The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, regarding secure detention care provided for juveniles. With the exception of Intervenor Florida Association of Counties, Inc., the Petitioners and Intervenors (collectively referenced herein as the "Counties") are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. The specific counties that have petitioned or intervened in these proceedings are not "fiscally constrained" as that term is defined in section 985.686(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Each county is required by section 985.686 to contribute its actual costs for predisposition secure detention services for juveniles within its jurisdiction. The Counties are substantially affected by the Department's determinations of the number of secure detention days that are predisposition, and by the Department's allocation of those days among the Counties, an allocation that further determines each county's share of the cost for pre-disposition secure detention. The Counties are further substantially affected by the allocation method itself, which they assert is not authorized by section 985.686. Statutory and rule framework Section 985.686(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the "state and counties have a joint obligation, as provided in this section, to contribute to the financial support of the detention care provided for juveniles." Section 985.686(2)(a), defines "detention care," for purposes of this section, to mean "secure detention."2/ Section 985.03(18)(a), defines "secure detention" to mean "temporary custody of the child while the child is under the physical restriction of a detention center or facility pending adjudication, disposition, or placement." Section 985.686(3), provides in relevant part that each county "shall pay the costs of providing detention care . . . for juveniles for the period of time prior to final court disposition. The department shall develop an accounts payable system to allocate costs that are payable by the counties." In summary, section 985.686 requires each non-fiscally restrained county to pay the costs associated with secure detention during predisposition care, and the Department to pay the costs of secure detention during post-disposition care.3/ The Department is charged with developing an accounts payable system to allocate costs payable by the counties. Section 985.686(5), sets forth the general mechanism for this allocation process: Each county shall incorporate into its annual county budget sufficient funds to pay its costs of detention care for juveniles who reside in that county for the period of time prior to final court disposition. This amount shall be based upon the prior use of secure detention for juveniles who are residents of that county, as calculated by the department. Each county shall pay the estimated costs at the beginning of each month. Any difference between the estimated costs and actual costs4/ shall be reconciled at the end of the state fiscal year. Section 985.686(10), provides that the Department "may adopt rules to administer this section." Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Department promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009, effective July 16, 2006. Rule 63G-1.004 provides the detailed method by which the Department is to calculate the counties' estimated costs: Each county's share of predisposition detention costs is based upon usage during the previous fiscal year, with the first year's estimates based upon usage during fiscal year 2004-05. Estimates will be calculated as follows: All youth served in secure detention during the relevant fiscal year as reflected in the Juvenile Justice Information System will be identified; Each placement record will be matched to the appropriate referral based upon the referral identification code. Placements associated with administrative handling, such as pick-up orders and violations of probation, will be matched to a disposition date for their corresponding statutory charge; The number of service days in secure detention is computed by including all days up to and including the date of final disposition for the subject referral. Each county will receive a percentage computed by dividing the number of days used during the previous year by the total number of days used by all counties. The resulting percentage, when multiplied by the cost of detention care as fixed by the legislature, constitutes the county's estimated annual cost. The estimated cost will be billed to the counties in monthly installments. Invoices are to be mailed on the first day of the month prior to the service period, so that an invoice for the August service period will be mailed on July 1. Rule 63G-1.008 provides the method by which the Department is to reconcile the estimated payments with the actual costs of predisposition secure detention: On or before January 31 of each year, the Department shall provide a reconciliation statement to each paying county. The statement shall reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period. If a county's actual usage is found to have exceeded the amount paid during the fiscal year, the county will be invoiced for the excess usage. The invoice will accompany the reconciliation statement, and shall be payable on or before April 1. If a county's actual usage was less than the estimated amounts paid during the fiscal year, the county will be credited for its excess payments. Credit will be reflected in the April billing, which is mailed on March 1, and will carry forward as necessary. Under the quoted rules, the Department determines an estimate for each county's share of predisposition secure detention costs. This estimate is provided to the counties prior to the start of the fiscal year in order to allow each county to "incorporate into its annual county budget sufficient funds" to pay for the costs of predisposition secure detention care for juveniles who reside in that county. To prepare this estimate, the Department utilizes the county's actual usage of secure detention facilities for the most recently completed fiscal year.5/ The amount of this usage is shown as that county's percentage of the total usage of predisposition secure detention care by all counties. The resulting percentage for each county is then multiplied by the "cost of detention care as fixed by the legislature" to arrive at the estimated amount due for each county. Rule 63G-1.002(1) defines "cost of detention care" as "the cost of providing detention care as determined by the General Appropriations Act." The term "cost of detention care" is used in rule 63G- 1.004, which sets forth the method of calculating estimnated costs. The term is not used in rule 63G-1.008, which addresses the annual reconcilation by which the Department purports to arrive at the "actual cost of the county's usage" for the fiscal year. The definition of "cost of detention care" references the Legislature's annual General Appropriations Act, which appropriates revenues for the operation of various state functions. An "appropriation" is "a legal authorization to make expenditures for specific purposes within the amounts authorized by law." § 216.011(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008-2009 was House Bill 5001, codified as chapter 2008-152, Laws of Florida. Within chapter 2008-152, Specific Appropriations 1073 through 1083 set forth the appropriations for the juvenile detention program. These items included the cost of operating the secure detention centers and identified specific funding sources for the program. These funding sources were the General Revenue Fund ("General Revenue"), the Federal Grants Trust Fund, the Grants and Donations Trust Fund, and an amount identified under the Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund ("Shared Trust Fund"). Section 985.6015(2), states that the Shared Trust Fund "is established for use as a depository for funds to be used for the costs of predisposition juvenile detention. Moneys credited to the trust fund shall consist of funds from the counties' share of the costs for predisposition juvenile detention." A total of $30,310,534 was appropriated from General Revenue to the Department for the operation of secure detention centers. This amount was intended to cover the Department's costs in providing post-disposition secure detention services, including the state's payment of the costs for detention care in fiscally constrained counties. See § 985.686(2)(b) & (4), Fla. Stat. A total of $99,583,854 was set forth as the appropriation for the Shared Trust Fund. This amount was not an "appropriation" as that term is defined by statute because it did not authorize a state agency to make expenditures for specific purposes. Rather, this number constituted the amount to be used in the preparation of the preliminary estimates that the Department provides to the counties for the purpose of budgeting their anticipated contributions toward the secure detention costs for the upcoming fiscal year. As will be discussed at length below, a refined version of this number was also improperly used by the Department as a substitute for calculating the counties' actual cost at the time of the annual reconciliation described in rule 63G-1.008. As set forth in rule 63G-1.004, the Department determines the estimate, then it notifies the counties of the estimated amount. The counties make their payments in monthly installments. Rule 63G-1.007 requires the Department to prepare a quarterly report for each county setting forth the extent of each county's actual usage. The counties receive their reports 45 days after the end of each quarter. Subsection (1) of the rule provides that the quarterly report "is to assist counties in fiscal planning and budgeting, and is not a substitute for the annual reconciliation or grounds for adjusting or withholding payment." At the end of the fiscal year, and no later than January 31, the Department must prepare an annual reconciliation statement for each county, to reconcile the difference, if any, between the estimated costs paid monthly by the county and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period. If the county's actual cost is more or less than the estimated payments made during the fiscal year, the county will be credited or debited for the difference. Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-1.008. Because a county is billed prior to the start of the fiscal year, the Department's initial estimate obviously cannot be based on actual costs for that fiscal year. However, the amount ultimately owed by each county following the annual reconciliation should assess the county's actual costs for predisposition secure detention care during that year, in accordance with section 985.686(5). Prior DOAH litigation The Department's manner of assessing the counties for predisposition secured detention services has been the subject of five prior DOAH cases, all of them involving Hillsborough County. Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 07- 4398 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 7, 2008; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. June 4, 2008)("Hillsborough I") dealt with the methodology used by the Department to determine the amount that Hillsborough County owed for predisposition secure detention services for fiscal year 2007-2008. Administrative Law Judge Daniel Manry found that the Department's practice of calculating a per diem rate for service days in secure detention was inconsistent with the Department's rule 63G-1.004(2). Instead of limiting Hillsborough County's contribution to a percentage of the amount "appropriated"6/ by the Legislature to the Shared Trust Fund, the Department was including its own General Revenue appropriation in the calculation, which inflated the county's assessment. Hillsborough I at ¶ 24. Judge Manry's findings led the Department to conclude, in its Final Order, that the calculation of a "per diem" rate for the counties should be abandoned as inconsistent with rule 63G-1.004. In a companion case to Hillsborough I, Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 07-4432 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 10, 2008; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. June 4, 2008)("Hillsborough II"), Judge Manry dealt with Hillsborough County's challenge to the Department's determination of utilization days allocated to the county for predisposition care. In this case, Judge Manry found that the Department had failed to comply with the requirements of section 985.686(6), which provides: Each county shall pay to the department for deposit into the Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund its share of the county's total costs for juvenile detention, based upon calculations published by the department with input from the counties. (Emphasis added). The Department had allocated 47,714 predisposition utilization days to Hillsborough County, which was reduced to 47,214 after the reconciliation process. The county argued that the correct number of predisposition days was 31,008. The Department identified 16,206 challenged days under nine categories: contempt of court; detention orders; interstate compacts; pick up orders; prosecution previously deferred; transfer from another county awaiting commitment beds; violation of after care; violation of community control; and violation of probation. Hillsborough II, ¶¶ 25-27. Judge Manry found that the Department had allowed input from the counties during the rulemaking workshops for chapter 63G-1, but had "thwarted virtually any input from the County during the annual processes of calculating assessments and reconciliation." Id. at ¶ 28. The data provided by the Department to the county each year did not include final disposition dates, making it virtually impossible for the county to audit or challenge the Department's assessments. Judge Manry also found that the absence of disposition dates deprived the trier-of-fact of a basis for resolving the dispute over the nine categories of utilization days that the Department had categorized as "predisposition." Id. at ¶ 30. Judge Manry rejected the Department's contention that the county's allegation of misclassification was a challenge to agency policy. He found that the issue of the correct disposition date was a disputed issue of fact not infused with agency policy or expertise that could be determined through conventional means of proof, including public records. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32. The Department failed to explicate "any intelligible standards that guide the exercise of agency discretion in classifying the nine challenged categories of utilization days as predisposition days." Id. at ¶ 34. Judge Manry made the following findings of significance to the instant proceeding: The trier-of-fact construes the reference to placement in Subsection 985.03(18)(a) to mean residential placement. Secure detention includes custody in a detention center for both predisposition and post-disposition care. Predisposition care occurs prior to adjudication or final disposition. Post-disposition care occurs after adjudication or disposition but prior to residential placement. Post-disposition care also includes custody in a detention center after final disposition but prior to release. Although this type of post-disposition care comprises a small proportion of total post-disposition care, references to post-disposition care in this Recommended Order include care after final disposition for: juveniles waiting for residential placement and juveniles waiting for release. (Emphasis added). Judge Manry found that "secure detention after final disposition, but before residential placement for the charge adjudicated, is post-dispositional care." Id. at ¶ 36. He recommended that the Department enter a final order assessing the county for the costs of predisposition care within the county "in accordance with this Recommended Order and meaningful input from the County." The Department adopted Judge Manry's recommendation. In Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 09-1396 (Fla. DOAH June 30, 2009; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. Sept. 17, 2009) ("Hillsborough III"), the dispute between Hillsborough County and the Department centered on 9,258 detention days that the Department had assigned to the county for which no disposition dates were available. Hillsborough III at ¶ 2. The Department took the position that it could identify disposition dates for all juveniles who had been transferred to its care and supervision, and that the "no date" cases indicated that those juveniles had not been transferred to the Department and were therefore the responsibility of the county. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5. Hillsborough County contended that any court order in a juvenile detention case is a dispositional order, after which the Department becomes responsible for the expenses related to retaining the juvenile. Id. at ¶ 5. Administrative Law Judge William F. Quattlebaum found that neither section 985.686 nor previous Final Orders suggest that fiscal responsibility for a juvenile is transferred to the Department upon the issuance of any court order. Id. at ¶ 6. He concluded that it is . . . reasonable to presume that the [Department] would have disposition information about juveniles who had been committed to [its] custody, and it is likewise reasonable to believe that, absent such information, the juveniles were not committed to the [Department's] custody. The [Department] has no responsibility for the expenses of detention related to juveniles who were not committed to the [Department]'s care and supervision. Id. at ¶ 13. However, the evidence also indicated that in some of the "no date" cases, the Department's records identified addresses of record that were facilities wherein the Department maintained offices. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Judge Quattlebaum recommended that the Department amend the annual reconciliation to give the Department responsibility for the disputed cases which lacked disposition dates but included Department addresses, and to give Hillsborough County responsibility for those cases with no disposition dates and no Department addresses. In its Final Order, the Department accepted the recommendation to the extent that cases lacking disposition dates were properly assigned to Hillsborough County. However, the Department concluded that "there is no legal authority to assign responsibility for detention stays based upon proximity to a Department office location," and therefore declined to amend the annual reconciliation as recommended by Judge Quattlebaum. In Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 09-4340 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 18, 2009; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. Jan. 20, 2010) ("Hillsborough IV"), the issue was the Department's authority to issue multiple annual reconciliations. On January 30, 2009, the Department issued an annual reconciliation to Hillsborough County along with an invoice for a sizable credit due the county for having made estimated payments in excess of its actual costs for fiscal year 2007- 2008. The county did not object to this reconciliation statement. Hillsborough IV at ¶ 8. On February 24, 2009, the Department issued a second annual reconciliation that increased the county's assigned predisposition days and decreased the county's credit. Id. at ¶ 9. On March 18, 2009, the county sent a letter to the Department requesting clarification as to the two annual reconciliations. The Department did not respond to the letter. Id. at ¶ 10. On May 1, 2009, the county sent a second letter to the Department disputing a portion of the assigned utilization days. The Department did not respond to the letter. However, on May 14, 2009, the Department issued a third annual reconciliation to the county that again increased its assigned predisposition days and reduced its credit. Id. at ¶ 11. On June 4, 2009, the Department issued a fourth annual reconciliation. This reconciliation decreased the county's assigned predisposition days but nonetheless again reduced the county's credit. Id. at ¶ 12. On July 17, 2009, the Department finally responded to the county's May 1, 2009, letter by advising the county to file an administrative challenge to the allocation of predisposition days. Id. at ¶ 13. With these facts before him, Judge Quattlebaum reviewed section 985.686 and the Department's rules and then arrived at the following conclusions: There is no authority in either statute or rule that provides the [Department] with the authority to issue multiple annual reconciliation statements to a county. The [Department] is required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.008 to issue an annual reconciliation statement on or before January 31 of each year. The rule clearly requires that March bills (payable in April) reflect any excess payment credit due to a county and that any additional assessment related to excess usage must be paid by a county on or before the following April 1. