Findings Of Fact In August 1986, petitioner was employed as a Detention Care Worker I at the Manatee Regional Juvenile Detention Center. On August 6, 1986, petitioner received a copy of HRS Pamphlet 60-1, entitled "Employee Handbook." The HRS policy concerning absences is set forth in the handbook as follows: If you expect to be absent from work for any reason, you must request leave from your supervisor as much in advance as possible, so that suitable disposition of your work may be made to avoid undue hardship on fellow employees and clients. As soon as you know you will be late or absent from work you must notify your supervisor. Absence without approved leave is cause for disciplinary action. If you are absent for three consecutive workdays without authorization, you may be considered to have abandoned your position and thus resigned. On May 4, 1987, petitioner received a written reprimand for an absence without authorized leave which occurred on April 9, 1987. Petitioner was reminded that he had to call his immediate supervisor for approved leave prior to the beginning of his shift. On May 4, 1987, petitioner also received an oral reprimand for his excessive absences. By May 28, 1987, petitioner had accumulated 41 hours of leave without pay that were due to absences from work that were not approved in advance. Ms. Clark, petitioner's Shift Supervisor, held a conference with petitioner to discuss the problems he was having. As a result of the discussion with petitioner, Ms. Clark decided to retroactively grant petitioner leave with pay, or annual leave, for all of the hours of absences for which he had annual leave available. After using all of petitioner's accumulated annual leave, petitioner still had eight hours of "short time," which was treated as leave without pay. On May 29, 1987, petitioner was advised by written memorandum from John Simpson, the Assistant Superintendent of the facility, that petitioner had to personally call his shift supervisor for any future leave requested. He was also advised that such request might not be approved and that he should be prepared to report to his assigned shift. On June 12, 1987, petitioner did not go to work. He did not request leave, but his wife called to say that he would not be at work. The Manatee Juvenile Detention Center is a secured facility. Detention care workers must be present at the facility at all times and work in shifts. Due to the nature of the work, it is vital that a detention care worker notify his supervisor in advance of any proposed absence so that arrangements can be made for a substitute to take his shift. Petitioner appeared for work as scheduled at 11:00 p.m. on June 18, 1987, and worked until 7:00 a.m., June 19, 1987. He was scheduled to work again at 11:00 p.m. on June 19, 1987. He did not call, and he did not report for work. He also was scheduled to work the night of June 20th. At about 6:00 p.m. on June 20, he stopped by the facility to say that his wife was having a baby. He did not report to work that night. On June 21, petitioner called Ms. Clark at home at about 9:50 p.m. He said that he was at the hospital with his wife and baby. He indicated that his wife and baby were fine, although the baby was about five weeks premature. Petitioner testified that he asked Ms. Clark for five days off and that Ms. Clark agreed. Ms. Clark testified that petitioner asked that he be given leave for the night of June 21. Since petitioner did not have annual leave accumulated, the leave had to be without pay. A shift supervisor is not authorized to grant over one day of leave without pay. Ms. Clark was a credible witness, she clearly recalled the conversation she had with the petitioner, and her testimony is accepted. It is therefore found that petitioner was granted leave for the shift beginning at 11:00 p.m. on June 21 and ending at 7:00 a.m. on June 22, 1987. No additional leave was authorized. Petitioner was scheduled to work the shift beginning at 11:00 p.m. on June 22, 1987. He did not appear for work and did not call. Petitioner was not scheduled to work the nights of June 23 or June 24, 1987. On Thursday, June 25, 1987, petitioner was scheduled to work the 11:00 p.m. shift. He did not call and did not report to work. On Friday night, June 26, 1987, petitioner was scheduled to work. He did not call and did not report to work. On June 27, at about 5:30 p.m., petitioner called Ms. Clark to inform her that he was returning to work. Ms. Clark told petitioner that he needed to talk to Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson went to the facility to meet with petitioner. Petitioner did not report to work. On June 28, 1987, petitioner went to work. He was told that he had to see Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson gave petitioner the termination letter which advised petitioner that he had been absent from work on June 22, 25 and 26, 1987, without authorization, and that he was deemed to have resigned from his position as Detention Care Worker I effective 7:00 a.m. on June 27, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining the action of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and finding that Calvin Sloan abandoned his position as Detention Care Worker I and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Calvin Sloan 1207-25th Street East Palmetto, Florida 33561 Frederick Wilk, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District VI 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Room 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 Adis M. Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Pamela Miles, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements in section 985.686, Florida Statutes, for juvenile detention care. The challenging counties are political subdivisions of the State of Florida and are non-fiscally constrained counties subject to the cost-sharing requirements of section 985.686. The challenging counties are substantially affected by the application of Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.010 through 63G-1.018, including the Proposed Rules. It was stipulated that the challenging counties’ alleged substantial interests are of the type these proceedings are designed to protect. Petitioner, Florida Association of Counties (“FAC”), is a statewide association and not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under chapter 617, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of representing county government in Florida and protecting, promoting, and improving the mutual interests of all counties in Florida. All of the 67 counties in Florida are members of FAC, and the Proposed Rules regarding Detention Cost Share affect all counties. Of the 67 counties in Florida, 35 are considered non- fiscally constrained, and are billed by the Department for their respective costs of secure detention care, as determined by the Department; 27 of these counties are participating alongside FAC in these proceedings. The subject matter of these proceedings is clearly within FAC’s scope of interest and activity, and a substantial number of FAC’s members are adversely affected by the Proposed Rules. The challenging counties, and FAC, participated in the various rulemaking proceedings held by the Department related to the Proposed Rules, including rule hearings held on June 6, 2014, and August 5, 2014. Rule Making The initial version of the Proposed Rules was issued, and a Rule Development Workshop was held on March 28, 2014. Numerous challenging counties submitted comments on the Proposed Rules either prior to, or at the Rule Development Workshop. On May 15, 2014, the Department published Proposed Rules 63G-1.011, 1.013, 1.016, and 1.017 in the Florida Administrative Register. In that Notice, the Department scheduled a hearing on the Proposed Rules for June 6, 2014. On June 6, 2014, a rulemaking hearing was held on the Proposed Rules. Numerous challenging counties submitted comments to the Proposed Rules either prior to, or at the hearing. A supplemental rulemaking hearing was held on August 5, 2014. Again, numerous challenging counties submitted comments regarding the Proposed Rules either prior to, or at the supplemental rulemaking hearing. On September 5, 2014, the Department advertised its Notice of Change as to the Proposed Rules. Thereafter, all parties to this proceeding timely filed petitions challenging the Proposed Rules. A statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) was not originally prepared by the Department. In the rulemaking proceedings before the Department, Bay County submitted a good faith written proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative. In its proposal, Bay County asserted that the Department’s own stipulations signed by the agency are competent substantial evidence that the agency has a “less costly alternative” to the approach taken in the Proposed Rules, by assessing the costs of all detention days for juveniles on probation status to the state, and not the counties.2/ As Bay County noted in the proposal, the Department previously had agreed to assume all of the cost of detention days occurring after a disposition of probation. Following the June 6, 2014, hearing, the Department issued a SERC for the Proposed Rules. Ultimately, the Department rejected the lower cost regulatory alternative proposed by the counties “because it is inconsistent with the relevant statute (section 985.686, F.S.), fails to substantially accomplish the statutory objective, and would render the Department unable to continue to operate secure detention.” The Implemented Statute The Proposed Rules purport to implement section 985.686, which provides that each county is responsible for paying the costs of providing detention care “for juveniles for the period of time prior to final court disposition.” § 985.686(3), Fla. Stat. The statute establishes a cost-sharing system whereby each non-fiscally constrained county is required to be individually provided with an estimate of “its costs of detention