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.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Shirley R. Bennett was employed by DHRS as a Detention Care Worker I. In August 1982 Bennett was injured at work while breaking up a fight between two inmates at the Detention Center. She was placed on workers' compensation and remained off duty until the doctor treating her said she was able to return to work. Petitioner remained away from her work station and called in to say she was too sick to come to work. On October 10, 1984, Jerry McDonald, Assistant Detention Superintendent, called Bennett and told her that for sick leave to be granted she had to bring in a certificate from a doctor. Bennett indicated she would do so. On October 11, 1984, McDona1d again called Bennett and repeated his message about her needing a doctor's certificate for sick leave to be granted. On October 16, 1984, McDonald again called Bennett about needing a doctor's certificate for sick leave to be granted and that if she remained on unauthorized absence for three consecutive days she would be terminated for having abandoned her position. At this time Bennett said she was too sick to come in. McDonald told her to mail in the doctor's certificate. No such certificate was ever received by the Respondent. October 16, 1984, was a workday for Petitioner and she was scheduled to be off duty on the 17th but to work October 19 through 22, inclusive. Petitioner failed to report for work on any of those days and never presented a doctor's certificate saying she was unable to work because of illness. By letter dated October 24, 1984, sent to Petitioner by certified mail, Petitioner was notified by Respondent that her resignation by reason of abandonment was being processed and of her right to petition for review within 20 days. Petitioner's request for review dated November 7, 1984, was timely filed.
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice, to wit: termination of Petitioner on the basis of handicap discrimination without reasonable accommodation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been the elected Sheriff of Alachua County, Florida, for 12 years. As such, he was, and is, a constitutional officer of the State of Florida and the chief law enforcement officer for Alachua County. Since January 1998, he has administered the Alachua County Jail. In his capacity as administrator of the jail he qualifies, strictly in his official capacity, as an "employer," pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Respondent Employer also may be referred to as "the Alachua County Sheriff's Office" (ACSO). Petitioner is an African-American female. At all times material, she was an employee of Respondent Employer, and "an aggrieved person," pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Respondent began administration of the jail in January 1998. Prior to that time, the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners operated the jail. Respondent assumed administration of the jail through a governmental interlocal agreement, subject to existing collective bargaining agreements and various other parameters encouraging continued employment of existing jail personnel. In January 1998, all current jail employees were required to complete new applications, subject to review to ensure compliance with the ACSO's employment standards. On her 1998 job application form, Petitioner answered questions concerning her physical limitations as follows: * * * Are you able to participate with or without accommodation in defensive tactics, firearms, or physical training, operation of a motor vehicle, or otherwise perform the duties set forth in the job description or task analysis related to the position for which you applied? - NO. This position may require a physical ability test. If such a test or examination is required, would you be able to take this test or examination with or without accommodation? - NO. Explain what accommodation(s) you would need to perform these tasks or take the test or examination. - LEFT BLANK. * * * The majority of former Alachua County Jail employees were hired by ACSO. Some employees who did not meet ACSO's requirements were not hired/transferred to the new employer. These were mostly employees with criminal records. It was Respondent's intent to try to retain jail employees, even if they were temporarily unable to perform their essential job functions, for up to 12 months. Petitioner, who had served as a detention officer at the jail from 1981 to 1998, was one of the employees who successfully made the transition and was hired by Respondent in January 1998. At all times material, Petitioner was a Certified Correctional Officer. Her certification only indicates that she had met minimum training requirements and the mandatory continuing professional training requirements, pursuant to Florida law. At the time of her hire/transfer in January 1998, Petitioner weighed 350 pounds and suffered from osteoarthritis and hypertension. Obesity, osteoarthritis, and hypertension have plagued Petitioner since before her hire/transfer. Also, at least since June 29, 1998, Petitioner has been unable to walk long distances. On that date, a podiatrist diagnosed her with "bone spurs" in both feet. She submitted a Health and Work Status Report to the Employer stating Petitioner should only sit 50 percent, stand 50 percent, walk 50 percent, and climb stairs 10 percent. These figures add up to more than 100 percent, and the undersigned interprets the report, in the light of Petitioner's testimony, to mean that the physician