testing, and only if that threshold is exceeded, is there a violation of the rules of racing. Mr. Martin pointed to the reference in rule 61D-6.011 to rule 61D-6.008. He testified that what “struck him” about the Florida rules is that rule 61D-6.008 encompasses the controlled therapeutic list, but rule 61D-6.011(1) appears to provide the same penalty for any violation of a substance itemized in 61D- 6.008. This treatment is not consistent with ARCI’s penalty schedule, but Mr. Martin did not know whether Florida made a conscious decision to impose a different recommended penalty than what is contained in the ARCI Document, and did not know the intent of the drafters with respect to the rule.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: As of the hearing date of March 15, 1982, the commission had not prepared subject-matter indices of its Orders entered after January 1, 1975 resulting from: petitions for rulemaking; hearings held pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. determinations relating to presumptive and effective parole release dated (parole grants) or parole revocations; petitions for a declaratory statement issued prior to approximately July of 1981, or other final orders not otherwise defined. Other than as referred to in paragraph 2 of these Findings of Fact, the Commission has not produced indices of its current 1981 orders. (TR. 9) Neither the Commission's General Counsel nor the Planning and Evaluation Director, both of whom receive their assignments of duties and responsibilities from the Commission, have been directed by the Commission to prepare a subject- matter index of final Commission orders issued pursuant to hearings held under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, or petitions for rulemaking. (TR. 34, 35, 37 & 104) The Commission's General Counsel and Planning and Evaluation Director would prepare such indices only if directed to do so by the Commission. (TR. 35 & 104) The General Counsel's office has been directed by the Commission to prepare an index of declaratory statements issued by the Commission. With the aid of an assistant counsel, the Commission's General Counsel has prepared a subject-matter index of declaratory statements purportedly issued as of September 30, 1981. (Appellant's Exhibit 3) This index utilizes key words or topics, without further citation to statutes or rules. It includes all declaratory statements issued by the Commission during the approximately ninety- day period prior to September 30, 1981. The General Counsel, who has been in that position since March of 1980, was aware of no other declaratory statements issued by the Commission or petitions for a declaratory statement submitted to the Commission. (TR. 108) A draft of an update to the subject-matter index for declaratory statements issued after September 30, 1981 has been prepared and was expected to be in final form within thirty days of March 15, 1982. The Office of General Counsel will prepare and produce an updated subject-matter index of declaratory statements on at least a quarterly basis. (TR. 101-103) As indicated by the opinions rendered in the case of Turner v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 379 So.2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1980) aff'd, 389 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 1980), and various issues of the Florida Administrative Weekly, 1/ petitions for a declaratory statement have been received and ruled upon by the Commission prior to July 1, 1981. As noted above, the witnesses presented by the Commission to testify in this proceeding had not been assigned the task of preparing subject-matter indices for orders on petitions for rulemaking, orders following hearings conducted pursuant to section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and other final agency decisions which are equivalent to "orders". Involved in the preparation such indices would be a review of the file and a development of a subject heading or headings for each such order. The Commission presented no further evidence regarding the practicability or cost of preparing such indices or any lack of public benefit to be derived from access to such indices. Absent such evidence, it is specifically found that it would not be impracticable, unduly time- consuming, or cost-prohibitive for the Commission to prepare or produce subject- matter indices of its Orders resulting from petitions for rulemaking, Section 120.57 hearings or other final agency decisions which are equivalent to "orders." Whatever inconvenience such indices cause the Commission in terms of time and costs of preparation are far outweighed by the public benefit to be derived from accessibility to the Commission's interpretations of the law and development of agency practice and incipient policy. The Commission has failed, without sufficient justification, to comply with the Court's mandate and Order dated September 3, 1981, to "forthwith prepare and report that it has prepared indices of its declaratory statements and of petitions to the Commission for rulemaking" and has further failed to comply with its own approved proposal to produce induced of current 1981 orders on or before November 30, 1981. Because of a change in the statutes effective January 1, 1979, with respect to the granting of parole and the establishment of presumptive and effective parole release dates, orders of the Commission entered prior to that date have no relationship to orders entered after that date. Therefore, the