care for juveniles who reside in that county for the period of time prior to final court disposition,” based on “the prior use of secure detention for juveniles who are residents of that county, as calculated by the department.” § 985.686(5), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Each county must pay the estimated costs at the beginning of each month. At the end of the state fiscal year, “[a]ny difference between the estimated costs and actual costs shall be reconciled.” Id. The Department is responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements and is authorized to adopt rules as set forth in section 985.686(11). In general, the Proposed Rules provide definitions including for pre and postdisposition, provide for calculating the estimated costs, for monthly reporting, and for annual reconciliation. Specific changes will be discussed in detail below. The complete text of the Challenged Rules, showing the proposed amendments (in strike-through and underlined format) is attached hereto as Appendix A. The Prior Rule Challenge On July 16, 2006, the Department promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.002, 63G-1.004, 63G-1.007, and 63G-1.008, among others, setting forth the definitions and procedures for calculating the costs as between the state and the various counties. These rules were repealed as of July 6, 2010, and in their place, the Department adopted rules 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017. Although the previous rules defined “final court disposition,” for purposes of determining the counties’ responsibility for providing the costs of secure detention, the 2010 rules replaced this with a definition of “commitment,” so that the state was only responsible for days occurring after a disposition of commitment. This had the effect of transferring the responsibility for tens of thousands of days of detention from the state to the counties. In addition, the 2010 rules failed to provide a process by which the counties were only charged their respective actual costs of secure detention. In 2012, several counties challenged rules 63G-1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because these rules replaced the statutory dividing line for the costs of secure detention with “commitment,” and because the rules resulted in the overcharging of counties for their respective actual costs of secure detention. On July 17, 2012, a Final Order was issued by the undersigned which agreed with the counties and found that the rules were an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Okaloosa Cnty., et al. v. Dep’t of Juv. Just., DOAH Case No. 12-0891RX (Fla. DOAH July 17, 2012). On June 5, 2013, this ruling was affirmed on appeal. Dep’t of Juv. Just. v. Okaloosa Cnty., 113 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“2012 Rule Challenge”). The Department’s Response to the 2012 Rule Challenge No changes to the Department’s practices were made after the Rule Challenge Final Order was released in 2012. Rather, changes were not made until after the Rule Challenge decision was affirmed on appeal in June 2013. Shortly after the opinion was released by the First District Court of Appeal, the Department modified its policies and practices to conform with its interpretation of the requirements of that opinion, and informed the counties that “all days for youth in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment belong to the state.” At this time, the Department determined that “by their nature all VOPs [violations of probation] are attached to charges that have a qualified disposition and thus are a state pay.” In response to the appellate court decision, the Department implemented and published to the counties its interpretation that the counties were only responsible for detention days occurring prior to a final court disposition, and were not responsible for detention days occurring after a juvenile has been sentenced to commitment or probation, or is waiting for release after a dismissal of the charge. A statement to this effect was developed by the Department with input from multiple staff, and was to be a “clear bright line” setting “clear parameters” and a “final determination” that the Department could share with those outside the agency. However, no rules were developed by the Department at this time. In July 2013, the Department revised its estimate to the counties for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2013-14 from what had been issued (previously). This revised estimate incorporated the Department’s analysis that included in the state’s responsibility any detention days for youth in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment, or where the charges against the youth had been dismissed. The revised estimate also excluded these days from the collective responsibility of the counties, including detention days resulting from a new law violation of probation. At the time of the 2012 Rule Challenge, several counties had pending administrative challenges to the Department’s reconciliations for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. In September 2013, the Department issued recalculations of its final reconciliation statements to the counties for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The recalculations were based upon the Department’s revised policies and practices and included in the state’s responsibility any detention days for youths in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment, or where the charges against the youth had been dismissed, and similarly excluded detention days resulting from a new law violation of probation. This resulted in large overpayments from the non-fiscally constrained counties to the state for these fiscal years. These recalculations were not merely an internal exercise, but rather were intended to notify the counties what they had overpaid for the fiscal years at issue, and were published and made available to the counties and public at large on the Department’s website. In December 2013, the Department entered into stipulations of facts and procedure to resolve three separate administrative proceedings related to final reconciliation amounts for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. Those stipulations of facts and procedure included the following definitions: The parties agree that “Final Court Disposition” as contained in section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and based on the decision of the First District Court of Appeal, means a disposition order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, including an order sentencing a juvenile to commitment to the Department, or other private or public institution as allowed by law, placing the juvenile on probation, or dismissing the charge. The parties further agree that a “Pre- dispositional Day” means any secure detention day occurring prior to the day on which a Final Court Disposition is entered. A pre- dispositional day does not include any secure detention day after a juvenile has been sentenced to commitment or placed on probation, or is waiting for release after dismissal of a charge. (Petitioner’s Ex. 26) In addition to the above stipulations, the Department also stipulated to its recalculated amounts for each of these years, resulting in large overpayments from the counties. However, the Department refused to provide credits for these overpayment amounts. In November and December 2013, the Department issued a final reconciliation statement and revised final reconciliation statement to the counties for FY 2012-13, which included in the state’s responsibility any detention days for youth in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment, or where the charges against the youth had been dismissed, and likewise excluded these days from the collective responsibility of the counties, including detention days resulting from a new law violation of probation. Under the Department’s reconciliation statement for FY 2012-13, the counties were collectively funding approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of the costs of secure juvenile detention. The Department also submitted its legislative budget request for FY 2014-15 in October 2013. This legislative budget request was based on the Department’s independent judgment as required by sections 216.011 and 216.023, Florida Statutes,3/ and excluded from the counties’ collective responsibility all detention days relating to a violation of probation, including for a new substantive law violation. The request provided that “the department may only bill the counties for youth whose cases have not had a disposition either to commitment or probation.” The request also notes a shift in the counties’ collective obligations from 73 percent of the total costs to 32 percent of these costs “in order to bring the budget split in line with the June 2013 ruling by the First District Court of Appeal.” Under this interpretation, the Department projected a $35.5 million deficiency in its budget for FY 13-14 and requested an $18.4 million appropriation for detention costs from the Legislature. This request was funded in the General Appropriations Act for 2014-15. The Department did not ask for additional funding for past years that had been challenged by the counties. At this same time, a projection for the deficit for FY 2014-15 was developed by the Department staff based on the same interpretation of the state’s responsibility for detention days. There was no objection from the Department’s Secretary or the Governor’s Office to this interpretation of the state’s responsibility. Change in Interpretation Re New Law Violation Fred Schuknecht, then - Chief of Staff of the Department, testified that in response to the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in June 2013, the Department adopted a broad interpretation of the ruling that final court disposition meant commitment, and also included all secure detention days incurred by probationers as postdisposition days. This