was restricting her to no more than the respective percentages of each listed activity. The June 29, 1998, report went on to say that Petitioner should not use her feet for extended periods, perform physical force restraints/combat, or stressful work. As a result, ACSO placed Petitioner on temporary restricted duty (TRD). Petitioner's testimony suggested that, at some point, she recovered from the foregoing "temporary" restrictions, and a subsequent November 26, 2002, memorandum from the Employer (see Finding of Fact 45) suggests that sometime prior to March 6, 2002, Petitioner was returned to regular duty, minus the June 29, 1998, physical restrictions. (See Findings of Fact 35-37). However, it is not clear for what period of time between June 29, 1998, and March 6, 2002, Petitioner remained on TRD. There was no requirement of a Physical Agility Test (PAT) during Petitioner's 18 years of service at the jail prior to ACSO taking over jail management, and Petitioner was not required to take and pass a PAT in order to be hired/transferred to the ACSO regime in 1998. The jail employed more than 300 detention officers. Detention officers were subject to being assigned to any area within the jail. The written Job Description for Detention Officer has, at all times material, required ". . . maintaining physical custody and control of inmates . . ." and ". . . receiving and processing inmates, enforcing disciplinary procedures for the control of inmate behavior." Nowhere does Petitioner's written job description use the word, "running," but it specifies the following "physical requirements," with or without, a PAT in place: E. PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS Sit, stand or walk for moderate periods. Have good close, distant, color, peripheral, depth and adjusted vision. Hear at normal range or with accommodation. Speak, read, write, and understand English fluently. Lift/carry 100+ pounds. Climb, balance and reach with arms. Bend, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. Taste and smell. Manual dexterity. Drive a vehicle. (Emphasis supplied) The primary duties for all jail detention officers were the care, custody, and control of jail inmates and operation of the facility. These duties might, on occasion, include running or walking briskly to come to the aid of fellow officers who were "down" or to respond to inmate fights. Detention officers were also responsible for the security of the entire 300,000 square feet of jail space and the 10-acre parcel of land surrounding it. A jail detention officer's regular duties also included inspecting inmate housing areas and looking under bunks, some of which were only 16 inches off the floor, for contraband, including drugs and weapons. Detention officers had to go up and down stairs to make these inspections. During Petitioner's employment with Respondent, detention officers on TRD were often placed in the personnel office, lobby of the jail, or in central control. The lobby now only utilizes civilian personnel. (See Finding of Fact 50.) The Sheriff has a law enforcement background and mindset. When he took over the jail, he imposed additional employment standards on jail detention officers above and beyond the minimum standards established by the State of Florida. As part of his initiative to professionalize the jail, and in an effort to obtain national accreditation for the jail from the American Correctional Association, the Sheriff established minimum physical requirements for all detention officers. Over time, ACSO's training staff created a job-related physical review and designed the PAT. The PAT evolved over a period from approximately November 1999 to March 2000. It ultimately consisted of a timed course of nine tasks. The timed PAT began with Task 1: a 455-foot (reduced by July 1, 2003, to 300-foot) sprint, to the first obstacle. The "first obstacle" was the step obstacle (stepping over 17 seven-inch rope steps in sequence), then continuing on 50 feet to the next task. It is clear from her testimony that Petitioner incorrectly saw this first part (Tasks 1 and 2) as the only part of the PAT which required running. However, Task 3 of the PAT was the "Serpentine," which involved snaking around a series of cones without knocking them down. Then, the detention officer would have to "sprint approximately 85-feet to the next obstacle." Task 4 was a low crawl, followed by a sprint of approximately 155 feet to the weapon fire area and the next obstacle. Task 5 was rapid and accurate weapon fire testing, followed by a sprint approximately 40-feet to the next obstacle. Task 6 for detention officers involved climbing a set of stairs, followed by a sprint of approximately 60 feet to the next obstacle. Task 7 was another serpentine, followed by a sprint of approximately 160 feet to the next obstacle. Task 8 was a test involving dragging a 150- pound dummy and a 123-foot sprint to Task 9, which involved handcuffing. It is clear that by "sprint" the PAT intended quick, short runs at high speeds and that the PAT required many sprints. It is not clear whether the PAT intended that a stopwatch be running non-stop through the nine tasks, but it is clear that all or part of the PAT was timed and that a specific overall time had to be met by each detention officer in order to pass the PAT. Petitioner knew when she was hired/transferred in January 1998 that Respondent Employer had, or soon would have, additional and different employment standards than she had experienced for the last 18 years at the jail and that those new standards might constitute a