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the annual reconciliation statement issued pursuant to the rule is final unless successfully challenged in an administrative proceeding.... * * * 28. At the hearing, the parties suggested that the issuance of multiple annual reconciliation statements is the result of the resolution of objections filed by counties in response to the annual reconciliation statement. The resolution of such objections can result in additional costs allocated to another county. There was no evidence that counties potentially affected by resolution of another county's objections receive any notice of the objections or the potential resolution. The county whose allocated costs increase through the resolution of another county's objections apparently receives no notice until the [Department] issues another annual reconciliation statement for the same fiscal period as a previous reconciliation statement. * * * 30. Perhaps the most efficient resolution of the situation would be for the [Department] to require, as set forth at Section 120.569, Florida Statutes (2009), that protests to quarterly reports and annual reconciliations be filed with the agency. Such protests could be forwarded, where appropriate, to DOAH. Related protests could be consolidated pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.108. Where the resolution of the proceedings could affect the interests of a county not a party to the proceeding, the county could be provided an opportunity to participate in the proceeding (and be precluded from later objection) pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.109. As is apparent from the lengthy inset quotation, Hillsborough IV touched upon the subject of the Department's "tethering" of the counties, explained at Findings of Fact 50- 53, infra, though the validity of the practice was not directly at issue. Judge Quattlebaum addressed the due process concerns in counties' having no notice of administrative proceedings that could result in the allocation of additional costs to those counties, but did not address the underlying issue of the Department's authority to reallocate costs in the manner described. Judge Quattlebaum recommended that the Department issue a Final Order adopting the January 30, 2009, annual reconciliation for fiscal year 2007-2008. The Department adopted the recommendation and directed that "all successive reconciliations for that fiscal year shall be disregarded and expunged." In Hillsborough Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 09-3546 (Fla. DOAH Feb. 26, 2010; Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. Mar. 23, 2010) ("Hillsborough V"), the main issue was Hillsborough County's contention that the Department had unilaterally and without authority increased the counties' per diem rate for detention care. The undersigned found that the Department had abandoned the calculation of a per diem rate in light of the findings in Hillsborough I, and that the increased "per diem" rate alleged by the county was simply the result of the Department's recalculation of the counties' estimated costs in accordance with its own rule.7/ Fiscal year 2008-2009 assessments and reconciliation By letter dated June 3, 2008, the Department issued its calculation of the amounts due from each county for their estimated share of the predispositional detention costs for fiscal year 2008-2009, which would run from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. As noted at Finding of Fact 19, supra, the predispositional budget was estimated at $99,583,854. The estimate was based on county utilization during the most recently completed fiscal year, 2006-2007, and the amount identified in the chapter 2008-152, Laws of Florida. The Department made the following estimates for the Counties' shares of predispositional days and costs: Days Percentage of Days Estimated Cost Miami-Dade 47,450 8.56% $8,522,140 Santa Rosa 5,213 0.94% $936,268 Alachua 10,957 1.98% $1,967,905 Orange 43,330 7.81% $7,782,177 Pinellas 32,627 5.88% $5,859,892 Escambia 15,044 2.71% $2,701,940 Hernando 2,978 0.54% $534,856 Broward 38,490 6.94% $6,912,901 City of Jacksonville8/ 28,957 5.22% $5,200,750 Bay 5,409 0.98% $971,470 Brevard 13,760 2.48% $2,471,331 Seminole 12,857 2.32% $2,309,150 Okaloosa 4,612 0.83% $828,327 Hillsborough 44,577 8.04% $8,006,142 43. The Counties incorporated the Department's estimate into their budgets and made monthly payments to the Department. By letter dated December 7, 2009, the Department issued its annual reconciliation for fiscal year 2008-2009. As noted above, the purpose of the annual reconcilation is to "reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period." The annual reconcilation set forth the following as the "Actual Predispositional Days" and the "Share of Trust Fund Expenditures" for the Counties, along with the "Difference Debit/(Credit)" between the estimated sums already paid by the Counties and the amount set forth in the annual reconciliation. Those amounts were as Days follows: Percentage of Days Share of Trust Fund Miami-Dade 38,925 11.45% $10,926,117 Santa Rosa 2,555 0.75% $717,180 Alachua 5,511 1.62% $1,546,919 Orange 25,286 7.44% $7,097,695 Pinellas 19,218 5.65% $5,394,428 Escambia 6,734 1.98% $1,890,211 Hernando 1,383 0.41% $388,203 Broward 31,339 9.22% $8,796,752 City of Jacksonville 21,246 6.25% $5,963,681 Bay 3,824 1.13% $1,073,384 Brevard 10,598 3.12% $2,974,823 Seminole 8,944 2.63% $2,510,551 Okaloosa 3,613 1.06% $1,014,157 Hillsborough 27,120 7.98% $7,612,493 The Department's letter advised the counties as follows, in relevant part: . . . Any counties that have a debit amount owed will find enclosed with this correspondence an invoice for that amount. This amount is due by March 1, 2010. A credit amount . . . means the county overpaid based on their utilization and a credit invoice is enclosed with this correspondence. (If the credit amount is larger than the amount currently being paid by the county, the credit will be applied to future invoices until the credit is applied in total.) It is critical that all credits be taken prior to June 30, 2010. . . . (emphasis added). In comparing the estimated costs with the "Share of Trust Fund Expenditures," an untutored observer might expect a correlation between the absolute number of predisposition days and the money assessed by the Department. However, it is apparent that no such correlation was present in the Department's calculations. Dade County, for example, had 8,525 fewer actual predisposition days than the Department estimated at the outset of fiscal year 2008-2009, yet was assessed $2,403,976.89 in the annual reconciliation over and above the $8,522,140 in estimated payments that the county had already made over the course of the year. (For all 67 counties, the Department had estimated 538,836 predispositional days for the fiscal year. The actual number of predispositional days was 339,885.) The correlation, rather, was between a county's percentage of the total number of predispositional days and the money assessed. Though its actual number of days was less than estimated, Dade County's percentage of predispositional days was 2.89% higher than its estmated percentage. Therefore, the Department presented Dade County with an annual reconcilation assessment of $2.4 million. The correlation between percentage of days and the final assessment was caused by the Department's practice of treating the Shared Trust Fund appropriation of $95,404,5799/ as an amount that the Department was mandated to raise from the counties regardless of whether the counties' actual predisposition days bore any relation to the estimate made before the start of the fiscal year. At the final hearing, the Department's representatives made it clear that the Department believed that the Legislature required it to collect the full Shared Trust Fund appropriation from the counties. Reductions in actual usage by the counties would have no bearing on the amount of money to be collected by the Department. The Department views its duty as allocating costs among the counties, the "actual cost" being the Legislature's appropriation to the Shared Trust Fund. Beth Davis, the Department's Director of the Office of Program Accountability, testified that if all the counties together only had one predispositional secure detention day for the entire year, that day would cost the county in question $95 million.10/ In practice, the Department treated the Shared Trust Fund "appropriation" as an account payable by the counties. In this view, the appropriation is the Department's mandate for collecting the stated amount from the counties by the end of fiscal year 2008-2009, even while acknowledging that the Shared Trust Fund number in the General Appropriations Act was no more than an estimate based on the actual usage for the most recently completed fiscal year, which in this case was 2006-2007. Because the Department felt itself bound to collect from the counties the full amount of the Shared Trust Fund appropriation, any adjustment to one county's assessment would necessarily affect the assessments for some or all of the other counties. A downward adjustment in Orange County's assessment would not effect a reduction in the absolute number of dollars collected by the Department but would shift Orange County's reduced burden proportionally onto other counties. The Department has "tethered" the counties together with the collective responsibility to pay $95,404,579 for fiscal year 2008-2009. Richard Herring is an attorney and longtime legislative employee, including 16 years as a deputy staff director to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and was accepted as an expert in the appropriations process. Mr. Herring was knowledgeable and persuasive as to the appropriations process and the circumstances surrounding the passage of the legislation at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Herring testified as to a "disconnect" in the way the Department treats the Shared Trust Fund program. The Shared Trust Fund appropriation is not an amount of money; rather, it is an authorization to spend money from that trust fund. Mr. Herring found that the Department mistakenly "treats appropriations almost as though it were a revenue-raising requirement." Mr. Herring could not think of any other example in which a state legislative appropriation mandates that another governmental entity such a county spend its own funds.11/ The Department allocates 100% of the Shared Trust Fund appropriation to the counties and collects that amount, even though section 985.686(5) limits the Department's collections to "actual costs." Mr. Herring clearly and correctly opined that the Appropriations Act cannot amend a substantive law on any subject other than appropriations. Therefore, the Department cannot rely on the appropriation made in chapter 2008-152, Laws of Florida, as authority for substituting the appropriated amount for the "actual costs" that the substantive statutory provision allows the Department to collect. Mr. Herring found that it is "a huge stretch to say an appropriation means that I will, no matter what, collect that amount of money." He concluded: [O]ther than this program, I'm not aware of any place in the budget where somebody takes an appropriated amount, where it's not another State agency involved, and tries to true up at the end of the year to make sure that every penny of that . . . authorization to expend, that the cash has come in to match the authorization. * * * Again, an appropriation is not an authorization to levy taxes, fees, fines. It's not an authorization to raise revenues, to collect revenues. It may provide, where there are double budgets between two agencies or within an agency, it may be authority to move money from one pot within the State treasury . . . to another. But to go out and extract money from someone who's not a State agency, who's not subject to receiving appropriation, I don't know any place else that we do that. And I can't come up with another example. Fiscal year 2008-2009 challenges In a letter to the counties dated January 26, 2010, Ms. Davis wrote as follows, in relevant part: I am writing this letter to ensure everyone understands the proper procedure for handling any challenges to the annual reconciliation data sent to you in December 2009 for FY 2008-09 and any future year's reconciliation. As a result of the State of Florida, division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) challenge in case no. 09-4340 between Hillsborough County (Petitioner) and the Department of Juvenile Justice (Respondent), the reconciliation completed for FY 2008-09 is considered "final" and adjustments can only be made to the reconciliation using the following steps. Counties have 21 days from receipt of the reconciliation to file their challenges to the reconciliation with the Department. The Department will review the challenges and determine if any adjustments need to be made and which counties will be affected by those potential changes. All affected counties will be notified of the potential adjustments even if those counties did not submit a challenge. If challenges to the reconciliation cannot be resolved with the concurrence of all affected counties, the Department will file a request for a hearing with DOAH. Affected counties will be able to present their case regarding the adjustments at the hearing. . . . Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.009 set forth the Department's dispute resolution process. It provided that the quarterly report "marks the point at which a county may take issue with the charges referenced in the report," but that such an objection was not a basis for withholding payment. All adjustments based on a county's objections to quarterly reports would be made in the annual reconciliation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-1.009(1). Though the rule was silent as to counties' ability to file challenges or disputes to the annual reconciliation, the Department interpreted the rule as allowing such challenges. Twelve counties, Pasco, Sarasota, Brevard, Lee, Polk, Broward, Santa Rosa, Pinellas, St. Johns, Hillsborough, Hernando, and Miami-Dade, filed disputes using the form prescribed by the Department, providing specific reference to the disputed charges and setting forth specific charges for the Department to reconsider. The remaining counties did not file challenges to the annual reconciliation. At least some of these counties, including Orange, Alachua and Escambia, had already accepted their overpayment credit in the manner required by the Department's December 7, 2009 letter. See Finding of Fact 46, supra. The record contains letters that Ms. Davis sent to Broward, Hernando, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Santa Rosa Counties on different dates in January and February 2010, but containing substantially the same text. The letter sent to the deputy director of Broward County's human resources department, dated February 19, 2010, is representative: The Department has received challenges to the 2008-2009 reconciliation from 12 counties, including your challenge. In keeping with the Final Order from DOAH case no. 09-4340 [Hillsborough IV] the Department is evaluating all of the challenged assessments. If the Department determines there are any adjustments that need to be made, we will attempt to reach agreement with all of the counties affected by the changes. However, if we cannot reach agreement, the Department will combine all of the challenges and request an administrative hearing from the DOAH at which all of the issues can be resolved. Because of the number of challenges involved, and time constraints in working on next year's budget, we anticipate the review process taking about 30 days. This time period exceeds the general requirement for referring challenges to DOAH for those counties that have requested an administrative review. We are asking that the counties seeking administrative review will allow the Department additional time. If after the review it is necessary to proceed with an administrative hearing, we will notify all potentially affected counties so that one final resolution can be reached in a timely manner. The Department reviewed the disputes filed by eleven of the twelve counties. In reviewing the disputes, the Department looked only at challenges to specific cases and did not consider broader policy disputes raised by the counties. Ms. Davis testified that Miami-Dade's dispute was not reviewed because Miami-Dade failed to include specific individual records. Ms. Davis stated that Miami-Dade was making a conceptual challenge not contemplated by rule 63G-1.009. Barbara Campbell, the Department's data integrity officer, testified that she reviewed every record that was disputed by a county. Ms. Campbell stated that her review for Hillsborough County alone took about a month. Hillsborough County disputed 50,528 days in 6,963 entries for the following reasons: adults in juvenile status (493 days), charges not disposed (22,495 days), invalid disposition end date (5 days), non-adjudicatory charges (2,987 days), extended period of detention (763 days), invalid zip code (352 days), invalid address (63 days), out of county (88 days), institutional address (1,560 days), escape after disposition (78 days), guardian (21,552 days), transfer after adjudication (45 days), no criminal charge (13 days), and duplicated entry (34 days). Ms. Campbell concluded that Hillsborough County should remain responsible for 45,873 of the rejected 50,528 days. Despite Ms. Campbell's conclusion, the annual reconciliation assessed Hillsborough County for only 27,120 days. This discrepancy was not explained at the hearing. Ms. Campbell testified that one of the corrections she made for Hillsborough County related to the waiting list for placement of juveniles in committed status. At that time, the waiting list was used to determine the commitment date for billing purposes, but Ms. Campbell found that the list contained commitment dates that were several days after the actual commitment dates. This error resulted in a substantial number of extra days being billed to Hillsborough County.12/ Ms. Campbell testified that this sizable error as to Hillsborough County did not prompt a review of the records of all counties to determine if the error was across the board. The Department lacked the time and manpower to perform such a review for all counties. The Department was already stretched thin in reviewing the specific challenges made by the counties. In a letter to the counties dated March 23, 2010, Ms. Davis wrote as follows, in pertinent part: The Department has concluded it [sic] analysis of challenges submitted by counties for the 2008-09 final reconciliation for detention utilization. A total of twelve counties submitted challenges. After reviewing all the data, resulting adjustments affect