included detention days for youths already on probation who committed new offenses and were then detained as a result of the new offense or because of the violation of probation resulting from the commission of the new offense. During the budgeting process for the 2014-15 Fiscal Year, the Department altered its interpretation of the 2012 Rule Challenge decision, and its newly-established practice relating to payment for all detention days involving probationers. The Department now proposes, through the challenged rules, to shift to the counties the responsibility for detention days occurring after a final court disposition of probation where there is a new law violation. Although the challengers assert that the changed interpretation was driven by the budget proposal submitted by the Governor’s Office in January 2014 (which did not utilize the Department’s prior interpretation) the Department specifically contends that it did not change its official position on this interpretation until the adoption of the state budget by the General Appropriations Act (GAA) in June 2014. While the Department stated it made its initial broad interpretation because it was “under the gun” to issue its cost sharing billing for FY 2013-2014 within two weeks of the appellate opinion, the Department continued to assert that interpretation in September 2013, when it published recalculations for FYs 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012. Further, Mr. Schuknecht conceded that this interpretation had not changed at the time the Department’s legislative budget request was submitted in October 2013, or in November and December 2013, when the Department issued the reconciliation and revised reconciliation for FY 2012-2013. Likewise, this interpretation formed the basis for the stipulations signed by the counties and Department in December 2013. At hearing, testimony established that the Department’s interpretation that the state was responsible for all days of detention for probationers was formed after frequent discussions on this topic and with input from multiple staff involved in cost sharing, including Mr. Schuknecht (Director of Administration at that time), Vickie Harris (Budget Director), Mark Greenwald (Director of Research and Planning), the Chief of Staff, Deputy Secretary, the legal team, as well as the Department’s Secretary. For FY 2014-15, the Executive Office of the Governor proposed a recommended budget which was contrary to the Department’s initial interpretation, and included within the counties’ collective responsibility those detention days for a youth on probation charged with a new substantive law violation. This recommended budget proposed that the counties would be responsible for fifty-seven percent (57%) of the shared costs of secure detention, and that the state would be responsible for forty-three percent (43%). This is in contrast to the thirty- two percent (32%) the counties were paying under the Department’s initial interpretation of the Rule Challenge Decision. The Governor’s Office then asked the Department to amend its earlier submitted legislative budget request, to reflect the Governor’s budget because it wanted the Department’s request to match. Although the GAA for FY 2014-15 incorporated a cost- sharing split similar to that included in the Governor’s proposal, it differed from the governor’s budget recommendation. It was not until June 2014, when the GAA was adopted into law, that the Department asserts it officially changed positions. As stipulated by the parties, there is no language in the GAA for FY 2014-15 setting forth the policy behind the budget split for secure detention. The Proposed Rules differ from the Department’s initial interpretation of the requirements of the Rule Challenge decision and its earlier established policies and procedures regarding the same as implemented in June 2013, through at least early 2014. The interpretation set forth in the Proposed Rules results in a lessened budgetary impact on the state by shifting more detention days to the counties. At hearing, Mr. Schuknecht testified as to the rationale for the Department’s changed interpretation regarding the counties’ responsibility for detention days for a youth on probation charged with a new substantive law violation: Q. If you would, Mr. Schuknecht, please kind of talk about the highlights of that rule, and especially in relationship to the Court’s ruling in the previous rule challenge. A. Basically how we got here is, in June of 2013, the First DCA ruled basically supporting the – DOAH’s hearing, the final court disposition prior to that. Basically we determined the final court decision meant commitment. They said it can’t be just commitment. So at that time we took the broadest interpretation as well will actually include all probationers as part of the final court disposition and they would be post-disposition days. Subsequent to that, in effect, through the Governor’s Office as well as the Legislature, as well as ourselves, we realized basically by doing that we are including probationers with new offenses as post-disposition cases which, in effect, makes no sense. It’s logical that they be pre- disposition cases because there is no disposition on those cases with new offenses. Plus probationers would only be in detention because they have new cases. They wouldn’t be there otherwise. So, in fact, that’s how we – so that’s the main change in the rule, in effect, defining what pre-disposition means. Mr. Schuknecht’s explanation for the Department’s changed interpretation is consistent with the explanation given by Jason Welty, the Department’s previous Chief of Staff, during the June 6, 2014, Workshop, that “the Department’s original interpretation was, quite frankly, in error.” Cost of Detention Days for Juveniles on Probation The Challengers contend that all days in detention served by a juvenile on probation are the responsibility of the state, and not the counties. Accordingly, the Challengers contest the Department’s Proposed Rules which assign responsibility for detention days of juveniles with new law violations to the counties, and not the state. Much of the testimony and argument at the hearing focused on the Department’s definitions for predisposition and postdisposition, and how these definitions apply as to youth on probation status with the Department. These definitions are crucial, as they relate to how the costs are split amongst the state and the counties. Only the costs of predisposition detention days may be billed to the counties under section 985.686. Final court disposition is specifically defined by the Proposed Rules as the “decision announced by the court at the disposition hearing” including “commitment, probation, and dismissal of charges.” “Predisposition” is further defined as the “period of time a youth is in detention care prior to entry of a final court disposition.” Proposed Rule 63G-1.011(14). “Postdisposition” on the other hand, means “the period of time a youth is in detention care after entry of a final court disposition.” Proposed Rule 63G-1.011(15). However, the definitions do not stop with this general language. Proposed Rule sections 63G-1.011(14)(b) and (15)(b) provide that it is the counties’ responsibility to fund the costs for days when a youth is on probation and is charged with a new law violation. These definitions are implemented through the Proposed Rules relating to the estimate and reconciliation processes. The Department argues that youth who are on probation and commit new offenses may be held in secure detention for the new offense but cannot be legally held in secure detention on the underlying violation of probation. However, the Department’s position would appear to be counter to the express language of several statutory provisions. Section 985.439(4) provides in relevant part: Upon the child’s admission, or if the court finds after a hearing that the child has violated the conditions of probation or postcommitment probation, the court shall enter an order revoking, modifying, or continuing probation or postcommitment probation. In each such case, the court shall enter a new disposition order and, in addition to the sanctions set forth in this section, may impose any sanction the court could have imposed at the original disposition hearing. If the child is found to have violated the conditions of probation or postcommitment probation, the court may: Place the child in a consequence unit in that judicial circuit, if available, for up to 5 days for a first violation and up to 15 days for a second or subsequent violation. Place the child in nonsecure detention with electronic monitoring. However, this sanction may be used only if a residential consequence unit is not available. If the violation of probation is technical in nature and not a new violation of law, place the child in an alternative consequence program designed to provide swift and appropriate consequences to any further violations of probation. Neither statute nor Department rules define what is meant by a “technical” violation of probation. However, retired juvenile court judge Frank A. Orlando, accepted as an expert in juvenile detention issues, explained at hearing that: A technical violation in my opinion is something that doesn’t involve a law violation. It is a condition of probation. It would be a curfew. It could be going to school. It could be staying away from a family, a victim, or staying away from a place. It could be not obeying the probation officer, him or herself. In that sense they are technical violations of probation, but they are both violation of probation. In addition, section 985.101(1) provides that a juvenile may be “taken into custody” under chapter 985 for, among others, “a delinquent act or violation of law, pursuant to Florida law pertaining to a lawful arrest,” and “[b]y a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the child is in violation of the conditions of the child’s probation, home detention, postcommitment probation, or