mandatory threshold for her continued employment. As of November 2000, all detention officers, including Petitioner, were advised that they would be required to participate in the PAT and that they were being given an 18- month phase-in period before the test became a mandatory job requirement for detention officers. Petitioner was advised that she would be required to take/pass the PAT by July 1, 2003. Among other purposes, the PAT was designed to mirror some of Petitioner's daily job activities or job description requirements, such as going up and down stairs, running, and searching under bunks. Parts of the PAT addressed the readiness necessity of confronting and controlling inmates. It also included the less-likely emergency activities of crawling and shooting. At least by July 1, 2003, (and possibly earlier), Petitioner's job description was amended to reflect that the PAT was part of the essential functions of her job: IV. QUALIFICATIONS: * * * B. Experience and Training: * * * Must meet or exceed all applicable physical agility standards required by ACSO. As part of the continued departmental upgrading and phasing-in of PAT, detention officers, including Petitioner, also were required to participate in 40 hours of in-service training, which included training to successfully pass the PAT. ACSO provided University of Florida fitness and nutrition interns and an onsite exercise room to assist jail employees in reaching physical fitness levels sufficient to timely pass the PAT. Petitioner did not avail herself of these PAT training opportunities, due, in part, to health reasons. On March 6, 2002, Petitioner provided to Respondent a letter from her general practitioner, Dr. Thompson, stating: [Petitioner] suffers from morbid obesity and has severe osteoarthritis of both knees and also suffers from hypertension. These ongoing medical problems preclude her from being able to participate in the physical agility test that is a requirement of her position as a correctional officer. . . . Petitioner could not physically train for, or perform, the PAT as of March 6, 2002. From that date on, she relied on Dr. Thompson's letter, so that her superiors would not require her to take/train for the PAT. Petitioner submitted no later reports to change Dr. Thompson's March 6, 2002, opinion, but claimed that the Employer had not placed her on TRD as a result of it. In April of 2002, Petitioner's knee was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Petitioner testified that from the April 2002 accident until she was terminated in August 2003, she was unable to stand for long periods of time; run; cook regular meals for her family; clean her house without assistance; or do any gardening or yard work. She also related that knee pain limited or ended marital intimacy. To some degree, at least, these limitations continued after her August 2003 termination. She also claimed to have been unable to attempt the PAT from April 2002 until her termination in August 2003. See infra. Petitioner testified that she could not workout at the jail gym or otherwise prepare for the PAT after her April 2002 automobile accident. Over time, in part due to her inactivity, Petitioner reached a weight in excess of 400 pounds. Petitioner continued to rely on Dr. Thompson's March 6, 2002, pre-accident letter to avoid training for, or taking, the PAT. Dr. Thompson never supplemented this letter. Respondent's published policy concerning the PAT permitted employees who were unable to do PAT for medical reasons to delay taking it, as follows: Sworn employees unable to participate in a semi-annual proficiency because of a medical condition must have their physician complete the Medical/Physician's Recommendation Form, ACSO 94-24 and the Health and Work Status Report, ACSO 96-178 and return them to the Human Resources Bureau. Sworn employees who fail to participate or demonstrate semi-annual proficiency because of a medical condition will be placed on Temporary Restricted Duty (TRD) for a period of up to twelve (12) months to rectify the deficiency. The TRD shall not exceed twelve (12) consecutive months, or a total of eighteen (18) months within a twenty-four month period. At the end of the extension period, the sworn employee will be required to complete and successfully pass any missed test(s). Sworn employees who fail to demonstrate proficiency at the end of the TRD period will be relieved . . . of sworn duty if not done so when the employee is placed on TRD. . . . [sworn employees] suspended from sworn duty shall be reassigned to non-sworn status pending administrative action. Administrative action may range from permanent non-sworn assignment with all employee pay and benefits adjusted accordingly, if a position is available, up to and including termination. (Bracketed material added for clarity.) On or about November 25, 2002, Petitioner submitted a Health and Work Status Report from Dr. Bensen, her chiropractor, which said she was: Unable to run and is to be excused from that portion of the physical agility test until further notice. On November 26, 2002, Respondent Sheriff issued a memo to Petitioner that provided, in pertinent part: RE: TEMPORARY RESTRICTED DUTY the very nature of corrections requires instantaneous response to potentially hazardous or stressful situations. This response often involves extreme physical exertion. You have provided medical information from your physician indicating that you are temporarily unable to fulfill the essential functions of your appointment as a Detention Officer. Therefore, effective immediately, you are hereby