EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Case Review of Department of Juvenile Justice Office of Inspector General Investigation #08-0129
Chief Inspector General Report #201111160005 August 24, 2012

August 24, 2012

The Honorable Rick Scott Governor of the State of Florida The Capitol, PL05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Dear Governor Scott: Enclosed is the Chief Inspector General Report Number 201111160005 titled Case Review of the Department of Juvenile Justice Office of Inspector General Investigation #08-0129 concerning the Girls Advocacy Project, Inc. The report details our review of the sufficiency of the evidence, findings, and conclusions contained within the Department of Juvenile Justice Office of Inspector General Investigation #08-0129 and an assessment of whether the investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 20.055, Florida Statutes. I am available to discuss this report with you should you have any questions. Sincerely,

Melinda M. Miguel Chief Inspector General Enclosure cc: Wansley Walters, Secretary, Department of Juvenile Justice

August 24, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CIG Report # 201111160005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1 GOVERNING DIRECTIVES ............................................................................................ 6 SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE DJJ CONTRACTS WITH GAP ...................................... 14 SUMMARY OF REVIEW ............................................................................................... 17 ISSUE 1 ..................................................................................................................... 17 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 17 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 22 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 22 ISSUE 2 ..................................................................................................................... 23 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 23 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 26 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 26 ISSUE 3 ..................................................................................................................... 27 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 27 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 29 ISSUE 4 ..................................................................................................................... 30 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 30 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 32 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 32 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 32 ISSUE 5 ..................................................................................................................... 33 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 33 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 34 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 36 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 37 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 38

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

ISSUE 6 ..................................................................................................................... 39 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 40 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 40 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 43 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 44 ISSUE 7 ..................................................................................................................... 46 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 46 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 46 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 49 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 50 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 51 ISSUE 8 ..................................................................................................................... 53 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 53 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 54 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 57 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 58 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 58 ISSUE 9 ..................................................................................................................... 60 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 61 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 61 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 62 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 63 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 63 ISSUE 10 ................................................................................................................... 64 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 65 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 65 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 67 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 69 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 70 ISSUE 11 ................................................................................................................... 72 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 72 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 72 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 74 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 74

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

ISSUE 12 ................................................................................................................... 76 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 76 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 76 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 78 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 80 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 80 ISSUE 13 ................................................................................................................... 81 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 82 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 82 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 85 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 85 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 86 ISSUE 14 ................................................................................................................... 87 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 88 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 88 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 89 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 90 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 90 ISSUE 15 ................................................................................................................... 92 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 93 Interviews and Written Statements......................................................................... 93 Pertinent Governing Directives .............................................................................. 96 Documentary Evidence .......................................................................................... 97 CIG Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 98 ISSUE 16 ................................................................................................................... 99 Complainant’s Concerns ........................................................................................ 99 Interviews and Written Statements....................................................................... 100 Documentary Evidence ........................................................................................ 102 CIG Conclusion .................................................................................................... 103 ISSUE 17 ................................................................................................................. 104 Interviews and Written Statements....................................................................... 104 Documentary Evidence ........................................................................................ 110 Pertinent Governing Directives ............................................................................ 111 CIG Conclusion .................................................................................................... 112

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

ISSUE 18 ................................................................................................................. 112 Interviews and Written Statements....................................................................... 112 CIG Conclusion .................................................................................................... 114 ADDITIONAL ISSUE ................................................................................................... 114 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 115 REVIEWER SIGNATURE PAGE ................................................................................ 118 GAP RESPONSE ........................................................................................................ 119 CIG ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RESPONSE ......................................................... 123

August 24, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CIG Report # 201111160005

On November 16, 2011, the Department of Juvenile Justice’s (DJJ) 1 Inspector General Mary Eubanks 2 contacted the Executive Office of the Governor’s Office of the Chief Inspector General (CIG) on behalf of DJJ’s Chief of Staff Christy Daly to request an independent review of DJJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) 3 Investigation #080129. 4 According to Ms. Eubanks, Ms. Daly informed her that DJJ officials received a complaint about the DJJ OIG’s handling of Investigation #08-0129 from Ms. Vicki Lopez Lukis, former 5 Executive Director and current Board Member of The Girls Advocacy Project, Inc. (GAP), a DJJ contract provider. Ms. Lopez Lukis was one of the listed subjects of DJJ’s OIG Investigation #08-0129. Further, on November 17, 2011, the CIG also received a request directly from Ms. Lopez Lukis to conduct an independent review of the DJJ OIG’s Investigation #080129 which Ms. Lopez Lukis believed was mishandled. According to Ms. Lopez Lukis, the DJJ OIG’s final report of investigation contained “a multitude of errors and omissions” and the DJJ OIG staff failed to interview the subjects of the investigation regarding the allegations, failed to provide GAP with an opportunity to review the report of investigation and submit comments for inclusion in the final investigative report, and released GAP’s financial proprietary information to the public. The scope of this review by the CIG included: a review of the sufficiency of the evidence, findings, and conclusions contained within the DJJ OIG Investigation #080129 and an assessment of whether the DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 was conducted in accordance with Section 20.055, Florida Statutes (F.S.) (also known as the Inspector General Act of 1994). The scope of the CIG review did not include a reinvestigation of the underlying allegations contained in the DJJ OIG investigation. The Inspector General Act of 1994 (Act) created an Inspector General in each state agency and outlined the duties and responsibilities of each office and its respective Inspector General. Inherent in the Act and the professional standards referenced in the Act are mandates to promote accountability, integrity and efficiency in government programs and to conduct investigations professionally, fairly and accurately. The CIG
According to its website, the DJJ’s 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.” 2 Ms. Eubanks began employment as the DJJ Inspector General on January 20, 2006. Ms. Eubanks was placed on administrative leave from June 8, 2012 to June 13, 2012 and resigned, during this review, effective June 13, 2012. 3 According to its 2011 annual report, the DJJ OIG’s mission is that it “ensures that the Department, its employees and partners maintain the highest level of integrity, accountability and efficiency as we work together to increase public safety by reducing juvenile delinquency in Florida.” 4 DJJ OIG Report of Investigation #08-0129 lists allegations of violations of Florida Statutes, contract, policy and rule related to The Girls Advocacy Project, Inc. According to DJJ contract language, GAP is a not-for-profit corporation that “offers an array of services to detained girls to promote and strengthen their ability to seek positive choices, alternatives, and decision-making with regard to their lives.” 5 According to Florida Department of State records, Ms. Lopez Lukis is referenced as the Executive Director for GAP.
1

i

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

review found that the DJJ OIG failed to meet these mandates in the conduct of Investigation #08-0129. In accordance with Section 20.055(2)(j), F.S., Offices of Inspectors General are required to comply with the General Principals and Standards for Offices of Inspectors General as published and revised by the Association of Inspectors General. General Standard, Due Professional Care, requires in part that “investigations should be conducted in a diligent and complete manner, and reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that sufficient relevant evidence is collected.” This standard was not met. CIG reviewers found concerns with each of the 12 issues6 listed in the DJJ OIG Investigation #080129. And, although the DJJ OIG staff stated that conclusions were not drawn for most issues beyond “REFERRED” to The Department of Financial Services (DFS), 7 the presentation of information in the DJJ OIG Investigative Report is misleading, incomplete, and in some cases, inaccurate. Further, the evidence gathered in DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 was not “sufficient,” “competent” or “relevant” to reach conclusions, as required in the professional standards. The most egregious example of failure to meet professional standards was concerning Issue 12 in the DJJ OIG Investigative Report. Although the Issue is listed as “Falsified Invoices. REFERRED,” the first sentence under this issue stated, “During this investigation it was found that Lopez-Lukis [sic] falsified invoices for services rendered to DJJ under contract X1409.” CIG reviewers confirmed with DJJ OIG staff that no evidence was identified or found to indicate that any invoices were falsified or that contractual services were not delivered. Even the former Inspector General stated that she was informed by the DFS Office of Fiscal Integrity (OFI) that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them, and because there was no intent to defraud, DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Additionally, information presented as factual in DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 was preliminary and in some cases, based on speculation. During interviews, the DJJ OIG staff each acknowledged they failed to conduct interviews of the subjects named in the DJJ OIG report or other relevant witnesses identified by the investigator assigned to the case and the Chief of Investigations. Each also acknowledged that the investigation was not complete when the report was signed as final. Even though the CIG review found that some of the expenditures cited in the report may be unallowable based on governing directives, no evidence was found in the supporting documentation obtained by the DJJ OIG during their investigation that GAP knew expenditures to be anything but legitimate program related expenditures. Moreover, the CIG review determined that the DJJ OIG failed to fully evaluate the language in GAP contracts that conflict with statutes and other expenditure guidelines. In a written statement, the former DJJ Inspector General stated, “with the knowledge I

These can be located under Issues 5 through 16 of this report. The DJJ OIG referred the matters in DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 to the DFS Office of Fiscal Integrity (OFI) on January 29, 2010, for consideration of a criminal investigation.
7

6

ii

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

have today that possible [sic] the focus of the investigation should have been on contracts X1409 and X1410 and the validity of the contracts.” Further, contrary to Section 20.055(6)(e), F.S., the DJJ OIG failed to provide the entity contracting with the state and the individuals substantially affected with an opportunity to review the report and provide comments for inclusion in the final report. Although testimony is conflicting as to why this did not occur, the responsibility for doing so, in accordance with the statutory provision, rests with the Inspector General. Finally, CIG reviewers did not find sufficient evidence to indicate that the noted deficiencies with DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 cited in this report were based on malice toward GAP or GAP’s employees. The DJJ OIG conducts many investigations each year to ensure quality of care and operations for the youth in DJJ custody. Nonetheless, the conduct of DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 was outside the parameters of Section 20.055, F.S., and was not conducted sufficiently and thoroughly. Based on the above, it is recommended that DJJ Secretary Wansley Walters consider the findings of this review and take appropriate corrective action. At a minimum, it is recommended that Secretary Walters consider the following: • • provide this report to any past and future recipients of the DJJ OIG Report of Investigation #08-0129; ensure that the DJJ case file for DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 accurately reflects that the CIG review contains findings contrary to the findings of the DJJ OIG Investigation; request the Chief of Contracts or the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, in consultation with the General Counsel’s Office, conduct a review of the DJJ contract protocols, including the GAP contracts, to identify lessons learned and potential enhancements to DJJ’s internal controls or contract language so that future contracts can be improved; request the Assistant Secretary for Detention Services Julia Strange and the Director of the Office of Program Accountability Amy Johnson, review the background screening protocols to ensure all access to DJJ detention facilities is authorized, all background screening approvals are received, documented and communicated at appropriate intervals and with appropriate individuals, and ensure there is not a systemic issue; review the DJJ public records process, including the DJJ’s OIG, to ensure timely responses, proper redactions, and proper managerial and legal oversight; and, request that Deputy Secretary Robert Woody and General Counsel Brian Berkowitz, after considering this report, meet with DFS to determine appropriate follow up actions, if necessary. iii

• •

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Additionally, the Chief Inspector General will complete the following: • advise the incoming Inspector General, upon hire, of the outcome of the CIG findings so that internal controls inside the DJJ OIG can be evaluated and enhanced where needed; advise the incoming Inspector General, upon hire, at a minimum, to finalize the DJJ OIG investigative manual and to consider the feasibility of accrediting the investigative function through the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation; develop, in consultation with the Governor’s Agency Inspectors General and Directors of Investigations/Directors of Auditing, protocols to ensure deviations from Section 20.055, F.S., are reported to the Chief Inspector General; and, develop, in consultation with the Governor’s Agency Inspectors General, protocols for referral to the DFS OFI by Agency Inspectors General.

iv

August 24, 2012 INTRODUCTION

CIG Report # 201111160005

On November 16, 2011, the Department of Juvenile Justice’s (DJJ) 1 Inspector General Mary Eubanks 2 contacted the Executive Office of the Governor’s Office of the Chief Inspector General (CIG) on behalf of DJJ’s Chief of Staff Christy Daly to request an independent review of DJJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) 3 Investigation #080129. 4 According to Ms. Eubanks, Ms. Daly informed her that DJJ officials received a complaint about the DJJ OIG’s handling of Investigation #08-0129 from Ms. Vicki Lopez Lukis, former 5 Executive Director and current Board Member of The Girls Advocacy Project, Inc. (GAP), a DJJ contract provider. Ms. Lopez Lukis was one of the listed subjects of DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129. Further, on November 17, 2011, the CIG also received a request directly from Ms. Lopez Lukis to conduct an independent review of the DJJ OIG’s Investigation #080129 which Ms. Lopez Lukis believed was mishandled. According to Ms. Lopez Lukis, the DJJ OIG’s final report of investigation contained “a multitude of errors and omissions” and the DJJ OIG staff failed to interview the subjects of the investigation regarding the allegations, failed to provide GAP with an opportunity to review the report of investigation and submit comments for inclusion in the final investigative report, and released GAP’s financial proprietary information to the public.

BACKGROUND On June 11, 2008, the DJJ OIG initiated an investigation of alleged misuse of state funds and other alleged improprieties related to DJJ’s contracts with GAP. The DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 was initiated based on allegations made by the Honorable Judge Cindy Lederman, Miami-Dade Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, received on June 9, 2008. As listed in the DJJ OIG report, under the heading “Subject(s),” the subjects of the investigation were Ms. Lopez Lukis; Jill Ecklund, former GAP President and Volunteer; 6 and Brenda Aldana, 7 GAP Administrative Assistant. DJJ OIG Inspector
According to its website, the DJJ’s 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.” 2 Ms. Eubanks began employment as the DJJ Inspector General on January 20, 2006. Ms. Eubanks was placed on administrative leave from June 8, 2012 to June 13, 2012 and resigned, during this review, effective June 13, 2012. 3 According to its 2011 annual report, the DJJ OIG’s mission is that it “ensures that the Department, its employees and partners maintain the highest level of integrity, accountability and efficiency as we work together to increase public safety by reducing juvenile delinquency in Florida.” 4 DJJ OIG Report of Investigation #08-0129 lists allegations of violations of Florida Statutes, contract, policy and rule related to The Girls Advocacy Project, Inc. According to DJJ contract language, GAP is a not-for-profit corporation that “offers an array of services to detained girls to promote and strengthen their ability to seek positive choices, alternatives, and decision-making with regard to their lives.” 5 According to the Department of State records, Ms. Lopez Lukis is referenced as the Executive Director for GAP. 6 Ms. Ecklund was President of GAP in 2006 and 2007.
1

1

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Specialist Teresa Michael8 was assigned to the investigation under the direction and supervision of former DJJ OIG Chief of Investigations Howard Greenfield 9 and former Inspector General Eubanks. In a January 29, 2010, letter to Ted Dudley, Office of Fiscal Integrity (OFI), 10 Department of Financial Services (DFS), “Re: IG Case 08-0129; Misuse of State Funds; Organized Scheme to; [sic] Theft and Falsification,” Mr. Greenfield wrote in pertinent part “It is believe [sic] that approximately $111,572.93 in State contract funds were misused by Lopez-Lukis [sic] as outlined in the accompanying attachments. In compliance with Section 20.055, F.S.,[ 11] Agency Inspectors General, the OIG is referring this matter to your office for consideration of a criminal investigation.” As indicated on the letter, “09-0129 [sic] Report of Investigation with all Exhibits and Attachments,” the exhibits and attachments were included with the report. The DJJ OIG Investigative Report #08-129 was signed as final on June 23, 2011, by Ms. Eubanks, the former Inspector General. Under the heading “Executive Summary,” the DJJ OIG report included the following in pertinent part: On January 29, 2010, based on the investigative findings and in accordance with Section 20.055(6)(c), F.S., Inspectors General [sic], these investigative findings were referred to the Florida Department of Financial Services [DFS], Criminal Enforcement Office of Fiscal Integrity [OFI] for consideration of criminal investigation and administrative action.
The report of investigation for DJJ OIG #08-0129, under the heading “Conclusion and/or Recommendations” also included “DJJ” and “DJJ Contract Manager Kay Bozeman” as subjects of the DJJ OIG investigation. 8 Ms. Michael began employment with the DJJ OIG on December 5, 1997. During the time of the DJJ OIG investigation her title was Inspector Specialist. On June 25, 2011, Ms. Michael was promoted to Senior Management Analyst II or “Investigations Coordinator” with the DJJ OIG. 9 Mr. Greenfield began employment as the DJJ OIG Chief of Investigations on March 24, 2006. As of March 2, 2012, Mr. Greenfield is the Director of Investigations with the Florida Department of Transportation OIG. 10 Article IV, Section 4(c), of the Constitution of the State of Florida states, “The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) shall serve as the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State, and shall settle and approve accounts against the State.” The powers and duties of the CFO are set forth in Chapter 17, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Section 17.03(1), F.S., requires that the CFO of this State, using generally accepted auditing procedures for testing and sampling, shall examine, audit, and settle all accounts, claims, and demands against the State. Section 17.29, F.S., gives the CFO the authority to prescribe any rule he or she considers necessary to fulfill his or her constitutional duties, which include but are not limited to, procedures or policies related to the processing of payments from any applicable appropriation. According to the DFS website, the DFS OFI was created in 1992 and is a criminal justice agency whose mission is to detect and investigate the misappropriation or misuse of state assets in a manner that safeguards the interests of the State of Florida and its taxpayers. 11 Section 20.055, F.S., outlines the duties and responsibilities of agency Inspectors General. Specific requirements applicable to this review are detailed in the GOVERNING DIRECTIVES section of this report.
7

2

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

[footnote excluded] On May 24, 2011, DFS [OFI] completed their investigation and found no evidence of criminal activity. [footnote excluded] DFS [OFI] found $86,340.82 of DJJ funds were spent by GAP contrary to their contracts with DJJ along with expenditures, which are disallowed [emphasis added] per State guidelines. 12 Under the heading “Conclusions and/or Recommendations,” the DJJ OIG report identified, by subject, the allegations/issues and the corresponding determination made by the DJJ OIG were as follows: • Concerning Ms. Lopez Lukis, 11 allegations/issues were identified including “Use of State Funds for Lobbying Purposes; Misuse of State Funds; Violation of State Travel Regulations; Contractual Expenditure Guidelines; Florida Single Audit Act; 13 Personal Cell Phone Use; Paid Membership Dues with State Funds; Purchase of Prohibited Items with State Funds; Background Screening; Purchase of items for non GAP employees/youths; Falsification/Fraud.” Determinations were listed as “Referred to DFS” for 10 allegations/issues and “Substantiated” for one issue titled “Background Screening.” Concerning Ms. Ecklund, two allegations/issues were identified including “Misuse of State Funds” and “State Travel Regulations.” Determinations for both were listed as “Referred to DFS.” Concerning Ms. Aldana, two allegations/issues were identified including “State Travel Regulations” and “Background Screening.” Determinations were listed as “Referred to DFS” and “Substantiated,” respectively. Concerning Ms. Bozeman, one allegation/issue was identified as “Florida Single Audit Act” and the determination was listed as “Substantiated.” Concerning DJJ, with no identified individual(s), one allegation/issue was identified as “Contract X1410 Language” and the determination was listed as “Referred to DFS.”

• •

Under the heading “Distribution List,” the DJJ OIG report indicated that copies of the report with all exhibits and attachments were distributed to DJJ Assistant Secretary for Detention Services Julia Strange and Acting Superintendent of Miami-Dade Regional Juvenile Detention Center John Loftheim. Under the same heading, the report indicated
CIG reviewers determined that the May 24, 2011, DFS OFI Memorandum actually states in pertinent part: “However, we agree with your investigators that notable deficiencies existed in the GAP contract language and DJJ’s contract monitoring. The deficiencies resulted in expenditures of State funds which could have been withheld or disallowed [emphasis added].” 13 Page 7 of 20 of the DJJ OIG investigation shows that this issue is “SUBSTANTIATED,” but Page 13 of 20 states that regarding the “Florida Single Audit Act” regarding Ms. Lopez Lukis, this issue was “Referred to DFS.”
12

3

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

that copies of the Executive Summary, without exhibits or attachments, were distributed electronically to DJJ Secretary Wansley Walters, DJJ Deputy Secretary Robert L. Woody, and DJJ Chief of Staff Christy Daly. 14 In an email dated November 17, 2011, to DJJ Deputy Secretary Woody, Subject line: “DJJ IG Report regarding the Girls Advocacy Project, Inc.,” Ms. Lopez Lukis stated the following in pertinent parts: Yesterday I received a call from from [sic] Carol Marbin, a Miami Herald reporter, who wanted to talk with me about an article that she is writing regarding a DJJ IG report pertaining to an investigation about the Girls Advocacy Project, Inc. (GAP). She indicated that she received this report from DJJ. GAP, however, never received this report from DJJ nor was it aware that the investigation had been completed and a report issued on June 23, 2011. Ms. Marbin provided me a copy of the report and I have since made a formal request to DJJ for the report and all of its exhibits. I have had an opportunity to review the report I received from Ms. Marbin and am dismayed at the contents and conclusions. The contract in question was a fixed lump sum contract and not a cost reimbursement contract, which, therefore, did not require GAP to receive approval of or reimbursement for any of its company expenditures. This understanding was confirmed for us by our independent financial auditors who have performed our annual Florida Single Audit and financial audits since 2006. GAP never submitted any expenses to DJJ for reimbursement and complied with the terms of its contract by providing the services as outlined in the contract. Accordingly, the financial information and records gathered in the course of the IG investigation are proprietary and should not have been made public, in particular copies of transactions from our Quickbooks software. GAP did receive a copy of a final investigative report issued by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) Office of Public Integrity (OPI) [Office of Fiscal Integrity (OFI)] and has responded accordingly. GAP was under the impression that the DJJ IG [Inspector General (IG)], after learning that no criminal activity had occurred, was to continue its
CIG reviewers completed a comparison of the draft investigative report referred by the DJJ OIG to the DFS OFI on January 29, 2010, and the final report released by DJJ OIG on June 23, 2011. This comparison revealed that the DJJ OIG made no substantive additions to their report before signing it as final other than adding the two paragraphs detailing information from DFS OFI’s Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, that no criminal activity was found. One paragraph is stated verbatim on page two of this report and the second paragraph states, “On June 2, 2011, as directed by in the DFS report of their findings, the OIG provided this report was provided [sic] to the ‘DJJ Legal Office and Management’ for consideration of any available avenues for disallowing costs associated with contract X1410 and recover funds from GAP.” DJJ OIG also removed the paragraph containing template language regarding specific entities contracting with the state and the individuals substantially affected receiving the report for review, comment, and inclusion in the final report as required by Section 20.055, F.S.
14

4

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

investigation to determine GAP’s compliance with the terms of its contract, which would have included interviewing GAP employees and board members. No GAP employees or board members were ever contacted or interviewed contrary to standard procedure. The conclusion and issuance of the [DJJ OIG] IG report was premature in the absence of these interviews. The premature report contains errors and erroneous assumptions as well as omissions that were communicated to Ms. Michael when she arrived at the GAP offices in Miami and requested a series of financial records. … If GAP employees had been interviewed by the DJJ IG, as was their responsibility, they would have discovered that, in fact, there was evidence of Ecklund’s reimbursement, which was provided to Bill Geier, LE [Law Enforcement] Investigator II, DFS OFI upon his request. Consequently, GAP has serious concerns regarding how this investigation has been handled and whether the Department and its IG office were used by Judge Lederman to further a personal vendetta against GAP and members of the staff and board after several other attempts proved unsuccessful. Therefore, GAP respectfully requests that the premature IG report be retracted and all parties who received a copy be notified that the report was issued prematurely and that further investigation is required. … In an email to Ms. Lopez Lukis dated November 17, 2011, Subject line: “RE: DJJ I.G. Report,” DJJ General Counsel Brian Berkowitz stated, “Ms. Lukis: [sic] Below is the statement from the Department that was provided to Carol Marbin Miller both orally and in writing.” The following statement was written in pertinent part: Before DJJ’s investigative report into GAP was concluded, the agency should have given GAP the opportunity to review the investigative findings and respond to them. Regrettably, this was not done and the agency is now providing GAP the opportunity to respond. Any response will be included in the investigative report, along with any rebuttal the agency wishes to make. Because the report was concluded without the opportunity for GAP to respond, its findings are subject to change. Therefore, the report is a draft document and should not be considered final. 15 On Friday, November 18, 2011, The Miami Herald printed an article entitled “Money for delinquent girls misspent, state says.”