conditional release supervision; has absconded from nonresidential commitment; or has escaped from residential commitment.” § 985.101(1)(b), (d), Fla. Stat. However, this provision also expressly provides that “[N]othing in this subsection shall be construed to allow the detention of a child who does not meet the detention criteria in part V.” Part V of the Act includes section 985.255, which sets forth the detention criteria, and provides in pertinent part: Subject to s. 985.25(1), a child taken into custody and placed into secure or nonsecure detention care shall be given a hearing within 24 hours after being taken into custody. At the hearing, the court may order continued detention if: The child is alleged to be an escapee from a residential commitment program; or an absconder from a nonresidential commitment program, a probation program, or conditional release supervision; or is alleged to have escaped while being lawfully transported to or from a residential commitment program. Thus, the undersigned is persuaded that sections 985.439(4), 985.101(1), and 985.255 all support a finding that a violation of probation, not associated with a new violation of law, may under some circumstances result in a new disposition of secure detention. However, pursuant to the Proposed Rules, under these circumstances the state would continue to be responsible for the cost of the secure detention. As explained at hearing, there is an idiosyncrasy in chapter 985 regarding secure detention for juveniles who have been charged with a violation of probation or violating a term of their conditional release. Under chapter 985, a child taken into custody for violating the terms of probation or conditional release supervision shall be held in a consequence unit. If a consequence unit is not available, the child is to be placed on home detention with electronic monitoring. § 985.255(1)(h), Fla. Stat. These consequence units have not been funded by the Florida Legislature for a number of years. However, the juvenile justice system has found a practical method to accommodate the nonexistence of these “consequence units.” For technical violations of probation, the courts often convert the violations of probation to a contempt of court, and will hold the juvenile in detention on this basis. This contempt of court procedure may also be used by the courts to detain a juvenile in secure detention for a violation of probation based on a new law violation. Pursuant to section 985.037, a juvenile who has been held in direct or indirect contempt may be placed in secure detention not to exceed five days for the first offense, and not to exceed 15 days for a second or subsequent offense. As noted by Judge Orlando and Seventh Judicial Circuit Judge Terrill J. LaRue, an order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt is the mechanism used to place a juvenile in secure detention for a violation of probation or conditional release. In addition, the probation is a significant factor that weighs heavily into the Department’s decision to securely detain the juvenile, and in large part determines whether the juvenile will be detained. For a youth who is on probation and is charged with a new substantive law offense, the Department, pursuant to its rules and policies, determines whether the youth will be detained in secure detention based on the Department’s Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (“DRAI”). § 985.245, Fla. Stat.; rule 63D-9.002. Under the DRAI, if the child scores 0-7 points, the child is not detained; 7-11 points, the child is detained on home detention; for 12 points or more, the child is detained on secure detention. For a youth who is on probation, the underlying charge for which that youth was placed on probation and/or the “legal status” of the youth itself will always be taken into account under the DRAI and will make secure detention significantly more likely than had the youth not been on probation on a number of fronts. This is also true for a youth on commitment status, in the case of conditional release. The highest scoring underlying charge may be used to assess the juvenile for probation if the new law violation does not score enough points for the juvenile to be securely detained. Therefore, there are days served in secure detention based on the scoring of the underlying charge for which the juvenile is on probation, and not the new law violation. In addition, there are a number of points resulting from the underlying charge for which the juvenile is on probation, regardless of whether the DRAI is scored on the new law violation or the underlying charge. A juvenile on probation will always get points purely for his or her legal status of probation. The number of points depends on the amount of time since the last adjudication or adjudication withheld. Six points is assigned for active probation cases with the last adjudication or adjudication withheld within 90 days. Two points are assigned if the last adjudication or adjudication withheld was more than 90 days ago. Similarly, the legal status of commitment, in the case of conditional release, also results in points towards secure detention. The prior adjudication or adjudication withheld which resulted in the probation or commitment status would also score points under the prior history section of the DRAI. In many cases, the underlying charge for which the youth is on probation will be the deciding factor regarding whether the youth is held in secure detention. Thus, the DRAI is significantly affected by a probationary status which adds additional points, and can trigger secure detention, regardless of the nature of the new law violation. In addition, a trial judge has the discretion to place a youth in secure detention on a violation of probation for committing a new law offense even when the score on the DRAI does not mandate secure detention. The Juvenile Justice Information System (“JJIS”) is an extensive database maintained by the Department, and utilized during the process of billing the counties for secure juvenile detention. The reason for the detention stay can be readily ascertained based on information entered into JJIS at the time a juvenile is assessed and detained. For instance, in the case of a violation of probation, there is always a referral for a violation of probation entered by the probation officer. This is true whether the violation is a new law violation or a technical violation of the terms of the probation. In addition, the Department can also ascertain from JJIS whether the juvenile was scored on the new law violation or, alternatively, the underlying charge which resulted in probation. The Department concedes that it can determine, in any given instance, why a juvenile has been detained. As acknowledged by the Department, the responsibility for days, whether predisposition or postdisposition, should be based on the reason for the detention. Probation is considered a postdisposition status. Likewise, detention days of juveniles on probation are postdispositional, and the financial responsibility of the State. Under the Proposed Rules, the only exception are those instances in which a youth is on probation and is detained because the youth is charged with a new violation of law, in which case the detention days prior to final court disposition on the new charge are the responsibility of the counties. This finding is further supported by the Department’s treatment of juveniles on conditional release, which is also a postdispositional status. When a youth is on conditional release with the Department, the youth is on supervision similar to probation supervision. Conditional release and probation contain the same standard conditions. The only essential difference between a youth on “conditional release” and a youth on probation is that a youth on conditional release has the status of commitment rather than probation. There is no real difference in how a probation officer treats a youth on conditional release or a youth on probation and the DRAI does not provide any distinction for the two legal statuses. The Department considers both probation and conditional release qualified postdispositional statuses. Under the Proposed Rules, the counties pay for detention days for youth on probation who commit a new law violation. This is true regardless of whether the youth would be placed in secure detention but for the probation. However, detention days incurred by the same youth who commits a technical violation of probation are deemed the responsibility of the state, since, under the Proposed Rules, the youth has not been charged with a new violation of law. Under the Proposed Rules, when a youth on conditional release commits either a new law violation or technical violation of conditional release and is placed in secure detention, those detention days are to be paid by the State. The Two Day Rule As part of the Notice of Change, the Department added a provision referred to as “the Two Day Rule” to the definitions for pre and postdisposition. The Two Day Rule provides that detention days where the youth is on probation are the responsibility of the state “unless the youth is charged with a new violation of law that has a referral date between zero and two days prior to the detention admission date, as determined by subtracting the referral date in JJIS from the detention admission date in JJIS.” Proposed Rule 63G-1.011(15)(b). Despite conceding that it knows why juveniles are being detained, the Department included the “Two Day Rule” in the Proposed Rule “[b]ecause it is difficult to determine the level of accuracy in the aggregate looking at thousands of cases at once.” Thus, the Two Day Rule captures when the Department receives a referral date for a new criminal charge and presumes that if a juvenile is put in secure detention within two days of that referral date, the detention is for that new charge. In some instances, detention days that should be treated as state days would in fact be treated as county days under