placed on Temporary Restricted Duty and directed to report to the Human Resources Bureau for assignment. You must provide the Human Resources Bureau with an updated Health and Work Status Report every 30 days, commencing with the effective date of this assignment. While on Temporary Restricted Duty, the following conditions shall apply: 1. You shall avoid physical confrontations, except when necessary to protect yourself or another person from imminent death or serious injury. * * * 5. You will not participate in any training that would involve activities contrary to the restriction indicated by your physician. * * * An assignment to Temporary Restricted Duty cannot exceed twelve months. If you are unable to return to full, unrestricted duties as a Detention Officer at that time, you will be subject to reclassification to a position within your capabilities or to termination. Petitioner concedes that Instruction 5, of the Sheriff's November 26, 2002, memo, placing her on TRD, amounted to Respondent telling her that he was following her doctor's orders and expected her to follow them, too. From November 2002, through July 2003, Petitioner submitted appropriate Health and Work Status Reports from Dr. Bensen and received approval of TRD from the Employer. The way the foregoing system worked was that at some point between the 19th and 30th of each month, Petitioner would visit Dr. Bensen and he would make out a Health and Work Status Report, certifying that she was "unable to run and is excused from that portion of the Physical Ability Test until further notice." (R-12) A few days later, Petitioner would present the foregoing Report to a superior officer, who would note on a Return to Duty Form, the date of his or her conference with Petitioner concerning Petitioner's restrictions; the date Petitioner's next Health and Work Status Report was due; and the date of Petitioner's next scheduled physician's appointment. This Return to Duty Form authorized Petitioner to be placed in TRD. (R-11) Thereafter, a Human Resources Risk Manager signed- off on the same form to approve the TRD assignment. Although the Health and Work Status Report Forms and Return to Duty Forms in evidence do not cover every month between November 26, 2002, and August 2003, or precisely dove- tail by date, the tangible items in evidence, together with the credible testimony and evidence as a whole, support findings that Petitioner's last counseling by a superior officer occurred on August 1, 2003; that her next physician's appointment was expected to be August 26, 2003; and that Petitioner was ordered to remain on TRD, effective July 30, 2003. (See Findings of Fact 56-58) While on TRD from November 2002 to August 2003, Petitioner was primarily assigned to the jail's lobby. Occasionally she was assigned to the command center. Petitioner was assigned to the lobby, partly due to her good communication skills. At the time, both locations were full duty detention officer postings. Neither location has stairs in it. Trustee inmates are not handcuffed in the lobby. Transferee-inmates may be handcuffed in the lobby. The lobby is mostly a public information outlet and an entrance and exit point for the jail facility. Currently, ACSO utilizes only civilian personnel in those areas, instead of physically restricted detention officers, because all sworn detention officers are expected to be in a state of operational readiness and to be able to respond as full-service officers. On June 10, 2003, the Employer requested an independent medical evaluation of Petitioner. Dr. Newcomer, a medical physician, evaluated Petitioner and provided the Employer with the following information on June 24, 2003: DIAGNOSIS: Morbid obesity, bilateral knee arthritis with more recent knee trauma resulting in chronic pain, hypertension in fair control. TREATMENT PLAN: Functional capacity evaluation is requested and will be set up at Rehab Solutions. When that information is available, further assessment of her specific functional abilities to compare the physical requirements of job description including physical agility test, can be more specifically addressed. Her extreme obesity and advanced degenerative arthritis in the knee will definitely limit her long term ability for weight bearing exercise and physical stress. (Emphasis supplied) On June 27, 2003, Rehab Solutions, Inc., wrote Petitioner in an attempt to schedule, for July 7, 2003, the physician-ordered functional capacity evaluation. On July 1, 2003, the PAT became mandatory for all detention officers, including Petitioner. Petitioner took Rehab Solutions a July 1, 2003, letter (Tr-142; R-10) from Dr. Bensen. As a result, Rehab Solutions elected not to perform the functional capacity evaluation of Petitioner on July 7, 2003. Dr. Bensen's letter read, in pertinent part: [Petitioner] has been seen in this office for treatment of injuries sustained in an MVA [sic. "motor vehicle accident"] which occurred on April 12, 2002. These injuries include cervicobrachial syndrome, cervical sprain-strain, knee sprain-strain, and thoracic sprain-strain . . . she has recently been able to increase both the speed as well as the distance of her walking regimen. Soft tissue injuries typically take up to 18 months to heal and [Petitioner's] rehabilitation has been complicated by her weight. any stressful assessment examination at this time is likely to re-injure that patient's knee and it is recommended that such assessment be postponed until October of this year to allow for more complete resolution of her symptoms. Since the foregoing letter from