a total of 45 counties, ten of which are fiscally constrained. Enclosed with this letter is a document outlining the specifics regarding adjustments as they pertain to your county. For counties that filed a challenge with the Department, each type of dispute category is addressed. Counties subsequently affected by the original twelve counties' challenges are impacted by either address corrections and/or as a result of their percentage of the total utilization being changed by adjustments made. An adjustment to a county's percentage of utilization occurs when days challenged are subsequently found to be the responsibility of the State or another county. Changes made based on address corrections are listed on the enclosed disc, if applicable to your county. Each county is asked to review the adjustments and respond back to the Department indicating agreement or disagreement with the findings. If a county has issue with the proposed adjustments they will need to file a petition with the Department to initiate proceedings with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to 28-106-201 [sic] Florida Administrative Code. For the few counties that have already filed a petition with the Department, still complete the attached form and return to the Department but an additional petition is not required. Responses from the counties must be postmarked by April 9, 2010. . . . Ms. Davis' March 23, 2010, letter was the first notice given to non-disputing counties by the Department that twelve counties had filed disputes to the annual reconciliation. Thus, counties that believed they had closed their ledgers on fiscal year 2008-2009 were forced to reopen their books to deal with the Department's "adjustments" to the amounts of their final annual reconciliations. Attached to the letter was a spreadsheet containing the "08-09 Pending Challenge Adjustments" containing the following information for the Counties: Adjusted Adjusted Days Percentage Share of Trust Fund Miami-Dade 38,944 11.77% $11,229,123 Santa Rosa 1,980 0.60% $570,914 Alachua 5,581 1.67% $1,589,043 Orange 27,048 8.17% $7,799,027 Pinellas 15,523 4.69% $4,475,906 Escambia 6,734 2.04% $1,941,683 Hernando 1,327 0.40% $382,628 Broward 31,231 9.44% $9,005,154 City of Jacksonville 21,300 6.44% $6,141,647 Bay 3,830 1.16% $1,104,343 Brevard 8,816 2.66% $2,542,008 Seminole 8,965 2.71% $2,584,970 Okaloosa 3,613 1.09% $1,041,773 Hillsborough 22,465 6.79% $6,477,564 72. In addition to making adjustments to the accounts of the challenging counties, the Department modified the amounts set forth in the annual reconciliation for all 38 non-fiscally constrained counties.13/ A total of 9,010 days were reclassified as post-dispositional and therefore shifted from the counties' to the Department's side of the ledger. This shift did nothing to lessen the overall burden on the counties in terms of absolute dollars because the overall amount the Department intended to collect remained $95,404,579. Of the twelve counties that challenged the annual reconciliation, five did not contest the Department's adjustment and are not parties to this proceeding: Pasco, Sarasota, Lee, Polk, and St. Johns. The record does not indicate whether these counties notified the Department that they accepted the adjustment. Four counties that challenged the annual reconciliation, and are parties to this proceeding, notified the Department that they accepted the adjustment: Pinellas, Brevard, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa. However, because all affected counties did not accept the adjustments, the Department did not refund monies to the counties that were awarded a credit by the adjustment. In correspondence with Pinellas County's Timothy Burns, Ms. Davis stated that the credit set forth in the adjustment would not be applied to the county's account "until the final decisions from the DOAH hearing." At the hearing, Ms. Davis explained the Department's action as follows: Each county's utilization is considered a percentage of the total utilization and that percentage is multiplied by the expenditures. So if you change one number in that mathematical calculation, it has a rippling effect and will affect the other-- in this case it's 45 counties. So all of the counties had to accept those changes and agree to the modifications, those pending adjustments, if we were going to modify the reconciliation, the agency's final action. To restate, the following are the estimates, the annual reconciliation each County: amounts, and the adjustment amounts for Miami-Dade: 47,450 8.56% $8,522,140 38,925 11.45% $10,926,117 38,944 11.77% $11,229,123 Santa Rosa: 5,213 0.94% $936,268 2,555 0.75% $717,180 1,980 0.60% $570,914 Alachua: 10,957 1.98% $1,967,905 5,511 1.62% $1,546,919 5,581 1.67% $1,589,043 Orange 43,330 7.81% $7,782,177 25,286 7.44% $7,097,695 27,048 8.17% $7,799,027 Pinellas 32,627 5.88% $5,859,892 19,218 5.65% $5,394,428 15,523 4.69% $4,475,906 Escambia 15,044 2.71% $2,701,940 6,734 1.98% $1,890,211 6,734 2.04% $1,941,683 Hernando 2,978 0.54% $534,856 1,383 0.41% $388,203 1,327 0.40% $382,628 Broward 38,490 6.94% $6,912,901 31,339 9.22% $8,796,752 31,231 9.44% $9,005,154 City of Jacksonville 28,957 5.22% $5,200,750 21,246 6.25% $5,963,681 21,300 6.44% $6,141,647 Bay 5,409 0.98% $971,470 3,824 1.13% $1,073,384 3,830 1.16% $1,104,343 Brevard 13,760 2.48% $2,471,331 10,598 3.12% $2,974,823 8,816 2.66% $2,542,008 Seminole 12,857 2.32% $2,309,150 8,944 2.63% $2,510,551 8,965 2.71% $2,584,970 Okaloosa 4,612 0.83% $828,327 3,613 1.06% $1,014,157 3,613 1.09% $1,041,773 Hillsborough 44,577 8.04% $8,006,142 27,120 7.98% $7,612,493 22,465 77. Overall, the 6.79% Department $6,477,564 had estimated there would be 538,836 predisposition utilization days for all counties. The actual number of predisposition days indicated in the annual reconciliation was 339,885, some 198,951 fewer days than estimated. The number of actual days was further decreased to 330,875 in the Department's March 23, 2010, adjustment. Nonetheless, the absolute number of dollars assessed by the Department against the counties remained unchanged because the only variable in the Department's formula for ascertaining a county's "actual costs" was the county's percentage of the total number of predisposition days. The $95 million set forth in the General Appropriations Act for the Shared Trust Fund remained unchanged. Thus, even if a county's actual number of predisposition days was several thousand fewer than the Department originally estimated, the county's assessment could be higher than the estimate because that lesser number of days constituted a higher percentage of the overall number of predisposition days. The City of Jacksonville, for example, was found by the adjustment to owe $940,897 more than the original estimate despite having actual usage that was 7,657 days fewer than the original estimate. The Counties forcefully argue that Department's use of the General Appropriations Act as a substitute for calculating the counties' actual costs results in a gross disparity between the amounts per day paid by the state and those paid by the Counties for the same services at the same facilities, echoing the argument made by Hillsborough County in Hillsborough V. Robert M. Dunn, the Department's director of policy development for detention services, testified as follows: Q. But in terms of the actual cost of detention, there's no difference in the cost of a predisposition detention day and a post-disposition detention day? A. None. They receive the same services: food, clothing, supervision, mental health, medical, all of those issues. Every youth receives the same services in detention. Ms. Davis testified that the General Appropriations Act provided the Department with General Revenue sufficient to cover roughly 20% of the cost of all secure detention.14/ Ms. Davis conceded that approximately 38% of the secure detention utilization days were post-disposition days that were the Department's responsibility. She further conceded that through the Shared Trust Fund the counties are paying the 18% difference for the state's portion of secure detention. Evidence introduced at the hearing established a downward trend in the use of predisposition detention utilization since fiscal year 2005-2006, but no corresponding decrease in the amount that the counties pay for detention services. Mr. Herring, the appropriations expert, testified that as a result of the manner in which the Department allocates costs, counties pay approximately $284 per day for detention services, whereas the state pays only $127 per day. Mr. Burns, bureau director of Pinellas County's Department of Justice and Consumer Services, calculated that an average per diem rate for all detention days, predisposition and post-disposition, would be $229.56. Ms. Davis testified that if the utilization ratio and the budget ratio were the same--in other words, if the Legislature fully funded the state's share of detention services--then the per diem rates for the counties and the Department would be almost the same. Despite the fact that the counties were partially subsidizing the state's share of secure detention for juveniles, the Department nonetheless reverted $9,975,999 of unspent General Revenue funds back to the state's general revenue in fiscal year 2008-2009. Of that amount, approximately $874,000 had been appropriated for secure detention. Section 985.686(3) requires the counties to pay the costs of providing detention care for juveniles prior to final court disposition, "exclusive of the costs of any pre- adjudicatory nonmedical educational or therapeutic services and $2.5 million provided for additional medical and mental health care at the detention centers." (Emphasis added). The underscored language was added to the statute by section 11, chapter 2007-73, Laws of Florida, the appropriations implementing bill for fiscal year 2007-2008. Vickie Joan Harris, the Department's budget director, testified that the Legislature appropriated an additional $2.5 million for medical and mental health care in 2007-2008, but that no additional money has been appropriated for those services since that fiscal year. For fiscal year 2008-2009, the counties shared these costs with the Department. The Counties are correct in pointing out that the cost of a utilization "day" is the same whether it occurs predisposition or post-disposition, and their desire for a per diem basis of accounting is understandable from a fiscal planning perspective. If the Department announced a per diem rate at the start of the fiscal year, then a county could roughly calculate its year-end assessment for itself without the sticker shock that appears to accompany the annual reconciliation. However, there are two obstacles to such an accounting method, one practical, one the product of the Department's purported understanding of the term "actual cost" as used in section 985.686(5). The practical objection is that the actual cost of maintaining and operating the Department's secure detention system is not strictly related to the number of days that juveniles spend in detention facilities. Robert M. Dunn, the Department's director of policy development for detention services, testified as follows: For whatever reasons, detention population has decreased significantly over the last few years. However, we have to maintain the capability of providing adequate and proper services for 2,007 beds. In our system, we do not staff centers based on the number of beds or the number of youth who are in the center. We typically follow a critical post staffing process. We know that within center, there are certain posts that have to be manned 24/7, such as intake. We have to be able to provide staff to perform intake duty should a youth be delivered to the center for detention. We have to provide someone in our master control unit 24/7. Those people are responsible for outside communications, directing staff to where they are needed within the center, answering the phones inside the center for requests for assistance, monitoring the camera system to provide assistance. So that position, that post has to be staffed 24/7, whether we have one kid in the center or 100 kids. It's irrelevant. Mr. Dunn went on to describe many other fixed costs of operating a secure detention facility for juveniles. He also discussed the Department's ongoing efforts to identify redundant facilities and streamline the program in light of falling usage, but the point remains that the Department's actual costs do not fluctuate significantly due to usage. Simply keeping the doors open carries certain costs whether one child or 100 children come into the facility, and a pure per diem assessment approach might not cover those costs. While the evidence establishes that there is a significant degree of county subsidization of the state's share of juvenile detention costs, there is a lack of credible evidence that a pure per diem approach would capture a given county's "actual costs" in keeping with the mandate of section 985.686.15/ It is apparent that the Counties have seized on the per diem concept not merely because it was the measure used by the Department prior to Hillsborough I, but because the system used for fiscal year 2008-2009 gave the Counties no way to even roughly predict their annual expenses for predisposition secure juvenile detention. At the start of the fiscal year, a non-fiscally constrained county received an estimate of its predisposition days and its estimated portion of the Shared Trust Fund. The county made monthly payments based on those estimates. As the year progressed, it became apparent to the county that its actual usage was proving to be far less than the estimate. The annual reconciliation confirmed that the county had fewer predisposition days than the Department had estimated, which led the county to expect a refund. In defiance of that expectation, the county was presented with a bill for additional assessments. In the case of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, the additional bill was for millions of dollars despite the fact that their actual usage was several thousand days fewer than the Department's estimate. The Counties were, not unreasonably, perplexed by this turn of events. This perceived anomaly points to the second obstacle to the Counties' proposed per diem accounting method: the Department's working definition of "actual costs" is unrelated to anything like a common understanding of the term "actual costs." It is a fiction that renders nugatory any effort by the Counties to limit their assessed contributions to the Shared Trust Fund to the money that was actually spent during the fiscal year. As to fiscal year 2008-2009, the Department simply made no effort to ascertain the counties' actual costs or, if it did, it failed to disclose them to the counties. "One of the most fundamental tenets of statutory construction requires that the courts give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning, unless words are defined in the statute or by the clear intent of the Legislature." City of Venice v. Van Dyke, 46 So. 3d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), citing Reform Party of Fla. v. Black, 885 So. 2d 303, 312 (Fla. 2004). The Legislature did not define the term "actual cost" in section 985.686. "Actual cost" is not a term of art.16/ The Florida Statutes are replete with uses of the term "actual cost" that rely on the common meaning of the words and do not attempt further definition.17/ Those few sections that do provide definitions of "actual cost" indicate that the Legislature is capable of limiting that common term when appropriate to its purposes.18/ Nothing in Section 985.686 gives any indication that the Legislature intended the words "actual costs" to carry anything other than their plain and ordinary meaning. By statute, the Department is obligated to reconcile "any difference between the estimated costs and actual costs . . . at the end of the state fiscal year." § 985.686(5), Fla. Stat. By rule, this reconciliation is to be performed on a county by county basis: On or before January 31 of each year, the Department shall provide a reconciliation statement to each paying county. The statement shall reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period. Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-1.008(1). Nothing in the statute or the implementing rules authorizes the Department to base its annual reconciliation on the anything other than actual costs. Section 985.686(5) speaks in terms of the individual county, not in terms of "counties" as a collective entity. Rule 63G-1.008(1) states that the Department will provide a reconciliation statement to "each paying county." That statement must reflect the difference between the estmated costs "paid by the county during the past fiscal year and the actual cost of the county's usage during that period." Like the statute, the rule speaks in terms of the individual county; the rule does not purport to authorize the Department to treat the 67 counties as a collective entity. Neither the statute nor the rule supports the rationale that the Shared Trust Fund liability of one county should in any way depend upon the costs incurred by any other county. At the end of the fiscal year, the amount collected in the Shared Trust Fund should be no more or less than the amounts of the counties' actual costs. Nothing in the statute or the implementing rules authorizes the Department to tether the counties together with the collective responsibility to pay $95,404,579 for fiscal year 2008-2009, as opposed to paying a reconciled amount based on each county's actual costs of providing predisposition secure detention services for juveniles within its jurisdiction.19/ Nothing in the statute or the implementing rules has changed in such a way as to vitiate Judge Quattlebaum's conclusion in Hillsborough IV that "the annual reconciliation statement issued pursuant to the rule is final unless successfully challenged in an administrative proceeding" pursuant to section 120.569, Florida Statutes. See Finding of Fact 37, supra. Therefore, the December 7, 2009, annual reconciliation constituted final agency action as to all counties that did not contest the reconciliation in accordance with the Department's January 26, 2010, letter. The Department did not have the statutory authority to recalculate the amounts set forth in that annual reconciliation for the 55 counties that did not file challenges.20/ As regards the parties to this proceeding, the following Counties did not contest the December 7, 2009, annual reconciliation: Alachua, Orange, Escambia, City of Jacksonville, Bay, Seminole, and Okaloosa. As to these Counties, the annual reconciliation should have constituted final agency action and spared them further involvement in litigation. The amounts set forth for these Counties in the annual reconciliation should be reinstated and their accounts reconciled on that basis, as follows: Reconciled Share of Trust Fund Alachua $1,546,919 Orange $7,097,695 Escambia $1,890,211 City of Jacksonville $5,963,681 Bay $1,073,384 Seminole $2,510,551 Okaloosa $1,014,157 105. The following Counties did contest the reconcilation pursuant to the Department's January 26, 2010, letter: Brevard, Broward, Santa Rosa, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Hernando, and Miami-Dade. By letter dated March 23, 2010, the Department informed all 67 counties that it had completed its analysis of the challenges21/ submitted by 12 counties and was instituting adjustments to the accounts of 45 counties, including 10 that were fiscally constrained. For the reasons stated above, the March 23, 2010, adjustment was effective only as to the 12 counties that challenged the annual reconciliation. Of those 12, seven are parties to this litigation. Of the seven Counties, four accepted the adjustment announced by the March 23, 2010, letter: Pinellas, Brevard, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa.22/ As to these four Counties, the Department's March 23, 2010, adjustment letter should have ripened into final agency action without need for further litigation.23/ The amounts set forth for these counties in the adjustment letter should be reinstated and their accounts reconciled on that basis, as follows:24/ Share of Trust Fund Santa Rosa $570,914 Pinellas $4,475,906 Brevard $2,542,008 Hillsborough $6,477,564 To this point, the resolution of the amounts owed has been based on the simple principle of administrative finality as to 10 of the Counties that are parties to this proceeding: proposed agency action that is accepted, affirmatively or tacitly, by a party becomes final agency action as to that party and as to the agency upon the expiration of the time for requesting an administrative hearing. However, there remain three Counties that challenged the annual reconciliation, contested the later adjustment, and continue to assert their statutory right to be assessed only the "actual costs" associated with predisposition secure detention: Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward. During the course of this litigation, some of the parties asked the Department to perform an alternative calculation of the fiscal year 2008-2009 reconciled amounts. In an email dated January 12, 2011, the Department transmitted to the Counties a speadsheet that the Department titled "2008/2009 Secure Detention Cost Sharing Data Analysis," taking care to point out that the document was "not an amended or revised reconciliation."25/ Several Counties, including the three whose contributions to the Shared Trust Fund remain unresolved, have urged this tribunal to adopt this most recent analysis as the most accurate available measure of their pre-disposition detention days and actual costs of detention. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department also argues that it should be allowed to employ this "more accurate methodology" to amend the annual reconciliation as to all counties. Ms. Campbell, the Department's data integrity officer, testified as to several changes in programming that are reflected in the results of the January 12 analysis. The dispositive change for purposes of this order is that the analysis was performed in accordance with the Department's new rule 63G-1.011(2), which provides: "Commitment" means the final court disposition of a juvenile delinquency charge through an order placing a youth in the custody of the department for placement in a residential or non-residential program. Commitment to the department is in lieu of a disposition of probation. Ms. Campbell stated that in previous reconciliations and adjustments, the Department stopped billing the counties at the point a final disposition was given by the court. Under the new rule, the Department would continue billing the counties if the disposition did not result in the child's commitment to the Department. Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.011 became effective on July 6, 2010, well after the close of fiscal year 2008-2009 and well after the Department's annual reconciliation and adjustments for that fiscal year were performed. Aside from the increased accuracy claimed by the Department, no ground has been cited for its retroactive application in this case. Further, rule 63G-1.011 has recently been found an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the precise ground that its narrow definition of "commitment" is in conflict with section 985.686(5), Florida Statutes, which limits the counties' responsibility to "the period of time prior to final court disposition." Okaloosa Cnty. et al. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., Case No. 12-0891RX (Fla. DOAH July 17, 2012).26/ In other words, the Department's prior practice was more in keeping with its statutory mandate than was the "correction" enacted by rule 63G-1.011. In fairness to the Department, it should be noted that its revised definition of commitment was at least partly an outcome of Hillsborough III. In that decision, Judge Quattlebaum concluded, "The [Department] has no responsibility for the expenses of detention related to juveniles who were not committed to the [Department]'s care and supervision. Nothing in the statute or the previous Final Orders indicates otherwise." Hillsborough III at ¶ 13. On this point, however, Hillsborough III adopts the position of the Department that was not seriously challenged.27/ However, section 985.686(3) requires the county to pay "the costs of providing detention care... for the period of time prior to final court disposition." The statute does not state that "final court disposition" is equivalent to "commitment to the Department."28/ Okaloosa County provides a more comprehensive analysis statute: the Department is responsible for the expenses of all post-disposition detention, not merely detention of juveniles who are committed to the Department. The evidence in the instant case made it clear that probation is another post- disposition outcome that may result in detention, and that the Department has made a practice of charging the counties for detentions related to this disposition. Judge Anthony H. Johnson, the Circuit Administrative Judge of the Juvenile Division, Ninth Judicial Circuit, testified as to the procedures that a circuit court follows after the arrest of a juvenile charged with delinquency: Okay, we'll begin by the arrest of the juvenile. And the juvenile is then taken to the JAC, the Joint Assessment Center, where a decision is made whether to keep the juvenile in detention or to release the juvenile. That decision is based upon something called the DRAI, the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument. How that works probably is not important for the purpose of this except to know that some juveniles are released, and some remain detained. The juveniles that are . . . detained will appear the following day or within 24 hours before a circuit judge, and it would be the duty judge, the emergency duty judge on the weekends, or a juvenile delinquency judge if it's regular court day. At that time the judge will determine whether the juvenile should be released or continue to be retained. That's also based upon the DRAI. If the juvenile is detained, he or she will remain for up to 21 days pending their adjudicatory hearing. Everything in juvenile has a different name. We would call that a trial in any other circumstance. Now the 21 days is a statutory time limit: however, it's possible in some cases that that 21 days would be extended. If there is a continuance by any party, and for good cause shown, the judge can decide to keep the juvenile detained past the 21 days. That's relatively unusual. It's usually resolved, one way or the other, in 21 days. After the trial is conducted, if the juvenile is found not guilty, of course he or she is released. If they're found guilty, then a decision is made about whether or not they should remain detained pending the disposition in the case. The disposition—- there needs to be time between the adjudication and the disposition so that a pre-disposition report can be prepared. It's really the Department of Juvenile Justice that decides whether or not the child will be committed. We pretend that it's the judge, but it's not really.29/ And that decision is made—- is announced in the pre-disposition report. If the child is committed at the disposition hearing, the judge will order the child committed to the Department. Now, one or two things will happen then. Well, maybe one of three things. If the child scores detention-- let me not say scores. If it's a level eight or above, then the child will remain detained. If it's not that, the child will be released and told to go home on home detention awaiting placement. Here's where things get, I think, probably for your purposes, a bit complex. Let's say at the disposition, the child-- the recommendation of the Department is not that the child be committed, but that the child be placed on probation. Then the child goes into the community. The disposition has then been held, and the child's on probation. If the child violates probation, then the child comes back into the system, and then you sort of start this process again, on the violation of probation. If the child is found to have violated his or her probation, then you go back to the process where the Department makes a recommendation. Could be commitment, it could be something else. The child may be detained during that time period. Often what will happen is the misconduct of the child will be handled in a more informal manner by the court. The court may decide instead of going through the VOP hearing, violation of probation, I'm going to handle this by holding the child in contempt for disobeying the court's order to go to school, to not use drugs, or whatever the violation was. In that case, the child may be detained for contempt, for a period of 5 days for the first offense, or 15 days for a subsequent offense. Judge Johnson testified that "by definition, anything after the disposition hearing would be post-disposition." He went on to explain: You know, the problem here, I think, is we have a couple of different dispositions. We have one disposition that's the initial disposition. And if the child is put on probation, and then violates the probation, then you have a whole other hearing as to whether or not there was a violation of probation. And, if so, you have a whole new disposition hearing as to what the sanction ought to be for violation of probation. The probation issue was a key point of contention between the Counties and the Department. The Department does not consider itself responsible for detentions of juveniles who been given a disposition of probation. Thus, when a juvenile is picked up for a violation of probation, the Department considers that detention to be "pre-disposition" and chargeable to the county. The Counties contend, more consistently with section 985.686(3), that probation is a consequence of "final court disposition," and any subsequent detentions arising from violation of probation should be considered post-disposition and paid by the Department. Aside from the legal barriers, there are practical considerations that render the January 12, 2011, analysis unsuitable as a measure of the Counties' actual costs. Ms. Davis testified that the analysis is "a little deceiving because it only includes an analysis based on commitment." She noted that the analysis did not take into account the adjustments that had been made in light of the twelve counties' challenges to the annual reconciliation. Ms. Davis stated: "We simply ran an analysis per the request of the counties as to what the days would be based on commitment only, using our new programming that we do today. . . [W]e couldn’t submit it as a reconciliation because it's not correct. There are some address errors. We didn't fix those." Ms. Davis testified that the Department never had any intention that the January 12 analysis should be considered a reconciliation. The programming and the data set had changed since the annual reconciliation. The information in the analysis was not the same information that was analyzed in the reconciliation. Comparing the reconciliation to this analysis would be "apples to oranges" in many respects, according to Ms. Davis. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the January 12, 2011, analysis does not establish the "actual costs" of the remaining counties and is not an accurate basis for settling their final accounts for fiscal year 2008-2009. It is further found that, because the Department has never attempted to ascertain the Counties' actual costs and provided no such data to this tribunal, the record of this proceeding offers insufficient evidence to establish the actual costs for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008- 2009 for Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties. The Department conceded that its annual reconciliation and the adjustment thereto were based on inaccurate data and included significant errors. The January 12, 2011, analysis was based on a definition of "commitment" that has since been found in derogation of section 985.686(5), Florida Statutes. None of the analyses performed by the Department went beyond the calculation of the number of detention days to the calculation of any county's actual costs of providing detention care. The Department bears the burden of providing a reconciliation to each of these three counties that reflects their actual costs of providing secure juvenile detention care. Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward Counties are each entitled to an accounting of their actual costs without regard to the costs of any other county.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order that: Reinstates the amounts set forth in the Department's December 7, 2009, annual reconciliation letter for the following Counties: Alachua, Orange, Escambia, City of Jacksonville, Bay, Seminole, and Okaloosa; Reinstates the amounts set forth in the Department's March 23, 2010, adjustment letter for the following Counties: Pinellas, Brevard, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa; and Provides that the Department will, without undue delay, provide a revised assessment that states the actual costs of providing predisposition secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 for the following Counties: Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2012.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, the spouse of an inmate of the Florida correctional system, has standing to challenge Florida Administrative Code Rule 23-21.0155, which provides that if the Commission declines to authorize the effective parole release date of an inmate referred for extraordinary review, the Commission must suspend the established presumptive parole release date until the inmate is found to be a good candidate for parole release.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 1995, Petitioner married Anthony Ray Peek, an inmate housed in a Department of Corrections facility. Mr. Peek is serving a parole-eligible sentence pursuant to chapter 987, Florida Statutes. On September 1, 2010, Petitioner appeared and spoke at a Commission hearing convened to determine whether to authorize Mr. Peek?s presumptive parole date of September 29, 2010. By order dated September 2, 2010, the Commission decided not to authorize Mr. Peek?s presumptive parole date, and referred the case for extraordinary review pursuant to rule 23-21.0155. On November 9, 2010, the Commission entered an order by which it determined that it would not authorize an effective parole date for Mr. Peek, that his presumptive parole release date remained suspended, and established May, 2017, as the date for Mr. Peek?s next extraordinary review interview. The Commission?s action applied the standards for placing an inmate on parole established in section 947.18, Florida Statutes. In taking its action, the Commission utilized the procedures for extraordinary review established in rule 23-21.0155, which provides, in its entirety, that: 23-21.0155 Extraordinary Review Procedures. When an inmate?s case is referred for extraordinary review by the Commission, an order shall be prepared outlining the reason(s) for the Commission?s decision. The order shall be acted upon by the Commission within 60 days of the decision declining to authorize the effective parole release date. The Commission?s order shall specifically state the reasons for finding the inmate to be a poor candidate for parole release pursuant to Section 947.18, F.S., and shall identify the information relied upon in reaching this conclusion. Additionally, the order shall suspend the established presumptive parole release date until such time that the inmate is found to be a good candidate for parole release. The determination, on extraordinary review, that an inmate is not a good candidate for parole release shall have the effect of overriding his presumptive parole release date however, the inmate shall continue to receive extraordinary interviews, which shall be scheduled pursuant to Rule 23-21.013, F.A.C. If upon extraordinary review, a majority of the Commission finds the inmate to be a good candidate for parole release pursuant to Section 947.18, F.S., the Commission shall enter a written order authorizing the effective parole release date and outlining the term and conditions of parole. Specific Authority 947.002, 947.07 FS. Law Implemented 947.002, 947.07, 947.18 FS. History–New 8-1-83, Formerly 23-21.155, Amended 8-17-06. Had he been released from prison on parole, Mr. Peek would have had the opportunity to live with Petitioner. As a result of the Commission?s action, Petitioner is not able to live and cohabitate with Mr. Peek as a married couple.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that he is of good moral character, and should be granted an exemption from employment disqualification, thereby allowing him to work in a position of special trust or responsibility pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1995, the Orlando Police Department responded to an emergency call from Petitioner's residence. Petitioner was arrested and charged with domestic violence, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. The domestic violence and false imprisonment charges were subsequently dropped. Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the reduced misdemeanor charge of simple assault upon his wife, an act of domestic violence. On September 18, 1996, adjudication of guilt was withheld by the Orange County Circuit Court. Petitioner was given credit for 43 days time served in the Orange County Jail. He was also ordered to pay court costs. Petitioner was not placed on probation and was not ordered to attend domestic violence counseling. Petitioner disputes the narrative contained in the charging affidavit and claims that at no time did he threaten his wife, and that the firearm was present in the room only for cleaning, and was not displayed inappropriately. Petitioner's description of the events is not credible. Petitioner began work as a detention care worker at the Orange Regional Juvenile Detention Center in October 1995. The position required a level 2 background screening be conducted. On August 23, 1996, Petitioner submitted an affidavit of Good Moral Character which did not disclose his arrest or sentence. In August of 1996, a background screening request packet was submitted to the Background Screening Unit of Respondent's Inspector General's office. A preliminary FCIC/NCIC screening check conducted on Petitioner revealed that he had a disqualifying offense (assault on a spouse). His background screening received a rating of "Unfavorable Disqualifying." In a letter from Respondent dated August 7, 1997, Petitioner was notified that he had been disqualified and was, therefore, ineligible to work in a caretaker's position with Respondent. This disqualification was based upon the 1995 domestic assault charge. Petitioner is a 52-year-old Divinity School graduate and former church minister. Petitioner holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Bethune-Cookman College in Daytona Beach, and a Master of Divinity Degree from Morehouse School of Religion in Atlanta. Prior to commencing his employment with Respondent, Petitioner had successfully worked with juveniles for many years in a variety of capacities, to-wit: school teacher, counselor, youth group leader, civic leader, and minister. Petitioner received numerous awards and certificates documenting his involvement with and commitment to the welfare of his community and of juveniles in particular. After starting his work as a Detention Care Worker at the Orlando Regional Juvenile Detention Center, several Juvenile Detention Center workers in both supervisory and co-worker roles testified to the exceptional quality and caliber of Petitioner's work with juveniles. Since the alleged incident of domestic violence three years ago, no claim of any other alleged illegal conduct has been made against Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy Terry, Esquire 1407 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 536914 Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynne Winston, Esquire Inspector General's Office 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 30982 on December 22, 1989. At all times material hereto, Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 25166 on August 11, 1988. At all times material hereto, Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 71355 on August 24, 1988. At all times material hereto, Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 98281 on March 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, all of the Respondents were employed as correctional officers with the Martin County Sheriff's Department in the Martin County Detention Center. In or around December 1989, a new Detention Center was constructed and opened. Prior to that time, the old Detention Center, called the "stockade," was located in Indiantown approximately 19 miles from the site of the new facility. The stockade contained a commissary which was used by both inmates and correctional officers. The commissary was a separate area of the stockade, which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes, and sodas for the benefit of the inmates of the facility, who could purchase the items with monies maintained in their individual accounts controlled by the Detention Center. 