public would gain no present benefit from an index of parole granting orders entered prior to January 1, 1979. The appellant, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. , has withdrawn its request to have the Commission index parole granting orders issued from January 1, 1975 through December 31, 1978. (TR. 12 & 13) As to the period between January 1, 1979 through December 31, 1980, it would be beneficial to the public to have access to an index of only those parole granting orders which contain a reference to a constitutional provision, statute or rule, since such orders may contain the agency's interpretation of the law or incipient policy. The parole revocation process has not changed since 1975. It would be beneficial to the public to have access to all those parole revocation orders of the Commission entered since 1975 which contain a reference to a constitutional provision, statute, or a rule. Jay D. Farris, the Commission's Planning and Evaluation Director, has been appointed by the Commission to be in charge of the indexing project as it relates to parole granting orders (which includes Commission determinations on presumptive and effective parole release dates) and parole revocation orders. This assignment is in addition to his other duties which include the drafting of all legislation for the Commission, lobbying, acting as a part-time clerk of the Commission, preparing complex case analysis for the Commission, the drafting of proposed rules, holding public hearings for proposed rules and training Commission hearing examiners when there are rule changes. Mr. Farris has only a secretary on his staff. (TR. 28, 29) Since the District Court entered its opinion on November 26, 1980 (petition for rehearing denied on January 8, 1981) reported at 391 So.2d 247, the Commission, through Mr. Farris, has conducted an investigation into the number of Commission actions which could possibly fall within the parameters of the Court's ruling regarding the prepartion of subject-matter indexing. It was determined that a minimum of 600 actions per week would fall under the purview of that decision. A private indexing firm would charge approximately $1.00 per action to review the data and produce an index. (Tr. 16) Determining that this cost would be prohibitive, Mr. Farris has been working with the Bureau of Management Information Systems (MIS) of the Department of corrections to prepare a computer program which would meet the Commission's indexing requirements. By statute, the department of Corrections maintains the sole offender-based information and records system for the joint use of the department of Corrections and the Commission. Section 20.315(20) Florida Statutes. The function of the Bureau of Management Information Systems of the Department of Corrections is the automation of departmental records for ease of retrieval and management information. To accomplish this function, the Department of Corrections shares a computer with the Supreme Court of Florida, with the Department owning 67 percent and the supreme Court owning 33 percent of the computer. The computer itself is located in the basement of the Supreme Court, but the Department of Corrections has approximately 40 terminals located in its headquarters in Tallahassee and in excess of 100 terminals located throughout the State. The computer maintains a complete offender record of each Florida inmate. This record includes the inmate's date of birth, race, sex, the offense for which he or she is incarcerated, other offenses, gain time accrued, presumptive, projected and current release dates and FDLE and FBI numbers. Without the prior preparation of a specific program by the Bureau of MIS, it is not possible to retrieve from the computer any generic information on Florida inmates. For example, while the computer presently has the ability to produce a screen view of the record of any particular inmate, it cannot search through its entire data base and produce screen printouts of the names of all those inmates meeting any particular criteria, such as those serving a mandatory 25-year capital life sentence. (TR. 91-94) The records of 53,700 offenders are presently contained in the computer's data base, with some 24,000 records being for active inmates. (TR. 93) In December of 1981, the Commission, through Mr. Farris, entered into discussions with Reynold L. Ferrari, the Chief of the Bureau of MIS for the Department of Corrections, and his staff regarding the subject of utilizing the computer system to produce and maintain a subject-matter index for Commission orders concerning the granting and/or revocation of parole. A basic technical problem presently exists in the computer program utilized by the Department of Corrections. The computer is only designed to handle single actions taken by the Commission on any particular day. Often, multiple separate actions by the Commission are taken in one day on a particular inmate, and the present computer programming does not allow multiple entries at one point in time. This problem is one of systems design and involves more than reprogramming. It involves a definition of a new data base that will have to be created for the Commission, and then programming it to provide the input capability to add additional data and defining the output reports that are required. (TR. 90) Once a systems design is accomplished and all the relevant data is in the computer, it will take about three weeks or less to produce a program that would result in a printout format similar