Dr. Bensen was presented to Rehab Solutions, Inc., it would seem to be suggesting, not that Petitioner could attempt the PAT in October 2003, but that Rehab Solutions, Inc., ought not to perform a functional capacity evaluation of Petitioner for Dr. Newcomer and the Employer until October 2003. It is not clear when the Employer came into possession of this letter of Dr. Bensen. On July 29, 2003, Dr. Bensen filled out a Health and Work Status Report to the effect that he had examined Petitioner on July 29, 2003; that she might return to work on July 30, 2003; and that she was "unable to run and is to be excused from that portion of the physical agility test until dated [sic.] listed below - October 2003"; and that he expected Petitioner to return for her next appointment on August 26, 2003. (R-12) This was the last Health and Work Status Report submitted to the Employer before Petitioner's termination on August 7, 2003. (See Finding of Fact 49.) The last Return to Duty Form before Petitioner's termination shows that Susan Wiley, on behalf of the Employer, discussed Petitioner's restrictions with her on August 1, 2003; continued Petitioner on temporary restricted duty, effective July 30, 2003; and expected Petitioner to supply a new Health and Work Status Report on September 1, 2003, from a next scheduled physician's appointment date of August 1, 2003. (R-1) (See Finding of Fact 49.) From Findings of Fact 56 and 57, it is further found that despite some discrepancy in dates between Dr. Bensen's reports and the Employer's Return to Duty Forms, Petitioner's supervisors knew on August 1, 2003, that Petitioner might be able to attempt the PAT in October 2003. However, Respondent Employer terminated Petitioner on August 7, 2003, by a memorandum of that date, stating: In July of 2000, the Alachua County Sheriff's Office established a Physical Agility Test for Detention Officers at the Department of the Jail. The test was developed to test a Detention Officer's ability to meet essential minimum physical requirements of the job. The test, notification of requirements, and trial period were implemented over a 3 year time period. This test is specifically designed to assess one's ability to perform essential functions of your position which are physical in nature. Your medical information on file with the Human Resources Bureau indicates that you are unable to perform this test either now or in the foreseeable future. Detention Officers must be able to carry out their duties in a manner which safeguards the safety and welfare of the inmate population as well as employees. I have allowed you to function in a restricted capacity with the hope that you would make some progress in your rehabilitation, however, I note that no improvement in your medical condition has been documented. Keeping in mind the safety needs of this agency as well as the requirements of the position, I must accordingly end your assignment as a Detention Officer with the Department of the Jail of the Alachua County Sheriff's Office effective as of 1700 August 7, 2003. I encourage you to contact Human Resources Bureau Chief Sherry Larson at 367-4039 to discuss your interest in other vacant positions for which you may qualify. Please note your circumstances qualify you to take advantage of ACSO's Transition Period which allows you to use up to sixty (60) days of accumulated leave (sick, annual, compensatory, special event) to transition into retirement or other non-ACSO employment. In order to take advantage of this option you must contact Human Resources at 367-4040 immediately upon receipt of this memorandum. (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner was employed for 3.8 years between her hire/transition to ACSO in January 1998 and her termination in August 2003. Petitioner contended that she never asked for an accommodation of her disability, but clearly, she accepted TRD for as often and as long as it was provided, at least from November 26, 2002 to August 7, 2003. During her entire 22 years of service as a detention officer, Petitioner was never disciplined or evaluated as unsatisfactory for any reason. After August 7, 2003, Petitioner contacted Ms. Larson concerning continued employment with ACSO and was informed that there were two ACSO positions available. Petitioner understood these positions to be "deputy" and "detention assistant." Petitioner understood the "deputy" position to be one for "road deputy," a position which requires passing an even more rigorous PAT than the one Petitioner would have to have passed as a jail detention officer. (See Findings of Fact 24- 27.) Although the detention assistant position was not commensurate with the salary level and duties of a detention officer, Petitioner admitted to being qualified and capable of performing that job description in August 2003. Petitioner told Ms. Larson that Petitioner would get back with her, but because Petitioner did not contact Ms. Larson within two days, Ms. Larson assumed Petitioner would not be applying for either current ACSO job opening or for any future ACSO openings, so she did not continue to contact Petitioner thereafter. Petitioner claims that approximately August 20, 2003, Dr. Thompson provided medical documentation indicating that she could attempt the PAT. However, Petitioner concedes that she never provided this information to Respondent. Dr. Thompson's alleged August 20, 2003, permission slip also was not offered in evidence. (TR-201-202.) Petitioner's testimony is conflicted as to her physical limitations from July 2003 to the date of hearing. She testified