the “Two Day Rule.” Mark Greenwald, Director of Research and Planning for the Department, testified: Q. Well, let’s see how factually this would work is that there is a referral for a charge, a new offense, and the youth is detained the next day on a contempt unrelated to that new charge. Isn’t that day going to now be--he is going to be detained because of a violation of the law because of your two-day rule? A. Under the rule, yes, the open charge would count. Q. But if he was a probationer and it was a contempt, that would not have been a county day. That would be a State day. A. Yes. Q. But now because of the two-day rule we will now treat that as a county responsibility and county responsibility for the cost? A. Yes. Other examples were cited in the testimony, such as where there was a pick-up order for a youth on probation who had absconded. Where there was also a new charge, the detention days would be billed to the county, even if the pick-up order was issued prior to the new law violation. Mr. Greenwald testified that when the Department decided to adopt the Two Day Rule, it had done no analysis to determine whether a One Day Rule or a Three Day Rule would more accurately identify probationary youths placed in detention due to a new law violation. Both Judges Orlando and LaRue expressed uncertainty regarding the applicability and utility of the Two Day Rule, noting that the Two Day Rule does not have any correlation or relationship to when or how juveniles are placed in secure detention for violations of probation. Judge LaRue further indicated that the term “referral date” as referenced in the Two Day Rule has no impact on what he does “whatsoever” and is a term: I’ve never heard before. I don’t use that term. I’ve never heard the term. This is something that, in reviewing this potential rule change here – or the rule change, I should say, that’s something I came across and scratched my head a little bit about exactly what it means. I think I know what it means. But it’s not a term that I use – it’s not a term of art, and it’s not a term that I use generally. The evidence adduced at hearing did not establish a rational basis for inclusion of the Two Day Rule provision in the definitions of pre and postdisposition. Notably absent was any credible evidence that use of the Two Day Rule would accurately identify detention days related to new law violations by probationers. To the contrary, the evidence established that use of a blanket metric, arbitrarily set at two days, would under several scenarios improperly shift responsibility for detention days to the counties. Moreover, given the capabilities of the JJIS, there is simply no reason to “assume” that a detention has resulted from a new law violation if within a given period of time from referral, when the Department has the ability to accurately determine the actual reason for the detention. Estimates, Reconciliation and Actual Costs At the start of the fiscal year, the Department provides an estimate to the counties of their respective costs of secure detention which is broken down into 12 installments that the counties pay on a monthly basis. At the end of the fiscal year, the Department performs a reconciliation of those costs based on the “actual costs” and sends a statement to each county showing under or overpayment, and providing for debits and credits as appropriate. The credits or debits would be applied to the current year billing, although they would relate to the previous fiscal year. Proposed Rule 63G-1.013 provides the process for calculating the estimate to each county at the beginning of the fiscal year. As part of this process, the Proposed Rule provides that the Department shall estimate “detention costs, using the current year actual expenditures projected through the end of the fiscal year, with necessary annualized adjustments for any new legislative appropriations within the detention budget entity.” The Department has modified its process in the Proposed Rules so that the estimate of costs is based, to a certain extent, on actual expenditures from the prior year, instead of the appropriation. However, the estimate process also takes into account the appropriation for the upcoming fiscal year, and a portion of the estimate of costs is still based on the appropriation. The Department concedes that there is a need for it to calculate the estimate as accurately as possible, and that there have been occasions in the past where the Department has not provided the counties credits owed as part of the reconciliation process. It is also clear from the record that credits for overpayments have not been provided by the Department to the counties for several fiscal years, beginning in FY 2009-10. Proposed Rule 63G-1.017 provides the annual reconciliation process at year end for determining each county’s actual costs for secure detention. This process includes the calculation of each county’s actual cost which is determined by the number of detention days and a calculation of the actual costs. The total “actual costs” for secure detention are divided by the “total number of service days” to produce an “actual per diem,” which is then applied to each county’s detention days to calculate each county’s share of the actual costs. Proposed Rule 63G-1.011 provides a definition for “actual costs” as follows: [T]he total detention expenditures as reported by the department after the certified forward period has ended, less $2.5 million provided for additional medical and mental health care per section 985.686(3). These costs include expenditures in all fund types and appropriations categories (Salaries & Benefits, Other Personal Services, Expenses, OCO, Food Products, Legislative Initiatives, Fiscally Constrained Counties, Contracted Service, G/A-Contracted Services, Risk Management Insurance, Lease or Lease- Purchase of Equipment, Human Resources Outsourcing, and FCO-Maintenance & Repair). The challengers assert that the proposed rules relating to the reconciliation process are vague, internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with statutory requirements contained in the law implemented. These include, but are not limited to: (1) the definition of actual costs fails to include an exclusion for “the costs of preadjudicatory nonmedical educational or therapeutic services” pursuant to section 985.686(3); (2) the definition of actual costs is over broad by including “expenditures in all fund types and appropriations categories;” and (3) the Proposed Rules fail to provide for input from the counties, as set forth in section 985.686(6). The Proposed Rules do not provide for input from the counties regarding the calculations the Department makes for detention cost share.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position and thereby resigned his career service at the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Oscar T. Brown was a career service employee at the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center. Mr. Brown was a DCWI and was assigned to the C- shift. On May 4, 1987, Petitioner requested annual leave for the period from June 30, 1987, through July 8, 1987. The purpose of this request was to afford Petitioner with time off. Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Margaret Ann Wilks, approved the leave request. However, the assistant superintendent, Ron Fryer, disapproved the leave request. Petitioner was notified that the leave had been disapproved prior to June 26, 1987. On June 26, 1987, Ms. Wilks asked Mr. Fryer to reconsider his decision to disapprove Petitioner's leave request. Mr. Fryer did not approve the leave request and did not advise Ms. Wilks that the leave could be taken. Petitioner elected to take leave solely on the approval offered by Ms. Wilks. Petitioner did not report to work, as scheduled, for the period he had requested leave. Petitioner did not call in during the time he had requested leave. Neither a DCS III or DCS I approved Petitioner's leave request. Such approval is required prior to annual leave being taken. The Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center houses minors in a totally supervised environment including lockups and hourly review of detainees' security. During the period Petitioner requested leave, the facility held from 140 to 180 minors. Mr. Fryer denied Petitioner's leave request because the facility was overcrowded and due to manpower and staffing problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order affirming the decision that Petitioner had abandoned his position and thereby resigned from the Career Service. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Harvey Swickle, Esquire 1031 North Miami Beach Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Larry Kranert, Esquire District Legal Counsel 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 issues to be determined are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be used?