3/ None of the inmates had unsupervised and continuous access to the commissary. Even though the commissary was for the benefit of the inmates, correctional officers from time to time would remove items from it. There existed an unwritten honor policy that any item removed by a correctional officer would have to be paid for by that officer. A container was placed in the commissary and a correctional officer would place money in the container for the item removed. If an officer was unable to pay for the item at the time of its removal, a supervising officer could approve payment at a later time. An inventory was performed on a weekly and monthly basis, with no shortage of money being reported. This honor policy was well known to and acquiesced in by the commanding officer of the stockage, Major Murphy. Respondent Singleton, who was employed at the stockade, frequently used this honor policy. He would remove items from the commissary and put money in the container for the items. At times, he would not be able to pay for an item until payday, and he was allowed to pay for the item at that time by his superior officer on duty at the time. Respondent Blair was also employed at the stockade and used this honor system. When the new facility opened in or around December 1989, the commissary structure and procedure pertaining to inmate use remained the same, but the procedure pertaining to correctional officer use was changed by Major Murphy. Although the commissary continued to be for the benefit of the inmates, no longer were the correctional officers suppose to utilize it. The container for payment by the correctional officers for items removed no longer existed. Now, the correctional officers were suppose to obtain their items from an area within the new Detention Center specifically set-aside for them, which was separate and some distance away from the commissary. This area contained coin-operated machines which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes and sodas. However, although there was suppose to be this new policy, no one, other than administrative personnel and high ranking correctional officers, were aware of the change. No written policy was issued for the new facility to countermand the unwritten policy used at the stockade. This nonaction resulted in no notification to the correctional officers of the new policy. Without the written policy, some correctional officers who worked at the stockade continued their practice in the new facility of removing items from the commissary even though no container existed in which the officers could pay for the items removed. In particular, at the new facility one correctional officer on the night shift had removed some items from the commissary. Being unsure as to how to pay or who to pay for the items, he waited the next morning, before going home, for the person who purchased items for the commissary, so that he could pay for the items. The commissary purchasing person worked only on the day shift. At that time, he was notified by the commissary purchasing person that he no longer could obtain items from the commissary, but she did accept his money for the items and informed the officer's superior of the incident. Then and only then did he become aware of the policy change. Major Murphy continued as the commanding officer at the new Detention Center. He too used the commissary and the honor policy. At the stockade he would order boxes of cigars through the commissary, either prepaying for them or paying for them when they came in. He continued this practice at the new facility, which was at odds with his new unwritten policy of prohibiting correctional officers from using the commissary. Everyone was aware of Major Murphy's practice. Approximately a year and a half after the new facility opened, on June 13, 1991, through an inmate informant, Major Murphy became aware of possible inmate theft of cigarettes from the commissary. The alleged theft occurred the night before on June 12, 1991, which was the usual periodic time that inmates' requests for commissary items were filled by other inmates under the supervision of correctional officers. The inmates who were assigned to fill inmate requests from the commissary were questioned by an officer assigned to the investigation by Major Murphy. Implicated by the inmates interviewed in the June 12, 1991 theft of cigarettes were themselves, other inmates and several correctional officers, including Respondents. Besides officers actually removing cigarettes, one inmate was allegedly directed by one officer to deliver some cigarettes to another room and by another officer, Respondent Piazza, to deliver some cigarettes to her. Possible officer theft was a surprising development. On the basis of only the inmates' statements, on June 13, 1991, Respondents were notified to report to Major Murphy without notifying them about the nature of the meeting. The written procedure for investigating officers was not followed. Major Murphy dictated the procedure to be followed in the investigation. Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed met with Major Murphy and two of his ranking officers. Major Murphy did all the talking at the meeting. He cited the theft statute, notified them of the allegation against them and instructed them to tell what they had done. Major Murphy further told the Respondents that, if they did take the cigarettes, it would be the most expensive pack of cigarettes that they had ever had. At least one of Major Murphy's ranking officers perceived this statement by Major Murphy as a threat to the Respondents. Only Respondent Blair admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes after changing his story several times as to how many packs he had removed. Respondent Sayed denied taking anything but at the conclusion of the meeting requested to meet with Major Murphy privately. In that private meeting, with one of Major Murphy's ranking officers also present, Respondent Sayed admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes and attempted to give Major Murphy the money for the cigarettes. Major Murphy refused to take the money. Respondent Piazza denied taking any cigarettes from the commissary. Respondent Singleton was late for the meeting because he had not received notification of it. Again, Major Murphy did all the talking. He gave Respondent Singleton the same introductory comments regarding the theft statute, what was alleged, and requested his story of what happened. When Major Murphy completed his comments, Respondent Singleton admitted that, during his night shift, he had taken, but not stolen, a pie to eat because he lacked change for the machines and had intended to pay for the pie later. Respondent Singleton also admitted that in the past he had removed snack items from the commissary but had paid the commissary purchasing person for them later. 4/ His statement pertaining to paying for the items later is found not to be credible. If he had engaged in this type of conduct, it is reasonable to assume that the commissary purchasing person would have informed him that he could no longer engage in such conduct, as she had done with the correctional officer discussed in Finding of Fact 15. Respondents were suspended from their positions that same day and subsequently terminated. Prior to the meeting with Major Murphy, there was nothing other than the statements by inmates to connect the Respondents to the theft of cigarettes from the commissary. Moreover, no inventory was performed on the commissary items. No evidence existed to show that any unauthorized items had been taken from the commissary or that Respondents had taken any items from the commissary. Even though Major Murphy found the inmates' statements, standing alone, credible to initiate an investigation against the Respondents and personally question them, he failed to find these same statements from these same inmates credible to investigate any of the other correctional officers named in the statements and question them. Furthermore, no other correctional officer named on that evening shift was disciplined by Major Murphy. One of the inmates from whom the so-called credible statements were taken testified at the hearing that, when he assisted in the new commissary, it was not uncommon for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary. 5/ At the hearing, the inmate refused to name correctional officers other than those named in his investigative statement, which included Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed, because he was fearful of what might happen to him at the new Detention Center at which he was now again incarcerated. Importantly, before he agreed to give a statement during the investigation in which he named officers, he was told by the investigating officer that other inmates had already given statements and named officers. The inmate's testimony at hearing is found to be credible. Regarding Respondent Piazza, this inmate was directed by Respondent Piazza to take some cigarettes to another room within the facility where other officers were located, but none of whom personally accepted or received the cigarettes. Approximately four days after the Respondents' meeting with Major Murphy, on June 17, 1991, he issued a written memo regarding correctional officers removing items from the commissary. Major Murphy indicated in the memo that through an investigation, without revealing the nature of the investigation, "apparently there was a practice of correctional employees removing items from the commissary, on all four shifts, without paying for them but that the practice would not be tolerated." Moreover, he further indicated that employees who had participated in the practice could remain anonymous and pay for the items, describing the procedure to follow, and that in the future a container would be placed in the commissary for the correctional employees who remove items to pay for them at the time they are removed. It is inferred from Major Murphy's memo that he believed, and it is found, that it was common practice for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary without paying for them as described by the Respondents. Even though other correctional officers who participated in the practice were provided an opportunity to pay for the items they had removed from the commissary, Major Murphy denied the Respondents this same opportunity. Prior to the memo of June 17, 1991, and after Major Murphy's meeting with the Respondents, another officer who was named in an inmate statement admitted to Major Murphy that he had removed a cigar from the commissary without paying for it. No disciplinary action was taken against that officer. Also, additional correctional officers were named in additional statements by one inmate. Major Murphy determined the extent of the investigation (limited only to the evening of June 12, 1991), and who would be investigated and disciplined (only Respondents and the inmates). Before issuing the memo of June 17, 1991, Major Murphy had decided not to pursue an investigation of any additional correctional officers because he believed that the disciplining of Respondents had sent a message to the other officers that the practice would not be tolerated and because he did not want to have to suspend and possibly terminate the majority of his staff. No criminal charges were recommended or filed against Respondents. The investigating officer recommended, and Major Murphy agreed, that the incident did not warrant theft charges. Respondents have not been employed as correction officers since June 13, 1991. Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action. The inmates who stole cigarettes on the evening of June 12, 1991, were also disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding the Respondents. Placing the Respondents on probationary status for six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1994. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent's proposed decision to award a contract to The Next Step Adolescent and Youth Community Center, Inc., pursuant to RFP No. K8025 is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact On April 27, 1999, Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice (Department), issued and advertised RFP No. K8025, which was a request for proposals (RFP) for a 16-bed, non-secure detention program. Petitioner, Non-Secure Detention Home, Inc. (Non-Secure Detention Home) and The Next Step Adolescent and Youth Community Center, Inc. (Next Step) submitted proposals. Another provider submitted a proposal but it was rejected as nonresponsive and was not evaluated. On June 1, 1999, the Department posted the tabulations for the RFP, recommending the contract be awarded to Next Step. Next Step received the highest number of points, 248.66, and Non-Secure Home Detention ranked second with 209.33 points. Non-Secure Detention Home filed a protest on June 3, 1999, and an Amended Notice of Protest on July 1, 1999. There were three evaluation committee members: Anna Bustamante, Kenneth Williams, and Allen Hepburn. Mr. Williams is a community youth leader supervisor with the Department. Mr. Hepburn is a juvenile probation officer supervisor, who supervises the court unit for the Department. The RFP provides that the program is to be operated at a provider-leased or owned facility. Next Step indicated in its proposal that Next Step would be leasing two homes. One of the homes was to be leased from Reginald Rucker, who was the president and a member of the Board of Directors for Next Step. A copy of the lease was included with the proposal and stated that Reginald Rucker and his wife, Charlene Rucker, were to be the landlords. There was no indication in Next Step's proposal that the facility was owned by anyone other than Reginald and Charlene Rucker. The property is described as "Lot 9, in Block 125 of Leslie Estates Section Fourteen, According to the Plat thereof, as Recorded in Plat Book 116, at Page 95 of the Public Records of Dade County." In May 1996 the property was sold by the Veteran's Administration to Reginal Rucker, Charlene Rucker, and Connie White. Connie White is an employee of the Department, and a former employee at Non-Secure Detention Home. Ms. White's job duties do not include determining the facilities in which juveniles will be placed. For a two-week period, Kenneth Williams supervised Ms. White. At the time that the proposals were being evaluated, Mr. Williams was not supervising Ms. White nor was he aware that Ms. White had any interest in the property proposed to be leased by Next Step. Allen Hepburn knows Connie White. He also knows Connie White's sister, Gladine White, both socially and professionally. Mr. Hepburn is acquainted with Gladine White's husband. Mr. Hepburn attends the same church as Connie White and Gladine White. He does not know either Reginald Rucker or his wife, Charlene Rucker. Mr. Hepburn was not aware that Connie White had any interest in the property which Next Step proposed to use if it received the contract. The RFP set out the proposal award criteria. The proposals were to be evaluated on the statement of work, organizational capability, management approach, and past performance. The evaluation areas were weighted with 65 percent for statement of work, 10 percent for organizational capability, 15 percent for management approach, and 10 percent for past performance. The percentage used in the evaluation of past performance was subdivided as follows: Historical Implementation 1% Educational achievements 5% Recidivism rates 2% QA evaluation 2% Community involvement 1% CMBE subcontracting 1% The RFP stated: Offers without prior Department contract experience shall receive a rating based on the average score of the other competing offers in evaluating their proposals in accordance with stated criteria. This provision of the RFP was not protested within the time frames provided in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, and the RFP. Fifty points was the maximum number of points which could be awarded for past performance. The past performance evaluation consisted of five areas which could receive from zero to ten points. The evaluators were given a scale by which to award points. If the proposal did not address an area, zero points would be awarded. If the proposal response were deemed unsatisfactory, two points would be awarded. Four points would be awarded for a poor proposal response. An adequate proposal response would be worth six points. If the proposal was evaluated to be very good, it would receive eight points. An excellent proposal response would be awarded the maximum of ten points. For the past performance section, Non-Secure Detention Home garnered 12 points from Mr. Williams, 21 points from Ms. Bustamante, and 26 points from Mr. Hepburn for a total of 59 points. Next Step did not have previous experience with the Department. Evaluator Hepburn gave Next Step a total of two points for the past performance section. Ms. Bustamante awarded Next Step ten points for the past performance portion. Mr. Williams gave Next Step a total of six points for past performance. The RFP required that Next Step be given the average of the other competing proposals because Next Step did not have previous experience. Non-Secure Detention Home had the only other competing proposal for the solicitation. Eric Stark, a contract manager for the Department, attempted to apply the provision in the RFP by averaging the scores that each of the evaluators had given Non-Secure Detention Home for past performance and using that average in computing the total scores from each of the evaluators. The average score given to Non-Secure Detention Home was 19; thus a rating of 19 was applied in the evaluation of the past performance of Next Step in lieu of the original scores given by the evaluators. The RFP requires the following: The PROVIDER shall comply with the Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of the Inspector General's Statewide Procedure on Background Screening for Employees, PROVIDERS, and Volunteers. The PROVIDER agrees, to comply with the requirements for background screening as mandated in Section 985.01, Florida Statutes. Failure to comply with the Department's background screening procedure could result in cancellation of the contract. Reginald Rucker was a former employee of Non-Secure Detention Home. Mr. Xavier Moore, the Executive Director for Non-Secure Detention Home, made a request to the Department of Juvenile Justice to do a preliminary FCIC/NCIC and DHSMV screening check on Mr. Rucker. According to Mr. Moore the screening did not indicate a problem with Mr. Rucker being employed by Non-Secure Detention Home. Mr. Rucker was employed with Non-Secure Detention Home from 1997 until June 10, 1999. On October 4, 1995, an Order to Seal Records Pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692 was issued in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida, sealing all records pertaining to Reginald Rucker's arrest on January 13, 1990, by the Florida Highway Patrol for cocaine and marijuana possession. The order stated that Mr. Rucker was not adjudicated guilty of charges stemming from the arrest. The RFP did not require the proposers to submit a financial statement or audit; however, the evaluators were asked to rate the proposals based on whether an acceptable financial statement or audit was included. Neither Next Step nor Non-Secure Detention Home submitted a financial statement or audit. Next Step received the following points for its non- existent financial statement: eight points from Mr. Hepburn; zero points from Mr. Williams; and zero points from Ms. Bustamante. For its nonexistent financial statement Non-Secure Detention Home received the following scores: six points from Mr. Hepburn; a N/A which equated to zero points from Mr. Williams; and six points from Ms. Bustamante.