that prior to her termination by Respondent, her medical condition did not prohibit her performing any of the "essential functions" of her job as a detention officer, except running. At one point, she testified that after October 2003, (the earliest date of possible PAT performance as predicted by Dr. Bensen), she was able again to perform all her household chores. She also testified that after her termination in August 2003, her medical condition, which at least until October 2003, included no prolonged walking or standing and no running, prevented her from seeking a range of jobs outside her field, such as day care provider, cashier, mail deliverer, cook, grocery bagger, waitress, and nurse's aide. Petitioner testified that she continued to be unable to do her housework, yard work and general life activities at least until the beginning of 2004. Petitioner also testified that she believed she could fulfill her detention officer job description as of the date of hearing. She testified that she could attempt the PAT (without running) as of the date of hearing, but she was not sure she could pass it. She asserted that the PAT is not a bona fide requirement of the job of detention officer. Petitioner testified that from some time post- termination to May 2004, she suffered from depression and anxiety due to loss of her job, but she provided no medical corroboration of this part of her testimony. Nonetheless, at some point, she has been able to apply for a counselor position at Alachua County Work Release; a job at the Alachua County Library; and a job at the Court Services Office. For reasons unknown, she was not hired at any of them. She was not hired by the Bradford County Sheriff's Department in 2003 because it had no vacant positions at that time. She has intentionally not applied for any correctional officer jobs. She has a college degree in business administration, but apparently has not sought employment in that field. Petitioner has lost no health benefits as a result of her termination by Respondent Employer, because she has always had health insurance through her husband's employment. She did lose salary, retirement benefits, dental plan coverage, and supplemental life insurance coverage as a result of her termination. Petitioner has agreed to pay her attorney a reasonable fee in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and Charge of Discrimination herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 7th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bill Salmon, Esquire 410 Southeast 4th Avenue, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32601 Linda G. Bond, Esquire Allen, Norton, and Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Petitioner's request for exemption from employment disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner is 32 years old, unmarried, and a 1992 graduate of Auburn University with a degree in business administration. He attended college on a athletic scholarship and was a captain of the football team. 2. Since graduation he has worked extensively with teenagers as a youth development professional with Boys and Girls Club of Central Plorida, as a recreational leader with Orange County Parks and Recreation; as a substitute teacher at Maynard Evans High School, where he worked with physically impaired students; and as a night monitor at The Center for Drug Free Living. 3. On November 27, 2000, Petitioner submitted an Employment Application with the Department of Juvenile Justice seeking the position of Juvenile Probation Officer. 4. As a part of the November 27, 2000, Employment Application, Petitioner indicated that he had not been convicted, pled nolo contendere, or had adjudication withheld on a crime which is a felony or first-degree misdemeanor. 5. On October 30, 2000, Petitioner executed an Affidavit of Good Moral Conduct which states, in part, "I have not committed an act which constitutes domestic violence .. ." 6. As a result of background screening, it was determined that on a January 14, 1990, Petitioner was charged with "Assault 3rd" in Auburn, Alabama, as a result of a meleé involving members of a fraternity and the football team. On February 19, 1990, the charge was dismissed. 7. The background screening also revealed that on November 11, 1995, Petitioner was charged with Battery (Domestic Violence); was arrested on November 29, 1996 (over a year later) for the offense; and had adjudication withheld after a plea of nolo contendere to the offense on February 5, 1997. 8. On February 5, 1997, Petitioner was sentenced to supervised probation for 363 days, required to attend a batterer's intervention program, and charged $115 in court costs. He successfully completed probation. 9. On December 16, 2000, Petitioner wrote the IG stating: This letter is to clarify why I failed to indicate the offenses on the notarized Affidavit of Good Moral Character. I did not indicate the offenses because I thought you are only supposed to write down convictions of a felony or first-degree misdemeanor. I did not know pleading no contest was counted as guilty. Therefore, I thought the circumstances did not fit my offenses. I conversed with a Department of Juvenile Justice employee when applying for the position, and they [sic] informed me that the Department was only looking for felony convictions. They said a misdemeanor arrest will not disqualify me. This is the reason why I failed to indicate the offenses. 