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Commission, having been issued Correctional Officer Certificate number 144670. On or about January 14, 2009, Respondent was employed by Tomoka Correctional Facility (Tomoka). He had been employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) for approximately 15 years. At some point during the day, Inmate William Cash became disorderly and disruptive in his cell, and a psychological emergency was called. Officer James Hinds and Respondent came to Cash's cell to transport him to a holding cell where he could be seen by a psychologist. In preparing for the transfer, Respondent and Officer Hinds restrained Inmate Cash using handcuffs, leg irons, a waist chain, and a black box which secured Cash's handcuffs. After restraints were applied, Inmate Cash was transported to a holding cell, with Captain Darlene Taman observing the transfer. Consistent with DOC protocols, the transfer of Inmate Cash from his cell to a holding cell was videotaped. Once they arrived at the holding cell, Respondent had Inmate Cash sit down on a bench in the cell. Inmate Cash attempted to twist and pull away from Respondent's grasp. In response, Respondent reasserted his grip and raised one arm, placing his hand against Inmate Cash's neck. The inmate continued pulling away from Respondent until he was lying down on his side. Respondent did not report the incident to his Captain or complete any type of incident report regarding the events occurring in connection with the transport. Captain Taman did not actually see the interaction between Respondent and Inmate Cash, because she was attempting to monitor several situations simultaneously. Consistent with DOC procedure, the warden at Tomoka reviewed the videotape of the transfer. After reviewing the videotape, the warden filed a complaint with John Joiner, Senior Prison Inspector with the DOC Office of Inspector General to investigate whether there was excessive use of force with respect to the interaction between Respondent and Inmate Cash. A use of force occurs when a correctional officer touches an inmate who is offering resistance, applying force to overcome the inmate's resistance. Touching alone does not constitute use of force. It is the application of force to overcome resistance that is key to determining whether a use of force has occurred. When a use of force occurs, a correctional officer is required to report the use of force to his or her commanding officer; to complete a Use of Force report; and to complete an incident report on the use of force. Use of Force reports are to completed within 24 hours. Correctional officers are trained regarding use of force and the required reporting of use of force on an annual basis. Respondent did not report the incident to his supervisor and did not complete a use of force report. In his view, no use of force occurred because Inmate Cash was pulling away from him and he was not applying force to overcome Inmate Cash's resistance. According to Respondent, he attempted to get a better grip on Inmate Cash and then allowed him to lie down on his side on the bench where he was sitting. He described the event as follows: MR. DONOVAN: . . . Use of force, because you place your hands on an inmate, it does not necessarily incur a use of force. It is the resistance to that, me overcoming his resistance is what determines if there is or is not a use of force. The inmate initially pulled away from me. I reasserted my grasp and put my arm up to defend myself. Like I indicated in my interview, that is why my arm went up. He sat back down on his own and he pulled away and started leaning down on the bench to lay down. And after he got down on the bench, after the whole thing was over is when I gave him more orders to stop pulling away, because he continued to pull away from me. I knew he was restrained -- completely restrained, i.e., leg irons, black box, the waist chain and the -- the handcuffs, which is why I didn't use the force. I just wanted to be sure that I had control of the situation, that I had control of him, so that I didn't get hurt or he didn't get hurt. I have been kicked by inmates. I have been spit on and head-butted by inmates, who were completely restrained, such as Mr. Cash was restrained that day. And I know through my training, that just because you touch an inmate, it's not use of force; that you have to -- you have to overcome the resistance that he's presenting to you in order for it to be a use of force. I did not do that. I did not force him to sit down. As he tugged away, he sat down on his own. And then after I reasserted my grasp to make sure that I had ahold of him and was in control of the situation, he laid down on his own. I do not know why; if it was just an attempt to continue to try to get away from me. However, he did all of that on his own. I did not push him down. The video of the incident was observed by both Captain Taman, Respondent's supervisor, and by Inspector Joiner. Both believed, as did Officer Hinds, that the exchange between Respondent and Inmate Cash involved a use of force. It is found that there was a use of force, but that the force used was not excessive. Inspector Joiner interviewed Respondent as a part of the investigation of the incident on January 19, 2010. His response during the interview was consistent with his testimony at hearing: that he did not file a report on use of force because he did not believe a use of force occurred and that, in his view, there was nothing to report. Respondent's testimony was candid, credible and sincere. He believed what he said in the interview and at hearing. However, his ultimate conclusion regarding the use of force was in error.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 29th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel W. Donovan Kerra A. Smith, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Determination, after remand, of an appropriate award for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Petitioners in consolidated appeals.
Findings Of Fact As the First District has determined Petitioners’ entitlement to an award of fees, the only issue remaining to be determined at the time the above-styled case was opened after remand was the amount of fees and costs. After a telephonic status conference and the scheduling of this case for a final hearing, on June 1, 2017, the parties to this case filed a Stipulation for Entry of Agreed Final Order for Appellate Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, the parties agreed to the entry of a final order for the award of $35,658.03 as reasonable attorneys' fees and $192.87, for taxation of costs incurred, in the consolidated appeals, to be paid within 30 days from the entry of a final order thereon. The amounts for fees and costs set forth in the Stipulation are consistent with the attachments to the Motion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Douglas Lavern Adams, Edwin Paul, Stanley Blanding, Carl B. Cribbs, Efron Yero, and James M. Cook are all incarcerated in the State of Florida at Respondent's facility, the Union Correctional Institution located at Raiford, Florida. On November 15, 1984, the Department of Corrections forwarded to the Bureau of the Administrative Code for publishing in the next available issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, its proposed Rule 33-5. The proposed rule in question was published in Volume 10, No. 46 on November 21, 1984. The stated purpose and effect of the proposed rule was to clarify and revise policies and procedures relating to visitation with inmates. The proposed rule purported to make certain changes to pre-existing Rule 33-5 as outlined in the proposal which, among other things, allowed superintendents to make exceptions to any provision of this rule on an individual case by case basis, based on the best interests of the inmate, the security and welfare of the department, or both with the qualification that the exception could not be more restrictive than the provisions of the rules and with the further requirement that all visiting policies promulgated by the superintendent shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of the department. Petitioners contend that the proposed changes severely limit their prior existing visiting rights. Specifically, Petitioners' contentions include: Rule 33-5.01 is without legislative authority in that the Secretary has no authority from the legislature to delegate policy making authority to superintendents; Rule 33-5.04 is an invalid rule for the same reason and because it deprives hospital inmates of family visits in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without a valid penological objective, and in violation of both equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions and is fatally vague and invalid in that by stating, "any other special status" it fails to specify what status prisoners will be prohibited from visitation; Rule 33-5.07(5) constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative authority to an employee; Rule 33-5.08(2) is arbitrary, capricious, and without any known penological objective, constitutes an abuse of discretion, and is unreasonable in that it is without a rational basis for the potential reduction of visiting days; Rule 33-5.08(3) is discriminatory on its face, is fatally vague, and insufficient in specificity to inform Petitioners what circumstances will be considered; Rule 33-5.08(4) is without a rational basis in fact and is fatally vague; Rule 33-5.10(c) is an unconstitutional rule in that by authorizing unwarranted searches and invasions of privacy of visitors, this would discourage visitation and thereby deprive Petitioners of visits; Rule 33-5.08(12)(c) is fatally vague and overbroad and discriminates against female visitors in an arbitrary and capricious manner by permitting their exclusion if they are "not appropriately clothed or are dressed in revealing attire . . . and other like attire"; Rule 33-5.08(14) and (15) constitute an abuse of discretion and are discriminatory in an arbitrary and capricious manner in that they refer without defining or explaining "security" reasons for allowing non-contact visits; (j) Rule 33-5.04 and 33-5.08(2) render the proposed rule ambiguous and vague because prisoners will not be able to ascertain if they are entitled to visits and the rules cannot be uniformly applied on a just and rational basis; (k) that Respondent has failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed rule to those inmates in administrative, disciplinary, and close management status. The proposed changes to the rules came about after Respondent conducted a survey of the existing visitation policies of all institutions within its system. This review indicated a need for a statewide set of standards for visitations while at the same time allowing the superintendents of the various institutions the flexibility to tailor standards at the individual institutions to local needs and the special needs of the inmates. The survey showed a need for some flexibility within the rules