15

Even though Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that the report was in draft, the former Inspector General signed the report and testified that her signature indicated the report was final.

5

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

As previously noted, based on requests from DJJ Chief of Staff Daly and Ms. Lopez Lukis, the CIG 16 initiated a review of the sufficiency of evidence, findings, and conclusions contained within DJJ OIG’s Investigation #08-0129 and to determine compliance with statutory requirements of Section 20.055, F.S. The scope of the CIG review did not include a re-investigation of the underlying allegations contained in the DJJ OIG investigation.

GOVERNING DIRECTIVES Section 14.32, F.S., Office of Chief Inspector General, contains the following information in pertinent parts: (1) There is created in the Executive Office of the Governor the Office of Chief Inspector General. The Chief Inspector General shall be responsible for promoting accountability, integrity, and efficiency in the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Governor. The Chief Inspector General shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Governor. (2) The Chief Inspector General shall: (b) Investigate, upon receipt of a complaint or for cause, any administrative action of any agency, the administration of which is under the direct supervision of the Governor, regardless of the finality of the administrative action. (i) Act as liaison and monitor the activities of the inspectors general in the agencies under the Governor’s jurisdiction. Section 20.055, F.S., Agency Inspectors General, contains the following information in pertinent parts: (2) The Office of Inspector General is hereby established in each state agency to provide a central point for coordination of and responsibility for activities that promote accountability, integrity, and efficiency in government. It shall be the duty and responsibility of each inspector general, with respect to the state agency in which the office is established, to: (d) Provide direction for, supervise, and coordinate audits, investigations, and management reviews relating to the programs and operations of the state agency …

16

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement OIG provided assistance to the CIG for this review.

6

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

(e) Conduct, supervise, or coordinate other activities carried out or financed by that state agency for the purpose of promoting economy and efficiency in the administration of, or preventing and detecting fraud and abuse in, its programs and operations. (j) Comply with the General Principles and Standards for Offices of Inspector General as published and revised by the Association of Inspectors General. (6) In carrying out the investigative duties and responsibilities specified in this section, each inspector general shall initiate, conduct, supervise, and coordinate investigations designed to detect, deter, prevent, and eradicate fraud, waste, mismanagement, misconduct, and other abuses in state government. For these purposes, each inspector general shall: (b) Receive and consider the complaints which do not meet the criteria for an investigation under the Whistle-blower’s Act and conduct, supervise, or coordinate such inquiries, investigations, or reviews as the inspector general deems appropriate. (c) Report expeditiously to the Department of Law Enforcement or other law enforcement agencies, as appropriate, whenever the inspector general has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of criminal law. (d) Conduct investigations and other inquiries free of actual or perceived impairment to the independence of the inspector general or the inspector general’s office. This shall include freedom from any interference with investigations and timely access to records and other sources of information. (e) At the conclusion of each investigation in which the subject of the investigation is a specific entity contracting with the state[ 17] or an individual substantially affected[ 18] as defined by this section, and if the
As defined in Section 20.055, F.S., “Entities contracting with the state” means for-profit and not-forprofit organizations or businesses having a legal existence, such as corporations or partnerships, as opposed to natural persons, which have entered into a relationship with a state agency as defined in paragraph (a) to provide for consideration certain goods or services to the state agency or on behalf of the state agency. The relationship may be evidenced by payment by warrant or purchasing card, contract, purchase order, provider agreement, or other such mutually agreed upon relationship. This definition does not apply to entities which are the subject of audits or investigations conducted pursuant to Sections 112.3187-112.31895, F.S., or Section 409.913, F.S., or which are otherwise confidential and exempt under Section 119.07, F.S. 18 As defined in Section 20.055, F.S., “Individuals substantially affected” means natural persons who have established a real and sufficiently immediate injury in fact due to the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of a final report of a state agency inspector general, who are the subject of the audit or investigation, and who do not have or are not currently afforded an existing right to an independent review process. Employees of the state, including career service, probationary, other personal service, Selected
17

7

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

investigation is not confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure by law, the inspector general shall, consistent with section 119.07(1), [F.S.], submit findings to the subject that is a specific entity contracting with the state or an individual substantially affected, who shall be advised in writing that they may submit a written response within 20 working days after receipt of the findings. Such response and the inspector general’s rebuttal to the response, if any, shall be included in the final investigative report. (8) The inspector general in each agency shall provide to the agency head, upon receipt, all written complaints concerning the duties and responsibilities in this section or any allegation of misconduct related to the office of the inspector general or its employees, if received from subjects of audits or investigations who are individuals substantially affected or entities contracting with the state, as defined in this section. For agencies solely under the direction of the Governor, the inspector general shall also provide the complaint to the Chief Inspector General. Principles and Standards for Offices of Inspector General, as published and revised by the Association of Inspectors General, May 2004 Revision, also known as the “Green Book,” under the section entitled Quality Standards For Investigations By Offices of Inspector General contains the following information: General Standards A. Staff Qualifications The first general standard for OIG investigative organizations is: Individuals assigned to conduct the investigative activities should collectively possess the knowledge, skills, and experience required for the investigative work. Guidelines The General Standard of Staff Qualifications contained in the Quality Standards for Offices of Inspector General shall apply to investigations performed by OIG staff.

Exempt Service, and Senior Management Service employees, are not covered by this definition. This definition also does not cover former employees of the state if the final report of the state agency inspector general relates to matters arising during a former employee’s term of state employment. This definition does not apply to persons who are the subject of audits or investigations conducted pursuant to Sections 112.3187-112.31895, F.S. or Section 409.913, F.S., or which are otherwise confidential and exempt under Section 119.07, F.S.

8

August 24, 2012 B. Independence

CIG Report # 201111160005

The second general standard for OIG investigative organizations is: The Inspector General and OIG staff involved in performing or supervising any investigative assignment must be free from personal or external impairments to independence and should constantly maintain an independent attitude and appearance. Guidelines The General Standard of independence contained in the Quality Standards for Offices of Inspector General should apply to investigations performed by OIG staff. C. Due Professional Care The third general standard for OIG investigative organizations is: Due professional care should be used in conducting investigations and in preparing accompanying reports. Guidelines Exercising due professional care means using good judgment in choosing investigation subjects and methodology as well as creating accurate and complete investigation documentation and investigative reports. Due professional care presumes a working knowledge consistent with investigation objectives. Due professional care requires: • Standards – OIGs and their investigators should follow the Associations [sic] professional standards and comply with applicable standards of conduct. Thoroughness – Investigations should be conducted in a diligent and complete manner, and reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that sufficient relevant evidence is collected; pertinent issues are sufficiently resolved; and appropriate criminal, civil, contractual, or administrative remedies are considered. Legal Requirements – Investigations should be initiated, conducted, and reported in accordance with (a) all applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (b) guidelines from applicable prosecutorial authorities; and (c) internal agency policies and procedures. Investigations will

9

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

be conducted with due respect for rights and privacy of those involved. • Appropriate Techniques – Methods and techniques used in each investigation should be appropriate for the circumstances and objectives. Objectivity – Evidence should be gathered and reported in a fair, unbiased manner in an effort to determine the validity of alleged improprieties or evaluate the likelihood of violations of statutes, rules, or regulations. Ethics – At all times the actions of the OIG investigators should conform with the high standards expected of OIG staff. Timeliness – Investigations must be conducted in a timely manner while recognizing the individual complexities of each investigation. Accurate and Complete Documentation – Investigative findings, conclusions, and outcomes (such as indictments, convictions, and recoveries) should be supported by adequate documentation, including investigator notes, court orders of judgment and commitment, suspension or debarment notices, settlement agreements, and other documents) [sic] in the case file. Coordination – Appropriate OIG staff should coordinate investigations with appropriate officials. In cases where civil or administrative actions are necessary, appropriate OIG staff should coordinate actions with prosecutors and other appropriate officials. Qualitative Standards C. Data Collection and Analysis The third qualitative standard for OIG investigative organizations is: Information and data gathered during an investigation should be carefully documented and organized relative to case objectives. Guidelines Appropriate investigative techniques should be chosen and employed to ensure that the data gathered are sufficiently reliable for making judgments regarding the matters being investigated.

• • •

10

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Sources of investigative information should be documented in sufficient detail to provide a basis for assessing its reliability. Such documentation should address pertinent questions related to the objectives of the investigation and provide information needed to determine the facts relative to potential violations of laws, rules, regulations, policies and procedures. Data gathered and analyzed as part of the investigation should be accurately interpreted, logically presented, and maintained in the investigative case file. The basis and support for the results of investigations should be carefully organized and described in the investigative case file. D. Evidence The fourth qualitative standard for OIG investigative organizations is: Sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence is to be obtained to afford a reasonable basis for the investigative findings and conclusions. Guidelines • • • Evidence is sufficient if there is enough of it to support the report’s findings. Evidence used to support findings is relevant if it has logical, sensible relationships to those findings. Evidence is competent to the extent that it is consistent with fact (valid).

F. Reporting The sixth qualitative standard for OIG investigative organizations is: Where appropriate, investigative activity should result in a timely referral for criminal prosecution or written report. All reports shall present factual data accurately, fairly, and objectively, and present the results of investigation in a persuasive manner. Guidelines Investigative report language should be clear and concise, recognizing that some assignments deal with highly technical or sensitive material

11

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

and should be written in terms that are intelligible to informed professionals. Systemic weaknesses or management problems disclosed in an investigation should be reported to appropriate officials. Normally such disclosures will be made as part of a separate written report including recommendations as to specific corrective actions. In an email 19 to Deputy Chief Inspector General Dawn Case dated March 22, 2012, DJJ OIG staff member Sonja Robinson, on behalf of Ms. Eubanks, Subject line: Report of Investigation for IG 08-0129 (GAP), provided the following in pertinent parts: The actions taken by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Office of Inspector General (OIG) since January 2008, were to ensure investigations conducted by this office followed the guidance and direction of the Association of Inspectors General (AIG) Green Book and applicable Florida Statutes. Additionally, through case reviews as well as oral and written guidelines provided to inspectors; the OIG reinforces AIG Green Book Standards and provides specific guidance in the handling of public records, interviews, report writing, whistle-blower requirements, as well as case file preparation and investigative time frame expectations. Prior to publication of the Report of Investigation for 08-0129 on June 23, 2011, the DJJ OIG began the process of obtaining accreditation though the Commission on Law Enforcement Accreditation. I am pleased to report; this office is in the process of finalizing our investigative manual as we go through the accreditation process. The guidelines previously mentioned are made part of this manual. In an email to Ms. Case dated April 09, 2012, Ms. Robinson, on behalf of Ms. Eubanks, Subject line: 2nd Response: Report of Investigation for IG 08-0129 (GAP), provided the following in pertinent parts: Since 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Office of Inspector General (OIG), has implemented a reporting system that uses various templates to document the investigative activities of the inspectors. These templates, referred to as Investigative Activity Reports (IARs), include non-formalized policy and procedures the OIG reiterates, through various means, to inspectors in performance of their investigative activities. These templates further provide a reporting mechanism which further
This email was submitted to Deputy Chief Inspector General Case pursuant to a request of Ms. Eubanks for the policies and procedures of the DJJ OIG applicable to the time period for which the GAP investigation was conducted by the DJJ OIG. These were the only policies provided.
19

12

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

provides specific procedural direction to the inspector as to the handling of information obtained subsequent to the investigative activities being reported. These IARs ensure consistency in reporting and include the documentation of victim, witness and subject interviews; policies applicable to the investigation; records obtained, reviewed and considered relevant to the investigation as well as documentation of any coordinated activities with other agencies, et.al. These combined IARs then comprise the Report of Investigation (ROI). As procedures or additional guidelines are required either internally or through rule or statute modification, the IARs are modified to reflect these changes. … Additionally, semi-annual meetings are conducted with OIG staff to ensure up-to-date investigative guidance is provided, to once again ensure compliance with investigative procedures. In this regard as it pertains to the GAP investigation, a December 2008 semi-annual meeting, included agenda items addressing report writing expectations and guidance, processing of completed IG cases to include security of documents obtained during the investigation and the procedures in storing of the documents on the DJJ server. This meeting also provided inspectors with direction in the handling and forwarding of documents to headquarters as part of the final review and retention of records process. The DJJ OIG 2011 Annual Report contains the following information: Professional Standards The Office of Inspector General will follow appropriate professional standards in fulfilling its responsibilities. These include the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and the Code of Ethics of the Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc., Generally Accepted Governmental Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and applicable standards from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, and the State of Florida Auditor General’s Rules. According to its website, under the DJJ OIG Bureau of Investigations Overview section, it stated in pertinent part: In accordance with Section 20.055 (6)(e), [sic] at the conclusion of each investigation in which the subject of the investigation is a specific entity contracting with the state or an individual substantially affected as defined in this section, and if the investigation is not confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure by law, the inspector general shall, consistent with Section 119.07(1), F.S., submit findings to the subject that is a specific entity contracting with the state or an individual substantially affected, who shall be advised in writing that they may submit a written response within

13

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

20 working days after receipt of the findings. Such response and the inspector general’s rebuttal to the response, if any, shall be included in the final investigative report.

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE DJJ CONTRACTS WITH GAP Contract Number X1409: 20 Effective October 16, 2006, the DJJ executed Contract Number X1409 with GAP to provide project services at the Miami-Dade Regional Juvenile Detention Center (RJDC). As outlined in the contract document under “Scope of Services,” GAP services included but were not limited to: intake, gender-specific group discussions, gender-specific individual one-to-one discussions, and journal development and maintenance. Under “Method of Payment,” the DJJ agreed to pay GAP on a fixed price basis, $192.30 per youth for a maximum of 779 youth and $198.00 per youth for one youth. The original contract amount was not to exceed $150,000.00. Then GAP President Jill Ecklund signed the contract on October 9, 2006, and then DJJ Deputy Secretary C. Steven Casey 21 signed on October 16, 2006. According to the contract, the original contract period was July 1, 2006 22 through June 30, 2007. Contract Number X1409 was amended on three occasions: • Amendment #1 increased the contract amount not to exceed $300,000.00 and extended the contract period through June 30, 2008. The amendment was signed by Ms. Ecklund for GAP on June 27, 2007, and then DJJ Assistant Secretary for Detention Services Kenneth D. Pifer23 on June 28, 2007. Amendment #2 modified the method of payment, increased services, and modified the budget document. The method of payment change indicated that the DJJ would pay GAP $260.40 for each admission for a total of 576 youth. The amendment was signed by then GAP President Ms. Lopez Lukis on January 15, 2008, and Mr. Pifer on January 23, 2008. Amendment #3 increased the contract amount not to exceed $375,000.00 and extended the contract period through December 31, 2008. The amendment further added legal and policy compliance requirements. The amendment was signed by Ms. Lopez Lukis on June 27, 2008, and then Chief

The CIG reviewers did not perform a comprehensive assessment of the DJJ contracts with GAP to determine compliance with laws, rules, and regulations. The CIG reviewers identified some omissions and inconsistencies as noted in this report and relied on testimony from DJJ staff that the contracts were ambiguous or did not contain proper references to pertinent compliance requirements. 21 Mr. Casey was the Deputy Secretary, DJJ, until January 2, 2007. 22 However, the contract was not executed until October 16, 2006. 23 Mr. Pifer was the Assistant Secretary for Detention Services, DJJ, until September 30, 2008.

20

14

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

of Staff Bonnie Rogers 24 for then DJJ Deputy Secretary Rod Love 25 on June 30, 2008. Contract Number X1409 was a fixed price, unit cost contract and the total amended amount 26 was not to exceed $375,000.00. The contract was initially executed on October 16, 2006, and concluded as of December 31, 2008. Contract Number X1410: 27 Effective October 25, 2006, the DJJ executed Contract Number X1410 with GAP to provide project services at the Southwest Florida RJDC, Orange RJDC, and Palm Beach RJDC. As outlined in the contract document under “Scope of Services,” GAP services included but were not limited to: intake, gender-specific group discussions, gender-specific individual one-on-one discussions, a teen parent project, post detention follow-up, journal development and maintenance, and a library project. Under “Method of Payment,” the DJJ agreed to pay GAP an advance payment of $377,168.00 upon execution of the contract and $26,522.13 for the month of January 2007, $53,044.27 for the month of February 2007, and $79,766.40 for each of the remaining months of the fiscal year. The original contract amount was not to exceed $775,000.00. 28 The contract was signed by Ms. Ecklund on October 24, 2006, and then Director of Administration Jane McElroy 29 signed for Mr. Casey on October 25, 2006. The contract period was listed as October 16, 2006 through June 30, 2007. Contract Number X1410 was amended on six occasions: • Amendment #1 amended the contract amount under “Method of Payment” from $79,766.40 to $79,566.40 for the months of March through June 2007. The amendment was signed by Ms. Ecklund for GAP on November 20, 2006, and Mr. Pifer for DJJ on December 8, 2006. Amendment #2 was a first renewal to the contract. The renewal amount was for $500,000.00 with an effective date of July 1, 2007. Under “Method of Payment,” additional language was added to include: $41,666.66 per month for the months of July 2007 through May 2008 and $41,666.74 for the month of June 2008. The total contract amount was not to exceed $1,275,000.00 with an end date of June 30, 2008. The amendment was signed by Ms. Ecklund on June 27, 2007, and Mr. Pifer on June 28, 2007.

Ms. Rogers was the Chief of Staff, DJJ, from February 28, 2008 through March 15, 2009. Mr. Love was the Deputy Secretary, DJJ, from March 12, 2008 through January 6, 2011. 26 Amended amount is the dollar amount at the time of the contract’s execution plus amounts added through contract amendments. 27 The CIG reviewers did not perform a comprehensive assessment of the DJJ contracts with GAP to determine compliance with laws, rules, and regulations. The CIG reviewers identified some omissions and inconsistencies as noted in this report and relied on testimony from DJJ staff that the contracts were ambiguous or did not contain proper references to pertinent compliance requirements. 28 The monthly payments do not add up to the total amount of the contract. 29 Jane McElroy was the Director of Administration, DJJ, from July 1, 2006 through April 13, 2007.
25

24

15

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Amendment #3 deleted funds and services for the Southwest Florida RJDC with an effective date of May 15, 2008, due to a reduction in appropriations. The amended language included in part, $41,666.60 30 per month for the months of July 2007 through April 30, 2008, and $37,966.00 per month for the months of May 2008 through June 30, 2008. The total contract amount was not to exceed $1,267,598.60. The amendment was signed by Ms. Lopez Lukis on June 26, 2008, and Mr. Pifer for Mr. Love on June 27, 2008. Amendment #4 extended the contract amount for six months with an end date of December 31, 2008, for services to youth at Palm Beach and Orange RJDCs. Additionally, the contract amount was increased by $125,000.00 for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,392,598.60. The added language addressed in the “Method of Payment” section included in part: $20,833.33 per month for the months of July 2008 through November 30, 2008, and one month payment of $20,833.35 for the month of December 2008. The amendment was signed by Ms. Lopez Lukis on March 26, 2008, and Ms. Rogers for Mr. Love on June 30, 2008. Amendment #5 extended the contract amount for six months with an end date of June 30, 2009, for services to youth at Palm Beach and Orange RJDCs. Additionally, the contract amount was increased by $125,000.00 for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,517,598.60. The added language addressed in the “Method of Payment” section included in part: $20,833.33 per month for the months of January 2009 through May 2009 and a one month payment of $20,833.35 for the month of June 2009. The amendment was signed by Ms. Lopez Lukis on December 22, 2008, and then Assistant Secretary for Residential and Correctional Facilities Darryl Olson 31 for Mr. Love on December 24, 2008. Amendment #6 reduced the overall contract amount by $5,000.00 for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,512,598.60, with an effective date of “January 2009 through June 2009.” The amendment was signed by Ms. Lopez Lukis on December 22, 2008, and Mr. Olson for Mr. Love on December 24, 2008. The amended language reduced the monthly payment to $20,000.00 per month for the months of January through June 2009.

Contract Number X1410 was a fixed price, lump sum contract and the total amended amount was not to exceed $1,512,598.60.

30 31

This amount should have been $41,666.66. Mr. Olson was the Assistant Secretary for Residential and Correctional Facilities, DJJ, from July 1, 2008 through December 30, 2010.

16

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Both contracts, X1409 and X1410, were funded with State Financial Assistance 32 based on special projects appropriated by the Legislature in the 2006 General Appropriations Act.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW On January 11, 2012, CIG reviewers met with Ms. Lopez Lukis to obtain a detailed and specific accounting of her concerns 33 regarding the conduct of the DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129. Ms. Lopez Lukis’ concerns and the CIG’s conclusions related to these concerns are presented below. ISSUE 1 Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that an investigation by DJJ OIG was not warranted because the contract executed by DJJ with GAP was a “fixed lump sum contract,”34 not a “cost reimbursement contract,” 35 and therefore, DJJ did not require any reimbursement of any GAP expenditure and GAP did not seek reimbursement of any expenditure. Pertinent Governing Directives As previously noted in the section, SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE DJJ CONTRACTS WITH GAP, the DJJ executed Contract Number X1409 with GAP, effective October 16, 2006, to provide specified services for youth at the Miami-Dade RJDC. Contract Number X1409 was a fixed price, unit cost contract and the total amended amount was not to exceed $375,000.00. Additionally, as previously noted, the DJJ executed Contract Number X1410 with GAP, effective October 25, 2006, to provide specified services to youth at the Southwest Florida RJDC, Orange RJDC, and Palm Beach RJDC. Contract Number X1410 was a fixed price, lump sum contract and the total amended amount was not to exceed $1,512,598.60.