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding the contract for a 16-bed, non-secure detention program to The Next Step Adolescent and Youth Community Center, Inc. and dismissing the protest of Non-Secure Detention Home, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 14th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter S. Pesetsky, Esquire Pesetsky & Zack, P.A. 1367 Northeast 162nd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. "Bill" Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue Whether Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact A. Standing. The Petitioner, Peter B. Dolinger, is not incarcerated by the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is, therefore, not subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Petitioner is an independent paralegal who owns and operates a sole proprietorship specializing in prisoner related issues. The intended scope of the Petitioner's business is to include research and pleading preparation for licensed members of the Florida Bar; agency representation before state agencies, in a qualified non-attorney representative status. The Petitioner, while representing an inmate in an unrelated administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Archie White v. Parole and Probation Commission, DOAH Case No. 92-2392RXP, sought the release of the inmate's records from the Respondent. The request was denied by the Respondent pursuant to Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code. Archie D. White v. Parole and Probation Commission, DOAH Case No. 92- 2392RXP, is no longer pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Final Order was entered in that case in June, 1992. The Respondent. The Respondent is the state agency required to adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (9) When it is reasonably believed that a party may divulge information contained in the files of the department to an offender, the department shall restrict release of any information to that party. The Petitioner has alleged that Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, "facially fails to establish an adeqaute [sic] standard for agency decisions. In other words, a person of common intelligence may imply the utilization of a 'reasonable' etst [sic] or standard thstb [sic] differs in totality from thst [sic] of another, most notably in the absence of definition, guidelines or policy on the standard to be applied."
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Bonia Baptiste, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the Florida executive agency responsible for "planning, coordinating, and managing the delivery of all programs and services within the juvenile justice continuum." As described in section 20.316(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the "juvenile justice continuum" includes: ll children-in-need-of-services programs; families-in-need-of-services programs; other prevention, early intervention, and diversion programs; detention centers and related programs and facilities; community-based residential commitment and nonresidential programs; and delinquency institutions provided or funded by the department. 2 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). The Department's statutory mission is to increase public safety by reducing juvenile delinquency through effective prevention, intervention, and treatment services that strengthen families and turn around the lives of troubled youth. § 985.01, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to this mission, the Department's Office of Detention Services operates 21 detention centers throughout the State of Florida. These detention centers provide for the care, custody, and control of youth who are taken into custody and placed into detention care. See § 985.255, Fla. Stat. Florida statutes establish a specific criterion for determining whether juveniles (persons under the age of 18, or any person who is alleged to have committed a violation of law, which occurred prior to the time that person reached the age of 18) are housed in a detention center. Upon placement in a facility, juveniles are held during all stages of the juvenile justice process, including while awaiting a court adjudication or disposition, or placement in a residential facility. §§ 985.03(7), 985.03(18), 985.03(19), 985.24, and 985.255, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 63G-2.014. Petitioner is currently employed with the Department as a Juvenile Justice Detention Officer II ("Detention Officer"). Petitioner is assigned to the Collier Regional Juvenile Detention Center ("Collier Detention Center") located in Naples, Florida. The Collier Detention Center contains 40 beds and houses juveniles detained by the surrounding Florida circuit courts. Petitioner is a Black female, who was born and raised in Haiti. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner was 45 years old. Petitioner was initially hired by the Department on December 8, 2017, as a Detention Officer I. She was promoted to Detention Officer II, with the rank of Corporal, effective November 9, 2018. As a Detention Officer, Petitioner is responsible for the direct supervision of the juveniles in the Collier Detention Center. Petitioner explained that the Collier Detention Center houses troubled youth, who have violated Florida law. Petitioner relayed that her primary responsibility is to ensure the youth are safe and secure in the detention facility. Petitioner alleges that she experienced unlawful discrimination and sexual harassment while she worked at the Collier Detention Center. Petitioner's complaint focuses on the alleged actions of Major Rodney Goss, the Superintendent of the Collier Detention Center. Petitioner asserts that Major Goss subjected her to sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, and retaliation based upon her sex, age, race, and national origin. Petitioner claims that she had no problems working at the Collier Detention Center until she rejected Major Goss's unwelcome sexually suggestive and demeaning comments, intimidation, jokes, and offensive touching. During the final hearing, Petitioner specifically described the following incidents: Staff Christmas Party:3 Petitioner testified that she first experienced sexual harassment at a Christmas staff cookout that took place in December 2018. Petitioner alleges that during that gathering, Major Goss commented about her physical appearance. Petitioner explained that she was not on duty that day. Therefore, she wore a dress to the party, instead of her uniform. Petitioner voiced that when Major Goss saw her in her outfit, he announced that he would "catch a PREA [Prevention Rape Elimination Act] for that ass." Offensive Touching: On February 6, 2019, Petitioner went to Major Goss's office to discuss the actions of another Detention Officer, which Petitioner found objectionable. According to Petitioner, after she walked into his office, Major Goss told her to close the door. As she was closing the door, Major Goss touched her breasts with his hands. At the final hearing, Petitioner declared that Major Goss's "hand always has to get into my boobs." 3 The Department asserts that the incidents that allegedly took place before August 31, 2019, are not actionable because they occurred outside the 365-day statutory time limit. The undersigned, however, is considering these alleged incidents in this Recommended Order. See para. 58 below. Comment Regarding Petitioner's Haitian Accent: Petitioner alleged that her immediate supervisor once made fun of her accent, which reflects her Haitian background. On May 9, 2019, Petitioner met with Major Goss to discuss the incident. During this meeting, Petitioner asserted that Major Goss remarked that her accent is "sexy," and she should not worry about her supervisor. Petitioner was very disappointed at Major Goss's indifferent attitude. She felt that the comment was a serious matter. Major Goss, however, took no action against Petitioner's supervisor. Physical Contact: Petitioner complained that in or around August 2019, Major Goss pushed her against a wall and moved so close to her body that she felt his private parts. Work Schedule Modification: On September 20, 2019, Petitioner asked Major Goss about adjusting her work schedule so that she could have Sundays and Mondays off. Petitioner told Major Goss that she "would do anything" to get those two days off (such as extra work). Petitioner testified that when Major Goss heard her plea, he replied, "You will do anything?" He then laughed, walked to a white board in his office, and drew a picture of female and a male having sex. Upon seeing Major Goss's drawing, Petitioner expressed, "that's how you look at me?" She then called him a foul name and left his office. Major Goss did not modify Petitioner's work schedule. COVID Protective Equipment: On August 3, 2020, Major Goss failed to respond to Petitioner's email regarding working with a COVID-19 positive youth. Petitioner specifically requested Major Goss provide her with Personal Protective Equipment ("PPE"). At the final hearing, Petitioner conceded that Major Goss did, eventually, supply her with adequate PPE. Verbal Harassment: On August 28, 2020, Petitioner encountered Major Goss at work, where she claims he announced, "Are you still here? I'm working on firing you." Major Goss allegedly made this statement in front of other detention facility staff. (Major Goss did not fire Petitioner.) Request for Uniform: In September 2020, Petitioner requested a uniform from Major Goss. She claims that he never gave her a new uniform, purportedly because she rejected his sexual advances. Application for a Registered Behavior Technician Position: On August 3, 2020, Petitioner applied to become a Registered Behavior Technician ("RBT") for the Collier Detention Center. She was not selected for the position. Instead, the job was given to a younger Black person. Additional RBT positions were given to two white males. Petitioner believed that she was qualified to become an RBT, as well as had seniority over the other two employees who were selected for the opening. Application for Facility Training Coordinator: Later, Petitioner applied to be a Facility Training Coordinator ("FTC") for the Collier Detention Center. The FTC position required a Detention Officer to assume additional duties and responsibilities. It also awarded a five-percent raise. Petitioner testified that Major Goss selected a Department employee (a Black female) from another detention facility as the Collier Detention Center FTC. Petitioner believes that she was more qualified than the other employee. Petitioner contends that Major Goss purposefully did not to promote her to either the RBT or FTC positions in retaliation for her refusal to have sex with him. Detention Officer Promotions: Petitioner testified that she suspected that the Collier Detention Center staff had to perform sexual favors for promotions. To support this allegation, Petitioner reported that she heard about a specific incident in May or June 2020 when another Detention Officer danced provocatively in front of Major Goss. Major Goss then linked arms with her, and they walked together into the detention facility breakroom. Workers' Compensation Injury: At the final hearing, Petitioner described a disturbance at the Collier Detention Center on May 4, 2020, in which she injured her knee interceding in a fight between two youths. Petitioner immediately made a First Report of Injury or Illness to initiate a workers' compensation claim. On May 9, 2020, when she reported her workers' compensation-related injury to Major Goss, Petitioner alleges that he told her that she was faking it, and there was nothing wrong with her knee. He also exclaimed that she was "just too old." Petitioner voiced that Major Goss's comment about "faking" her knee injury was retaliation for rejecting his desire to have sex with her. Despite Major Goss's alleged statements, the Department, by letter dated May 13, 2020, placed Petitioner on alternate duty status. Petitioner was expected to perform duties, "which have been assigned within the current physical restrictions outlined by your physician." On June 30, 2020, Major Goss was notified that Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement, with a zero-percent impairment rating. In addition to the above specific incidents, Petitioner testified that she was "always afraid" of Major Goss. He caused her anxiety and stress. She expressed that she felt threatened by him because she feared that whenever he came near her, he would talk about sex or ask her for sex. She feels that he looked at her like a sex object. Petitioner expressed that she wants to succeed at her job, and "not have to sleep with anyone to get there." Consequently, she tried to avoid Major Goss at work. Petitioner further declared that her work environment was full of sexual incidents involving other Department employees. Petitioner alleged that Major Goss touched her breasts on "multiple" occasions, then would tell her that it was an accident. Finally, Petitioner claimed that in the summer of 2020, she went to Major Goss and threatened to report him "to Tallahassee." Major Goss, however, dismissed her pronouncement stating, "Who are they going to believe?" Petitioner asserts that her reprimands only occurred after she rejected Major Goss's sexual advances. On August 28, 2020, Petitioner filed a formal sexual harassment complaint with the Department. Currently, Petitioner still works as a Detention Officer at the Collier Detention Center. However, Petitioner declared that Major Goss's actions have severely, adversely affected her ability to perform her job. Petitioner also believes that the Department has discredited or outright ignored her complaints of discrimination and harassment. Petitioner testified that she did not report the incidents of harassment before August 2020 because she was afraid that she would lose her job or be punished at work. But now that she has notified the Department, Petitioner is very frustrated that the Department has not made any adjustment or change to her job duties or status based on her complaints against Major Goss. At the final hearing, Petitioner pleaded that she simply cannot work under Major Goss anymore. She asserted that the Department is setting her up for failure. Petitioner also wants the Department to be held accountable for Major Goss's unacceptable behavior. Petitioner declared that no women who work at the Collier Detention Center should feel threatened based on their sex. Despite her tense working relationship with Major Goss, Petitioner testified that she is a good worker. As proof of her effectiveness, Petitioner produced her performance evaluation for 2019-2020, in which she was given an overall rating of "Commendable." In the evaluation, Major Goss specifically commented, "Cpl. Baptiste is an exceptional employee within the department," and that she "is always reliable [and] does more than just get by." Petitioner's direct supervisor, Captain Samuel Sainval, added that Petitioner "has the capability to perform at a high level. [Petitioner] is reliable and shows up to work as scheduled." Petitioner was awarded either an "above expectation" or "meets expectation" in all five rating categories. The Department denies that Major Goss, or any other Department employee, subjected Petitioner to unlawful employment practices based upon her sex, age, race, or national origin, or in retaliation. At the final hearing, the Department maintained that it does not condone or tolerate sexually offensive or harassing behavior by its employees. The Department initially called Major Goss to testify. As Superintendent of the Collier Detention Center, Major Goss is responsible for the operation, safety, and security of the detention facility. In his role, Major Goss is the ultimate supervisor for all Detention Officers and Department employees at the Collier Detention Center, including Petitioner. Major Goss has worked for the Department since 2011, when he was hired as a Detention Officer I. He steadily advanced through the Department ranks until he was promoted to Superintendent of the Collier Detention Center in January 2019. Major Goss is also Black. At the final hearing, Major Goss firmly denied Petitioner's allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment. Regarding Petitioner's specific charges: Comment Regarding Petitioner's Haitian Accent: Major Goss recalled Petitioner's complaint that a staff member had belittled her Haitian accent. Major Goss stated that he elected to handle the incident internally as a "management" concern. Major Goss testified that he addressed Petitioner's issues with the direct supervisor who allegedly made the disparaging comment. Major Goss expressed that they reviewed how to act professionally, as well as properly interact with subordinates in the work environment. In addition, Major Goss arranged for a meeting between Petitioner and her supervisor to discuss her discomfort with his actions. Major Goss relayed that he elected not to reprimand or remove Petitioner's supervisor. Major Goss testified that he did not believe that the supervisor's comment rose to the level of discrimination against Petitioner's national origin. Major Goss further denied that he personally ever discriminated against Petitioner because of her accent or national origin. COVID Protective Equipment: Major Goss remembered that Petitioner once emailed him with concerns regarding possible exposure to youth with COVID in the facility. Major Goss explained that he maintains the PPE for the detention facility in a central location. Major Goss testified that he promptly brought PPE to Petitioner following her request. Therefore, he believed that he adequately resolved the issue. Request for Uniform: Major Goss acknowledged that Petitioner emailed him in September 2020 regarding her uniform. To the best of his memory, Petitioner had not been wearing the proper uniform pants. Therefore, she was out of compliance. Major Goss stated that he was able to requisition the appropriate pants for Petitioner. Accordingly, he believed he resolved her issue. Detention Officer Promotions: Major Goss admitted that on one occasion he walked arm-in-arm with a Detention Officer into the Collier Detention Center breakroom. Major Goss urged that there was nothing sexual about their actions, and at no point were they outside the sight of other Department employees. At most, Major Goss represented that they were simply joking around. Major Goss staunchly refuted Petitioner's accusations regarding the following alleged incidents. He roundly stated that they "never happened." Staff