to accommodate the uniqueness of the individual facilities and the special needs inherent therein while at the same time addressing the overall needs constant throughout the system such as security, inmate health and welfare, and safety of both staff and inmate population. Primary among the concerns considered by the Department was the security aspect. The need to control contraband and to maintain order and discipline within the confines of any given facility is obvious. Without question a valid concern of the staff is the ability to control who and what goes into the facility. The superintendent has the inherent power to interdict the introduction of drugs, alcohol, weapons and similar contraband into a facility. He or she also has the responsibility to insure against the potential for disturbance caused by obviously inappropriate clothing worn by staff visitors to a sexually segregated institution. James M. Cook is an inmate at the Union Correctional Institution who has received special visits of the type to be governed under proposed Rule 33- 5.04 in the past. On those occasions he had to establish for his proposed visitor the classification the visitor would fall under, such as distance from the facility travel led or other criteria. In his opinion the proposed rule is somewhat vague. He contends it does not give specifics as to mileage, clothing to be worn, etc., in detail adequate for the proposed visitor to know what is required. He understands from a conversation with his classification officer that the distance requirement to be applied under the new rule is 400 miles but this criteria is not specifically stated in the proposed rule nor can it be determined from reading the rule. As to female visitors, he contends that that portion of the proposed rule which provides for appropriate clothing is insufficient in detail to insure the visitors will be properly dressed for the visit. It has been his experience in the past that if a female visitor is improperly dressed, as determined by the institution's personnel, the guards require her to wear a shapeless smock. Under the terms of the new rule, Cook said, he is required to inform his visitor what can and cannot be worn, but because the rule is devoid of detail, it is difficult for him to do this. Proposed Rule 33-5.06(3) does not, as Cook asserts, require the inmate to inform the visitor in detail of the particulars of the visiting program only the basics, such as hours, days, and, to be sure, the need for non-provocative apparel. The question on the distance requirements for special visits is also of concern to inmate Cribbs whose mother lives in Tampa, a 350 mile round trip from this facility. Cribbs contends the proposed-rule has no specifics in it as to mileage for special visitors. In the past, his mother, coming from Tampa, has been able to visit on both Saturday and Sunday and because of the distance, has made a two day visit out of the trip. The new rule, according to Cribbs, leaves everything up to the superintendent regarding visiting privileges and depending upon the determination of that officer, his mother may be forced to come this long distance to see him only on one day of the weekend. Under the current policy, inmates are allowed visitors on both Saturday and Sunday and the new rule, he feels, will change this benefit to allow visits normally only once per weekend. Cribbs is also concerned about the dress requirements of the new rule. He is concerned with the term "like attire" which he feels makes it difficult for him to tell his female visitors what to wear. Petitioner, Stanley Blending, has also had visitors on both days of the weekend in the past. He had a need for this benefit because his grandmother came from Canada for a visit once a year and, in addition, his son comes up to visit from time to time and the two day visit is required for him to talk with the young man regarding family problems. At UCI he currently gets two days of visits and, in his opinion, these two day visits have had a beneficial, rehabilitative effect. As in the case of Cribbs, Blanding's family comes from Tampa and that distance makes it necessary for them to have a two day visit. He is concerned and believes that the proposed rule will limit visits to one day per weekend which, in his opinion, would severely limit the amount of visitation he would receive. He is also concerned, about the proposed rule regarding appropriate dress for female visitors. The proposed rule says nothing about the institution providing a smock for inappropriately dressed females as has been done in the past. Combining the two changes, if his visits were reduced to one day or his female visitors were barred because of "improper" clothing, either situation would have an adverse effect on him. The current rule does not provide what is appropriate clothing and under the terms of the new rule, he would have a difficult time explaining to his female visitors what "appropriate" clothing is. Inmate Yero was in disciplinary confinement in December, 1984 and then placed under investigation. While he was in that status from October 26, 1984 through early January, 1985, he did not get to see nor did he ever receive notice of the proposed rule. Prior to October, 1984, he was allowed visitors from one to two hours. This was the rule for prisoner in disciplinary confinement. The new rule would allow the superintendent to restrict visitors to prisoners in Yero's status. The new rule adds the word "infirmaries" to the list of special status inmates. He signed the Petition herein with only limited knowledge of its contents. Inmate Paul is presently a hospital inmate and has been intermittently since 1982. He is housed in the hospital because of a disability which confines him to a wheel chair not because of any contagious or infectious disease. He understands the new rule to state that since he is in the hospital, he could be denied visitors even though he is not a patient but a special housing prisoner who is considered to be a regular inmate. He was advised that when his sister from New York called to arrange a visit with him, she was told that because he was in the hospital, he could have only a one hour visit with her. The new rule could prohibit him from having visitors at all, he says, and leaves too much discretion with the superintendent. The one hour rule which applies to inmates in the hospital has had an adverse effect on him since he has been deprived of visits from his sister. He and his sister are orphans, he says, who have just been recently reunited after a long separation. He contends that the new rule puts too much control in the hands of the superintendent. It is too vague and gives the superintendent authorization to make decisions which he should not have. The propriety of placing control, the right to make decisions, and discretion in the hands of the superintendent is clear. Without question, the superintendent is the individual most qualified to make those decisions and to exercise those functions. Adams' mother is old. Because of this and because she cannot walk far, the past changes in parking and entry procedures have cut down on her visits to him. Because of this, he is not likely to be affected by the potential for a change to one day visits. However, as to the dress rule, he would have difficulty in telling his family what they could or could not wear based on the descriptions or lack thereof in the proposed rule. During the four years he has been in confinement, he has found it difficult to know or determine who is going to do what at any given time. His mother has told him that she would like to visit him but doesn't want to go through all the difficulties she has to encounter when she does visit. She states to him that the metal in her bra sets off the metal detector utilized to screen visitors and as a result, she wears a tank top on her visits which would be prohibited by the new rules. He considers this to be deleterious to him and his welfare and he contends that the new rule will destroy any uniformity among the 79 or so different facilities within the DOC. There is no evidence that the sole alternative to a metal braced bra is a tank top. Numerous other modes of dress are available to women of all ages, sizes, and shapes. According to Harry Singletary, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Corrections, the Department is presently reviewing all rules and policy and procedure directives in an effort to do away with the latter and make all controlling directives for the Department in the form of Rules. The intent is to promulgate standards for statewide application to meet the needs of the families of the inmates, the inmates, and the institutions. Mr. Singletary contends that the majority of changes set out in the proposed rules make them more liberal for the inmate or increase security for the institution. Both of these goals are worthy and supportable. It was the intent of the drafters of the rule to standardize procedures so that visitation would be made easier and safer and to increase uniformity among the institutions so that prisoners moving from one institution to another could know what to expect. It is the Department's position that a rule should not create surprises for the inmates and should liberalize and simplify procedures for them as much as possible. As to proposed Rule 33-5.01, the reason for the new language was to give the Superintendent the discretion to provide more visitation for the inmates and their families and to deal with special needs of the inmates or the institution. The change here is to liberalize - not penalize. The terms of the proposed rule provide that Superintendents' interpretations cannot be more strict than the terms of the rule and it in essence legitimizes superintendents being more liberal than the rule calls for. Based on the population and size of the UCI visitor park, notwithstanding the concerns of Mr. Adams that the Legislature and recent court decisions will have the effect of significantly