Section 215.97, F.S., defines “State Financial Assistance” as: state resources, not including federal financial assistance and state matching on federal programs, provided to a nonstate entity to carry out a state project. “State projects” are defined in the Catalog of State Financial Assistance issued by the Department of Financial Services and available at: https://apps.fldfs.com/fsaa/catalog.aspx. 33 At this meeting, Ms. Lopez Lukis provided documentation which she believed was supportive of each of her concerns. 34 According to the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), a fixed price contract is “a contract providing for a firm price, or a price that may be adjusted only in accordance with contract clauses providing for revisions of the contract price under stated circumstances.” 35 According to NIGP, a cost reimbursement contract “reimburses the contractor for all incurred costs which are allowable and allocable under the terms of the contract and applicable laws and regulations; may include profit or fee.”

32

17

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Contract language for both X1409 and X1410 stated the following in pertinent part: VI. RECORDS AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS A. Financial and Compliance Audits The Provider shall provide to the Department and to the Office of the Auditor General, a financial and compliance audit, pursuant to section 215.97, Florida Statutes and Rule 10.650, Rules of the Auditor General if state expenditures with the Provider exceed $500,000 from all state agencies in one fiscal year. This audit shall be submitted within 180 days after the end of the Provider’s fiscal year. Information regarding this audit is specified in Exhibit 6, AUDIT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST - available at: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/providers/contracts/index.html. This program is a state project for purposes of the Florida Single Audit Act. The Catalogue of State Financial Assistance number for this program is 80.022. B. Record Retention The Provider shall maintain books, records, and documents (including electronic storage media), for a minimum of five (5) years, in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all revenues and expenditures of funds provided by the Department under this Contract. The Provider shall assure that these records are available at all reasonable times to inspection, review, or audit by state and federal personnel and other personnel duly authorized by the Department. In the event any work is subcontracted, the Provider shall similarly require each subcontractor to maintain and allow access to such records for audit purposes. VIII. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Governing Law and Venue This contract has been delivered in the State of Florida and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Florida. Wherever possible, each provision of this Contract shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Contact shall be prohibited or invalid under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of this Contract. Any action hereon or in connection herewith shall be brought in Leon County, Florida.

18

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

S. Inspector General Requirements Pursuant to section 20.055, Florida Statutes, the Office of the Inspector General is responsible for providing direction for supervising and coordinating audits, investigations, and reviews relating to the programs and activities operated by or financed by the Department for the purpose of promoting economy and efficiency in the administration of, or preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in its programs and activities. A review of the FLORIDA SINGLE AUDIT ACT CHECKLIST FOR NON-STATE ORGANIZATIONS RECIPIENT/SUBRECIPIENT VS. VENDOR DETERMINATION for Contract Number X1409 executed October 16, 2006, completed by then DJJ Contract Administrator Genanne Wilson on October 23, 2006, indicated that GAP was determined to be a recipient/subrecipient and therefore, subject to the Florida Single Audit Act. A review of the FLORIDA SINGLE AUDIT ACT CHECKLIST FOR NON-STATE ORGANIZATIONS RECIPIENT/SUBRECIPIENT VS. VENDOR DETERMINATION for Contract Number X1410 executed October 25, 2006, completed by Ms. Wilson on October 31, 2006, indicated that GAP was determined to be a recipient/subrecipient and therefore, subject to the Florida Single Audit Act. Section 215.97, F.S., Florida Single Audit Act, states in pertinent parts: (1) The purposes of the section are to: (a) Establish uniform state audit requirements for state financial assistance provided by state agencies to nonstate entities to carry out state projects. (2) Definitions; as used in this section, the term: (c) ‘Catalog of State Financial Assistance’ means a comprehensive listing of state projects. … The Catalog of State Financial Assistance shall include for each listed state project: the responsible state awarding agency; standard state project number identifier; official title; legal authorization; and description of the state project, including objectives, restrictions, application and awarding procedures, and other relevant information determined necessary. (5) Each state awarding agency shall: (a) Provide to each recipient information needed by the recipient to comply with the requirements of this section, including:

19

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

1. The audit and accountability requirements for state projects as stated in this section and applicable rules of the Department of Financial Services and rules of the Auditor General. 3. Information from the State Projects Compliance Supplement, including the significant compliance requirements, eligibility requirements, matching requirements, suggested audit procedures, and other relevant information determined necessary. (b) Require the recipient, as a condition of receiving state financial assistance, to allow the state awarding agency, the Department of Financial Services, and the Auditor General access to the recipient’s records and the recipient’s independent auditor’s working papers as necessary for complying with the requirements of this section. (c) Notify the recipient that this section does not limit the authority of the state awarding agency to conduct or arrange for the conduct of additional audits or evaluations of state financial assistance or limit the authority of any state awarding agency inspector general, the Auditor General, or any other state official. Catalog of State Financial Assistance (CSFA) for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 listed State Project Number 80.022 as Diversion Services with the objectives of providing nonjudicial sanctions to youth referred to the DJJ due to delinquency charges. The State Projects Compliance Supplement for State Project 80.022 for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 identifies allowable costs as “All costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures. Prohibited expenditures are outlined in the [DFS] Reference Guide for State Expenditures, per Rule 3A-40.103, F.A.C. [Florida Administrative Code], and are applicable by reference in the contract.” CFSA for State Fiscal Year 2007-2008 listed State Project Number 80.022 as Diversion Services with the objectives of providing non-judicial sanctions to youth referred to the DJJ due to delinquency charges. Additionally, objectives indicated that programs work in collaboration with local law enforcement, the State attorneys, public defenders, and the Judiciary to develop and implement services for juvenile offenders with no prior or limited history with juvenile justice system. Other objectives were also listed. Under the section “Restrictions,” it states the “Application shall comply with all applicable State Laws, rules adn [sic] regulations and Department policies and procedures, including the Probation and Community Corrections Handbook, Department of Financial Services Reference Guide for State Expenditures, Comptroller’s [CFO] Memo #4 (2005-2006) and the Contract.”

20

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

State Projects Compliance Supplement for State Project Number 80.022 for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 identified Allowable Costs, in pertinent part, as follows: …the provider shall comply with applicable federal and State laws, rules and regulations, and Department policies and procedures, including the Probation and Community Intervention Handbook; the Department of Financial Services Reference Guide for State Expenditures; Comptroller’s [CFO] Memorandum #4 (2005/2006), [sic] and the Contract. Costs must be activities, functions, tasks, which drive the budget, related to the operation of the program. Unallowable costs include travel paid to staff in excess of the limitations contained in section 112.061, F.S. (if travel expenditures are appropriate and allowable per the Contract), education, and costs not specified in the Contract or related to the operation of the program. Additional unallowable costs are outlined in the Department of Financial Services Reference Guide for State Expenditures. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER’S (CFO) MEMORANDUM NO. 04 (2005-06), dated June 30, 2006, stated in pertinent parts: This memorandum sets forth the minimum requirements state agencies must follow for proper accountability over state and federal resources. While the State is accountable to the federal government, sub-recipients of federal financial assistance must be accountable to the State. Recipients/sub-recipients of state financial assistance must also be accountable to the State. This memorandum supersedes Chief Financial Officer Memorandum No. 1 (05-06). 36… STATE FUNDS State agencies must determine whether they are awarding state financial assistance to a recipient or procuring goods and services from a vendor. State agencies will use the Florida Single Audit Checklist for Non-state Organizations-Recipient/Sub-recipient vs. Vendor Determination to make this determination. Agencies must retain a copy of the checklist. Agreements with recipients of state financial assistance, even if awarded on a fixed price basis, must require: a. Compliance with Section 215.97, Florida Statutes (F.S.) b. Expenditures of state financial assistance be in compliance with laws, rules and regulations applicable to expenditures of State funds, including, but not limited to, the Reference Guide for State Expenditures [sic]

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER’S MEMORANDUM NO. 01 (2005-06), dated February 13, 2006, addressed compliance with Section 216.346, F.S.

36

21

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

c. A provision stating that an agreement may be charged only with allowable costs resulting from obligations incurred during the term of the agreement. d. A provision that any balances of unobligated cash that have been advanced or paid that is not authorized to be retained for direct program costs in a subsequent period must be refunded to the State. DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures, updated March 2003, 37 includes the following excerpt in pertinent part on Page C-13, under the heading, “Federal And State Financial Assistance” The agreement awarding state/federal financial assistance must contain clear and specific language regarding services/deliverables that must be rendered and accepted prior to payments being issued by the state. Deliverables must be specifically related to the agreement’s scope of work and must be both quantifiable and measurable. The document must also contain sanctions for non-performance. Agreements which are paid on a reimbursement basis or at a fixed rate for a specific time period, e.g. monthly, quarterly, etc., should require written progress reports to be submitted detailing the activities accomplished for the invoice period. Documentary Evidence An email dated July 10, 2012, from Christina Smith, Director of Accounting and Auditing, DFS, stated: GAP was appropriately designated as a recipient of State Financial Assistance and therefore had to comply with the Florida Single Audit Act as referenced in the contract. The Florida Single Audit Act identifies the auditing and accountability requirements that must be followed by State Agencies and the recipients of State Financial Assistance. GAP was required to comply with the State Projects Compliance Supplement for State Project Number 80.022. The State Projects Compliance Supplement for both Fiscal Years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 states that all costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures. The allowable cost requirements apply to GAP regardless of the contract being awarded as a fixed price contract. [emphasis added] CIG Conclusion Based on review of the contracts, applicable governing directives, and other documentary evidence, GAP was appropriately designated as a recipient of State Financial Assistance by DJJ. Therefore, GAP was required to comply with the Florida Single Audit Act including the DFS Reference Guide to State Expenditures even though
37

This same language was in effect until March 10, 2011.

22

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

the contract was awarded on a fixed price basis. Further, based on a review of statutory and contract language, DJJ OIG was authorized to review GAP expenditures and any related supporting documentation to ensure the accountability of state funds. CIG reviewers noted that DJJ did not include a reference to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) in the Florida Single Audit Compliance Supplement until Fiscal Year 20072008 for State Project Number 80.022 and did not include a reference to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) in the DJJ contracts with GAP. However, according to DFS, GAP was still required to follow the DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures including guidelines for allowable costs and prohibited expenditures even though the contracts with GAP were fixed price contracts.

ISSUE 2 Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that she believed that Judge Lederman did not provide any evidence to substantiate her (Judge Lederman) allegations and questioned whether DJJ OIG should have initiated an investigation at all. Ms. Lopez Lukis further stated that the DJJ OIG may have been pressured to hastily complete their investigation because of Judge Lederman’s relationship with a DJJ official. Ms. Lopez Lukis also questioned why the DJJ OIG’s interview with Judge Lederman was not taken under oath or recorded. Interviews and Written Statements Cindy Lederman, Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, stated that she reported her concerns to the DJJ OIG in 2008. She stated that she had nothing new to add and stands by the information she provided to the DJJ OIG back in 2008. Jennifer Parker, 38 former General Counsel, DJJ, confirmed that she received a telephone call from Judge Lederman regarding GAP in 2008. Ms. Parker stated that judges do not often call agencies about providers. She said Judge Lederman told her that DJJ had a problem with a provider and the spending of their funds. After the call, Ms. Parker said that she went down to the DJJ OIG and asked if someone would speak to Judge Lederman about her concerns. She said that she always referred these types of issues to the DJJ OIG and that her office did not do investigations. She said she spoke with Mr. Greenfield about the complaint. She said she did not think Ms. Eubanks was in the office at the time of the complaint. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, recalled that the complaint was initiated based on a call received by Ms. Parker, but said that she did not speak to Ms. Parker about the complaint coming to her. Ms. Michael said there was nothing special about the initiation of the DJJ OIG investigation. When asked if there was anything
Ms. Parker was the General Counsel, DJJ, from 2003 through March 3, 2011. She is currently the General Counsel for the Florida Department of Corrections.
38

23

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

unusual or remarkable about how the complaint was received, Ms. Michael said, “no.” She stated that she conducted an initial informal interview of Judge Lederman and expected to return for a formal interview at a later date with specific questions. When asked if she did anything out of the ordinary concerning this initial interview, Ms. Michael said, “no.” She said that initial interviews are for information gathering purposes and are not sworn or taped. Ms. Michael stated that Judge Lederman did not have any specific evidence concerning the complaint, but heard rumors that Ms. Lopez Lukis was using GAP funds to finance her personal interests or possibly paying off a lien. According to Ms. Michael, Judge Lederman became concerned when Ms. Lopez Lukis would not share GAP financial records with her and, therefore, Judge Lederman made this complaint. During her interview, Ms. Michael said that Judge Lederman provided her with names of individuals who might have information concerning the allegations. When asked if at any point she felt any pressure during the DJJ OIG investigation because it was a judge filing the complaint, Ms. Michael said she did not feel any pressure. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, stated that Ms. Parker initially brought the complaint to Ms. Eubanks’ attention. Mr. Greenfield said that because the complaint was based on a telephone call from Judge Lederman to Ms. Parker, he said they needed to interview Judge Lederman directly to obtain additional information. He said he looked at the complaint, assessed it, and initiated a case. Mr. Greenfield said that Ms. Michael interviewed Judge Lederman and this interview was not sworn or recorded because it was informational in nature. When asked if the investigation was initiated because the complainant was a judge, Mr. Greenfield stated whomever the complainant was, the allegations still needed to be assessed. Mr. Greenfield further stated that this was a first complainant interview and, at some point, the DJJ OIG might need to do a second interview under oath and taped. He recalled that Judge Lederman had no specific details and just suspicions so the DJJ OIG had to rely on the identified witnesses for additional details. Mr. Greenfield stated that they (the DJJ OIG) “had a credible complainant with credible issues and corroborating information from witnesses.” He further stated nothing was out of the ordinary regarding this complaint. He stated that he did not feel any pressure to initiate the case. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, said in an interview on April 30, 2012, that Ms. Parker came to her and advised that she had a complaint from Judge Lederman concerning GAP. Ms. Eubanks said it was an oral complaint concerning misuse of funds by GAP. Ms. Eubanks further said that additional information was obtained from Judge Lederman and upon her (Ms. Eubanks’) review of the interview write-up completed by Ms. Michael, the complaint appeared to have validity and an

24

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

investigation was opened. Ms. Eubanks said that this was the first financial complaint the office had received with this type of detailed information on financial matters. When asked why the interview with Judge Lederman was not taken under oath, Ms. Eubanks responded that she did not know the answer to that, but that she believed they were seeking clarification from the complainant and were not formally interviewing Judge Lederman at that time. Ms. Eubanks said that it was not uncommon to not put the complainant under oath when gathering information or seeking clarification about an initial complaint. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was not pressured by Ms. Parker or anyone else to open the case. She stated, “Nobody influenced us at all.” Ms. Eubanks further stated that Ms. Parker gave the DJJ OIG the complaint and then she was “hands-off.” Ms. Eubanks added that, at the time the complaint came in, she had heard the names GAP and Ms. Lopez Lukis, but did not know anymore other than that they existed. She said the DJJ OIG opened the case because of the allegations they received. Ms. Eubanks said, at the time the complaint was filed, she did not know Judge Lederman. Ms. Eubanks clarified in an interview on May 31, 2012, regarding the complaint that she went back and asked Ms. Parker how the complaint came in because she did not quite remember. Ms. Eubanks said that Ms. Parker recalled calling her when she was out of the office so she instructed Ms. Parker to take the complaint to Mr. Greenfield. Based on a written statement from Ms. Eubanks provided on May 31, 2012, she wrote the following in pertinent part: Amendment to previous statement During my inquiry with Jennifer Parker, former DJJ General Counsel on May 1, 2012, she recalled providing Mr. Greenfield the complaint from Honorable Judge Cindy Lederman, Eleventh District [sic] Circuit, at my direction, because I was at a medical appointment at the time. Specifically, the acceptance of the case would have been made by Greenfield in my absence and he would have been responsible for the assignment of the case to an investigator. Additionally I was on … leave for … from June 11, 2008, through July 11, 2008, so most early case activity would have been supervised entirely by Mr. Greenfield. Almost all of Mr. Greenfield’s cases were supervised entirely by him as he was a [sic] emphatic believer in the ‘chain of command.’ I am unaware of any pressure by anyone to hastily complete the investigation because of Judge Lederman’s alleged relationship with any DJJ official. I am unaware of Judge Lederman’s relationship with any DJJ official.

25

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

I have absolutely no reason to question the validity of a complaint made by a sitting circuit judge with impeccable character to the OIG as I would not question a complaint made by a person with absolutely no credentials or an anonymous complainant. Judge Lederman’s initial interview was for complaint clarification, fact finding, and information gathering; not a formal statement for the record therefore, no recorded interview was taken. At the time the complaint was made I did not personally know Judge Lederman and I do [sic] I [sic] know her today and the same is true for Ms. Lopez Lukis. I had a very vague knowledge of GAP. I had absolutely no knowledge of any ‘personal vendettas’ between the complainant and Lopez Lukis. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 20.055(6)(b), F.S., states in pertinent part In carrying out the investigative duties and responsibilities specified in this section each inspector general shall receive and consider the complaints which do not meet the criteria for an investigation under the Whistleblower’s Act and conduct, supervise, or coordinate such inquiries, investigations or reviews as the inspector general deems [emphasis added] appropriate. CIG Conclusion Based on review of the statutory authority of Section 20.055, F.S., CIG reviewers determined that it was within the purview of the Inspector General to initiate an investigation. During testimony provided by Ms. Michael and Mr. Greenfield, they articulated reasons for initiating an investigation. Further, Ms. Eubanks testified that the DJJ OIG initiated the investigation because of the allegations and the complaint appeared to have validity. Testimony indicated that it was consistent with DJJ OIG practice not to record initial complainant interviews or place the complainant under oath. Finally, based on their testimony, there was no evidence to support that Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, or Ms. Eubanks felt any influence or pressure to initiate the investigation because of the complainant’s relationship with a DJJ official. Based on the above, CIG reviewers did not find any concerns regarding Issue 2.

26

August 24, 2012 ISSUE 3

CIG Report # 201111160005

Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that the DJJ OIG failed to interview key witnesses during their investigation. Ms. Lopez Lukis further stated that the DJJ OIG did not interview any GAP employees or board members and did not interview GAP’s independent auditors. Interviews and Written Statements Brenda Aldana, Administrative Assistant, GAP, stated that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG and was never told that she was a subject of the investigation. She stated that neither she nor others at GAP were given a chance or opportunity to respond to the allegations and she was not given a chance to provide documentation to the DJJ OIG as she was for DFS OFI. She said she thought it would have been standard procedure of the DJJ OIG to give subjects of an investigation an opportunity to respond. Jill Ecklund, former President, GAP, said that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG during their investigation. Ms. Ecklund said that she never received the DJJ OIG report in which she had been named as a subject. She said she knew that Ms. Lopez Lukis had responded to the report after learning the report had been issued. She said that she thought the DJJ OIG would have talked with her and GAP about any concerns the DJJ OIG may have had. She said that getting accused of something and not even knowing about it just was not fair. She said that the whole thing troubled her. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, said that this was her first “financial contract related investigation.” At the time of referral to DFS OFI, Ms. Michael stated she had not interviewed any GAP employees because there might have been a criminal issue. 39 When asked how complete the investigation was at the time of referral to DFS OFI, Ms. Michael said she thought the case was approximately 50% complete. She said, at the time of the referral, she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Ms. Michael stated that after the case was returned from DFS OFI to the DJJ OIG, she was told by Mr. Greenfield that he had spoken with Ms. Eubanks and that Ms. Eubanks told him “we referred it, it’s done, write it up.” Ms. Michael said that Mr. Greenfield told her he was not happy with not being able to conduct more interviews. Ms. Michael said she questioned Mr. Greenfield, “No more interviews?” and he replied, “No, write it up, it’s done.” Ms. Michael stated that the investigation was not sufficient or thorough and that it was not her call to issue the report without conducting interviews or additional investigative activity.

DJJ OIG standard procedure was, in general, that administrative inquiries should give way to a criminal investigation and allow criminal investigative statements of subjects to be taken first.

39

27

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

When asked if she received any direction from Ms. Eubanks, Ms. Michael stated, “Not that I recall.” Ms. Michael said that she did not believe she had a conversation with Ms. Eubanks about this case while it was active. She said that most of her contact was with Mr. Greenfield. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, when asked how complete he thought the investigation was after the DFS OFI Memorandum was received in May 2011, said that he thought the DJJ OIG investigation was only 90% complete, leaving 10% for conducting interviews and determining if other investigative activity was needed. He said that Ms. Eubanks told him that the DJJ OIG should rely on the interviews conducted by DFS OFI, to add the DFS OFI Memorandum information to the DJJ OIG report, and close the case. Mr. Greenfield stated that Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews by the DJJ OIG were to be conducted. He said that he and Ms. Michael checked with DFS and found no written or recorded interviews were conducted by DFS. He stated that he again discussed that interviews needed to be conducted with Ms. Eubanks and she again “ordered” that no further interviews would be conducted, directed the DFS OFI Memorandum be incorporated into the DJJ OIG report and close the case. He said it was very clear to him that Ms. Eubanks just wanted the case closed. When asked again how complete he thought the investigation was at that point, Mr. Greenfield said they (the DJJ OIG) had named subjects and no responses from them. He said they (DJJ OIG) could not make conclusions and that was why the DJJ OIG report said, “REFERRED” to DFS. Based on a written statement from Mr. Greenfield, 40 Once the Department of Financial Services (DFS) report was provided to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), I discussed with Inspector General Mary Roe Eubanks (IG Eubanks) the need to conduct interviews with remaining parties. IG Eubanks told me we should rely on the interviews conducted by DFS. When we (Investigator Michael and I) checked with DFS we learned they had no written or electronically recorded records of interviews. I again discussed with IG Eubanks the need to conduct the interviews. At that time IG Eubanks directed that no further interviews would be conducted. I cautioned her about the need to get responses to questions about some of the expenditures and documents collected. IG Eubanks ordered that no interviews would be conducted and directed the DFS report be incorporated into the OIG report and the case be closed. … It was IG Eubanks’ decision and direction not to conduct further interviews after receiving the DFS report; this was against my advice.

40

This statement was received April 25, 2012, by the CIG.

28

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, said in an interview on April 30, 2012, that, she did not know why no one was interviewed between the issuance of the DFS OFI Memorandum and the issuance of the DJJ OIG report. When asked if the DJJ OIG report was finalized without interviews, Ms. Eubanks stated, “that’s correct.” Ms. Eubanks stated that she did not recall having a conversation with Mr. Greenfield about doing more interviews. When asked if she would be surprised Mr. Greenfield said she “ordered” him not to do interviews, she said she rarely “ordered” anyone to do anything and said, “I don’t recall ordering him not to do more interviews.” Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. In a subsequent interview on May 31, 2012, Ms. Eubanks stated that at the time of referral to DFS OFI, her belief was everyone had been interviewed except the “subjects and witnesses” because of the possibility of criminal violations. When asked if she recalled Mr. Greenfield informing her that interviews were not conducted by DFS OFI, Ms. Eubanks said she did not recall. When asked if Mr. Greenfield told her that he thought interviews still needed to be conducted before the DJJ OIG report could be finalized, Ms. Eubanks said she did not recall that conversation. When asked how complete she thought the investigation was when the DJJ OIG report was finalized, Ms. Eubanks said she thought it was 70% complete. CIG Conclusion Based on testimony and written statements received, CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ OIG failed to conduct interviews of the subjects named in the DJJ OIG report or other relevant witnesses identified by the investigator and Chief of Investigations. Further, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete at the time the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall that conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that the investigation was only 70% complete when she signed the report as final in June 2011.