Christmas Party: Major Goss denied that he made any comments about Petitioner's appearance or attire during the staff Christmas party in December 2018. Offensive Touching: Major Goss denied that he inappropriately touched Petitioner in his office on February 6, 2019, or at any other time. Work Schedule Modification: Major Goss denied Petitioner's allegation that he drew a picture of two people having sex on the dry erase board in his office. Verbal Harassment: Major Goss denied that he had any conversation with Petitioner in which he announced that he was firing her. Neither did he ever ask her, "Why are you still working here?" Workers' Compensation Injury: Major Goss admitted that he was aware that Petitioner suffered a knee injury in May 2020. Major Goss denied that he had a follow-up discussion with Petitioner in which he told her that she was "too old." Vincent Vurro is Chief, Detention Services South Region, for the Department. In this role, Mr. Vurro oversees the administration and operation for the Detention Services South Region, including personnel issues and day-to-day support. Chief Vurro relayed that the South Region includes seven detention facilities, including the Collier Detention Center. Chief Vurro testified regarding several disciplinary actions that the Department took against Petitioner in 2020. Chief Vurro relayed that, per Department procedures, requests to discipline Detention Officers are routed from the detention facility superintendents up to the South Regional office. Therefore, Chief Vurro was personally aware of, and able to testify regarding, the following disciplinary actions against Petitioner: Oral Reprimand, January 2, 2020: Chief Vurro relayed that Petitioner received an oral reprimand on January 2, 2020. The reprimand was based on a report that Petitioner engaged in a verbal argument with a co-worker during a shift change briefing. Chief Vurro explained that, prior to shift changes at detention facilities, Detention Officers meet to discuss the upcoming day, as well as share pertinent information. Chief Vurro asserted that the oral reprimand was warranted because Petitioner's "unprofessional" conduct was disruptive and could have affected staff performance. Chief Vurro stated that Petitioner's actions violated Facility Operating Procedure 1.05, which requires employees to be "courteous, considerate, respectful and prompt in dealing with and serving the public and co-workers." Major Goss reiterated Chief Vurro's testimony on the importance of orderly shift changes. Major Goss voiced that the Collier Detention Center is manned 24 hours a day. Therefore, he must ensure that Detention Officers properly coordinate any work issues when starting their duty days. Major Goss explained that each of the three work shifts at his facility overlaps by approximately 30 minutes. During this time, Detention Officers discuss any outstanding concerns. Consequently, he felt compelled to reprimand Petitioner based on the disruption she caused during the shift change. He believed that the oral reprimand was necessary and proper. Written Reprimand, May 7, 2020: Chief Vurro relayed that Petitioner received a written reprimand on May 7, 2020, for failing to timely radio in a "Code White" after she observed a youth who threatened to intentionally harm herself.4 Following his review of a video of the encounter, Chief Vurro determined that Petitioner did not instantly act to assist the youth in danger. Petitioner lost sight of the youth when she decided to use a phone to call for assistance, instead of her Department-issued radio that should have been carried on her belt. Written Reprimand, May 29, 2020: Chief Vurro testified that, on May 29, 2020, Petitioner was given a written reprimand based on her failure to carry her Department-issued radio while on duty. The discipline was based on an incident that occurred when Petitioner was conducting eight-minute checks through her area of the facility. Petitioner encountered a youth who was exhibiting suicidal behavior. Petitioner, however, had removed her radio from her belt and left it some distance away. Therefore, Petitioner had to request another youth call for assistance with her radio while she responded to the situation. Petitioner was disciplined for inefficiency or inability to safely perform assigned duties and failure to have immediate access to a radio. Upon questioning, Chief Vurro conceded that he never personally discussed with Petitioner the circumstances behind the above incidents. 4 Facility Operating Procedure 5.06 establishes color codes for Detention Officers to use to announce emergencies during radio communications. A "Code White" represents "Cut Down; Knife for Life required." Chief Adrian Mathena explained that in civilian parlance, "Code White" stands for a medical emergency, and "Cut Down" means a suicide attempt. Instead, he decided that the reprimands were warranted based on the evidence presented to him, which primarily consisted of video recordings of the May 7 and May 9 incidents. Application for Registered Behavior Technician: Chief Vurro was also involved in Petitioner's application to be an RBT. Chief Vurro described an RBT as an officer who would assist in a detention facility's behavior modification program. Chief Vurro explained that he did not consider the RBT position to be a promotion. He testified that the job did not award a salary increase or bonus. Instead, the applicant selected for the position would simply receive a certification. Major Goss further detailed that the Collier Detention Facility had created three RBT positions, one for each work shift. He also proclaimed that he did not directly select which Detention Officers were to fill the RBT openings. Instead, he simply reviewed names submitted to him from the immediate supervisors, then signed off on their recommendations. Major Goss stated that he did not have any information as to why the supervisors did not recommend Petitioner for one of the three RBTs. Further, like Chief Vurro, Major Goss did not consider the RBT position to be a promotion because it did not entitle a Detention Officer to more pay or rank. Rather, the Detention Officer merely participated in an RBT certification course. At that point, the Detention Officer would be prepared to use their RBT training to perform additional duties. Application for Facility Training Coordinator: Regarding Petitioner's application to be an FTC, Chief Vurro testified that Major Goss selected the Detention Officers who were to be considered for the position, then he (Chief Vurro) approved the pick. As for the specific reason Petitioner was not selected, Chief Vurro stated that, to qualify as an FTC, the Detention Officer must have served as a Detention Officer II for at least three years. Chief Vurro asserted that, at the time Petitioner applied, she had less than the required time in grade. Therefore, she did not qualify for the opening. On the other hand, the Detention Officer who he ultimately chose for the role did have the required service time. Major Goss repeated Chief Vurro's testimony that he did not select who filled the FTC position. Instead, Major Goss gathered the applications, then forwarded them to Chief Vurro as the regional director. Major Goss maintained that he did not have personal knowledge as to why Chief Vurro did not choose Petitioner as the Collier Detention Center FTC. Major Goss offered that he heard that some of the applicants did not have sufficient time in grade to qualify for the position. Major Goss further acknowledged that the FTC position came with a five-percent raise. Adrian Mathena is the Chief of Policy Development and Planning for Detention Services for the Office of Detention Services. In his role, Mr. Mathena has knowledge of the mission and duties of the Department's detention services, specifically regarding the budget, operation, and management of juvenile detention facilities. Chief Mathena is also involved in detention facility personnel decisions. Chief Mathena expressed that Detention Services exists to make a positive impact on juveniles in custody. Accordingly, Detention Services endeavors to provide a safe, secure, and humane environment to the youth entrusted to Department supervision. Regarding Petitioner's written reprimands in May 2020, Chief Mathena explained that the Department requires Detention Officers to maintain their radios on their persons at all time. Chief Mathena explained that Detention Officers must have immediate access to their radios in case they need to call for assistance. Regarding Petitioner's application for the FTC position, Chief Mathena concurred with Chief Vurro's testimony that the Department required three years of Detention Officer II experience prior to acceptance into the program. Chief Mathena professed that the FTC program is "highly selective." Chief Mathena also echoed Chief Vurro's testimony that the program required the Detention Officer to assume additional responsibilities, which would bestow a five-percent boost in pay. Regarding Petitioner's application to be an RBT, Chief Mathena relayed that, when the program initially started, the Department envisioned one technician in every detention facility. However, this arrangement soon proved problematic. Consequently, at this time, the Department no longer offers the RBT certification or position. Department Investigation: Following Petitioner's formal complaint of sexual harassment to the Department on August 28, 2020, the Department opened an internal investigation into Petitioner's allegations against Major Goss. To describe and explain the Department's investigation process and conclusions, the Department called several witnesses from the Department's Office of Inspector General ("OIG"). Darrell Furuseth is Chief of Investigations for the OIG. In his role, Chief Furuseth coordinated and supervised the investigation into Petitioner's allegations of sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination. Chief Furuseth began his testimony by explaining that Petitioner's complaint, like all sexual harassment allegations and complaints within the Department, was channeled through the Department's Central Communication Center (the "CCC"). Chief Furuseth relayed that, on August 28, 2020, the CCC received a phone call reporting sexual harassment by a Department employee. The Reporting Person (the caller) was Bonia Baptiste (Petitioner), and she identified Rodney E. Goss (Major Goss) as the subject of her complaint. As supporting background information, Petitioner declared that Major Goss "made comments about her breasts." She further accused him of embarrassing her "in front of the other staff by threatening to terminate her," and once "pushing [her] into a corner as he walked by." Petitioner also stated that she suspected that staff at the Collier Detention Center were "performing sex acts in exchange for advancement." Finally, Petitioner questioned the selection of another Detention Officer for employee of the month. Thereafter, the OIG initiated an investigation into Petitioner's allegations. Specifically, the OIG investigated Major Goss for "Improper Conduct; Sexual Harassment (staff on staff)." As part of the investigation, the OIG interviewed both Petitioner and Major Goss. The OIG further interviewed Petitioner's direct supervisor (CPT Sainval), as well as six of Petitioner's fellow Detention Officers from the Collier Detention Center. Upon completion of the investigation, on October 9, 2020, the OIG convened an EEO Resolution Panel to determine whether "cause" existed to substantiate Petitioner's complaint. The Resolution Panel concluded that "there was 'No Cause' to believe alleged sexual harassment occurred." Chief Furuseth, who served on the Resolution Panel, explained that the Resolution Panel looked for specific corroborating evidence or witnesses to confirm Petitioner's complaint. They found none.5 Neither did the investigation uncover any photographs or videos supporting Petitioner's allegations. Chief Furuseth urged that in reaching its conclusion, the Resolution Panel objectively looked at the totality of the investigation and considered all the witness statements. On October 20, 2020, the OIG prepared a written Report of Investigation stating, "Based on the lack of evidence, it was determined that a subsequent investigation was not warranted." 5 Two interviewees whose statements are included in the Report of Investigation expressed that Petitioner complained to them that Major Goss sexually harassed her. However, the two interviewees directly denied ever having personally observed Major Goss treat Petitioner improperly or having any personal knowledge of inappropriate conduct on the part of Major Goss. These recorded accounts, while generally bolstering Petitioner's accusations of interoffice strife, are clearly hearsay in that they are out-of-court statements by two individuals who did not appear at the final hearing. Consequently, the comments are insufficiently reliable to serve as a basis for a factual finding. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. See also Damask v. Ryabchenko, -- So.3d --, WL 4979083 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 27, 2021)("Inadmissible hearsay cannot be competent, substantial evidence."); and Mace v. M&T Bank, 292 So. 3d 1215, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Dixie Fosler is the Assistant Secretary for Detention Services for the Department. In her role, Ms. Fosler oversees operations for all 21 Detention Centers in Florida. Ms. Fosler testified regarding the operation and management of the detention facilities, as well as personnel policies and procedures governing detention facilities and officers. Ms. Fosler also served on the EEO Resolution Panel that investigated Petitioner's allegations of sexual harassment. Ms. Fosler initially expressed that the Department will not tolerate sexual harassment, and sexual harassment by Department employees is a terminable offense. That being said, Ms. Fosler represented that the OIG's investigation into Petitioner's complaint did not uncover any evidence to corroborate Petitioner's allegations. Neither did the investigation contain any witness statements supporting Petitioner's claims. On the other hand, Ms. Fosler relayed that the Resolution Panel had several concerns regarding other conduct by Major Goss. First, during the investigation, Major Goss described a recent encounter with Petitioner when she looked upon him with disgust. Reacting to her look, Major Goss uttered, "The feeling is mutual." The Resolution Panel was alarmed at Major Goss's open declaration of "disgust" at a Department employee. The Resolution Panel felt that Major Goss's expressed negative attitude towards a Detention Officer was unprofessional. Second, the Resolution Panel was troubled when it learned that Major Goss walked arm-in-arm with a subordinate into the Collier Detention Center breakroom suggesting that the two of them might engage in a romantic rendezvous – even in a joking manner. The Resolution Panel believed that Major Goss's actions were "too playful" for a supervisor to engage in. Based on these accounts, the Department issued Major Goss a written reprimand, dated October 20, 2020, for "unacceptable behavior." The Department specifically determined that Major Goss's conduct was "considered a violation of law or agency rules, and unbecoming for a public employee." The written reprimand warned Major Goss that, as Superintendent, he is "expected to always demonstrate a professional demeanor and act in a respectful manner." During the final hearing, Major Goss acknowledged his written reprimand. However, he pointed out that he was not punished for any discrimination or harassment involving Petitioner. Major Goss further stated that he received no discipline beyond the written reprimand. However, he relayed that the Department required him to attend sexual harassment training. Further, the Department installed cameras in the administration area, breakroom, and the superintendent's office at the Collier Detention Center to alleviate any concerns regarding possible future misconduct. Petitioner, in response to testimony describing her reprimands, asserted that the Department's disciplinary action was not proper. Instead, Petitioner declared that she was reprimanded only because she refused to have sex with Major Goss. At the final hearing, Petitioner pointed out that all the reprimands occurred after the alleged sexual harassment began. Regarding the January 2, 2020, oral reprimand, Petitioner confirmed that this disciplinary action followed an argument she had with another Detention Officer during a shift change. At the final hearing, Petitioner explained that she was trying to diffuse a personal conflict with the other employee. Petitioner asserted that this reprimand was not justified because her actions did not place any youth in danger. Petitioner further commented that Major Goss "makes a problem out of everything because I won't have sex with him." Regarding the May 7, 2020, written reprimand, Petitioner recounted that she had attempted to call for help during the incident, but her radio did not work. Therefore, she was forced to use a phone to call for assistance. Consequently, Petitioner contended the discipline was not warranted. Regarding the May 29, 2020, written reprimand, Petitioner asserted that when she saw a juvenile at risk of harming herself, she immediately reacted. She only requested the other youth call for help because she was struggling to manage the situation. Petitioner further stated that she had previously removed her radio from her belt because she had completed her eight-minute bed check, and all the youth were safe and secure. Petitioner added that other Detention Officers did not always carry their radios on their belts. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the Department discriminated against Petitioner based on her race, sex, national origin, or age, or in retaliation for participating in a protected activity. The most persuasive evidence presented during the final hearing does not corroborate Petitioner's allegations of discrimination or sexual harassment. On the contrary, the testimony from the Department witnesses, in particular, Major Goss, is credible and is credited. Further, the evidence establishes that Petitioner was disciplined appropriately and not as retaliation for her complaint. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving that the Department committed an unlawful employment action against her in violation of the FCRA.