10. On January 11, 2001, Petitioner wrote the IG stating: This letter is to clarify the incident that happened on the evening of November 11, 1995 at Heroes Night Club, Orlando, Florida. This incident was between a Ms. Monica Pryor and myself. At the time Ms. Pryor and I were dating. At the nightclub, Ms. Pryor and I got into an argument and exchanged harsh words that resulted in us pushing and shoving one another. Ms. Pryor then left the nightclub with her girlfriends. She called my cell phone to inform me that her girlfriends were taking her to the police station. We talked later that evening and apologized to each other. During the conversation, she let me know that she had filed charges against me and there was a warrant out for my arrest and would drop the charges in the morning. As far as I can recall from our conversation, Ms. Pryor didn't suffer any physical bruising from this incident. This is one incident in my life that I deeply regret. I feel that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, doing the wrong thing. This incident happened over 5 years ago. Since then, I have experienced healthy relationships without any hostile contact involved. I have been blessed to counsel several young people and I've helped young men from making the same mistake that I made. I believe this experience has made me a better person and has given me a testimony to share with others. In the past 7.5 years, I have worked in child development, education and recreation. I have worked with the Boys and Girls Club of Central Florida, Center for Drug Free Living, Orange County Parks and Recreation, and I am presently employed with Orange County Public Schools. I ama member of the New Church of Faith in Orlando, Florida were I've helped with youth banquets and church activities. If you have any questions about my spiritual leadership and commitment, please call Pastor David Beacham at (407) 296-2664. 11. Petitioner testified that even though Ms. Pryor had told him that she would "drop the charges," he elected to plea nolo contendere just to get the matter behind him. 12. On January 19, 2001, Petitioner submitted a second affidavit of Good Moral Character indicating that his record contained "one or more of the disqualifying acts or offenses .," and circled the reference to the domestic violence statute. 13. Ken Davis, of Maynard Evans High School in Orlando, Florida, submitted a letter which observed that Petitioner was a "diligent and conscientious person." 14. Yvette Johnson, Universal Orlando, an occupational health and safety specialist, submitted a letter in which she characterized Petitioner as an "asset to the troubled youth in the community . . . never failing to instill the values desired by the church." 15. Ruthenia Moses, who has a Master's Degree in Social Work from the University of Connecticut, who has worked as a clinical therapist, and who was, at one time, the second in command of the Orange County Work Release Center, testified that Petitioner has "an amazing ability to relate to young people," was a "kind and sincere individual of good moral character. I highly recommend him to anyone who works with young people." She further testified that "if I had a business serving youth at risk I would want Petitioner on her team." 16. Christine Barbery, who has a Master's Degree in Legal Studies from the University of Central Florida and is employed by Florida Department of Children & Families as a Family Services Counselor Supervisor, reports that Petitioner is "responsible, hard-working," "setting an admirable example," "an excellent candidate for a Juvenile Probation Officer-type position." She worked for the Department of Juvenile Justice from 1995-1997 and Department of Children and Families since 1997. She has worked with Petitioner with young people at Maynard Evans High School and finds him "caring and dedicated." She "has no qualms about Petitioner's qualifications to be a probation officer." 17. Gloria P. Cleary, Recreation Specialist, Orange County Parks and Recreation, in a letter, characterized Petitioner as a "very enthusiastic and responsible person." She had observed Petitioner in his role as a recreational leader at Liberty Middle School. She further indicated that she would not hesitate in hiring Petitioner in the future. 18. Petitioner was guilelessly candid in his testimony. He is remorseful and contrite regarding the 1995 domestic violence incident. He has conducted his life since that incident in such a way that rehabilitation is indubitably demonstrated. He has an obvious desire to work with troubled teenagers as a Juvenile Probation Officer.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Charles Brown, pro se 7251 Minippi Drive Orlando, Florida 32818 For Respondent: Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification in employment. DONE AND ENTERED this “Ir day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. lec 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 10 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this XI day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Brown 7251 Minippi Drive Orlando, Florida 32818 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 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 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
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