29

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

CIG reviewers found that although testimony was conflicting between Mr. Greenfield and Ms. Eubanks as to whether they discussed the need for conducting further interviews, Ms. Eubanks failed to exercise “Due Professional Care” as required by the Standards for Offices of Inspectors General as published by the Association of Inspectors General. 41 Ms. Eubanks acknowledged that she knew DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also acknowledged she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records. Further, Ms. Eubanks knew or should have known that interviews with subjects were not completed when she signed the report as final.

ISSUE 4 Ms. Lopez Lukis questioned the necessity of a referral to DFS OFI, particularly given the type of contracts GAP had with DJJ and the lack of interviews conducted with GAP employees. Interviews and Written Statements Brenda Aldana, Administrative Assistant, GAP, stated that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG and was never told that she was a subject of the investigation. She stated that neither she nor others at GAP were given a chance or opportunity to respond to the allegations and she was not given a chance to provide documentation to the DJJ OIG as she was for DFS OFI. She said she thought it would have been standard procedure of the DJJ OIG to give subjects of an investigation an opportunity to respond. Jill Ecklund, former President, GAP, said that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG during their investigation. Ms. Ecklund said that she never received the DJJ OIG report in which she had been named as a subject. She said she knew that Ms. Lopez Lukis had responded to the report after learning the report had been issued. She said that she thought the DJJ OIG would have talked with her and GAP about any concerns the DJJ OIG may have had. She said that getting accused of something and not even knowing about it just was not fair. She said that the whole thing troubled her. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, stated that she thought the issues she identified might be considered criminal violations so interviews were not conducted before these issues were referred to DFS OFI. She stated that she discussed the issues and the law enforcement referral with Mr. Greenfield. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said he instructed Ms. Michael to avail herself to staff at DFS because he wanted to validate the steps of the DJJ OIG through other sources, those who had background and understanding of these
Standards for Offices of Inspectors General as published by the Association of Inspectors General start on page 8 of this report.
41

30

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

types of cases. Mr. Greenfield said when the DJJ OIG found receipts that indicated possible lobbying activity and expenditures contrary to procedures or laws, the DJJ OIG became concerned that there might be a systemic issue. He said that all of the issues including purchases, expenditures, contract violations, and possible lobbying led him, Ms. Michael, and Ms. Eubanks to make the referral to DFS OFI to determine if there were any criminal violations. He said DFS OFI accepted the referral, investigated the issues and found no criminal activity, but DFS OFI indicated funds could have been withheld or disallowed. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, in her interview on April 30, 2012, said when the issues under review moved away from policy violations and appeared to violate statutory spending guidelines, the DJJ OIG decided to make the referral to DFS OFI. When asked who made the decision to refer the investigation to DFS OFI, Ms. Eubanks said that she and Mr. Greenfield made the decision together after reviewing everything they had. Based on a written statement, Ms. Eubanks provided on May 31, 2012, she wrote in pertinent part: In the event that this case was determined to be criminal by the [DFS] OFI [sic] interviews of the subjects would not be done by the OIG until that determination. After careful review of the information the [DJJ] OIG obtained from GAP, seeking advice from experts in the state contracting field, my discussions with Johnson,[ 42] and OIG staff reviewing this case with [DFS] OFI it was determined by [DFS] OFI that they believed this case had merit for them to look at and make [sic] determination whether or not the issues were criminal. … Additionally, if the subject [sic] and GAP employees had been interviewed it does not give 100% certainly [sic] that the necessary clarifications would have been made and details may or may not have been confirmed. Jennifer Parker, former General Counsel, DJJ, stated that she knew the DJJ OIG investigation was going on and stated, at one point, she knew the allegations were sent to DFS OFI. Ms. Parker said it made sense to her that it was referred to DFS OFI since the concerns pertained to how state money was being spent. Ms. Parker stated that she did not remember the DJJ OIG coming to her during the investigation for any legal advice, but she said they could have consulted with members of her staff. When asked if she recalled reviewing the matter before the allegations were referred to DFS OFI, Ms. Parker said she had no memory of receiving anything from the DJJ OIG at that time.

Ms. Amy Johnson, was the former Chief of Contracts, DJJ and is currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability.

42

31

August 24, 2012 Pertinent Governing Directives

CIG Report # 201111160005

Section 20.055(6)(c), F.S., states the Inspector General is to report to law enforcement when there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a violation of criminal law. Documentary Evidence In a January 29, 2010 letter to DFS OFI, Mr. Greenfield stated in pertinent part: It is believe [sic] that approximately $111,572.93 in State contract funds were misused by Lopez-Lukis [sic] as outlined in the accompanying attachments. In compliance with Section 20.055, F.S., Agency Inspector General, the [DJJ] OIG is referring this matter to your office for consideration of a criminal investigation. DFS OFI Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, in part, advised the DJJ OIG “Our investigation did not identify criminal activity.” CIG Conclusion In accordance with Section 20.055(6)(c), F.S., the Inspector General has the responsibility to make a referral to a law enforcement entity in certain circumstances. Further, based on testimony and a written statement from Ms. Eubanks, she believed she had reasonable grounds that statutes may have been violated and that the referral to a law enforcement entity (DFS OFI) was warranted. Further, Ms. Michael and Mr. Greenfield also said they believed there may have been expenditures by GAP that were contrary to state laws and a referral to a law enforcement entity was appropriate to determine if a criminal investigation was warranted. CIG reviewers confirmed that DJJ OIG referred the investigation to DFS OFI for consideration of a criminal investigation and the DFS OFI independently accepted the case for investigation. After approximately 18 months, DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated the DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees. CIG reviewers confirmed it was standard practice for the DJJ OIG not to interview subjects in an investigation when they believed there was a potential criminal violation. Based upon the above, CIG reviewers determined that the referral to DFS OFI was within the discretion of the DJJ OIG and was consistent with statute. Therefore, CIG reviewers did not have any concerns regarding Issue 4.

32

August 24, 2012 ISSUE 5 DJJ OIG Report 43 Dated June 23, 2011, stated:

CIG Report # 201111160005

Allegation: Misuse of state funds for lobbying purposes. REFERRED Judge Lederman alleged that Lopez-Lukis [sic] used state funds for lobbying purposes. The alleged conduct is classified as a Other/Violation of Florida Statute and Other/Contract Violation and may be covered by Section 11.06 [sic] Florida Statute, Use of State Funds for lobbying purposes prohibited, and DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 Section VIII Prohibiting the use of state funds for lobbying purposes. Judge Lederman stated that she was concerned that Lopez-Lukis [sic] was using GAP funds to finance her lobbying activities. Lederman stated that Lopez-Lukis [sic] is a registered Lobbyist with her husband Sylvester Lukis. Lederman said that Lopez-Lukis and S. Lukis were partners in Sylvester Lukis & Associates, which is an active registered lobbyist firm. A search of the Florida Department of State Corporations database showed that S. Lukis is the manager of Sylvester Lukis & Associates. A review of GAP Expense Reports, Bank Records, American Express bills, and receipts showed that $73.24 was paid for a meal in a restaurant for LopezLukis [sic] and former DJJ youth [Youth’s Name]. A handwritten note on the receipt showed that the meal was purchased for the ‘Tallahassee Senate Committee.’ Another meal[ 44] was purchased by Lopez-Lukis [sic] at a restaurant for her and two other individuals; including ‘Laura Fantovic [sic] from Senator Nelson’s office.’ A plaque for Senator [sic] Adam Hasner was purchased for $140.00 [sic].[ 45] OIG staff found that the Junior League Florida State Public Affairs Committee (SPAC) 2007 Final Report thanked Senator [sic] Hasner for his “last minute efforts” which enabled GAP’s funding to be approved by the legislature. Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that the DJJ OIG’s finding concerning “misuse of state funds for lobbying purposes” is not true. Ms. Lopez Lukis advised that “GAP did not utilize any of its funding, private or public, for lobbying purposes. No expenditures related to Sylvester Lukis & Associates were ever billed to or reimbursed by GAP.” Ms. Lopez
DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text. This meal was in the amount of $66.77 at Rosa Mexicano Miami with Ms. Lopez Lukis, Ms. Laura Fatovic of Senator Nelson’s office and Ms. Walters (three years prior to her appointment as DJJ Secretary) in February 2008. 45 CIG reviewers found a receipt in the DJJ OIG case file for the purchase of three plaques totaling $525.15 or $175.05 each. CIG reviewers were unable to determine why the DJJ OIG report cited $140.00 as the amount for the cost for the plaque instead of the $175.05.
44 43

33

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Lukis believed that DJJ OIG made assumptions about expenditures and did not interview her or GAP employees concerning this allegation. Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that expenditures identified in the DJJ OIG report concerning this allegation were GAP related. Interviews and Written Statements Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, advised that Judge Lederman made this allegation to the DJJ OIG. Ms. Michael stated that Judge Lederman reported that she knew that Ms. Lopez Lukis and her husband were lobbyists and that they spent time in Tallahassee. Ms. Michael stated that during her review of the GAP records she saw receipts with handwritten notes regarding a Tallahassee Senate Committee, a former youth testifying at a legislative committee meeting, and a meeting with Laura Fatovic from Senator Nelson’s office. Ms. Michael said that she could only speculate, at the time, that GAP was lobbying these entities for funding. Ms. Michael stated that she prepared a spreadsheet regarding the items she thought needed further explanation from GAP. Ms. Michael said had interviews been conducted there could have been a valid reason or explanation for these expenses. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said that the DJJ OIG report only stated what they had found before conducting interviews. He further stated that the DJJ OIG asked DFS OFI if the questionable expenditures identified by DJJ OIG were in violation of the law. Mr. Greenfield stated that the DJJ OIG wrote that this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. He said DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures and did not make any conclusions. He added that without talking with Ms. Lopez Lukis, DJJ OIG would not know what transpired. He said had DJJ OIG had the chance to interview the subjects, they could have clarified the issues. He added that he and Ms. Michael were not allowed to follow the process. Mr. Greenfield wrote in a statement dated April 25, 2012, that “It was never my intent for the report referred to DFS to be published as a closed report. It was IG Eubanks’ decision and direction not to conduct further interviews after receiving the DFS report; this was against my advice.” Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, said in an interview on April 30, 2012, she did not recall the purchase of a plaque as a lobbying activity, but thought it was more misuse of state funds. 46 She referenced a credit card receipt for reimbursement of meals, travel for a former youth to testify before a Senate committee, and a speech that the former youth gave the committee regarding juvenile girls as possible lobbying activities. She said that DJJ OIG had the General Counsel look at these receipts because the purchases could have been perceived as lobbying. Ms. Eubanks stated that Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, called her prior to issuing the DFS OFI Memorandum in May 2011. She said that he told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show
The DJJ OIG report listed the purchase of a plaque as a purchase of “prohibited items” in Issue 1 and Issue 8.
46

34

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them, and because there was no intent to defraud, DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Ms. Eubanks said that she discussed the report with DFS OFI, but did not meet with them to review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Upon receipt of the DFS OFI Memorandum, Ms. Eubanks said that the DJJ OIG realized that the money calculations were different between the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum. She said that the DJJ OIG determined that the DFS OFI had obtained additional documents which lessened the amounts of the questioned costs by “$10,000.” She said that she asked for the documents the DFS OFI received. 47 Ms. Eubanks said that she went to DJJ General Counsel Berkowitz, in June 2011, and discussed that the DFS OFI identified questioned costs that were less than what was contained in the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Eubanks did not recall “ordering” Mr. Greenfield not to do more interviews, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted. Based on a May 31, 2012, written statement from Ms. Eubanks, she wrote in pertinent part: Ms. Johnson and I discussed the expenditures in question when I sat down with her. Again I inquired of Ms. Johnson on May 8, 2012, if what she told me originally was still her belief. She pointed out to me page 5 of the contract X1409 section G; [sic] Lobbying. This section prohibits the expenditure of contract funds for the purpose of lobbying the Legislature… Ms. Johnson stated to me that she believed the spending of the funds in question would be considered lobbying as she had stated before. She pointed out to me page 5 of contract section A: but if any provision of this contract shall be prohibited or invalid under applicable law, [sic] In the review of the facts by the [DFS] OFI, state financial services investigator II [sic] Bill Geier wrote that such expenditures, ‘give, at minimum, appearances of lobbying activity.’ Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she recalled discussing with Ms. Eubanks in May 2012 the issue that the contracts with GAP were not well written. When asked if she talked with the DJJ OIG staff during their investigation, Ms. Johnson stated that she could have had a conversation with them before May 2012, but that she did not recall. Ms. Johnson said that Ms. Eubanks had a discussion with her in May 2012 because Ms.

According to Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, he did not provide Ms. Eubanks or DJJ OIG any supporting documents.

47

35

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Eubanks was looking for something she could “hang her hat on,” but that she [Ms. Johnson] was not able to help her [Ms. Eubanks]. Jennifer Parker, former General Counsel, DJJ, stated that she knew the DJJ OIG investigation was going on and stated, at one point, she knew the allegations were sent to DFS OFI. Ms. Parker said it made sense to her that it was referred to DFS OFI since the concerns pertained to how state money was being spent. Ms. Parker stated that she did not remember the DJJ OIG coming to her during the investigation for any legal advice, but she said they could have consulted with members of her staff. When asked if she recalled reviewing the matter before the allegations were referred to DFS OFI, Ms. Parker said she had no memory of receiving anything from the DJJ OIG at that time. Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that he did not recall dealing with the DJJ OIG prior to their report being issued on June 23, 2011, but once he received the report he thought the findings seemed fairly serious and the expenditures did not seem appropriate. He stated that he did not read the contracts at that time, but relied on the conclusions in the DJJ OIG report. He said that DFS OFI “backed them up.” He stated that he recalled that the bulk of the money that was questioned was paid prior to the contract date. He said that lots of times DJJ would settle an issue like this with the provider. He stated that he received a copy of the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum in June 2011. He said that both reports suggested that the DJJ take action. He said that they were attempting to do that, but had not taken any action yet. He said that normally the findings would be distributed to the appropriate division for handling. He said that in this case the findings would be distributed to Ms. Strange since they pertained to a detention contract. He also said that normally a copy of the report would go to the provider and DJJ management would enter into discussions with the provider about what money was due back, if any. Mr. Berkowitz said that after he reviewed the DJJ OIG report, he saw that Secretary Walters’ name was mentioned. He said that he had a conversation with Secretary Walters and that Secretary Walters knew both Ms. Lopez Lukis and Judge Lederman. He said that he saw a potential for a conflict of interest so after discussions, he prepared a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Woody from Secretary Walters delegating responsibility and action to him. He said this took place in September 2011. Mr. Berkowitz said that the DJJ had not acted prior to the time Ms. Lopez Lukis made the complaint to the CIG, but they had discussed it internally. He said that the DJJ is now on hold pending the CIG review of the DJJ OIG investigation. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 11.062(1), F.S., states “No funds, exclusive of salaries, travel expenses, and per diem, appropriated to, or otherwise available for use by, any executive, judicial, or quasi-judicial department shall be used by any state employee or other person for lobbying purposes…”

36

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Section 110.1245(4), F.S., regarding savings sharing program; bonus payments; other awards states “Each department head is authorized to incur expenditures to award suitable framed certificates, pins, or other tokens of recognition to state employees who demonstrate satisfactory service in the agency or to the state, in appreciation and recognition of such service. Such awards may not cost in excess of $100 each plus applicable taxes.” Section 216.347, F.S., states “A state agency…may not authorize or make any disbursement of grants and aids appropriations pursuant to a contract or grant to any person or organization unless the terms of the grant or contract prohibit the expenditure of funds for the purpose of lobbying the Legislature, the judicial branch, or a state agency…” Rule 69I-40.103, F.A.C., entitled Restriction of Expenditures states “Expenditures from state funds for items as listed below are prohibited unless ‘expressly provided by law.’ (See Attorney General opinion 71-28): (1) Congratulatory telegrams; (2) Flowers and/or telegraphic condolences; (3) Presentment of plaques for outstanding service; (4) Entertainment for visiting dignitaries...” DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures (as updated November 2006) provides parameters for expenses relating to Volunteer Recognition, Satisfactory Service Awards, and Prohibited Expenditures. DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures (as updated November 2006) specifically states “Section 11.062(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits the use of state funds by the executive or judicial branch to pay a person that is not an employee, for the purpose of lobbying the Florida Legislature. Funds for salaries, travel expenses, and per diem may be used for lobbying purposes of full time employees of an agency, but funds may not be used to retain, by contract, an outside lobbyist.” State Projects Compliance Supplement (2006-2007) for State Project Number 80.022, Diversion Services, Allowable Costs, states “All costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures.” DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 state “The Provider shall comply with the provisions of section 216.347, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the expenditure of contract funds for the purpose of lobbying the Legislature, judicial branch or a state agency.” Documentary Evidence The DFS OFI Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, stated that such expenditures, “give, at minimum, appearances of lobbying activity. Additionally, that meals and plaques are not [sic] allowed costs per the CFO’s ‘Reference Guide for State Expenditures’.”

37

August 24, 2012 CIG Conclusion

CIG Report # 201111160005

The DJJ OIG report cited three GAP receipts with a legislative-related notation for what the DJJ OIG report labeled as “Misuse of funds for lobbying purposes. REFERRED” in the amounts of $73.24 for a meal; a reference to another meal; and $140 [sic] for a plaque and referred these expenditures to DFS OFI for possible criminal investigation. CIG reviewers confirmed receipts reviewed by the DJJ OIG were in the amounts of $73.24 for a meeting at the Cheesecake Factory in Miami in February 2008 with a [former Youth’s name], Ms. Aldana and Ms. Lopez Lukis in preparation for a Senate Committee meeting; $66.77 for a meal at Rosa Mexicano Miami with Ms. Lopez Lukis, Ms. Laura Fatovic of Senator Nelson’s office and Ms. Walters (three years prior to her appointment as DJJ Secretary) in February 2008, and $525.15 for three plaques purchased in May 2007, one of which was purchased for the legislator. CIG reviewers confirmed that DJJ OIG referred the investigation to DFS OFI for consideration of a criminal investigation and the DFS OFI independently accepted the case for investigation. DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated the DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees. Review of the governing directives showed that while expenses for plaques or lobbying activities may not be allowable or were restricted under certain circumstances, the DJJ OIG failed to conduct interviews or additional investigative activity to determine the purpose for these expenditures, the source of funds used to cover these expenditures, whether the expenses were GAP related, and the governing directives GAP applied to believe the expenses were allowable under the contract. Ms. Michael said that she could only speculate about the three receipts included in the DJJ OIG report and had no other evidence to consider. Ms. Michael said had interviews been conducted there could have been a valid reason or explanation for these expenses. Mr. Greenfield stated that the DJJ OIG wrote that this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. He said the DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures and did not make any conclusions. As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity

38

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield but acknowledged that the investigation was only 70% complete when she signed the report as final in June 2011. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to her signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 5.

ISSUE 6 DJJ OIG Report 48 Dated June 23, 2011, stated: Allegation: Misuse of state funds for Junior League activities. REFERRED Judge Lederman alleged that Lopez-Lukis [sic] used state funds to finance her Junior League activities. The alleged conduct is classified as Violation of Policy/Rule, Other/Violation of Florida Statute, and Theft, and may be covered by Rule 69I-42.004, Florida Administrative Code (FAC) [sic]; Conference and Conventions, and Section 112.061, F.S., Per Diem, and travel expenses of public officers, employees, and authorized persons, and Section 812.014, F.S., Theft. Judge Lederman stated that she had concerns that Lopez-Lukis [sic] was using GAP funds to finance her Junior League activities because Lopez-Lukis [sic] was extremely involved in the Junior League and she believed her trips and events were being paid for by GAP. A review of GAP bank records, expense reports, receipts, American Express statements/receipts, and Junior League documentation showed that $4,352.22 [sic][ 49] of state funds was [sic] spent to finance trips for Lopez-Lukis [sic] and former GAP President Jill Ecklund to attend Junior League Statewide Public Affairs Committee (SPAC) meetings. OIG staff reviewed the Junior League SPAC website and found several captioned pictures describing Ecklund and Lopez-Lukis’ [sic] activities and they
48 49

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text. CIG reviewers were unable to confirm the amount questioned in this issue of the DJJ OIG report.

39

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

are often referred to as the Palm Beach Contingent inferring that they represent the Palm Beach Chapter of the Junior League. The Junior League SPAC website shows that Lopez-Lukis [sic] is on the Executive Board of the Junior League SPAC. The expense reports submitted by Lopez-Lukis [sic] and Ecklund show the purpose of the trips were to attend Junior League SPAC conferences along with other various meetings/interviews (i.e. GAP Training and Bridging the GAP interviews). American Express receipts showed that on these trips Lopez-Lukis [sic] paid for several dinners for her and ‘guest.’ In the reviewed documentation there was one handwritten Junior League SPAC receipt for $40.00 made out to ‘Sylvester Lukis & Associates,’ which is the lobbying firm owned and operated by Lopez-Lukis [sic] and her husband. The receipt reflects a notation that the payment was made for ‘Meeting Fees.’ The receipt was submitted by Lopez-Lukis [sic] and was reimbursed from GAP/State funds on an Expense Report. The Expense Report shows that the purpose of the trip was to attend the Junior League June Task Force meeting on June 16, 2007. Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis stated the DJJ OIG’s finding concerning “misuse of state funds for Junior League Activities” is not true. Ms. Lopez Lukis advised that “GAP’s expenditures, including SPAC meeting fees, meals, and travel were related to the mission and operations of GAP.” Additionally, Ms. Lopez Lukis advised that Junior League is a community partner with GAP. Ms. Lopez Lukis believed that DJJ OIG made assumptions about expenditures and did not interview her or GAP employees concerning this allegation. Interviews and Written Statements Jill Ecklund, former President, GAP, said that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG during their investigation. Ms. Ecklund said that she never received the DJJ OIG report in which she had been named as a subject. She said she knew that Ms. Lopez Lukis had responded to the report after learning the report had been issued. She said that she thought the DJJ OIG would have talked with her and GAP about any concerns the DJJ OIG may have had. She said that GAP was accused of misspending funds, but that was not true. Ms. Ecklund said that there was a lot in the DJJ OIG report that was not true. She said that she was not saying that they were lying, just that they did not go far enough in their research of the facts. She said that she had concerns after reading the DJJ OIG report because she was not given an opportunity to comment. She said that her belief was that the report was very

40

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

one sided. She said, “it breaks my heart they’d [the DJJ OIG] accuse me of misspending the funds.” She said that getting accused of something and not even knowing about it just was not fair. She said that the whole thing troubled her. She said that GAP just wanted to do the right thing and always did. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, advised that this allegation was part of the information alleged by Judge Lederman. Ms. Michael explained that as she reviewed GAP expenses she would ask herself how these items related or benefited the youths served under the GAP contract. Ms. Michael advised that she also considered the DFS reference guide and the state employee per diem limits. When asked if she considered if the expenses could have been allowable under the terms of the contract, Ms. Michael replied that she did not flag the expenses if they appeared to follow the contract. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, stated that Ms. Michael researched and confirmed Ms. Lopez Lukis’ connection and involvement with Junior League. He said when looking at the records of how DJJ money was spent, the records showed money was spent on the Junior League. He said had they had the opportunity to do interviews, he would have wanted to ask for an explanation of how these expenditures were program related. He said the subjects should have been given an opportunity to explain and, depending on what they said, the DJJ OIG would have determined whether the costs were reasonable or not. He said the DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures and did not make any conclusion which is why the DJJ OIG report said this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, said that these expenses appeared unallowable given the way the contract was written and the opinion or guidance provided at the time. She indicated she had spoken to DJJ legal counsel about these expenses and that she received different interpretations between “counsels.” Ms. Eubanks stated that Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, called her prior to issuing the DFS OFI Memorandum in May 2011. She said that he told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them, and because there was no intent to defraud, DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Ms. Eubanks said that she discussed the report with DFS OFI, but did not meet with them to review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Ms. Eubanks said that the DJJ OIG realized that the money calculations were different between the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum. She said that the DJJ OIG determined that the DFS OFI had obtained additional documents which lessened the amounts of the questioned costs by “$10,000.” She said that she asked for the documents the DFS OFI received. Ms. Eubanks said that she went to Mr. Berkowitz, in June 2011, and discussed that the DFS OFI identified questioned costs that were less than what was contained in the DJJ OIG report.