to that developed and utilized by the Commission in its declaratory statement index. (Appellant's Exhibit 3, TR. 79, 84, 85) The Commission has not specifically or formally requested the Department of Corrections to resolve the multiple-action problem. It has simply asked the Department to look into the problem and estimate the length of time it would take to accomplish certain results. (Appellee's Exhibit 2) Mr. Ferrari has informed the Commission that he would need an exact and specific definition of the output required by the Commission and would work with the Commission and its staff in achieving the desired goals. (Appellee's Exhibit 3, TR. 89, 90) The answer to how long it would take to redesign the system is dependent upon a detailed definition of the information needed by the Commission. (TR. 98) A detailed statement of what is required by the Commission has not been provided to the Bureau of MIS. (TR. 99) The only evidence adduced by the Commission as to its time frame for providing the format the Commission requires was the statement of Mr. Farris that "I would like to have had it done some time ago, but just as soon as I possibly can. This has received a great deal of priority, I must say." (TR. 72) The Commission did make a budget request for two new positions--a data entry operator and a clerk typist III--in order to comply with indexing requirements and to augment their data input ability. (TR. 74, Appellee's Exhibit 4) Presently, the only information being provided by the Comission to the computer data base is current, single Commission action regarding presumptive parole release dates (PPRD) and the inmate's next interview date. Included within the PPRD information presently being put into the computer is a code which makes reference to aggravating factors contained in the Commission's rules. (TR. 69, 70) Prior Commission's actions regarding PPRDs have not been put into the computer data base. The manner in which this information will be retrieved or the printout format has not been developed yet. (TR. 52, 53) It is expected that the format will be similar to that developed for the index of declaratory statements. (Appellant's Exhibit 3). The Commission has not requested the department of Corrections to produce any particular format for a subject-matter index of parole granting or parole revocation orders (TR. 53, 54) and no evidence was tendered as to when such a request would be made. Mr. Farris, the person responsible for such indices, could give no specific date for the production of such indices (TR. 38) While the Commission has not prepared a final proposed style of indexing for Commission actions regarding presumptive and effective parole release and parole revocations, it is expected that such indices would be broken down by topic similar to that prepared by the Commission for declaratory statements. It is not known whether such indices will include citations to constitutional provisions, statutes or rules. (TR. 64) According to Mr. Farris, "the specification of the nature of the index is yet to be determined." (TR. 66) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT The undersigned, as the appointed commissioner of the Court, has been charged with the responsibility to take evidence and report recommendations to the Court with respect to a determination of the following issues: The practicability of the Commission preparing indices of its orders entered from 1975 through 1980; and The reasonableness of the schedule proposed by the Commission in light of the proposed contents of the indices, the cost of preparation, and the public benefit to be gained therefrom. Prior to addressing those issues, it must first be noted that, with the exception of preparing a subject-matter index for a portion of its declaratory statements, the evidence adduced at the hearing illustrates that the Commission has made absolutely no effort to produce indices of its current 1981 orders. This action is contrary to the Court' s original mandate as well as Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Court's Order entered on September 3, 1981. There has been absolutely no evidence adduced in the proceedings before the undersigned as to a legitimate reason or justification for such noncompliance with the Court's directives. Indeed, the evidence illustrates that the Commission has simply not directed its attention to this important matter. Any problems attendant to the computer system utilized by the Department of Corrections should have absolutely no effect upon the ability of the Commission to immediately prepare subject- matter indices for all its Orders resulting from petitions for a declaratory statement, hearings conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, petitions for rulemaking or other matters which result in the issuance of the functional equivalent of an "order" as it is defined in Section 120.52(9). Florida Statutes. Turning now to the issues addressed in Paragraph 3 of the Court's September 3, 1981 Order, it is concluded from the evidence adduced at the hearing that it would not be impracticable or cost-prohibitive for the Commission to immediately prepare indices, whether arranged by subject matter and/or citations to constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions, for its Orders entered from 1975 through 1980 in those matters arising from: petitions for a declaratory statement, proceedings conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, petitions for rulemaking, and cases, such as the instant