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are inmates in Respondent's custody. They had been classified concerning their level of custody in accordance with Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, as it existed prior to the adoption of an emergency rule on August 1, 1990. That emergency rule amended the existing Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. The emergency rule is referred to as 33ER90-4. Publication of the emergency rule was made in Volume 16, No. 32, August 10, 1990, Florida Administrative Weekly. On October 12, 1990, in Volume 16, No. 41, Florida Administrative Weekly, notice was published relating to a permanent amendment to Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. As described in the Statement of Purpose and Effect found within the October 12, 1990 Proposed Amendment to Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, the proposed amendment revised the Respondent's guidelines regarding custody levels for specified offenses. It upgraded the custody levels for inmates having committed certain described offenses and required mandatory close custody for certain violent offenders. The proposed changes were substantially the same as those set forth in the emergency rule. Both the emergency rule and the proposed amendment announced criteria for considering an inmate's custody status. The emergency rule and proposed amendment limited the discretion in determining an inmate's classification, community placement and work release opportunities for inmates. The emergency rule and proposed amendment to the preexisting Rule 33- 6.009, Florida Administrative Code, were preceded effective July 3, 1990, by a change in policy associated with establishment of inmate classification and custody status. This occurred on July 3, 1990. The theory behind that arrangement is announced in Petitioners' composite Exhibit 1. This exhibit is constituted of an order of the Governor which speaks to limitations on work release eligibility in the Florida Prison System. It is dated July 5, 1990. The exhibit also contains restricted custody criteria and a memorandum of July 5, 1990, from A.F. Cook, Assistant Superintendent For Programs at the Baker Correction Institution. This institution is the location where the Petitioners were confined at all relevant times, to include a nearby work camp. The Governor's policy statement and attendant restricted custody criteria were universally applied to the prison population in Florida. This policy statement and commentary on custody criteria contravene the approaches found within Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, which predated the emergency rule and October 12, 1990 proposed amendment to that preexisting rule. Compared to the preexisting rule the policy statement and associated placement criteria are more restrictive in their terms when commenting on the custody status for inmate categories. In particular, the exercise of the policy and associated custody criteria were solely responsible for changing the custody status of the Petitioners in the following respects: Harry McCray went from minimum to close custody effective June 27, 1990; George Chestnut went from minimum to close custody effective July 5, 1990; Wesley Britton went from minimum to close custody effective July 4, 1990; Franklin Gale went from minimum to close custody effective June 27, 1990; Larry Manning went from minimum to close custody effective July 5, 1990; Bruce Coleman went from minimum to close custody effective July 5, 1990; and Robert Delana went from minimum to close custody effective July 4, 1990. Certain adjustments to the initial policy statement and associated custody criteria were made on several occasions and were imposed upon Petitioners during dependency of the use of the policy and associated custody criteria; however, the basic concepts in the policy and custody criteria remained constant. The design of the emergency rule and Proposed Amendment to Rule 33- 6.009, Florida Administrative Code, published on October 12, 1990, have differences when compared to the Governor's policy statement with its associated restricted custody criteria. Nonetheless, all of these changes to the preexisting Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, promote a more restrictive custody circumstance for Petitioners. Petitioners had not been made aware of the pendency of the policy change which came about in early July, 1990 associated with the Governor's order on policy for limiting work release eligibility and the associated custody criteria. That policy and the custody criteria had not undergone the rigors of the rule enactment process that was later undertaken with the advent of the emergency rule and Proposed Amendment to Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, as published on October 12, 1990. Neither were the three or four changes to the initial policy statement and custody criteria subjected to the rule enactment process, to include the possibility of the passage of an emergency rule. In the hiatus between early July, 1990, when the Governor's policy and its associated custody criteria were being exercised through the inception of the emergency rule, Petitioners were substantially affected by this change. Some of the Petitioners lost gain time. Petitioners' freedom of movement was diminished given the change in placement. Some of the Petitioners lost hours of employment because of the change in custody. Living conditions for Petitioners were less advantageous. The ability to assist family members through gainful employment was removed for one Petitioner causing hardship for his family. This change in custody had an adverse affect on the emotional state of Petitioners and family members. The change in custody status has undermined the feeling of self-worth for certain Petitioners and has made them feel that the trust which they had earned by commendable conduct has no significance in the final analysis.