reducing the population at UCI, there should he no change in visitor policy as it exists now at this institution. As a matter of fact, if the population decreases, there would be less pressure or reason to reduce the visit days for each inmate to make more time available for others. The fact that some language is less than specific (i.e., 6 hours instead of 9 am to 3 pm) reflects an intention on the part of the drafters to give the superintendent latitude to tailor local policy to the needs of the inmates and his institution. It is recognized that there may be some abuses by superintendents, but if this should occur, it would be the exception rather than the rule and there are adequate remedies existing in the DOC rules through grievance procedures to rectify any such abuse. With regard to proposed Rule 33-5.04, dealing with special status inmates, the change here proposed adds only the word "infirmaries." The existing rule was changed only to describe all types of facilities. The rule originally was designed to prevent the spread of disease incident to the closeness of prison populations. However, it is Mr. Singletary's confirmed opinion that ambulatory or non-infectious patient- inmates, such as Mr. Paul, one of the Petitioners here, would be allowed visitors in the visitor park the same as any other inmate, on regular hours. Proposed Rule 33-5.07(5) is a new offering which gives the Superintendent authority to act to promote discipline but provides adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. Proposed Rule 33- 5.08(3) is also new and it gives the inmates the opportunity to tell the superintendent what they need and provides for extra visiting time when justified. It also gives specific factors that inmates are to use to justify extra visiting time. It was intended to promote uniformity. Proposed Rule 33-5.08(10) dealing with searches, is designed to provide for a method to prevent the introduction of contraband into the institution. It is for the security of the institution and if reasonable, should provide no problems. There are presently no dress codes applicable to visitors coming into UCI or any other institution. Proposed Rule 33- 5.08(1)(c) applies to both men and women and is based on the need for security in the institution. The intent of the agency was to limit the opportunity for rude, suggestive, or untoward comments by inmates which could give offense to the resident inmate relative of the visitor to whom the comments are directed and which could incite fights or other violence. Proposed Rules 33-5.08(14) and (15) both exist in the present rule. Subparagraph 14 deals with people in protective custody and death row inmates as well as violent inmates. Subparagraph 15 deals with those instances where contact visits might jeopardize security. Those inmates in normal status would not be separated. The rules are based on the need to maintain security and prevent the passing of weapons, the spread of disease, or inappropriate conduct as is periodically demonstrated by inmates and visitors. The machinery designed by the agency to deal with those instances envisioned by the rule where a Superintendent of a particular institution might want to impose a standard stricter than that encompassed in the rule, requires that superintendent to submit his proposal to the Secretary of DOC along with justification and documentation indicating a need for a stricter standard. It is also envisioned that prisoners requesting a transfer from one institution to another write in advance to the new institution to get the local policy regarding a particular area or, wait to be briefed as to local policy during the incoming orientation on arrival. Just as the institutional superintendent must justify imposing a stricter standard than called for in the rule, it is, as well, the responsibility of the inmate who request extra visiting time, to present factors justifying the extension, the grant or denial of which is within the prerogative of the superintendent. Admittedly, while the rule does not define specific criteria for the superintendent to use in making his decision, it will be based on the reasonableness of the request and the sufficiency of the reasons submitted by the inmate. In short, the inmate must make his case and is not limited as to the factors he may use to show the need for extra time or for the change in location. The decision is within the discretion of the superintendent and is similar to other areas such as release, privileges, and the like in which the superintendent has been held capable of legitimately utilizing his discretion.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (Respondent) properly calculated secure juvenile detention center expenses for which Hillsborough County (Petitioner) is responsible under state law.
Findings Of Fact As required by law, the Respondent prospectively assessed the Petitioner for juvenile detention costs for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The Petitioner timely filed objections to the Respondent's assessment. The Respondent generally denied the objections, although the evidence indicated that representatives of both parties attempted to address objections through the exchange of relevant information, a practice that was continuing immediately prior to commencement of the administrative hearing. According to the testimony presented at the hearing, the parties remained in disagreement regarding 9,258 instances where "disposition dates" were unavailable (the "no date" cases). The relevant statute requires that the Petitioner bear the costs of detention prior to "final court disposition," a phrase which is otherwise undefined by the statute. Although the parties agreed that Final Orders issued by the Respondent based upon prior litigation between the parties identified a definition of "final court disposition," the parties apparently disagreed on the application of the definition. At the hearing, the Respondent offered testimony that the agency's records would identify disposition dates for juveniles transferred to the care and supervision of the Respondent. The Respondent's records were reviewed to confirm that there were no disposition dates identified therein for the "no date" cases. The Petitioner presented no evidence to establish that such disposition dates were available. The Petitioner's witness essentially asserted that any court order in a juvenile detention case is a dispositional order upon which the Respondent becomes responsible for the expenses related to detaining the juvenile. The Respondent asserted that unless and until a juvenile is committed to the care and supervision of the Respondent, such expenses remain the responsibility of the Petitioner. Neither the statute nor the previous Final Orders suggest that fiscal responsibility for a juvenile is transferred to the Respondent upon the issuance of any court order, regardless of whether the order assigns responsibility for care and supervision of the juvenile to the Respondent. The Petitioner also asserted that some of the "no date" cases listed addresses for the juveniles that were the Respondent's offices, indicating that the Respondent had assumed responsibility for care and supervision (and costs) for such juveniles at some point. After the hearing, and without objection by the Petitioner, the Respondent submitted a notarized affidavit from an individual identified as Norman Campbell, chief probation officer for Hillsborough County, wherein the affiant stated that the facilities at the identified addresses were offices of providers providing contract services to juveniles through the Department of Children and Family Services, and further stated that the Respondent has offices within some of the facilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent issue a final order amending the annual reconciliation as follows: Responsibility for disputed cases which lack disposition dates but include addresses of the Respondent's office locations are assigned to the Respondent; and Responsibility for disputed cases which lack disposition dates and do not include addresses of the Respondent's office locations are assigned to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 30th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian Berkowitz, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Room 312V 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Stephen M. Todd, Esquire Hillsborough County Attorney’s Office Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a corrections officer with the Gulf County Jail.1/ In May of 2010, officials for the Gulf County Jail in conjunction with the Gulf County Sheriff's Office investigated allegations that contraband was being smuggled to inmates at the jail. As a result of the investigation, seven people were dismissed from employment and/or charged with crimes. Part of the investigation addressed Respondent's alleged behavior. As part of that investigation, Investigator Shane Lee of the Gulf County Sheriff's Office interviewed inmate Jason Strimel. Michael Hammond, Administrator for the jail, also attended the interview, which was videotaped. Based on information received from the interview, a baggie was retrieved from Mr. Strimel, which contained two pills and some residue. Pictures of the pills were entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. While Warden Hammond testified that the pills were tested and determined to be Ultram, no documentary evidence related to the testing was introduced. Based on the investigation by the Gulf County Sheriff's Office, Respondent was charged with introduction of contraband, in violation of section 951.22, Florida Statutes. Respondent entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement on January 27, 2012. His employment at the Gulf County Jail was terminated. No competent evidence was presented in this proceeding connecting Respondent to the introduction of contraband.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 12th day of March, 2013.