proceeding, which result in the functional equivalent of an "order" as defined in Section 120.52(9), Florida Statutes. The public benefit to be gained from such indices is obvious since such Orders are indicative of an agency's interpretation of the laws under which it operates and can indicate incipient agency policy as developed on a case-by-case basis. The Commission has made no good-faith effort or diligent attempt to comply with its own schedule for the accomplishment of the preparation of indices for the Orders listed above and neither the contents, costs, or practicability of preparing such indices justify the time frame proposed. With respect to the remaining Orders issued by the Commission between 1975 and 19890--those involving parole grants and parole revocations--it is concluded that an index of Orders on parole grants entered prior to 1979 would not be beneficial to the public due to the drastic change in the law which became effective on January 1, 1979. It is further concluded that only those post-1974 Orders concerning parole parole grants which contain a reference or citation to a constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision would contain information beneficial to the public. Therefore, an index limited to such Orders would satisfy the requirements of Section 120.53(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The Commission has failed to adduce evidence that the preparation of a subject-matter and/or citator index for its Orders entered after January 1, 1975 involving parole revocation and its Orders entered after January 1, 1979 involving parole grants would be either impracticable or cost-prohibitive. While the computer system will need to be redesigned to accomplish multiple- entries in cases where the Commission takes more than one action on the same date regarding a single inmate, it is possible to make this change. The Bureau of Management Information Systems stands ready and able to effectuate such a design change and is simply waiting for a specific and detailed definition of the information sought to be retrieved by the Commission. Again, from the evidence adduced at the hearing, it appears that the Commission has simply made no diligent or good-faith effort to determine the format of the required indices or the information it desires to accomplish the indexing task. In summary, it is concluded that the Commission, along with the joint assistance and efforts of the Department of Corrections, presently has or can quickly obtain the capability of preparing indices of all Orders entered from 1975 through the present date. The Commission presented no evidence that the preparation of such indices would be cost-prohibitive, or that, other than its lack of attention to the matter, the contents of the indices would make the task unduly time-consuming or would otherwise render the indexing requirement prohibitive. With the exception of pre-1979 parole granting Orders and Orders granting or revoking parole which contain no reference to a constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision, the public will benefit from an index of, and consequently access to, all Orders of the Commission. In order to accomplish the indexing task, the Commission need only render a determination of the format for each index and provide the staff to either review the files containing the Commission Orders or provide the necessary input to the computer system so that the required information can be retrieved from the computer. The evidence presented by the Commission illustrates that not only has the Commission failed to adhere to its own proposed schedule of compliance with the law, the schedule proposed is unreasonably lengthy in terms of the contents, cost and information presently available, as well as the public benefit to be derived from the production of the indices. Respectfully submitted and entered this 4th day of June, 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 4th day of June, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Darryl McGlamry, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. The Challenged Rule, Rule 33ER91-2, Florida Administrative Code. On January 23, 1991, the Respondent filed Rule 33ER91-1. This emergency rule was filed by the Respondent to alleviate problems created by a high increase in the number of close custody inmates caused by changes in the Respondent's rules during 1990. Pursuant to Section 120.54(9)(c), Florida Statutes, Rule 33ER91-1 was only effective for ninety (90) days. Therefore, Rule 33ER91-1 was due to expire on or about April 24, 1991. On April 23, 1991, the Respondent filed the Challenged Rule. The Challenged Rule is identical in its terms to Rule 33ER91-1. The Challenged Rule should have expired on July 22, 1991. The instant challenge was instituted on May 8, 1991, before the Challenged Rule expired. The amendments to Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code, filed by the Respondent on July 1, 1991, do not repeal the effect of the Challenged Rule prior to July 1, 1991.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant; (2) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff rule relating to effectiveness in assigned duties; and (3) if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a detention deputy and has been so employed for more than 11 years. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was assigned to the Pinellas County Detention Center (Jail). Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Respondent is responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates incarcerated at the Jail. On April 26, 1999, Respondent was assigned to the third shift, Special Operations Division, and was a corporal supervising the booking area. In connection with that assignment, Respondent's job responsibilities included booking inmates into the Jail. One part of the booking process required that detention deputies obtain certain information from individuals taken into custody in order to complete the necessary paperwork. While the information was being obtained, inmates are instructed to stand behind a blue line on the floor. As part of the booking process, detention deputies inventory the property in the possession of an inmate and make a written record of that property and "pat down" the inmate. Following these procedures, the inmate is seen by a nurse. However, if the nurse is unavailable, the inmate is told to wait in Pre-booking Cell 4 (Cell 4). Detention Deputy Robert McQuire was also assigned to work the third shift in the booking area of the Special Operations Division on April 26, 1999. On April 26, 1999, during the third shift, Jay McMillen (McMillen) was booked into custody at the Jail on the charge of driving without a valid driver’s license. Upon arrival at the Jail, he was taken to the booking area, instructed to stand behind the blue line on the floor near the counter in the booking area, and asked for information required to complete the inmate property form. Both Respondent and McGuire participated in booking McMillen but McGuire asked the inmate most of the questions. During the booking process, McMillen cooperated with Respondent and McGuire and provided the information required to complete the booking form. Moreover, McMillen complied with orders given to him by the detention deputies. Although McMillen occasionally wandered a few feet away from the booking counter, he would immediately return to the area behind the blue line when so instructed. While being booked, McMillen never threatened either Respondent or McGuire. Furthermore, McMillen never physically resisted the actions of the detention deputies or exhibited physical violence. During the course of the booking process, Respondent undertook a routine pat down search of McMillen. As a part of that process, McMillen again complied with Respondent’s instructions to assume the appropriate position. While engaging in the pat down, some slight movement of McMillen’s leg occurred. However, at the time of this movement by McMillen, Respondent took no action to restrain McMillen. After the pat down was completed, McMillen was then told to sit on the bench in the booking area and to remove his shoes for inspection. McMillen immediately complied with this instruction. After Respondent completed the search of the shoes, he then ordered McMillen to have a seat in Cell 4. When Respondent ordered McMillen to Cell 4 to await nurse screening, McMillen complied with that order. While McMillen was walking toward Cell 4, McMillen made a single verbal statement to Respondent. The statement by McMillen was inappropriate and unnecessary. In the statement, McMillen referred to Respondent as "bitch." In response to McMillen's statement, Respondent turned from his original direction of returning to the booking counter and followed McMillen into Cell 4. It was Respondent’s intent at that time to remove McMillen from Cell 4 and to transport him to C Wing, an area used for inmates who were agitated or upset and needed a "cooling down" period. Respondent’s decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4 to the C Wing was based solely upon the tone of McMillen’s voice and was not the result of any aggressive physical act taken by McMillen or a verbal threat made by McMillen. Respondent followed McMillen into Cell 4 without the benefit of assistance from another detention deputy. In fact, prior to acting upon his decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4, Respondent did not advise McGuire or any other detention deputy of his intent or ask for assistance. Although Respondent did not advise any detention deputy that he was going into Cell 4, McGuire apparently observed Respondent proceeding toward Cell 4, and within approximately nine seconds, followed Respondent into the cell. At the time Respondent entered Cell 4 there was another inmate in the cell. Once in Cell 4, McMillen complied with Respondent’s instruction to face the wall and place his hands behind his back. However, while Respondent was handcuffing McMillen, McMillen exhibited an aggressive move toward him. As a result of McMillen's aggressive move, Respondent exercised force in restraining McMillen, engaging in an arm hold and forcing McMillen to the ground. Once on the ground, McMillen did not resist further and cooperated in the efforts of Respondent and McGuire to return him to his feet. During the process of Respondent's utilizing this force, McMillen suffered a cut over his right eye that required medical attention. McGuire then assisted Respondent in the handcuffing and transporting of McMillen. McMillen was then transported to C Wing where he was seen by a nurse, his restraints were removed, and he was left in a cell. McMillen did not resist further at that time and complied with the instructions of Respondent. Following the incident described in paragraph 16, Respondent and McGuire reported the incident as a use of force. Their incident reports were reviewed by Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Richard Leach, who