41

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Based on a written statement from Ms. Eubanks provided on May 31, 2012, she wrote in pertinent part: I was advised by Ms. Johnson that these expenditures were not allowed by F.S. 215 [sic]. Again I refer to my conversation with Mr. Merry [Mark Merry, DFS, Bureau of Accounting] that F.S. trumps a poorly written contract. … I asked Mr. Merry if a contractor made expenditures with state funds for things outside of Florida Statutes, (F.S.) 215 and the contract did not disallow these expenditures what would trump? The contract or F.S.? He stated that F.S. always trumps. Mr. Merry further stated that, ‘If the contract allowed for expenditures outside of 215 you either had a poorly written contract or possibly an illegal one.’ Ms. [sic] Merry also stated that a contract cannot rewrite F.S. At the start of this investigation on an unknown date, I made an appointment with Amy Johnson who I believe her title at the time was DJJ Chief of Contracts to inquire about DJJ contracts X1409 and X1410. I needed to have a working knowledge of these contracts and how they came into existence. This was not part of the ‘official’ investigation, but simply to help me understand what was going on. In my inquiry with Ms. Johnson she stated to me that these were ‘bad contracts’ and did not contain all the language that they should and they had not been monitored as they should have been. … In 2012 I would say with the knowledge that I have today that possible [sic] the focus of the investigation should have been on contracts X1409 and X1410 and the validity of the contracts. Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she recalled discussing with Ms. Eubanks in May 2012 the issue that the contracts with GAP were not well written. When asked if she talked with the DJJ OIG staff during their investigation, Ms. Johnson stated that she could have had a conversation with them before May 2012, but that she did not recall. Ms. Johnson said that Ms. Eubanks had a discussion with her in May 2012 because Ms. Eubanks was looking for something she could “hang her hat on” in terms of contract requirements, but that she [Ms. Johnson] was not able to help her [Ms. Eubanks]. She said that the contracts stated that Chapter 112, F.S., [regarding travel] did not apply and she thought that was very confusing language to include in the contracts with GAP. Ms. Johnson stated that if the contract language was not clear, the CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) was not referenced or the Florida Single Audit Act requirements were not clear, she thought that statute would pre-empt contract ambiguity, but stated that

42

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

she was not an attorney. She explained that she thought statute or rule would supersede the language in two-party contracts. Jennifer Parker, former General Counsel, DJJ, stated that she knew the DJJ OIG investigation was going on and stated, at one point, she knew the allegations were sent to DFS OFI. Ms. Parker said it made sense to her that it was referred to DFS OFI since the concerns pertained to how state money was being spent. Ms. Parker stated that she did not remember the DJJ OIG coming to her during the investigation for any legal advice, but she said they could have consulted with members of her staff. When asked if she recalled reviewing the matter before the allegations were referred to DFS OFI, Ms. Parker said she had no memory of receiving anything from the DJJ OIG at that time. Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that he did not recall dealing with the DJJ OIG prior to their report being issued on June 23, 2011, but once he received the report he thought the findings seemed fairly serious and the expenditures did not seem appropriate. He stated that he did not read the contracts at that time, but relied on the conclusions in the DJJ OIG report. He said that DFS OFI “backed them up.” He stated that he recalled that the bulk of the money that was questioned was paid prior to the contract date. He said that lots of times DJJ would settle an issue like this with the provider. He stated that he received a copy of the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum in June 2011. He said that both reports suggested that the DJJ take action. He said that they were attempting to do that, but had not taken any action yet. He said that normally the findings would be distributed to the appropriate division for handling. He said that in this case the findings would be distributed to Ms. Strange since they pertained to a detention contract. He also said that normally a copy of the report would go to the provider and DJJ management would enter into discussions with the provider about what money was due back, if any. Mr. Berkowitz said that after he reviewed the DJJ OIG report, he saw that Secretary Walters’ name was mentioned. He said that he had a conversation with Secretary Walters and that Secretary Walters knew both Ms. Lopez Lukis and Judge Lederman. He said that he saw a potential for a conflict of interest so after discussions, he prepared a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Woody from Secretary Walters delegating responsibility and action to him. He said this took place in September 2011. Mr. Berkowitz said that the DJJ had not acted prior to the time Ms. Lopez Lukis made the complaint to the CIG, but they had discussed it internally. He said that the DJJ is now on hold pending the CIG review of the DJJ OIG investigation. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 112.061, F.S., entitled “Per diem, and travel expenses of public officers, employees, and authorized persons” specifies allowable travel expenses. Rule 69I-42.004, F.A.C., entitled Conference and Conventions, specifies allowable

43

August 24, 2012 expenses relating to conferences and conventions.

CIG Report # 201111160005

State Projects Compliance Supplement (2006-2007) for State Project Number 80.022, Diversion Services, Allowable Costs, states “All costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures.” DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 stated that “Travel and per diem expenses for this Contract are included in the total cost of the services agreed to and additional travel expenses will not be authorized. Therefore, the requirements of section 112.061, Florida Statutes, do not apply to this Contract.” DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 stated regarding Volunteer Recruitment stated that “The Provider’s Community Advisory Board shall encourage community members to participate in assisting the project with the educational process by providing information, books, educational products and literature.” Additionally, the contracts stated regarding the Community Advisory Board that “The Provider’s Community Advisory Board, shall consist of leading girl advocates familiar with the needs of girls within the juvenile justice system…The Board shall assist the community in understanding the girls, identify unmet needs, and work collaboratively with the Department [DJJ] toward prevention, intervention, and reduction in girl dependency.” CIG Conclusion CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ OIG report implied that GAP misused state funds for Junior League activities and referred this to DFS OFI. However, CIG reviewers were unable to confirm the amounts questioned in the DJJ OIG report. CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees. Review of the governing directives showed that statutes govern travel and conferences, but the DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 stated that these statutes do not apply to these contracts. The DJJ OIG did not appear to fully evaluate the conflict between the statutory requirements and the DJJ contracts, but the former DJJ Inspector General stated in a written statement that “with the knowledge that I have today that possible [sic] the focus of the investigation should have been on contracts X1409 and X1410 and the validity of the contracts.” Further, while expenses for Junior League events and travel may or may not have been allowable or were restricted under certain circumstances, the DJJ OIG failed to conduct interviews or additional investigative activity to determine the purpose for these expenditures, the source of funds used to cover these expenditures, whether the expenses were GAP related, and the governing directives GAP applied to believe the expenses were allowable under the contract.

44

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the DJJ OIG report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Mr. Greenfield said the DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures and did not make any conclusion which is why the DJJ OIG report stated that this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 6 and failed to address DJJ’s responsibility when executing contracts that contained provisions that conflict with Florida Statutes.

45

August 24, 2012 ISSUE 7 DJJ OIG Report 50 Dated June 23, 2011, stated:

CIG Report # 201111160005

Allegation: Violation of state travel regulation. REFERRED Judge Lederman alleged that Lopez-Lukis [sic] and GAP employees failed to follow state travel regulations and that Lopez-Lukis [sic] was using state funds to finance outside interests such as her work with the Adult Prison Re-entry and socializing with influential people. The alleged conduct is classified Other/Violation of Florida Statute and Theft, and may be covered by Section 112.061 [sic] F.S., Per diem and travel expenses of public officers, employees, and authorized persons; and Section 812.014, F.S., Theft. Judge Lederman stated that she is concerned that Lopez-Lukis [sic] may be using GAP funds to finance her interests in Adult Prisoner Reentry programs. Eileen Nexer, former GAP Board Member stated that Lukis [sic] was focusing on going out into local communities and talking to influential groups rather than placing emphasis on counseling and education for the youth. She stated that Lopez-Lukis’ [sic] main focus appears to be on Adult Offenders and Adult Exoffenders. A review of GAP bank records, expense reports, receipts, and American Express statements show that Lopez-Lukis [sic] and staff were reimbursed or used state funds for the following: parking tickets for both GAP employees and non GAP employees for events unrelated to GAP, meals at local restaurants, meals at restaurants on overnight trips, and for functions which are not related to GAP. ... Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis stated the DJJ OIG finding concerning “violation of state travel regulations” is not true. Ms. Lopez Lukis advised that “GAP’s expenditures, including parking, meals, the cost of functions and travel were related to the mission and operations of GAP.” Ms. Lopez Lukis believed that DJJ OIG made assumptions about expenditures and did not interview her or GAP employees concerning this allegation. Interviews and Written Statements Brenda Aldana, Administrative Assistant, GAP, stated that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG and was never told that she was a subject of the investigation. She stated that neither she nor others at GAP were given a chance or opportunity to respond to the allegations and she was not given a chance to provide documentation to
50

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text.

46

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

the DJJ OIG as she was for DFS OFI. She said she thought it would have been standard procedure of the DJJ OIG to give subjects of an investigation an opportunity to respond. She said that she did travel to GAP events or to Orlando to close the GAP site there. She said other than that travel she was not involved in any major travel for GAP. Jill Ecklund, former President, GAP, said that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG during their investigation. Ms. Ecklund said that she never received the DJJ OIG report in which she had been named as a subject. She said she knew that Ms. Lopez Lukis had responded to the report after learning the report had been issued. She said that she thought the DJJ OIG would have talked with her and GAP about any concerns the DJJ OIG may have had. She said that GAP was accused of misspending funds but it was not true. Ms. Ecklund said that there was a lot in the DJJ OIG report that was not true. She said that she was not saying that they were lying, just that they did not go far enough in their research of the facts or all that they needed to do. She said that getting accused of something and not even knowing about it just was not fair. She said that the whole thing troubled her. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, stated that Judge Lederman made this allegation. She said that Judge Lederman stated that Ms. Lopez Lukis was more interested in adult prison re-entry and socializing. When asked how the expenses tied to the state travel requirements, Ms. Michael advised that this was one of the things she asked DFS and they sent her the expenditure guidelines. Ms. Michael said that DFS advised her that even if the contract stated that the contractor is exempt from Chapter 112, F.S. [travel regulations], the expenses would still be illegal. She said that DFS told her that you cannot enforce an illegal contract and the contractor must follow the same guidelines as state employees. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said the DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures and did not make any conclusion which is why the DJJ OIG wrote that this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. He said that he thought that they cited examples of questionable expenditures in the DJJ OIG report, but had not included every issue they found. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, stated that Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, called her prior to issuing the DFS OFI Memorandum in May 2011. She said that he told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with DFS OFI, and because there was no intent to defraud, the DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Ms. Eubanks said that she discussed the report with DFS OFI, but did not meet with them to review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Ms. Eubanks said that the DJJ OIG realized that the money calculations were different between the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum. She said that the DJJ OIG

47

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

determined that DFS OFI had obtained additional documents which lessened the amounts of the questioned costs by “$10,000.” She said that she asked for the documents the DFS OFI received. Ms. Eubanks said that she went to Mr. Berkowitz, in June 2011, and discussed that DFS OFI Memorandum was less than the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Eubanks, in a written statement provided on May 31, 2012, wrote “I also discussed these expenditures with Ms, [sic] Johnson. She stated to me that these expenditures were prohibited by F.S. 215 [sic][ 51] … with the knowledge that I have today that possible [sic] the focus of the investigation should have been on contracts X1409 and X1410 and the validity of the contracts.” Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she recalled discussing with Ms. Eubanks in May 2012 the issue that the contracts with GAP were not well written. When asked if she talked with the DJJ OIG staff during their investigation, Ms. Johnson stated that she could have had a conversation with them before May 2012, but that she did not recall. She said that the contracts stated that Chapter 112, F.S. [regarding travel] did not apply and she thought that was very confusing language to include in the contracts with GAP. Ms. Johnson stated that if the contract language was not clear, the CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) was not referenced or the Florida Single Audit Act requirements were not clear, she thought that statute would pre-empt contract ambiguity, but stated that she was not an attorney. She explained that she thought statute or rule would supercede the language in two-party contracts. Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that he did not recall dealing with the DJJ OIG prior to their report being issued on June 23, 2011, but once he received the report he thought the findings seemed fairly serious and the expenditures did not seem appropriate. He stated that he did not read the contracts at that time, but relied on the conclusions in the DJJ OIG report. He said that DFS OFI “backed them up.” He stated that he recalled that the bulk of the money that was questioned was paid prior to the contract date. He said that lots of times DJJ would settle an issue like this with the provider. He stated that he received a copy of the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum in June 2011. He said that both reports suggested that the DJJ take action. He said that they were attempting to do that, but had not taken any action yet. He said that normally the findings would be distributed to the appropriate division for handling. He said that in this case the findings would be distributed to Ms. Strange since they pertained to a detention contract. He also said that normally a copy of the report would go to the provider and DJJ management would enter into discussions with the provider about what money was due back, if any.

CIG reviewers determined that this information was not one of the listed violations contained in the DJJ OIG report.

51

48

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Mr. Berkowitz said that after he reviewed the DJJ OIG report, he saw that Secretary Walters’ name was mentioned. He said that he had a conversation with Secretary Walters and that Secretary Walters knew both Ms. Lopez Lukis and Judge Lederman. He said that he saw a potential for a conflict of interest so after discussions, he prepared a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Woody from Secretary Walters delegating responsibility and action to him. He said this took place in September 2011. Mr. Berkowitz said that the DJJ had not acted prior to the time Ms. Lopez Lukis made the complaint to the CIG, but they had discussed it internally. He said that the DJJ is now on hold pending the CIG review of the DJJ OIG investigation. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 112.061, F.S., entitled “Per diem, and travel expenses of public officers, employees,” specifies allowable travel expenses. Section 215.422(14), F.S., states “The Chief Financial Officer may adopt rules to authorize advance payments for goods and services, including, but not limited to, maintenance agreements and subscriptions. Such rules shall provide objective criteria for determining when it is in the best interest of the state to make payments in advance and shall also provide for adequate protection to ensure that such goods or services will be provided.” Rule 69I-42.004, F.A.C., entitled Conference and Conventions, specifies allowable expenses relating to conferences and conventions. Rule 60L-36, F.A.C., is entitled “Conduct of Employees.” State Projects Compliance Supplement (2006-2007) for State Project Number 80.022, Diversion Services, Allowable Costs, states “All costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures.” DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 state that “Travel and per diem expenses for this Contract are included in the total cost of the services agreed to and additional travel expenses will not be authorized. Therefore, the requirements of section 112.061, Florida Statutes, do not apply to this Contract.” DJJ Contract X1409, amendment #2, effective January 23, 2008, stated: GAP Video Project (completed and distribution in process) a. GAP obtained a grant from the community, partnered with the Department of Juvenile Justice, ex-GAP participants (adults), and local media celebrities. GAP staff coordinated and with GAP partners, produced a GAP DVD, which features an overview of the program.

49

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

b. These DVDs have been mass-produced and were distributed to key public figures in the juvenile justice and court arena as well as to the Department of Juvenile Justice partners (detention, probation, and administrative personnel). These DVDs were distributed to educate the public and community interests about girls struggling with juvenile justice issues and GAP’s intervention techniques. c. The DVDs are also used for training, conferences and networking purposes. Memorandum of Agreement #708 between Ms. Lopez Lukis (prior to her being employed by GAP) as Independent Project Coordinator, ArtSpring, Inc., Girls Advocacy Project under the authority of the Administrative Office of the Courts, The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and The Florida Department of Corrections, executed for the period of February 1, 2006 to January 31, 2007, stated that the Purpose of this Agreement is to establish the general conditions that will govern the responsibilities of the parties in implementing a writing workshop entitled Bridging the Gap (BGAP). The parties wish to implement the writing workshop to educate female juvenile offenders on the issues faced by female adult inmates and the mistakes made by these individuals that contributed to their serving long incarcerations. Absent this Agreement, there is no venue for girls in detention to interact with women in prison to gain the important understanding of the lifetime impact criminal mistakes can have on young lives. … This partnership between ArtSpring and GAP allows two organizations that have earned the respect of the DJJ and the Department [of Corrections] to work together to expand their resources to ‘bridge-the-gap’ between girls and women in the criminal justice system. Documentary Evidence CIG reviewers confirmed that the DFS OFI Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, stated that “Numerous expenditures documented by your investigators and confirmed by OFI were expended by GAP and reimbursed by DJJ for items not related to services for the girls at DJJ facilities. These included meals at high-end restaurants, costs associated with Film Festival attendance, travel not related to the project, and other unrelated expenditures totaling $13,087.32.” An email from Ted Dudley, DFS, dated February 9, 2009, to Ms. Michael stated in pertinent part (Mr. Dudley’s responses are marked in red): From what I understood, even though our contract states that FS 112.061 does not apply, the CFO Memo supersedes this? That is correct, the CFO memo supersedes. The memo also designates the GAP program

50

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

as being subject to the same rules as state employees as set forth in DFS’s Reference Guide for State Expenditures, is that correct, (even though our Contract does not appear to comply with the CFO Memo)? Yes, as it relates to state funds. Last but not least, if the program is required to comply with the same guidelines/rules as state employees do they also have to comply with 60L-36? As it relates to state funds. CIG Conclusion The DJJ OIG report implied that Ms. Lopez Lukis and GAP employees violated state travel regulations and Ms. Lopez Lukis used state funds to finance outside interests such as her work with the Adult Prison Re-entry and socializing with influential people. The DJJ OIG report cited ten examples of expenditures. The DJJ OIG referred this matter to DFS OFI for possible criminal investigation. CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees. However, when reviewing the evidence obtained by the DJJ OIG, CIG reviewers found that there were two examples cited in the DJJ OIG report that contained typographical errors in the stated amounts and one example was omitted from the report. 52 It is unclear if the DJJ OIG determined the legal relationship between the DJJ contracts with GAP and the Memorandum of Agreement #708 between Ms. Lopez Lukis as Independent Project Coordinator, ArtSpring, Inc., Girls Advocacy Project under the authority of the Administrative Office of the Courts, The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and The Florida Department of Corrections. However, a copy of the memorandum was an exhibit to the DJJ OIG report. Regarding the allegation that Ms. Lopez Lukis used state funds to finance outside interests such as her work with the adult prison re-entry program and socialize with influential people, CIG reviewers confirmed that DJJ OIG interviewed one witness named by Judge Lederman regarding this allegation. The witness merely reported concerns that Ms. Lopez Lukis was “focusing on going out into local communities and talking to influential groups rather than placing emphasis on counseling and education for the youth,” but there was no evidence or analysis contained in the DJJ OIG report or the case file to support, refute or justify the need to address this allegation. As previously noted in Issue 6, review of the DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 showed the contracts indicated that the state travel regulations and statutes did not apply. However, the DJJ OIG did not appear to fully evaluate the conflict between the DJJ contracts and the statutory requirements.

Two of the receipts referenced in the DJJ OIG report showed that in January 2007 (four years before appointment as Secretary) Ms. Walters was named in attendance for breakfast and dinner at the Justice for Girls Reform Initiative Summit in Jacksonville, Florida.

52

51

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

The former DJJ Inspector General stated in a written statement that “with the knowledge that I have today that possibly the focus of the investigation should have been on … the validity of the contracts.” Additionally, while expenses for travel may or may not be allowable or were restricted under certain circumstances, the DJJ OIG failed to conduct interviews or additional investigative activity to determine the purpose for these expenditures, the source of funds used to pay these expenditures, whether the expenses were GAP related, and the governing directives GAP applied to believe these expenses were allowable under the contract. As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete at the time the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the DJJ OIG report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 7 and failed to address DJJ’s responsibility when executing contracts that contained provisions that conflict with Florida Statutes.

52

August 24, 2012 ISSUE 8 DJJ OIG Report 53 Dated June 23, 2011, stated:

CIG Report # 201111160005

Issue: Violation of contractual expenditure guidelines. REFERRED During the course of the investigation OIG staff found that Lopez-Lukis [sic] and GAP employees failed to follow the expenditure guidelines as set forth in the GAP contracts. The alleged conduct is classified as an Other/Contract Violation, Other/Violation of Florida Statute, and maybe covered by GAP contract(s) number and number [sic], Section 812.014, F.S., Theft. A review of GAP contract X1410 showed the contract states, ‘The Contract shall begin on October 16, 2006, or upon execution by both parties (whichever is later) and end at midnight on June 30, 2007, inclusive. The Provider shall not be eligible for reimbursement of services rendered prior to the execution date of this contract.’ DJJ Contract X1410 was executed on October 25, 2006, after being signed by Ecklund and former DJJ Director of Administration Jane McElroy. Records show that GAP retroactively reimbursed itself approximately $73,319.00 in travel, personnel, and overhead costs incurred prior to October 25, 2006, through these contract funds. OIG staff was unable to find a settlement agreement which would allow GAP to retroactively reimburse itself. Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis stated the DJJ OIG’s finding concerning “violation of contractual expenditure guidelines” is not true and that GAP employees did not fail to follow the expenditure guidelines as set forth in the GAP contracts. Ms. Lopez Lukis advised that DJJ Contract X1410, which included in Section III, A, Contract Term and Renewal, “The Provider shall not be eligible for reimbursement for services rendered [emphasis added] prior to the execution date of this Contract.” Additionally, Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that the DJJ OIG found that “GAP retroactively reimbursed itself approximately $73,319.00 in travel, personnel, and overhead costs incurred prior to October 25, 2006.” Ms. Lopez Lukis further stated GAP was “NOT reimbursed for services rendered [emphasis added] prior to the execution date of the contract.” She said that GAP did not commence providing services as defined in the scope of services section of the contract until February 1, 2007.