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Paul Middle Platte, Esquire Paul Platte, P.A. 611 South Fort Harrison Avenue, Suite 252 Clearwater, Florida 33756 For Respondent: Debora E. Fridie, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive, Suite 3200 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2021), unless otherwise noted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Bonia Baptiste, did not prove that Respondent, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, committed an unlawful employment practice against her; and dismissing her Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Debora E. Fridie, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive, Suite 3200 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Paul Middle Platte, Esquire Paul Platte, P.A. Suite 252 611 South Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from certain employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for screening the employment of individuals employed in certain occupations within this state. Petitioner, Jose Ramon Arazo, is married to Stephanie Arazo, who at the time and for a number of years prior to the marriage, operated a child day care center in Largo, Florida. Under the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, various positions of trust require screening of federal and state law enforcement records to see if the applicants for such positions have a record of charge or disposition. Various positions have differing requirements for screening. Those positions classified as Level II require a finger print and agency check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Those positions classified as Level I do not. If the agency check discloses the applicant has been charged with a criminal offense, the Department then determines the disposition of the allegation and obtains court records regarding the court action and verifying any probation imposed. The Department's District V Director has promulgated a policy to be followed in that District that stipulates that an exemption from disqualification will not be granted to any individual who is on probation after conviction of a felony and for three years after release from probation. If probation is not imposed by the court, the same policy provides that an exemption will not be granted within three years of a felony conviction, as is provided for in the statute governing exemptions. Petitioner has been charged with several felonies in the past. On July 18, 1983, he was arraigned on a charge of grand theft, to which he pleaded not guilty. However, on August 29, 1983, he changed his plea to guilty and was placed on probation for three years. Thereafter, in December 1985, a warrant was issued for his arrest alleging various violations of the conditions of his probation, including such offenses as being delinquent in the payment of the cost of his supervision; moving from his residence without the prior consent of his probation supervisor; failing to work diligently at a lawful occupation; and failing to make required restitution. In July 1986, he was again the subject of an arrest warrant for ten further probation violations of a similar nature. No evidence was presented as to what action was taken for those violations, but on April 4, 1986, he pleaded guilty in Circuit Court in Pinellas County to grand theft and was again placed in a community control program for two years. There is also evidence in the record to indicate that in September 1986, he was sentenced to confinement for 18 months as a result of the grand theft in Pinellas County. In May 1989, Petitioner was arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with possession of cocaine, a second degree felony, and with obstructing an officer without violence, a first degree misdemeanor. He entered a plea of guilty to the offenses and on May 2, 1989, was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in Florida State Prison. In an indictment dated December 3, 1991, Petitioner was charged with one count of grand theft in Hillsborough County. He entered a plea of nolo contendere and on October 14, 1994, was sentenced to five years imprisonment. When Petitioner was released from prison in 1998, he was placed on probation for a period of two years and is currently on probation status. He indicates he has successfully participated in this period of probation and was told the probation authorities plan to recommend his release from probation in the near future. No independent evidence to support this contention was offered, though Petitioner presented a statement from correctional officials who supervised him while he was incarcerated at the Tampa Community Correction Center and at the institutional level, that he has shown a significant reformation of character and a good ability to deal with everyday problems in a professional manner. From their joint unsworn statement, it would appear these individuals consider Petitioner a likely candidate to be a productive member of society in the future. Petitioner's wife has been put out of business because Petitioner lives with her in their home which was her place of business. Because of his presence, even though he works outside the home most of the time the children are there, she cannot care for children in the home because of regulations prohibiting it. She has been in business for a number of years and apparently her center has a good reputation in the community. One client, Mrs. Perry, by unsworn written statement commends Mrs. Arazo's performance and indicates that even though she saw Petitioner only a few times, he was one of her daughter's favorite people. He also had a positive influence on her son, preaching the virtue of hard work. Mrs. Perry does not consider Petitioner a threat, and she has no fear of his being near her children. In fact, she is of the opinion it a good thing for the children to see the loving and supportive interplay between Petitioner and his wife. Another client, Mrs. Mineo, has been a foster parent to a number of children over the years, many of whom she has placed in Mrs. Arazo's care, agrees. During the time she has known Petitioner, she has never seen him to be other than very professional. She describes him as a hard worker, well-mannered, and deserving of a chance. She believes him to be trying hard. Mrs. Arazo asserts that Petitioner is no threat to the well-being of any of the children who attend her center. He has, to her knowledge, never hurt a child, and she would have nothing to do with anyone who would. His relationship with the children in her care is very positive, and the children love him when he is there, which is not often. He is not an employee of the center and, in fact, has nothing to do with it. He has made mistakes in the past, has paid for them, and has worked hard to overcome them. In her opinion, he deserves a chance. Petitioner admits he has done wrong in the past on multiple occasions, and he is not proud of the things he has done wrong. He does not believe in rehabilitation except in the physical sense, but he believes in the power of an individual to recognize his wrong ways and reform himself. He believes he has done this. He took the opportunity to learn better life-skills while he was in jail and has reformed his way of thinking and his attitudes. During the total six years he spent in prison, he was given only one disciplinary referral. He learned a trade and has a full-time job. He is doing the best he can and wants a chance to prove himself, so as not to hurt his wife's business.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William Joel Keel, is an inmate at the correctional institution in Raiford, Florida. The Union Correctional Institution is a confinement facility operated by the Respondent, Department of Corrections. Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, permits the Respondent to adopt rules and regulations which modify the limits of an inmate's confinement under specified conditions. In January 1986, the figures of the statistics of the Department of Corrections reflect that there were approximately 1300 new commitment intakes per month. As the year 1986 progressed up through the months of April and May, this rate went up to approximately 1400 to 1600 per month, and in June, the figure stood at 1680 new commitment intakes; a new record. This record, however, has been broken since that time with a monthly intake of 1700. This large number of intakes created a terrible strain on the system which at the time had reached the federal standards and the state cap on inmate strength of 98 percent. These caps are placed on inmate strength as an effort to reduce the extreme safety and security problems created by inmate overcrowding. Because there was no new staff assigned to the Department of Corrections during the period of this increase, the staff/inmate ratio decreased as the hot summer months approached with the pressure that the climate imposes. Both interior and perimeter security of the various institutions within the Department of Corrections became more and more strained. The stress on staff caused an increase of absenteeism and illness. In addition, during this period of increased temperature and the concomitant stress related thereto, assaults and escapes become a greater and greater problem. In June 1986, the inmate population in the Florida prison system went up to 99 percent, a figure approved by the Florida Legislature due to a change brought about by an automated accounting system for prisoners. The achievement of the 99 percent plus prison population constituted an "emergency" due to overcrowding. As a result, it became obvious that there was a need to increase the number of inmates eligible for pre-expiration of sentence release. Consistent therewith was the need to establish a fair and objective way of placing inmates into this pre-release program that would protect the public. It was determined necessary to screen out from participation in the program certain prohibited types of inmates such as sex offenders unless they have been cleared and determined to be harmless. Up to the point of this determination, there appeared to be no substantial or valid guidelines. Another intent of the framers of this emergency rule was the desire to set up a procedure to remove inmates placed into the pre-release program from the program for cause in accordance with due process and constitutionality. It was deemed necessary to make clear within the parameters of the program and within the instructions for the program what had to be done and how it was to be accomplished. Nonetheless, the overriding consideration which constituted the "emergency" situation was the overpopulation in the prison system. As a result, the Department of Corrections in July 1986 promulgated and published its Emergency Rule 33ER 86-3 dealing with supervised community release which rule was to take effect upon being filed with the Department of State. This rule provided that all inmates who are within 90 days of their release date will be eligible for placement on supervised community release if they meet certain specified requirements. The emergency rule listed as the basis therefor, "this emergency rule is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of the State of Florida by providing criteria that the inmates to be placed in supervised community release must meet to help assure the safety of the public." It goes on also to indicate that the rule is necessary to prescribe appropriate sanctions for inmates within the program in the event they violate the terms and conditions of the release agreement. The program provides that the initial process is for the staff within the Department of Corrections to screen all inmates within 90 days of the end of their sentence. It was envisioned as an extension of the work release program already existing. It is for that reason that only those on or eligible for work release can participate in this new program. This is consistent with the statutory mandate to include in pre-release programs only trustworthy inmates. Inmates are also screened to ensure that they have demonstrated this trustworthiness by performing well in the more restrictive work release program. Other methods of demonstrating trustworthiness and eligibility is for the inmate to invest time in self-improvement projects such as the GED Program and to have through his past practice, shown that he will return to the prison setting at night. This screening is done monthly of all inmates with a temporary release date of 120 days in the future. By so doing, this gives the staff 30 days to develop a plan for the individual inmate to ensure a stable environment for the inmate to go to. Prior to the implementation of Chapter 86-46, Laws of Florida, the statutory authority for the current program, there was no provision for the program in issue. As soon as this law was passed the legal staff within the Department of Corrections prepared the instant emergency rule as soon as possible. Had they not been able to do an emergency rule and had the regular rulemaking process been necessary, it is most likely that they would not have had established criteria and guidelines to apply to those who had to be released due to the fact that the prison population had reached the statutory cap. In fact, it was shown that state attorneys would not cooperate with the Department of Corrections and process violations of the program unless there were specific guidelines contained therein, and, since it was necessary to reduce the inmate population, it was therefore necessary to utilize the emergency role process. With that in mind, the safety of the public into which these inmates would be released was the primary concern and generated the need to ensure that only qualified and safe inmates were released. Under the new statute and the emergency rule, 1125 inmates have been released as of the date of the hearing. Approximately 750 inmates are in the program at any given time. As a result of the implementation of this program, the prison population has dropped and remained within the new 99 percent of capacity state cap. Experience with the programs so far has shown that the inmates in the program have been guilty of only minor violations such as assault on witnesses, DWI, simple assault, and larceny. And all of these offenses came up after implementation of the emergency rule. In the case of misconduct by a released inmate which does not result in immediate charges and incarceration, such as leaving the county where placed or the state, the disciplinary team from the Department of Corrections will evaluate the inmate and impose the penalty. These penalties could include removal of gain time while still remaining within the program up to removal from the program and loss of gain time. Conditions of enrollment in the program include, as to the inmate, that he (a) stay in the area where assigned; (b) refrain from the use of drugs; (c) comply with instructions given; (d) pay court costs imposed; and (e) pay a $30 a month fee to the Department of Corrections to cover administrative costs. Though the emergency rule appears to be working satisfactorily, the Department of Corrections is in the process of regular rulemaking to adopt a permanent rule identical to the emergency rule in issue here.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sonia N. Torres (Respondent), committed the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a); and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. See Pre-Hearing Stipulation, page 6, paragraph (9).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. Since May 28, 2002, she has held Correctional Certificate Number 202528. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer with the Orange County Corrections Department. Prior to the incidents complained of in this cause, there is no evidence that Respondent was disciplined for any employment deficiencies at her place of employment. Some time prior to March 2008, Respondent met and became romantically involved with an individual known in this record as Adonis Torres. Although they share the same last name, Respondent and Mr. Torres are not related. Mr. Torres’ mother is the babysitter for Respondent’s daughter. Mr. Torres is also identified as “Chino” in the record. Although she claims she was unaware of Mr. Torres’ prior criminal record, Respondent acknowledged that after she became aware of criminal allegations involving Mr. Torres, she continued to be romantically linked to him. In fact, during the time Mr. Torres was incarcerated in the Osceola County detention facility, Respondent maintained contact with him through letters, telephone calls, and visits to the correctional facility. The telephone conversations between Mr. Torres and Respondent were recorded. The audio recordings were transcribed, and Respondent was provided an opportunity to review the written contents of the conversations and to explain the comments made between the two. Respondent does not dispute the accuracy of the telephone call transcriptions. The transcripts used “inaudible” or such terms when the exact language of the callers could not be discerned. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent considered herself to be Mr. Torres’ girlfriend. Many of the comments between the two during the telephone calls expressed familiarity typical of viewing themselves as a couple. For example, Respondent spoke about the bedspread she acquired for the bed they shared, efforts Respondent had made to obtain a pedicure for Mr. Torres’ mother, and comments regarding Mr. Torres’ anatomy. Respondent knew that Mr. Torres was charged with a drug violation and violation of probation. Although Respondent claimed she was in sympathy for Mr. Torres because his daughter had died, such contention has not been deemed credible, nor is it supported by the contents of the telephone conversations. Also, not credible were Respondent’s claims that she went along with Mr. Torres’ requests for contraband during their telephone conversations just to pacify him, or to play along with his comments. During numerous telephone calls between Respondent and Mr. Torres, they discussed items to be brought into the correctional facility. Pertinent to this case is the fact that Mr. Torres requested that Respondent smuggle tobacco, prescription pills, and marijuana into the jail for Mr. Torres. For all such requests, Respondent assented to the request. Respondent did not refuse the inmate, or indicate a disagreement with Mr. Torres’ requests during any of their telephone conversations. The conversations between the two detailed how Respondent was to tightly wrap the items in Saran Wrap to make them as small as possible. Mr. Torres stated that the items requested should be “as small as possible cause they going inside somebody.” Further, Mr. Torres on one occasion stated, he needed to use another inmate’s number, “so I can talk to you more freely.” For Respondent’s part, she asked on more than one occasion when she would be dropping off the items. At one point, Respondent expressed concern and questioned how she could “be sure that you’re [Mr. Torres] going to get your shit.” As to all proposed deliveries, Mr. Torres described when, what, and how Respondent was to deliver the items he sought. On one occasion, he directed Respondent to make the delivery in a Dunkin’ Donuts bag. On another occasion, the amount delivered was to be decreased and delivered in “his” and “her” cups tucked into a McDonald’s sack. At no time did Mr. Torres complain that Respondent had not delivered the items he sought, in the manner he had requested. Curiously, during one of the telephone conversations, Mr. Torres told Respondent he had sold cocaine to a correctional officer for over a year. Mr. Torres was surprised to see the officer at the detention facility where he was being detained. Despite the admission of Mr. Torres’ criminal activity, Respondent was undeterred in her devotion to him. So much so that she put approximately $1,200.00 into his account during his time of incarceration. According to Respondent, Mr. Torres was never found in possession of contraband at the Osceola County Corrections facility. Respondent denied that she had delivered any contraband into the facility. Notwithstanding such denial, Respondent engaged in planning with Mr. Torres that included her desire to smoke (presumably marijuana) with him when he obtained his release, his assertion that he intended to continue smoking marijuana even if he did not sell it, and their plans for romantic encounters. No conclusion is reached as to whether such comments were true, only that Respondent engaged in the conversations and did not explain comments, other than to suggest either she was impaired when she made the comments or just humoring Mr. Torres. Another issue raised by the telephone conversations were the slang comments made by Respondent and Mr. Torres. If Respondent and Mr. Torres did not contemplate illegal activity, why would they obscure the conversation using terms such as “dub” or “green stuff”? As explained by Officer McGriff, terms used by Respondent and Mr. Torres commonly refer to street language for marijuana. Respondent offered no credible explanation for the conversations described above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of "fail[ing] to maintain good moral character" and revoking her certification based on this finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2010.