approved the use of force and completed his own report. Prior to completing his report, Sergeant Leach attempted to speak with McMillen, but McMillen refused to discuss the matter with him. Sergeant Leach discussed the incident with Respondent and McGuire, but did not review the videotapes of the pre-booking area for the time period during which the incident occurred. It was later that Sergeant Leach was advised there was a problem with regard to the use of force. After reports were completed and submitted, the videotapes made in the pre-booking area of the incident were reviewed by Lieutenant Alan Harmer, pursuant to the procedures utilized at the Jail. Lieutenant Harmer also reviewed the incident reports prepared by Respondent and McGuire and the use- of-force report prepared by Sergeant Leach. Upon reviewing the tapes, Lieutenant Harmer determined that the events leading up to the use of force and the use of force itself violated Sheriff’s Office rules. As a result of Lieutenant Harmer's preliminary determination, an internal investigation was conducted by the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) of the Sheriff’s Office pursuant to the referral by Lieutenant Harmer. Sworn statements were taken by investigators, including statements of Respondent, McGuire, and the inmate in Cell 4 at the time of the altercation. In his sworn statement, Respondent alleged that McMillen was verbally abusive during the course of the booking process and that he further was uncooperative and had initiated an act of possible physical resistance by moving his leg in a manner possibly designed to strike Respondent. After completing its investigation, the AID presented its entire investigative file to the Administrative Review Board (Board) without conclusion or recommendation. Sergeant Leach was among the officers sitting on the Board. Although Sergeant Leach had initially approved the use of force when he reviewed the reports of Respondent and McGuire, he voted to discipline Respondent based upon his observations from the videotapes of the incident. The Board met and after reviewing the materials provided by AID and giving Respondent the opportunity to respond further, the complaint was sustained. Specifically, the violations determined by the Board to have occurred were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules and regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 067, relating to a member’s effectiveness in their assigned duties. On April 26, 1999, you unnecessarily caused a use of force by entering a cell and confronting an inmate. Further, you exposed yourself to undue risk by entering the cell without appropriate back-up. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Guidelines, a sustained finding of one Level Three violation is the basis for assigning 15 disciplinary points. As a result, Respondent was assessed 15 disciplinary points. Sheriff’s Office General Order 10-2 identifies a disciplinary range for a total point assessment of 15 points to be a minimum discipline of a written reprimand and a maximum discipline of a three-day suspension. In the instant case, Respondent was assessed the maximum discipline, a three-day suspension. The conduct engaged in by Respondent in following McMillen into Cell 4 and then engaging in a physical altercation with McMillen based solely upon a single comment by McMillen, regardless of the extent to which the comment constituted a vulgar insult directed toward Respondent, did not constitute a good correctional practice. Moreover, such conduct is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers. The role of correctional officers in a volatile situation is to calm the situation and to maintain control, not to act to aggravate or to escalate the dispute or to allow the inmate to control the situation via verbal comments. Proper correctional practice would have been to allow McMillen to remain in Cell 4 for sufficient time to cool off and calm down before initiating further contact with him. Similarly, the actions of Respondent in following McMillen into the cell by himself rather than obtaining assistance prior to entering the cell, are also contrary to good correctional practice. Again, this conduct by Respondent served only to potentially escalate and aggravate the confrontation, rather than to calm the situation. Moreover, it is also good correctional practice to have two detention deputies transport an inmate. This is particularly so considering the presence of another inmate in Cell 4 at the time Respondent entered the cell. There was no need for Respondent to enter the cell with McMillen or to initiate physical contact with McMillen, and his actions are contrary to Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Policy and Procedure File Index No. DCB 9.29 that requires that detention deputies refrain from one-on-one confrontations with inmates that may lead to physical confrontations. The actions of Respondent created a situation that led to a use of force and injury to McMillen that could have been avoided had Respondent effectively performed his duties as a detention deputy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the conduct alleged in the charging document and upholding Respondent’s suspension for three days from his employment as a detention deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Laubach, Esquire Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 14450 46th Street, North Suite 115 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500