53

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text.

53

August 24, 2012 Interviews and Written Statements

CIG Report # 201111160005

Jill Ecklund, former president, GAP, said that, in 2006, regarding startup funds, she remembered proposing a budget to DJJ and said that the startup funds would have been included in the budget. She said that she did not recall any conversations with DJJ about the startup funds, but remembered that their budget was approved by DJJ. Sharon Shore, Governmental Analyst II, South Region, 54 DJJ, stated that she was the Contract Manager for GAP and was responsible for overseeing the program, processing the invoices, and ensuring that services were delivered in accordance with the contract. When asked if she had any concerns about GAP’s contract, she said, “no.” When asked if she had any recall about startup funds, she said, “no.” Kay Bozeman, Management Review Specialist, 55 DJJ, said that, in 2006, regarding startup funds, she recalled Ms. Lopez Lukis meeting to discuss the startup costs with Ms. Genanne Wilson 56 who wrote the contract on behalf of DJJ. Ms. Bozeman said that she recalled Ms. Wilson saying they could pay certain costs for office space, supplies, and other startup expenses. Ms. Bozeman referenced the email dated August 27, 2006, 57 from Ms. Lopez Lukis where GAP notified the DJJ of their intention to “retroactively reimburse” for certain expenses. Ms. Bozeman also stated that she forwarded this email to Ms. Strange. Genanne Wilson, former Operations and Management Consultant Manager, DJJ, said that the DJJ contracts with GAP were written on a standard contract form that she helped create. She recalled that GAP had requested startup funds and GAP received an advance payment early in the contract. She stated that it was her belief that the advance was to cover costs associated with the expansion of GAP into other counties besides Miami-Dade. When asked if she recalled whether startup funds could be used to reimburse expenses that were incurred before the contract was executed, Ms. Wilson stated that “it’s never retroactive.” Julia Strange, Assistant Secretary, Detention Services, DJJ, stated regarding the August 27, 2006, email from Ms. Lopez Lukis to Ms. Bozeman, she knew there were talks about the startup funds and plans by GAP to get reimbursed for the funds. She said she did not remember the email from Ms. Lopez Lukis regarding “GAP Budgets” specifically, but she remembered having conversations with Ms. Wilson regarding the startup funds. She said that she found an email where Ms. Wilson was trying to schedule a meeting with Ms. Lopez Lukis to discuss the startup funds. She said that
Ms. Shore stated that she was the Contract Manager for the DJJ Contract X1409 with GAP. Ms. Bozeman stated that she was the Contract Monitor for the DJJ Contract X1410 with GAP. 56 Ms. Wilson was Operations and Management Consultant Manager, DJJ, in 2006. 57 The email from Ms. Lopez Lukis to DJJ officials dated August 27, 2006, was entitled “GAP Budgets.” This email notified DJJ that GAP had incurred costs for contractual services for Ms. Lopez Lukis, Ms. Ecklund, and Ms. Woolley-Larrea [a former GAP employee] and travel expenses. The email states “As soon as DJJ funds are distributed to GAP, I will retroactively pay those services rendered [emphasis added] and reimburse travel expenses. In addition, we will be able to contract for the GAP Facilitators in each location and the remaining contractual positions.”
55 54

54

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

the way the email was worded lead her to believe these expenses were allowable. She said the email must have given Ms. Lopez Lukis the impression these expenses were allowable. When asked if she knew if the expenditures were not allowable, Ms. Strange said, “I know that now, but didn’t when we were having the discussions.” She said, “if I read this email and I were Vicki Lukis, [sic] I’d believe it’s allowable.” She said it appeared that there were lots of discussions regarding this at the time. She said she was not in the meeting with Ms. Lopez Lukis and Ms. Wilson. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, said this was an issue identified by the OIG and not alleged by Judge Lederman. Additionally, Ms. Michael advised that she thought DJJ was the subject of the issue not GAP. Ms. Michael advised that the contract stated that no expenses prior to the contract date could be paid and, while reviewing the records, she said she found items that were reimbursed prior to the signing of the contract. Additionally, when asked if she knew about the email from Ms. Lopez Lukis to Ms. Bozeman in regards to GAP retroactively reimbursing themselves for expenses, Ms. Michael responded that had she known about the email, she would have had additional questions for Ms. Bozeman. 58 Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said the DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures and did not make any conclusion which is why DJJ OIG report stated this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, stated that Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, called her prior to issuing the DFS OFI Memorandum in May 2011. She said that he told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them, and because there was no intent to defraud, DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Ms. Eubanks said that she discussed the report with DFS OFI, but did not meet with them to review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Ms. Eubanks said that they realized that the money calculations were different between the two reports. She said that they reviewed their documents and that DFS OFI had gotten additional documents to lessen the amounts questioned in their report by “$10,000.” She said that she asked for the documents the DFS OFI received. Ms. Eubanks said that she went to Mr. Berkowitz, in June 2011, and discussed that DFS OFI Memorandum was less than the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Eubanks, in a written statement obtained on May 31, 2012, wrote the following: I discussed this issue with Ms. Johnson. She provided me with F.S. 216(16)(b) [sic][ 59] which prohibits advanced payments. She also provided me with rule 69I-40.120 [sic] which addresses advanced
58

59

CIG reviewers determined that a copy of this email was contained in the DJJ OIG case file. The reference should have been Section 216.181(16)(b), F.S.

55

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

payments and states that they must be made in accordance with Section 216.181(16), F.S. [sic] Section 215.422(14), F.S. [sic] or as otherwise provided by law. Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she recalled discussing with Ms. Eubanks in May 2012 the issue that the contracts with GAP were not well written. When asked if she talked with the DJJ OIG staff during their investigation, Ms. Johnson stated that she could have had a conversation with them before May 2012, but that she did not recall. When asked about the startup costs for GAP, Ms. Johnson stated that she was not sure how the message got lost but it was not the appropriate direction to allow for startup costs before the contracts were signed. She said it was her understanding that GAP could only get reimbursed for items after the contract was signed. She said that she would agree that GAP was provided mixed messages from DJJ. She said that the contracts stated that Chapter 112, F.S., [regarding travel] did not apply and she thought that was very confusing language to include in the contracts with GAP. Ms. Johnson stated that if the contract language was not clear, the CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) was not referenced or the Florida Single Audit Act requirements were not clear, she thought that statute would pre-empt contract ambiguity, but stated that she was not an attorney. She explained that she thought statute or rule would supersede the language in two-party contracts. Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that he did not recall dealing with the DJJ OIG prior to their report being issued on June 23, 2011, but once he received the report he thought the findings seemed fairly serious and the expenditures did not seem appropriate. He stated that he did not read the contracts at that time, but relied on the conclusions in the DJJ OIG report. He said that DFS OFI “backed them up.” He stated that he recalled that the bulk of the money that was questioned was paid prior to the contract date. He said that lots of times DJJ would settle an issue like this with the provider. He stated that he received a copy of the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum in June 2011. He said that both reports suggested that the DJJ take action. He said that they were attempting to do that, but had not taken any action yet. He said that normally the findings would be distributed to the appropriate division for handling. He said that in this case the findings would be distributed to Ms. Strange since they pertained to a detention contract. He also said that normally a copy of the report would go to the provider and DJJ management would enter into discussions with the provider about what money was due back, if any. Mr. Berkowitz said that after he reviewed the DJJ OIG report, he saw that Secretary Walters’ name was mentioned. He said that he had a conversation with Secretary Walters and that Secretary Walters knew both Ms. Lopez Lukis and Judge Lederman. He said that he saw a potential for a conflict of interest so after discussions, he prepared a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Woody from Secretary Walters delegating responsibility and action to him. He said this took place in September 2011.

56

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Mr. Berkowitz said that the DJJ had not acted prior to the time Ms. Lopez Lukis made the complaint to the CIG, but they had discussed it internally. He said that the DJJ is now on hold pending the CIG review of the DJJ OIG investigation. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 215.422(14), F.S., states “The Chief Financial Officer may adopt rules to authorize advance payments for goods and services, including, but not limited to, maintenance agreements and subscriptions. Such rules shall provide objective criteria for determining when it is in the best interest of the state to make payments in advance and shall also provide for adequate protection to ensure that such goods or services will be provided.” Section 216.181(16), F.S., provides that: (a) Funds provided in any specific appropriation in the General Appropriations Act may be advanced if the General Appropriations Act specifically so provides. (b) Any agency…that has been authorized by the General Appropriations Act or expressly authorized by other law to make advances for program startup or advances for contracted services, in total or periodically, shall limit such disbursements to other governmental entities and not-for-profit corporations. The amount that may be advanced shall not exceed the expected cash needs of the contractor or recipient within the initial 3 months… Rule 69I-40.120, F.A.C., provides that: (1) Advance payment may be made in accordance with Section 216.181(16), Florida Statutes, Section 215.422(14), Florida Statutes, or as otherwise provided by law. (2) Agencies wishing to make advance payment under the provisions of Section 216.181(16)(b), Florida Statutes, but in a manner other than that required by that section must request a waiver of the section from the Chief Financial Officer. The request for waiver must include the appropriation line item number, justification for advancing funds in a manner other than as required by Section 216.181(16)(b), Florida Statutes, and show why such advance payment is in the best interest of the State. DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that “Advance payment may be made for maintenance agreements, software license agreements, and subscriptions” that meet certain criteria. Additionally, “Advance payment may be made for other goods

57

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

and services if approved in advance by the Bureau of Auditing.” Further, regarding advances for program startup or advances for contracted services to governmental entities and not-for-profit organizations, “The amount that may be advanced shall not exceed the expected cash needs of the contractor or recipient within the initial three months [emphasis added]. Thereafter, disbursements shall only be on a reimbursement basis. Advance payments may be made for cost-reimbursement and fixed-price contracts.” State Projects Compliance Supplement (2006-2007) for State Project Number 80.022, Diversion Services, Allowable Costs, states “All costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures.” Documentary Evidence An email from Ms. Lopez Lukis to DJJ officials dated August 27, 2006, entitled “GAP Budgets” notified DJJ that GAP had incurred costs for contractual services for Ms. Lopez Lukis, Ms. Ecklund, 60 … and travel expenses. The email stated, “As soon as DJJ funds are distributed to GAP, I will retroactively pay those services rendered and reimburse travel expenses. In addition, we will be able to contract for the GAP Facilitators in each location and the remaining contractual positions.” A DJJ memorandum dated September 29, 2006, showed that DJJ requested advanced payment in the amount of $377,168.00. This memorandum contained a handwritten reference to the appropriation line item number as specified in guidelines. DFS Advance Payment Approval is dated October 10, 2006. DJJ Contract X1410 specified that “This Contract shall begin on October 16, 2006, or upon execution by both parties (whichever is later) and end at midnight on June 30, 2007, inclusive. The Provider shall not be eligible for services rendered [emphasis added] prior to the execution date of this Contract.” This contract was signed October 25, 2006. Further, this contract also stated, “The Department will pay the Provider an advance payment of $377,168.00 upon execution of the contract and $26,522.13 for the month of January 2007, $53,044.27 for the month of February 2007 and $79,766.40 per month for the months of March 2007 through June 2007, upon receipt of a properly itemized invoice.” CIG Conclusion The DJJ OIG report cited that Ms. Lopez Lukis and GAP employees failed to follow the expenditure guidelines as set forth in the GAP contracts. Further, that records showed that GAP “retroactively reimbursed itself” for travel, personnel, and overhead costs incurred prior to the execution of the contract and was not able to find a settlement agreement with DJJ which would allow GAP to retroactively reimburse itself. The DJJ OIG referred this matter to DFS OFI for possible criminal investigation. CIG reviewers
The other person named in the email, Ms. Woolley-Larrea, was not listed as a subject in the DJJ OIG report.
60

58

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

confirmed that DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees. When reviewing the evidence obtained by the DJJ OIG, CIG reviewers confirmed that the expenses cited in the DJJ OIG report contained errors. 61 CIG reviewers confirmed that DJJ Contract X1410 was signed by both parties in October 2006 62 that stated the “Provider shall not be eligible for reimbursement of services rendered [emphasis added] prior to the execution date of this contract.” This contract did not specifically address startup funds yet it did specifically state that the DJJ will pay the Provider an advance payment of $377,168.00 upon execution of the contract which occurred October 25, 2006. Review of other evidence obtained by the DJJ OIG showed that DFS approved an advance for the contract that was submitted by DJJ in October 2006 and that GAP notified DJJ that “As soon as DJJ funds are distributed to GAP, I [Ms. Lopez Lukis] will retroactively pay those services rendered and reimburse travel expenses.” Ms. Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that GAP was given mixed messages about whether these expenditures were allowable under the contract or state law. Further, Ms. Strange stated the email must have given Ms. Lopez Lukis the impression these expenses were allowable. While governing directives state that advances may or may not be allowable or were restricted to certain circumstances, the DJJ OIG failed to conduct interviews or additional investigative activity regarding this Issue. Specifically, the DJJ OIG failed to sufficiently address the contradictory language contained in emails, contracts and statutes concerning these expenditures and the DJJ OIG did not fully address whether GAP was reimbursed for services rendered [emphasis added] or was paid for “startup costs.” Ms. Michaels advised that she thought DJJ was the subject of the issue and not GAP. Additionally, as previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr.
61

CIG reviewers totaled the expenses listed in the report exhibits for this issue. The expenses totaled $70,821.89 and not the “approximately $73,319.00” as listed in the DJJ OIG report. The discrepancy results in an unexplainable difference of $2,497.11. 62 The General Appropriations Act shows that GAP was granted the appropriation as of July 1, 2006.

59

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the DJJ OIG report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 8 and failed to address DJJ’s responsibility when executing contracts that contained provisions that conflict with Florida Statutes.

ISSUE 9 DJJ OIG Report 63 Dated June 23, 2011 stated: Issue: Violation of Florida Single Audit Act (FSAA) SUBSTANTIATED During this investigation it was found that GAP failed to submit an audit in compliance with Section 215.97, F.S., Florida Single Audit Act (FSAA) for fiscal year 2007. The alleged conduct is classified as an Other/Violation of Florida Statute and Other/Contract Violation, and is covered by Section 215.97, F.S., as well as contract X1410. Additionally it was found that DJJ Detention staff failed to ensure that GAP submitted the audit as required for fiscal year 2007. DJJ Contract Manager Kay Bozeman gave a written statement that in July 2007, she spoke to Ecklund about the FSAA guidelines and they discussed if the FSAA was required. Ecklund stated that she would speak to the company’s accountant and get back with Bozeman. On October 9, 2007, Bozeman was contacted by CPA Sherry Reed [Lancaster & Co.] who questioned the necessity of the FSAA. Bozeman ‘assumed’ that the audit was being conducted, however, on June 11, 2008; Reed contacted Bozeman and stated that she was not doing the audit. On July 3, 2008, Lopez-Lukis [sic] contacted Bozeman and stated that they had found another auditor to conduct the audit. Bozeman stated she has been the GAP Expansion Contract Monitor and Contract Manager since 2007. Bozeman explained that as the contract monitor and manager it was her responsibility to act as liaison for the program to other
63

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text.

60

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

areas within the Department and to ensure the program’s compliance with DJJ policy as well as contractual guidelines Bozman [sic] stated that she initially spoke to GAP employee Jill Ecklund in July 2007 about the program completing the Florida Single Audit (FSA). Bozeman stated that Ecklund questioned whether or not they were required to complete the audit. Bozeman said that in October 2007, Reed contacted Bozeman about GAP and the FSA. Bozeman stated that she told Reed that the audit needed to be completed and if they did not do so a statement from the program needed to be issued. Bozeman admitted that she forgot about the FSA until she was contacted in June 2008 by Reed. Reed informed Bozeman that she was not doing the audit. Bozeman stated that she contacted Lopez-Lukis [sic] who stated that she was not aware that Reed was not completing the audit. Bozeman stated that in July 2008, she was contacted by Lopez-Lukis [sic] who stated that they hired another accountant and that the audit would be done. DJJ Assistant Secretary Julia Strange stated that the Contract Monitor is responsible for ensuring that the program complies with the contract. Strange further stated that the Contract Monitor is also responsible for ensuring that all monies spent by the provider are in accordance with the contract and are used for goods and services related to the contract and the Contract Monitoring policy is currently in draft form. Strange stated that Bozeman attended a Contract Monitoring training given by Terri Buckley a couple of years ago. The GAP contract X1410 exceeds the $500,000.00 threshold set by Florida Statute 215.97, requiring the program to submit to a FSAA audit on a yearly basis. A review of the records showed that the program did not complete the required audit for fiscal year 2007, and the lapse was not corrected by Bozeman. Records showed that GAP submitted a FSAA audit for fiscal year 2008.

Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that she did not agree with DJJ OIG’s “Substantiated” finding concerning the allegation that GAP failed to submit an audit in compliance with Section 215.97, F.S., Florida Single Audit Act, for Fiscal Year 2007. Ms. Lopez Lukis said that while she agrees that the referenced audit was not submitted timely, the DJJ OIG “implied by their finding” that GAP ignored the audit filing requirements. Ms. Lopez Lukis added that the DJJ OIG had a copy of the 2007 audit, but either ignored it or did not review it. Interviews and Written Statements Kay Bozeman, Management Review Specialist, DJJ, stated that GAP was supposed to hire an independent Certified Public Accountant to do their audit in accordance with the guidelines. She said that GAP initially questioned if the audit needed to be done. She said she had discussions with Ms. Lopez Lukis and the independent auditors that

61

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

were planning on conducting the audit. She agreed that the audit for Fiscal Year 2007 was submitted, but was not submitted timely. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, said this was an issue identified by the OIG and not alleged by Judge Lederman. When asked why this was a substantiated issue, Ms. Michael stated that GAP did not meet the time requirement as required by Statute and the DJJ OIG substantiated that Ms. Bozeman did not ensure it was completed. Additionally, Ms. Michael stated that there are no partial violations or degrees of violation. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said that he agreed that the DJJ OIG report was worded in such a way that indicated that GAP failed to do the required audit. However, he acknowledged that the audit was attached to the report. Mr. Greenfield said that had Ms. Lopez Lukis been interviewed along with all the others, this could have been clarified. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, said in a written statement submitted on May 31, 2012, in pertinent part that “The referenced audit was not submitted timely. [sic] 215.97 F.S.” Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she had problems with the contract language in the DJJ contracts with GAP. She said that the contract did not contain any special exceptions language, it was not well written, and it did not point to the rules or statutes in certain areas. She said it did not state certain prohibitions. She said the contracts did not have adequate citations to the Florida Single Audit Act and the contract language did not explain the consequences for not doing the audit. She said that DJJ went through all of the DJJ contracts, in general, and DJJ identified lots of opportunities for improving contract language. Ms. Johnson stated that if the contract language was not clear, the CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) was not referenced or the Florida Single Audit Act requirements were not clear, she thought that statute would pre-empt contract ambiguity, but stated that she was not an attorney. She explained that she thought statute or rule would supersede the language in two-party contracts. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 215.97(8)(g), F.S., provides that “upon completion of the audit required by this section, a copy of the recipient’s financial reporting package shall be filed with the state awarding agency and the Auditor General.” Section 10.657(2), Rules of the Auditor General, states The financial reporting package required to be submitted pursuant to Section 215.97(8)(g), Florida Statutes, shall be submitted to the Auditor

62

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

General and the State awarding agencies within 45 days after delivery of the financial reporting package to the auditee, but no later than 9 months after the end of the fiscal year of the auditee. The date that the financial reporting package was delivered to the auditee shall be indicated by the organization in correspondence accompanying the financial reporting package submitted to the Auditor General. Auditor General Florida Single Audit Act Nonprofit and For-Profit Entities Financial Reporting Package Submittal Checklist for Section 215.97, F.S., states “There are no provisions in the statutes for any extension for filing the financial reporting package.” Documentary Evidence The financial reporting package that included the audits for both years was provided to the DJJ OIG during their investigation and was an exhibit to the DJJ OIG report. Additionally, CIG reviewers received an email dated July 16, 2012, from DJJ OIG staff that stated the DJJ OIG received GAP’s single audit including the schedule of expenditures of state financial assistance for the Fiscal Years ended 2007 and 2008 on January 26, 2009. An email dated July 10, 2012, from Christina Smith, Director of Accounting and Auditing, DFS, stated: GAP was appropriately designated as a recipient of State Financial Assistance and therefore had to comply with the Florida Single Audit Act as referenced in the contract. The Florida Single Audit Act identifies the auditing and accountability requirements that must be followed by State Agencies and the recipients of State Financial Assistance. GAP was required to comply with the State Projects Compliance Supplement for State Project Number 80.022. The State Projects Compliance Supplement for both Fiscal Years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 states that all costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures. The allowable cost requirements apply to GAP regardless of the contract being awarded as a fixed price contract. CIG Conclusion Review of the DJJ Contract with GAP showed that GAP was required to submit the Florida Single Audit pursuant to Section 215.97, F.S., and Section 10.657, Rules of the Auditor General. Review of those governing directives showed that GAP was required to submit the required audit in 2007 within nine months of the end of the provider’s fiscal year. CIG reviewers determined that the governing directives do not offer a provision for an extension for filing the required audit.

63

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

CIG reviewers confirmed that DJJ OIG received GAP’s financial reporting package that included the schedule of expenditures of state financial assistance for the Fiscal Years ended 2007 and 2008 on January 26, 2009. The financial reporting package was included as an exhibit to the DJJ OIG report. CIG reviewers agree with the DJJ OIG finding that substantiated GAP did not act in accordance with governing directives only in that the audit was not submitted timely. However, the CIG reviewers determined that the statement contained in the DJJ OIG report that GAP “did not complete the required audit for fiscal year 2007” is not accurate in that it stated an audit was not done at all. Based upon the above, CIG reviewers determined that DJJ OIG appears to have sufficiently investigated the matters related to Issue 9, but inaccurately characterized the extent of the violation by presenting the information as if GAP had not submitted the required audit for Fiscal Year 2007.

