Teamsters, Dept. Of Corrections Battle About Probation Visits

June 11, 2012

A state judge heard arguments last week about whether the Florida Department of Corrections acted improperly this year when it severely restricted probation officers from going to probationers’ homes to check on them.

The department placed travel restrictions on probation officers in March as a cost-cutting move. But the Teamsters union, which represents officers, contends that the department needed to go through a formal rule-making process before approving the change — and that the restrictions endanger public safety.

“I think we are putting the community at risk,” Miami probation officer Kimberly Schultz testified during a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth McArthur.

But department officials said the change has not compromised safety. If officers suspect wrongdoing, they can seek permission from supervisors to visit probationers’ homes and also have other ways to conduct monitoring, such as drug tests, the officials said.

“Nothing has been brought to my attention that we have jeopardized public safety,” said Jenny Nimer, a department assistant secretary who helped author the changes.

The case centers on past requirements that officers make periodic visits to the homes or workplaces of probationers, with the number of visits based on the offenders’ backgrounds and potential risks. Schultz said, for example, that such visits were required at least once a month for “maximum” cases — which she said can include people who have served long prison terms and have records of violent crimes.

The department approved the restrictions because it faced a $79 million budget deficit this fiscal year, Nimer said. In February, it paid $277,000 in probation-related travel reimbursements, a total that dropped after the change to $99,000 in March and $80,000 in April.

Nimer said the department intends to lift the restrictions when the 2012-13 fiscal year starts July 1. Some visits, such as to the homes of sex offenders, have not been restricted.

McArthur listened to nearly five hours of arguments and testimony about the issue and will likely rule this summer.

Offenders are required to go to probation offices once a month and provide information about such things as where they live and work. But Schultz said it is critical for officers to visit homes to verify the information, look for signs of possible criminal activity and make sure probationers are complying with requirements such as curfews.

“When the offender just comes into the office and fills out a report, he can say whatever he wants,” said Schultz, who has a current caseload of 43 people, with the majority either sex offenders or “maximum” cases.

The challenge in the Division of Administrative Hearings, however, centers on more-arcane questions of rule-making instead of whether restricting visits is a good idea or jeopardizes safety. State law often requires agencies to go through a public process of adopting rules when changing the way policies are carried out.

The department argues that documents outlining the travel restrictions are “internal management memoranda” that are not subject to rule-making. Also, it contends that such information is not subject to the state’s public-records laws because it involves “surveillance techniques.”

“Rulemaking in this area is not feasible, practicable or advisable,” the department said in court document. “Requiring the Department of Corrections to promulgate restricted surveillance techniques and procedures would violate the confidentiality required for effective surveillance and supervision of parolees and probationers.”

But Teamsters attorney Holly Van Horsten said  that the department’s actions are a rule that significantly affects the jobs of probation officers. She also said the issue deals with officers making contacts with probationers — not surveillance — and that the department was trying to “fly under the radar” by describing it as a travel matter.

By The News Service of Florida

Comments

4 Responses to “Teamsters, Dept. Of Corrections Battle About Probation Visits”

  1. CB on August 15th, 2013 11:25 pm

    This is ridiculous. I went to prison at 15 years old for 10 years. Since then I’ve had great jobs, one of which working for an engineering firm actually going inside prisons to perform building inspections. I averaged $60-70k per year. However, recently, while on probation (I was a “maximum” case), the officer came by my home once a month. Never entered my home and always stayed in the car and just had me open the door and wave.
    Granted, most people in jails and prisons deserve to be there. Most are just breathing up good air that good men and women need to live. They should harvest their organs for deserving folks.
    So for the department to save money, that’s great! Yet ask why when an illegal immigrant breaks the law and goes to prison (there are many) there is an immigration hold placed on them yet they must first complete their sentence “before” being deported. Why must taxpayers pay for electricity, water, toiletries, food, and various types of healthcare, amoung other things ? Cause prisons are bigger than oranges here in Florida. In FY1999 DOC made $28 million just off telephone calls. When the DOC took package permits away, it wasnt to stop drugs coming in as they claimed. It was because they realized inmates’ families were spending millions a year for items which the department wasnt seeing a piece of. So they buy this cheap crap, inflate the price several hundred percent because inmates are forced to buy. It’s a business.
    If they were so concerned about the public, then explain this: I went to prison at 16. Cell phones were carried around in a big case in your car. I never filled out an application, knew how credit worked, driven a car, etc… I didn’t get youthful offender status, I was there with grown men. After 5 years, I hurt someone for making sexual advances and sent to FSP in close management (solitary) where I remained for almost 5 years. I was 19 months discipline free and couldn’t advance to a less restrictive level of CM. I was released into the world after five years of solitary confinement. I didn’t have any adult experience and in 2003 technology had greatly advanced. I had numerous violent felonies. Don’t you think that letting me out like that, no supervision, training or preparation was much more of a threat to the public than an officer riding by a probationers house to wave once a month ? That’s because it’s not about the public. It never has been.

  2. David Huie Green on June 13th, 2012 11:05 am

    Yes, it is a safety issue. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that is why they brought it up.

  3. hmmmmm on June 13th, 2012 9:41 am

    State employees get $0.44.5 / mile reimbursement for travel = this is to pay the states share of gas car repairs insurance etc for the shared use of the employees vehicle ……… no profit there for employees and the Teamsters don’t get any of that —- it truely is a public safety issue not a $$ issue for staff or Teamsters

  4. David Huie Green on June 13th, 2012 8:36 am

    CONSIDERING:
    “In February, it paid $277,000 in probation-related travel reimbursements, a total that dropped after the change to $99,000 in March and $80,000 in April.”

    One almost gets the impression the money for reimbursement may be the thing which the teamsters miss rather than fearing for public safety. it’s a shame when one gets so suspicious. they are probably still focused primarily on public safety and we know there have times when more visits would have turned up evidence of criminal activities on the part of parolees.

    David for cheap safety

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News