ISSUE 10 DJJ OIG Report 64 Dated June 23, 2011, stated: Issue: Reimbursement for personal cell phone use. REFERRED During this investigation it was found that GAP reimbursed staff for personal cell phone use and/or paid an allowance to staff for their personal cell phones. The alleged conduct is classified as Violation of Policy/Rule, and Other/Violation of Florida Statute, may be covered by Attorney General Opinion AGO 78-101; DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures, Cellular Telephones-Personal; and Section 812.014, F.S., Theft. GAP Expense Reports, Invoices and Bank records show that GAP employees were reimbursed $6,160.00 [sic] for cell phone allowances and $773.33 was reimbursed to Ecklund not as an allowance but for personal cell phone expenses incurred prior to the signing of the GAP Expansion contract. Lopez-Lukis [sic] was reimbursed $4,200.00 for personal cell telephone expenses at an allowance rate of $350.00 per month; and other GAP employees were given a $50.00 per month allowance for cell phone expenses. $1,325.00 [sic] of the $4,200.00 cell phone allowances paid was for months prior to the GAP contract X1410 being signed. On June 6, 2008, GAP provided cell telephones to employees and the phones and the service were paid with GAP contract X1410 funds/state funds. It was noted that in August 2008, Lopez-Lukis [sic] incurred roaming charges while in Europe. OIG staff could not find any documentation that the roaming charges
64

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text.

64

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

are related to GAP business. Further examination of Lopez-Lukis [sic] and other employees’ cell telephone usage is warranted to determine if calls made and received were work related. DFS guidelines prohibit the reimbursement for personal cell phone calls to include monthly service fees. Reimbursement to employees for ‘occasional’ use of personal cellular telephones to ‘conduct official’ business will be made only when substantiated by documentation showing that the call was a necessity. No reimbursement is allowed if the official business call did not result in additional charges for the use of the employee’s personal cellular phone. Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis disagrees with the DJJ OIG finding “reimbursement for personal cell phone use.” Ms. Lopez Lukis said GAP never executed a contract that incorporated by reference or any other language related to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06), DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures. Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that GAP complied with the terms of the contract and should not be held liable for DJJ’s contract and monitoring errors. Ms. Lopez Lukis further contends that paying for personal cell phone use and/or an allowance to staff for their personal cell phones was not disallowable under the terms of the contract. Interviews and Written Statements Brenda Aldana, Administrative Assistant, GAP, stated that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG and was never told that she was a subject of the investigation. She stated that neither she nor others at GAP were given a chance or opportunity to respond to the allegations and she was not given a chance to provide documentation to the DJJ OIG as she was for DFS OFI. She said she thought it would have been standard procedure of the DJJ OIG to give subjects of an investigation an opportunity to respond. Jill Ecklund, former President, GAP, said that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG in this investigation. Ms. Ecklund said that she never received the DJJ OIG report where she had been named as a subject. She said she knew that Ms. Lopez Lukis had responded to the report after learning the report had been issued. She said that she thought the DJJ OIG would have talked with her and GAP about any concerns the DJJ OIG may have had. She said that GAP was accused of misspending funds but it was not true. Ms. Ecklund said that there was a lot in the DJJ OIG report that was not true. She said that she was not saying that they were lying, just that they did not go far enough in their research of the facts or all that they needed to do. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, said this was an issue identified by the OIG and not alleged by Judge Lederman. She said that she relied on DFS guidance and an Attorney General’s Opinion regarding which expenses for GAP were

65

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

not allowable. Additionally, Ms. Michael noted that there were expenses for cell phone services (for Ms. Ecklund and Ms. Lopez Lukis) including entire cell phone bills paid (for Ms. Ecklund) prior to contract execution. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, acknowledged the investigator referenced the Attorney General Opinion and the DFS expenditure guidelines regarding allowable expenses. He also said that the DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures and did not make any conclusion which is why DJJ OIG report stated that this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. Mr. Greenfield said that had Ms. Lopez Lukis been interviewed along with all the others, this could have been clarified. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, when asked if you can say in fact these expenses were not allowable without an interview, she replied, “I guess not.” Ms. Eubanks stated that Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, called her prior to issuing the DFS OFI Memorandum in May 2011. She said that he told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them, and because there was no intent to defraud, DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Ms. Eubanks said that she discussed the report with DFS OFI, but did not meet with them to review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Ms. Eubanks said that they realized that the money calculations were different between the DFS OFI Memorandum and the DJJ OIG report. She said that they reviewed their documents and that DFS OFI had gotten additional documents to lessen the amounts questioned in their report by “$10,000.” She said that she asked for the documents the DFS OFI received. Ms. Eubanks said that she went to Mr. Berkowitz, in June 2011, and discussed that the DFS OFI Memorandum was less than the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Eubanks provided a written statement on May 31, 2012, that stated the following “In my inquiry with Ms. Johnson on [sic] May 2012, she stated to me that contracts X1409 and X1410 did not incorporate Memorandum No. 4 (2005-2006) [sic] DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures into the contract language and it should have been.” Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she recalled discussing with Ms. Eubanks in May 2012 the issue that the contracts with GAP were not well written. When asked if she talked with the DJJ OIG staff during their investigation, Ms. Johnson stated that she could have had a conversation with them before May 2012, but that she did not recall. Ms. Johnson stated that if the contract language was not clear, the CFO memorandum was not referenced or the Florida Single Audit Act requirements were not clear, she thought that statute would pre-empt contract ambiguity, but stated that she was not an attorney. She explained that she thought statute or rule would supersede the language in two-party contracts. She said that GAP was given mixed messages about whether expenditures were allowable under the contract or state law.

66

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that he did not recall dealing with the DJJ OIG prior to their report being issued on June 23, 2011, but once he received the report he thought the findings seemed fairly serious and the expenditures did not seem appropriate. He stated that he did not read the contracts at that time, but relied on the conclusions in the DJJ OIG report. He said that DFS OFI “backed them up.” He stated that he recalled that the bulk of the money that was questioned was paid prior to the contract date. He said that lots of times DJJ would settle an issue like this with the provider. He stated that he received a copy of the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum in June 2011. He said that both reports suggested that the DJJ take action. He said that they were attempting to do that, but had not taken any action yet. He said that normally the findings would be distributed to the appropriate division for handling. He said that in this case the findings would be distributed to Ms. Strange since they pertained to a detention contract. He also said that normally a copy of the report would go to the provider and DJJ management would enter into discussions with the provider about what money was due back, if any. Mr. Berkowitz said that after he reviewed the DJJ OIG report, he saw that Secretary Walters’ name was mentioned. He said that he had a conversation with Secretary Walters and that Secretary Walters knew both Ms. Lopez Lukis and Judge Lederman. He said that he saw a potential for a conflict of interest so after discussions, he prepared a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Woody from Secretary Walters delegating responsibility and action to him. He said this took place in September 2011. Mr. Berkowitz said that the DJJ had not acted prior to the time Ms. Lopez Lukis made the complaint to the CIG, but they had discussed it internally. He said that the DJJ is now on hold pending the CIG review of the DJJ OIG investigation. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 215.422(14), F.S., provides that the “Chief Financial Officer may adopt rules to authorize advance payments for goods and services, including, but not limited to, maintenance agreements and subscriptions. Such rules shall provide objective criteria for determining when it is in the best interest of the state to make payments in advance and shall also provide for adequate protection to ensure that such goods or services will be provided.” Section 216.181(16), F.S., states (a) Funds provided in any specific appropriation in the General Appropriations Act may be advanced if the General Appropriations Act specifically so provides. (b) Any agency,…that has been authorized by the General Appropriations Act or expressly authorized by other law to make advances for program startup or advances for contracted services, in total or periodically, shall limit such disbursements to other governmental entities and not-for-profit

67

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

corporations. The amount that may be advanced shall not exceed the expected cash needs of the contractor or recipient within the initial 3 months… Rule 69I-40.120, F.A.C., states (1) Advance payment may be made in accordance with Section 216.181(16), Florida Statutes, Section 215.422(14), Florida Statutes, or as otherwise provided by law. (2) Agencies wishing to make advance payment under the provisions of Section 216.181(16)(b), Florida Statutes, but in a manner other than that required by that section must request a waiver of the section from the Chief Financial Officer. The request for waiver must include the appropriation line item number, justification for advancing funds in a manner other than as required by Section 216.181(16)(b), Florida Statutes, and show why such advance payment is in the best interest of the State. DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that “Advance payment may be made for maintenance agreements, software license agreements, and subscriptions” that meet certain criteria. Additionally, “Advance payment may be made for other goods and services if approved in advance by the Bureau of Auditing.” Further, regarding advances for program startup or advances for contracted services to governmental entities and not-for-profit organizations, “The amount that may be advanced shall not exceed the expected cash needs of the contractor or recipient within the initial three months [emphasis added.] Thereafter, disbursements shall only be on a reimbursement basis. Advance payments may be made for cost-reimbursement and fixed-price contracts.” DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures, Cellular Telephone-Personal states Reimbursement to employees for occasional use of personal cellular telephones to conduct official state business will be made only when substantiated by documentation showing that the call was necessarily made for the official state business of the agency. If the business call made on the employee’s personal cellular telephone does not result in additional charges to the employee, reimbursement for the business call is disallowed. However, if the state business call results in additional charges, the employee may be reimbursed up to the per-minute rate charged, plus applicable taxes, for the excess minutes incurred as a result of usage for official state business. Employees will be required to provide a statement certifying that the calls were necessary and were for official state business. No payment will be made for any portion of the employee’s personal monthly charges, taxes on the basic monthly fee, or charges related to obtaining documentation listing individual telephone calls.

68

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

If it is necessary for an employee to consistently use his or her personal telephone to conduct the duties and responsibilities of a state agency, then the agency should consider providing use of a state cellular telephone. State Projects Compliance Supplement (2006-2007) for State Project Number 80.022, Diversion Services, Allowable Costs, states “All costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures.” Attorney General Opinion (AGO) 78-101 states in pertinent part: if the authorization must be necessarily implied, the person issuing the voucher for payment ‘is obligated to cast such vouchers in such language as will indicate to the postauditor or the public the legality of such payments.’ Thus, if the authority is implied rather than express, the official must not only point to the statute expressly authorizing or requiring the performance of a particular duty or function but also point out why the expenditure in question is necessary in order to carry out the express duty or function. Documentary Evidence An email from Ms. Lopez Lukis to DJJ officials dated August 27, 2006, entitled “GAP Budgets” notified DJJ that GAP had incurred costs for contractual services for Ms. Lopez Lukis, Ms. Ecklund, 65 … and travel expenses. The email stated, “As soon as DJJ funds are distributed to GAP, I will retroactively pay those services rendered and reimburse travel expenses. In addition, we will be able to contract for the GAP Facilitators in each location and the remaining contractual positions.” A DJJ memorandum dated September 29, 2006, showed that prior to contract execution on October 25, 2006, DJJ requested advance payment for GAP in the amount of $377,168.00 to expand the program. This memorandum contained a handwritten reference to the appropriation line item number as specified in DFS guidelines. The DFS Advance Payment Approval is dated October 10, 2006. DJJ Contract X1409 was written to be effective July 1, 2006, but was not signed by both parties until October 16, 2006. DJJ Contract X1410 was written to be effective October 16 (or the date the contract was signed whichever is later), but was not signed by both parties until October 25, 2006. DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 included references to required compliance with the Florida Single Audit Act.

The other person named in the email, Ms. Woolley-Larrea, was not listed as a subject in the DJJ OIG report.

65

69

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

DJJ included a reference to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) in the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Florida Single Audit Compliance Supplement for the State Project Number 80.022 - Diversion Services Program. An email dated July 10, 2012, from Christina Smith, Director of Accounting and Auditing, DFS, stated: GAP was appropriately designated as a recipient of State Financial Assistance and therefore had to comply with the Florida Single Audit Act as referenced in the contract. The Florida Single Audit Act identifies the auditing and accountability requirements that must be followed by State Agencies and the recipients of State Financial Assistance. GAP was required to comply with the State Projects Compliance Supplement for State Project Number 80.022. The State Projects Compliance Supplement for both Fiscal Years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 states that all costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures. The allowable cost requirements apply to GAP regardless of the contract being awarded as a fixed price contract. [emphasis added] CIG Conclusion The DJJ OIG report cited that GAP reimbursed staff for personal cell phone use and/or paid an allowance to staff for their personal cell phones that violated expenditure guidelines and that some of these expenses were incurred prior to the execution of the contract without a settlement agreement with DJJ. However, the DJJ OIG report also stated that “Further examination of Lopez-Lukis [sic] and other employees’ cell telephone [sic] usage is warranted to determine if calls made and received were work related.” The DJJ OIG referred this matter to DFS OFI for possible criminal investigation. CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees. When reviewing the evidence obtained by the DJJ OIG, CIG reviewers determined that the expenses cited in the DJJ OIG report contained errors 66 in calculating the cell phone expenditures. Review of the contracts with GAP showed that DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 were signed by both parties in October 2006 which was after the contract begin date on July 1, 2006. Review of other evidence obtained by the DJJ OIG showed that DFS approved a requested advance for DJJ Contract X1410 and that GAP notified DJJ that “As soon as DJJ funds are distributed to GAP, I [Ms. Lopez Lukis] will retroactively pay those services rendered and reimburse travel expenses.”
CIG reviewers added the cell phone expenses and monthly cell phone allowances included in the exhibits to the DJJ OIG report. The expenses totaled $10,232.27 and not $6,160.00 that appeared in the DJJ OIG report. The discrepancy resulted in an unexplainable difference of $4,072.27.
66

70

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Based on a review of the governing directives regarding cell phones, CIG reviewers confirmed that these expenses may be allowable if certain documentation and justification were present. However, it appeared that some of these expenses preceded execution of the contract which could affect their allowability. Additionally, evidence showed that GAP informed DJJ of their intention to “retroactively pay those services rendered and reimburse travel expenses.” As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. While expenditure guidelines indicate that these expenses may have been allowable and some expenses preceded execution of the contract, the DJJ OIG failed to conduct interviews or additional investigative activity to determine the purpose for these expenditures, the source of funds used to cover these expenditures, whether the expenses were GAP related, and the governing directives GAP applied to believe the expenses were allowable under the contract. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 10.

71

August 24, 2012 ISSUE 11 DJJ OIG Report 67 Dated June 23, 2011, stated:

CIG Report # 201111160005

Issue: Paid membership dues with state funds. REFERRED During this investigation it was found that GAP paid for membership dues with state funds. The alleged conduct is classified as Other/Violation of Florida Statute, and may be covered by Section 216.345(1) [sic] (F.S.), Professional, or other organization membership dues, payment; and Section 812.014, F.S., Theft. OIG staff found four GAP Expansion checks totaling $2,922.00 [sic] with the notation that payment was being made to the FJJA (Florida Juvenile Justice Association) for dues. GAP Expansion is funded by DJJ and receives state funds. As GAP is not mandated by statute [sic] expenses of this type are disallowed. Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis disagrees with the DJJ OIG finding “paid membership dues with state funds” and that it was a violation of Florida Statute. Ms. Lopez Lukis advised that the Florida Juvenile Justice Association 68 (FJJA) provides training, relevant information, and assistance to members regarding DJJ and the youth it serves, and that membership dues were clearly relevant to the mission and operations of GAP. Interviews and Written Statements Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, said this was an issue identified by the OIG and not alleged by Judge Lederman. She said that she relied on DFS guidelines and statutes to determine if membership dues for FJJA were allowable expenses. She said based on the guidelines and statutes, membership dues for FJJA would not have been an allowable expense. Ms. Michael said she did not see where a youth program had memberships that were required by statute. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, when informed that membership dues are allowed by statute and that the dollar amounts in the DJJ OIG report were inaccurate, he stated, “ok.” He also said that the DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures and did not make any conclusion which is why the DJJ OIG report stated that this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. Mr. Greenfield
DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text. FJJA is a statewide organization that strongly supports a common sense approach to juvenile justice that treats young people fairly, holds them accountable for their actions and keeps our neighborhoods, schools and communities safe. The Association brings together juvenile justice system professionals and agencies and private and non-profit corporations committed to improving Florida’s juvenile justice system for children and families.
68 67

72

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

said that had Ms. Lopez Lukis been interviewed along with all the others, this could have been clarified. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, stated that Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, called her prior to issuing the DFS OFI Memorandum in May 2011. She said that he told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them, and because there was no intent to defraud, DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Ms. Eubanks said that she discussed the report with DFS OFI, but did not meet with them to review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Ms. Eubanks said that they realized that the money calculations were different between the DFS OFI Memorandum and the DJJ OIG report. She said that they reviewed their documents and that DFS OFI had gotten additional documents to lessen the amounts questioned in their report by “$10,000.” She said that she asked for the documents the DFS OFI received. Ms. Eubanks said that she went to Mr. Berkowitz, in June 2011, and discussed that DFS OFI Memorandum was less than the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Eubanks, in a written statement dated May 31, 2012, wrote in pertinent part that “While Ms. Lopez Lukis may agree that paying membership dues are clearly ‘relevant’ – relevance does not make this compliant with F.S. Ms. Johnson stated to me that unless training is required by F.S. membership dues are not allowed to be paid.” Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she recalled discussing with Ms. Eubanks in May 2012 the issue that the contracts with GAP were not well written. When asked if she talked with the DJJ OIG staff during their investigation, Ms. Johnson stated that she could have had a conversation with them before May 2012, but that she did not recall. When asked if it was appropriate to pay dues with state funds in these contracts, Ms. Johnson said that she would have to review the State Expenditure Guide. Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that he did not recall dealing with the DJJ OIG prior to their report being issued on June 23, 2011, but once he received the report he thought the findings seemed fairly serious and the expenditures did not seem appropriate. He stated that he did not read the contracts at that time, but relied on the conclusions in the DJJ OIG report. He said that DFS OFI “backed them up.” He stated that he recalled that the bulk of the money that was questioned was paid prior to the contract date. He said that lots of times DJJ would settle an issue like this with the provider. He stated that he received a copy of the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum in June 2011. He said that both reports suggested that the DJJ take action. He said that they were attempting to do that, but had not taken any action yet. He said that normally the findings would be distributed to the appropriate division for handling. He said that in this case the findings would be distributed to Ms. Strange since they pertained to a detention contract. He also said that normally a copy of the

73

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

report would go to the provider and DJJ management would enter into discussions with the provider about what money was due back, if any. Mr. Berkowitz said that after he reviewed the DJJ OIG report, he saw that Secretary Walters’ name was mentioned. He said that he had a conversation with Secretary Walters and that Secretary Walters knew both Ms. Lopez Lukis and Judge Lederman. He said that he saw a potential for a conflict of interest so after discussions, he prepared a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Woody from Secretary Walters delegating responsibility and action to him. He said this took place in September 2011. Mr. Berkowitz said that the DJJ had not acted prior to the time Ms. Lopez Lukis made the complaint to the CIG, but they had discussed it internally. He said that the DJJ is now on hold pending the CIG review of the DJJ OIG investigation. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 216.345(1), F.S., states “A state department, agency, bureau, commission, or other component of state government, or the judicial branch, upon approval by the head or the designated agent thereof, may utilize state funds for the purpose of paying dues for membership in a professional or other organization only when such membership is essential to the statutory duties and responsibilities of the state agency.” DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that pursuant to Section 216.345, F.S., public funds may be expended for the purpose of paying professional and/or organizational membership dues upon approval by the agency head or designee, provided that the membership is essential to the statutory duties and responsibilities of the state agency. State Projects Compliance Supplement (2006-2007) for State Project Number 80.022, Diversion Services, Allowable Costs, states “All costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures.” CIG Conclusion The DJJ OIG report cited four checks made payable to the Florida Juvenile Justice Association and stated, “it was found” that this was in violation of Florida Statutes because these expenditures were not specifically required by statute. The DJJ OIG referred this matter to DFS OFI for possible criminal investigation. CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI concluded their investigation and, in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated the DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees. When reviewing the evidence obtained by the DJJ OIG, CIG reviewers confirmed that the expenses cited in the DJJ OIG report contained errors 69 in calculating the membership dues.

The DJJ OIG report cited four checks in the exhibits as evidence of expenses incurred by GAP for membership dues totaling $2,922.00. CIG reviewers totaled the applicable expenses contained in the

69

74

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Governing directives provide that state funds may be expended for the purpose of paying professional and/or organizational dues approved by the agency head or designee, provided that the membership is essential to the statutory duties and responsibilities of the state agency and limits the payment of license fees to those specifically authorized by law. Additionally, while expenses for membership dues may or may not be allowable or were restricted under certain circumstances, the DJJ OIG failed to conduct interviews or additional investigative activity to determine the purpose for these expenditures, the source of funds used to pay these expenditures, whether the expenses were GAP related, and the governing directives GAP applied to believe these expenses were allowable under the contract. As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the DJJ OIG report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 11.

exhibits and came to a total of $2,776.00 which was different than what was contained in the DJJ OIG report. This is an unexplainable difference of $146.00.

75

August 24, 2012 ISSUE 12 DJJ OIG Report 70 Dated June 23, 2011, stated:

CIG Report # 201111160005

Issue: Purchase of prohibited items with state funds. REFERRED During this investigation it was found that GAP used state funds to purchase prohibited items such as flowers, gift cards, refreshments, and plaques. The alleged conduct is classified as a Violation of Policy/Rule and Other/Violation of Florida Statute, and may be covered by Rule 69I-40.103, FAC, DFS, Restriction of Expenditures; and Section 812.014, F.S., Theft. GAP expense reports, Invoices and Bank records show that $525.00 of GAP contract X1410 funds was used to purchase plaques for Senator [sic] Adam Hasner, SPAC President Melissa Fritsch, and the Junior League of Palm Beach. Records also showed that GAP Expansion funds were used to send flowers … GAP Records further showed that GAP Expansion funds were used to purchase doughnuts, $248.00 in gift cards, and other items for volunteers. Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis disagrees with the DJJ OIG finding “purchase of prohibited items with state funds.” Ms. Lopez Lukis said GAP never executed a contract that incorporated by reference or any other language related to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06), DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures. Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that GAP complied with the terms of the contract and should not be held liable for DJJ’s contract and monitoring errors. Interviews and Written Statements Brenda Aldana, Administrative Assistant, GAP, stated that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG and was never told that she was a subject of the investigation. She stated that neither she nor others at GAP were given a chance or opportunity to respond to the allegations and she was not given a chance to provide documentation to the DJJ OIG as she was for DFS OFI. She said she thought it would have been standard procedure of the DJJ OIG to give subjects of an investigation an opportunity to respond. Jill Ecklund, former President, GAP, said that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG in this investigation. Ms. Ecklund said that she never received the DJJ OIG report where she had been named as a subject. She said she knew that Ms. Lopez Lukis had responded to the report after learning the report had been issued. She said that she thought the DJJ OIG would have talked with her and GAP about any concerns the DJJ
70

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text.

76

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

OIG may have had. She said that GAP was accused of misspending funds but it was not true. She said that getting accused of something and not even knowing about it just was not fair. She said that the whole thing troubled her. Ms. Ecklund said that there was a lot in the DJJ OIG report that was not true. She said that she was not saying that they were lying, just that they did not go far enough in their research of the facts or all that they needed to do. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, said this was an issue identified by the OIG and not alleged by Judge Lederman. She said that this issue was based on guidance provided by DFS and the requirements that state employees are required to follow. Ms. Michael said that she did not make any judgment calls on the expenses except for the plaques and the possibility of lobbying. She stated that she only looked to see if it was a violation of something. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said that the DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures and did not make any conclusion which is why the DJJ OIG report stated that this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. Mr. Greenfield said that had Ms. Lopez Lukis been interviewed along with all the others, this could have been clarified. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, stated that Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, called her prior to issuing the DFS OFI Memorandum in May 2011. She said that he told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them, and because there was no intent to defraud, DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Ms. Eubanks said that she discussed the report with DFS OFI, but did not meet with them to review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Ms. Eubanks said that they realized that the money calculations were different between the two reports. She said that they reviewed their documents and that DFS OFI had gotten additional documents to lessen the amounts questioned in their report by “$10,000.” She said that she asked for the documents the DFS OFI received. Ms. Eubanks said that she went to Mr. Berkowitz, in June 2011, and discussed that DFS OFI Memorandum was less than the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Eubanks, in a written statement dated May 31, 2012, wrote in pertinent part that “In my inquiry with Ms. Johnson on [sic] May 2012, she stated to me that contracts X1409 and X1410 did not incorporate Memorandum No. 4 (2005-2006) [sic] DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures into the contract language and it should have been.” Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she recalled discussing with Ms. Eubanks in May 2012 the issue that the contracts with GAP were not well written. When asked if she talked with the DJJ OIG staff during their investigation, Ms. Johnson stated that she could have had a conversation with them before May 2012, but that she did not recall.

77

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Ms. Johnson stated that if the contract language was not clear, the CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) was not referenced or the Florida Single Audit Act requirements were not clear, she thought that statute would pre-empt contract ambiguity, but stated that she was not an attorney. She explained that she thought statute or rule would supersede the language in two-party contracts. Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that he did not recall dealing with the DJJ OIG prior to their report being issued on June 23, 2011, but once he received the report he thought the findings seemed fairly serious and the expenditures did not seem appropriate. He stated that he did not read the contracts at that time, but relied on the conclusions in the DJJ OIG report. He said that DFS OFI “backed them up.” He stated that he recalled that the bulk of the money that was questioned was paid prior to the contract date. He said that lots of times DJJ would settle an issue like this with the provider. He stated that he received a copy of the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum in June 2011. He said that both reports suggested that the DJJ take action. He said that they were attempting to do that, but had not taken any action yet. He said that normally the findings would be distributed to the appropriate division for handling. He said that in this case the findings would be distributed to Ms. Strange since they pertained to a detention contract. He also said that normally a copy of the report would go to the provider and DJJ management would enter into discussions with the provider about what money was due back, if any. Mr. Berkowitz said that after he reviewed the DJJ OIG report, he saw that Secretary Walters’ name was mentioned. He said that he had a conversation with Secretary Walters and that Secretary Walters knew both Ms. Lopez Lukis and Judge Lederman. He said that he saw a potential for a conflict of interest so after discussions, he prepared a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Woody from Secretary Walters delegating responsibility and action to him. He said this took place in September 2011. Mr. Berkowitz said that the DJJ had not acted prior to the time Ms. Lopez Lukis made the complaint to the CIG, but they had discussed it internally. He said that the DJJ is now on hold pending the CIG review of the DJJ OIG investigation. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 110.504, F.S., regarding volunteer benefits states (1) Meals may be furnished without charge to regular-service volunteers serving state departments, provided the scheduled assignment extends over an established meal period, and to occasional-service volunteers at the discretion of the department head. No department shall expend or authorize any expenditure in excess of the amount provided for by appropriation in any fiscal year….

78

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

(6) Incidental recognition benefits or incidental nonmonetary awards may be furnished to volunteers serving in state departments to award, recognize, or encourage volunteers for their service. The awards may not cost in excess of $100 each plus applicable taxes. Section 110.1245(4), F.S., regarding savings sharing program; bonus payments; other awards states “Each department head is authorized to incur expenditures to award suitable framed certificates, pins, or other tokens of recognition to state employees who demonstrate satisfactory service in the agency or to the state, in appreciation and recognition of such service. Such awards may not cost in excess of $100 each plus applicable taxes.” Section 11.062(1), F.S., states that “no funds, exclusive of salaries, travel expenses, and per diem, appropriated to, or otherwise available for use by, any executive, judicial, or quasi-judicial department shall be used by any state employee or other person for lobbying purposes …” Section 216.347, F.S., states that “a state agency…may not authorize or make any disbursement of grants and aids appropriations pursuant to a contract or grant to any person or organization unless the terms of the grant or contract prohibit the expenditure of funds for the purpose of lobbying the Legislature, the judicial branch, or a state agency …” Rule 69I-40.103, F.A.C., entitled Restriction of Expenditures states “Expenditures from state funds for items as listed below are prohibited unless ‘expressly provided by law.’ (See Attorney General opinion 71-28): (1) Congratulatory telegrams; (2) Flowers and/or telegraphic condolences; (3) Presentment of plaques for outstanding service; (4) Entertainment for visiting dignitaries...” DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures (as updated November 2006) provides parameters for expenses relating to Volunteer Recognition, Satisfactory Service Awards, and Prohibited Expenditures. DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures (as updated November 2006) specifically states “Section 11.062(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits the use of state funds by the executive or judicial branch to pay a person that is not an employee, for the purpose of lobbying the Florida Legislature. Funds for salaries, travel expenses, and per diem may be used for lobbying purposes of full time employees of an agency, but funds may not be used to retain, by contract, an outside lobbyist.” State Projects Compliance Supplement (2006-2007) for State Project Number 80.022, Diversion Services, Allowable Costs, states “All costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures.”

79

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 state “The Provider shall comply with the provisions of section 216.347, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the expenditure of contract funds for the purpose of lobbying the Legislature, judicial branch or a state agency.” Documentary Evidence DJJ included a reference to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) in the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Florida Single Audit Compliance Supplement for the State Project Number 80.022 - Diversion Services Program, but it was not included in the DJJ Contract X1409 or X1410 with GAP. An email dated July 10, 2012, from Christina Smith, Director of Accounting and Auditing, DFS, stated GAP was appropriately designated as a recipient of State Financial Assistance and therefore had to comply with the Florida Single Audit Act as referenced in the contract. The Florida Single Audit Act identifies the auditing and accountability requirements that must be followed by State Agencies and the recipients of State Financial Assistance. GAP was required to comply with the State Projects Compliance Supplement for State Project Number 80.022. The State Projects Compliance Supplement for both Fiscal Years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 states that all costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures. The allowable cost requirements apply to GAP regardless of the contract being awarded as a fixed price contract. [emphasis added] CIG Conclusion The DJJ OIG report cited that “GAP used state funds to purchase prohibited items such as flowers, gift cards, refreshments, and plaques.” The DJJ OIG referred this matter to DFS OFI for possible criminal investigation. CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees. Additionally, while expenses for flowers, gift cards, refreshments, and plaques may or may not be allowable or were restricted under certain circumstances, the DJJ OIG failed to conduct interviews or additional investigative activity to determine the purpose for these expenditures, the source of funds used to pay these expenditures, whether the expenses were GAP related, and the governing directives GAP applied to believe these expenses were allowable under the contract. As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting

80

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the DJJ OIG report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 12.

ISSUE 13 DJJ OIG Report 71 Dated June 23, 2011, stated: Issue: Violation of DJJ Background Screening Policy. SUBSTANTIATED During this investigation it was found that GAP failed to follow DJJ Background Screening Policy. The alleged conduct is classified as a Violation of Policy/Rule and is covered by FDJJ-1800 Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policies and Procedures; Background Screening Policy. GAP Records showed that Lopez-Lukis [sic] and Aldana were employed by GAP Inc., since July 2006; however, they did not request to be background screened until January 5, 2009, four days after OIG staff made initial contact due to this investigation with GAP Inc. OIG staff found 11 checks totaling $3,465.00 made payable to [former Youth’s Name] from GAP contract X1410 funds from February 15, 2008, to June 20, 2008; however, the OIG Background Screening Unit (BSU)[ 72] showed no record of [former Youth’s Name] background screening for employment. Seven of the checks were for ‘contract services’ and the remaining four did not give a reason.
71 72

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text. CIG reviewers confirmed that the BSU is, at the time of this report, housed inside the DJJ OIG.

81

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

In addition to the $3,465.00, records showed that [former Youth’s Name] was the recipient of meals and one trip to Tallahassee purchased by GAP with either the GAP American Express card or reimbursement via GAP contract X1410 funds. A review of GAP Employment records including Internal Revenue Service forms (W-2 and 1099) did not show [former Youth’s Name] was employed by GAP. On September 11, 2008, WINGS for Life a DJJ residential program submitted a Background Screening Request for [former Youth’s Name] and on September 18, 2008, she was determined eligible for employment by BSU. Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis said the DJJ OIG finding that she and Brenda Aldana did not request background screenings until four days after the DJJ OIG made contact with GAP regarding their investigation is not true. Ms. Lopez Lukis said that she and Ms. Aldana have been associated with GAP since 2002 and 2003, 73 and have both submitted background screening requests prior to January 5, 2009. Ms. Lopez Lukis contends that she and Ms. Aldana submitted multiple background screening packages (in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006) which DJJ lost. Ms. Lopez Lukis said her January 2009 background screening request was “well within the five-year timeframe” for background screenings since she completed a background screening in July 2004, which did not require re-screening until July 2009. Ms. Lopez Lukis said she questions “how the DJJ IG Background Screening Unit would not have copies or records reflecting the previously submitted background screening requests” for herself and Ms. Aldana. Ms. Lopez Lukis also questioned how the DJJ OIG was not aware of her and Ms. Aldana’s prior association with GAP and DJJ before their employment with GAP. Interviews and Written Statements Belkys Rice, former GAP employee, stated regarding GAP’s Background Screening process that either she or a co-worker received the background screening packets from DJJ and set up meetings with the groups of individuals that wanted to volunteer and needed to be screened with the program. She explained that once they received the packages from DJJ, they gave them to the volunteers for them to complete. Ms. Rice stated that the volunteers filled out the packet and returned the packet to her. Ms. Rice said that she gave the packets to Cheryl Pearlson [a former DJJ employee] and then they would be sent to DJJ Headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Rice stated then she waited to receive the results. She said that the volunteers could not volunteer until GAP received the completed background screenings from DJJ. Ms. Rice stated that she remembered one time when an entire group of volunteers’ packets were lost. When asked if she knew what happened to the files, she stated that she remembered being told that Tallahassee never received the packets. Ms. Rice advised that since then, GAP has kept a binder with copies of all the packets in them. Ms. Rice also advised that she gave this binder to Ms. Aldana.
GAP Inc. was not formally established until 2006 according to Florida Department of State records and Ms. Lopez Lukis was a Junior League volunteer for GAP prior to 2006.
73

82

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Brenda Aldana, Administrative Assistant, GAP, stated that before she became an employee of GAP she would come to the detention facility and speak with the girls. She said she was a volunteer through Ms. Lopez Lukis and the Junior League. She said that she gave the forms to Ms. Rice. She said that she was invited back a couple of times to speak and she was also asked to speak to the boys at the facility as well. She said she never saw her approved background screening, but assumed it was approved because she kept getting invited back to speak at the detention facility. Ms. Aldana said that she submitted another background screening package in 2008. She said she became aware, at some point, that there was no record of her background screening. However, when Ms. Rice left, she gave her [Ms. Aldana] a binder that contained her [Ms. Aldana’s] application. She said that Ms. Ecklund had the binder in her home office before, but when GAP eventually got office space, they maintained the records there. She said she was going back through some of the records and saw the applications. She said they made copies of all of the applications so they would have proof they were submitted. Ms. Aldana said that the second time she did a rescreening she had to go more than once to the detention center. She also said she had to go to the Sheriff’s Office for the electronic fingerprinting in order to submit the whole package to DJJ. She stated that neither she nor others at GAP were given a chance or opportunity to respond to the allegations and she was not given a chance to provide documentation to the DJJ OIG as she was for DFS OFI. She said she thought that this would have been standard procedure of the DJJ OIG for subjects of an investigation to be given an opportunity to respond to an allegation. Sharon Shore, Governmental Analyst II, South Region, DJJ, stated in an interview that she would have been the one that processed the background screening packets for Ms. Aldana and Ms. Lopez Lukis. She said that GAP staff would send her the forms for her to process. She said that she did the processing for both Ms. Aldana and Ms. Lopez Lukis, but, based on her file, the background screenings for Ms. Aldana and Ms. Lopez Lukis were performed in 2009. She said that she had no information, in her file, that they were screened prior to 2009. Myra Burks, Background Screening Unit Manager, DJJ, was interviewed regarding the process for conducting background screenings and the possibilities of background screenings being “lost.” Ms. Burks advised that it is the responsibility of the requestor to ensure that the background screenings were completed and that they received results. In 2004, when Ms. Lopez Lukis was a volunteer with DJJ, Ms. Burks said that this would have been the responsibility of the DJJ detention facility. Additionally in 2004, Ms. Burks said that the process included a preliminary background screening in which a “Level I” background check was completed and if that was okay, then the volunteer was required to complete and submit the “Level II” background screening packet, with fingerprints, within five days to DJJ.

83

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Ms. Burks advised that when GAP became a provider, Ms. Lopez Lukis and Ms. Aldana were no longer volunteers for DJJ and, now that they were employees of a provider, they probably should have checked with the BSU to verify that all background screenings were completed. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, advised that this issue was not part of Judge Lederman’s allegations, but was developed by the DJJ OIG staff. Ms. Michael said, as part of their investigative process, investigators are required to verify that all subjects of an investigation have had a background screening completed. Therefore, as part of the process, she contacted the BSU to verify that background screenings had been completed for Ms. Lopez Lukis and Ms. Aldana. Ms. Michael advised that the only background screening available was the one submitted four days after her meeting with GAP. Ms. Michael also advised that normally the DJJ Quality Assurance group would have reviewed background screenings when they monitor providers; however, DJJ did not have standards for monitoring GAP (since it was a unique program to DJJ.) When asked about the checks contained in the DJJ OIG report regarding the former youth, Ms. Michael said that the former youth was receiving funds from GAP either as an employee for GAP who did not have a completed background screening or that GAP “was just giving her money” which she stated would constitute a misuse of funds. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, stated that the process for the DJJ OIG was that all subjects of investigations are checked to verify they have completed a background screening. Additionally, Mr. Greenfield advised that in other investigations they have not had an issue with background screenings. When Mr. Greenfield was asked how an unscreened person could gain entry into a DJJ facility, he replied that if the staff knew to expect you, they would let you in. He said that there is no process to verify if a background screening has been completed when entering a facility. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, when asked about the possibility that Ms. Lopez Lukis and Ms. Aldana could have submitted multiple background requests, she replied that it was possible prior to April 2006. She said that the DJJ implemented a new system in 2006. She also said that background screenings were not transferrable between detention centers and therefore they should have been screened for multiple locations. During Ms. Eubanks’ interview on May 31, 2012, she provided information where she had requested the staff from the BSU complete a second search and verified that, according to the records, background screenings were not completed for Ms. Lopez Lukis or Ms. Aldana prior to 2009. She said that this search again rendered no documentation in the possession of the BSU for Ms. Lopez Lukis or Ms. Aldana until 2009.

84

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Julia Strange, Assistant Secretary, Detention Services, was asked why Ms. Aldana and Ms. Lopez Lukis were allowed into DJJ detention facilities before 2009 if no background screenings had been done. She explained that they were likely given access because they were with other people who had authorized access. Ms. Strange said that Ms. Aldana and Ms. Lopez Lukis should have been background screened, but that unscreened individuals can be in a detention facility as long as they remain with DJJ staff. Ms. Strange stated that the background screening process changed in 2006. She said that individuals requesting background screenings go to the DJJ detention facility to submit their paperwork; that would then be submitted to DJJ headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Strange said that it very well could have been that the detention center lost the initial submissions for Ms. Lopez Lukis and Ms. Aldana. She said that DJJ should have still known they did not have a final completed background screening for these individuals. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 985.01(1)(b), F.S., states the purpose and intent of this chapter is “To provide for the care, safety, and protection of children in an environment that fosters healthy social, emotional, intellectual, and physical development; to ensure secure and safe custody; and to promote the health and well-being of all children under the state’s care.” FDJJ-1800 Policy states that all contracted provider and Department employees will be screened in accordance with Level 2 standards, as set forth in Chapter 435, F.S., as a condition of initial employment and retention in these positions. Additionally, all provider and Department employees will be re-screened every five years of continued employment. Additionally, FDJJ-1800 Policy states that “employment background screening shall be completed prior to hiring an employee or utilizing the services of a volunteer, mentor, or intern.” DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 specify the provider shall comply with the Department’s Statewide Procedure on Background Screening for Employees, Vendors, and Volunteers that is available on the Department’s website. The Provider shall comply with the requirements for background screening as mandated in section 985.01, Florida Statutes. Failure to comply with the Department’s background screening procedure may result in cancellation of the Contract. Documentary Evidence CIG reviewers were provided records from Ms. Lopez Lukis that were copies of volunteer background screening packets maintained by GAP. The copies included requests for background screenings for Ms. Lopez Lukis in 2004 and for Ms. Aldana in 2006. One of these forms showed a name in the requestor section on the form of a DJJ detention staff member. CIG reviewers attempted to contact the DJJ detention staff

85

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

whose name appeared on the form to confirm receipt of the form by DJJ detention staff, but found that this individual was no longer employed by DJJ. CIG Conclusion CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ OIG report cited that “during this investigation it was found that GAP failed to follow DJJ Background Screening Policy.” CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI recommended in their May 24, 2011, Memorandum that “DJJ review the processes used at the detention facilities to log and record visitors who visit and/or provide services to the girls at the facilities. We found the logs were not detailed enough to identify when GAP staff visited the girls with dates and times for such visits.” CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ BSU, located in the DJJ OIG, is designated to perform all employee, volunteer and provider background screenings received from the DJJ detention facilities throughout the state. CIG reviewers reviewed the DJJ contracts with GAP that stated that the provider is required to comply with the requirements for background screening as mandated in Section 985.01, F.S., and that failure to comply with the Department’s background screening procedure may result in cancellation of the contract. CIG reviewers were provided, from Ms. Lopez Lukis, GAP’s copies of the volunteer background screening packets for Ms. Lopez Lukis dated 2004 and for Ms. Aldana dated 2006. However, CIG reviewers were unable to confirm or refute receipt of these forms by DJJ staff in 2004 or 2006. Additionally, the DJJ OIG BSU staff had no information that they received the submissions for Ms. Lopez Lukis and Ms. Aldana until 2009. A former GAP employee told CIG reviewers that she recalled, on one occasion, volunteers for GAP had to make multiple submissions to DJJ because the requests for background screenings were lost. Testimony supported that this led GAP to start maintaining copies of all volunteer background screening packets they submitted to DJJ. Further, the DJJ OIG report cited that “A review of GAP Employment records including Internal Revenue Service forms (W-2 and 1099) did not show [former Youth’s Name] was employed by GAP” and contained reference to checks made payable to the former Youth. However, CIG reviewers could not determine the relevance of these statements, as presented in the DJJ OIG report, without going beyond the scope of this review. As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received,

86

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the DJJ OIG report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 13.

ISSUE 14 DJJ OIG Report 74 Dated June 23, 2011, stated: Issue: DJJ Contract X1410 not in compliance with Rule/Statute. REFERRED During this investigation it was found that the DJJ staff failed to ensure that contract X1410 is [sic] written in accordance to rule/statute. The alleged conduct is classified as a Violation of Policy/Rule and may be covered by Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Memorandum No. 04 (2005-2006), [sic] Subject: Compliance Requirement for Agreements, State Funds. CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-2006) [sic] states, ‘agreements with recipients of state financial assistance, even if awarded on a fixed price basis must require: [sic] Compliance with Section 215.97, Florida Statutes, Expenditures of state financial assistance be in compliance with laws, rules and regulations applicable to expenditures of State funds, including, but not limited to the [DFS] Reference Guide for State Expenditures, [sic] A provision stating that an agreement may be charged only with allowable costs resulting from obligations incurred during the course of the agreement, and a provision that any balances of unobligated cash’ [that has been paid is refunded to the State]. OIG staff reviewed contract X1410 and found that it does not have the required language pertaining to travel and reimbursement for unspent state funds. DJJ Assistant Secretary Julia Strange was interviewed and stated that she is not aware of any concerns or problems regarding the contract language. Former DJJ Contract Manager Genanne Wilson was interviewed and stated that the contract was written based on the Contract Initiation Memo prepared by
74

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text.

87

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

detention [sic] services [sic]. Wilson stated that the contract was written and approved by DJJ administration. Complainant’s Concerns With regard to DJJ OIG’s finding “DJJ Contract X1410 not in compliance with Rule/Statute” Ms. Lopez Lukis stated the DJJ OIG issued this finding because contract X1410 was not in compliance with Florida rules/statutes and CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06). Ms. Lopez Lukis reiterated that GAP did not execute the contract and was never made aware that the contract was not in compliance with rules/statutes, or the DFS memorandum. Ms. Lopez Lukis said that GAP complied with the terms of the contract and should not be held liable for DJJ’s contract and monitoring errors. Interviews and Written Statements Genanne Wilson, former Operations and Management Consultant Manager, DJJ, said that the GAP project was a member project designated by the Florida Legislature. She said because it was in the General Appropriations Act for GAP to receive the funds, it was a non-competitive contract. She stated that they asked GAP for a scope of work, explanation of work to be performed, a timeline for payments and a budget. She said DJJ contracts with GAP were written on a standard contract form that she helped create. Ms. Wilson stated that she did not oversee or manage the contracts with GAP. She stated that the DJJ Contract Manager for that area would have been the person responsible for managing the contracts. She said if the Contract Manager found any problems then the DJJ General Counsel would get involved. Sharon Shore, Governmental Analyst II, South Region, DJJ, stated that she was the Contract Manager for DJJ Contract Number X1409 with GAP and was responsible for overseeing the program, processing the invoices, and ensuring that services were delivered in accordance with the contract. When asked if she had any concerns about GAP’s contract, she said, “no.” When asked what her understanding was regarding GAP, she said it was a girls’ program intended to provide services for them. She said it was a reimbursement contract. She said that GAP is reimbursed per girl served. She said that it was her responsibility to verify that the girls served were in fact in the detention center when the invoices were processed. She said, she would verify that they were not being double billed for the girls. She said she would email Ms. Aldana or Ms. Lopez Lukis if she found any errors. She said they would fix the invoices and resubmit them when errors were found. Kay Bozeman, Management Review Specialist, DJJ, stated that she was the Contract Monitor for DJJ Contract Number X1410 with GAP. When asked if she had any concerns about the types of costs or invoices submitted by GAP, she said she did not have any concerns. She stated when she monitored the program, she found GAP was following the contract.

88

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, said this was an issue identified by the OIG and not alleged by Judge Lederman. She said that this issue was directed at DJJ and the DJJ contracting process, not GAP. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said that the way it was worded in the DJJ OIG report could have been more articulate regarding this issue. He stated that this was also referred to DFS OFI not because it was criminal, but because they needed clarification regarding the contract language. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, in a written statement dated May 31, 2012, wrote in pertinent part that “In my inquiry with Ms. Johnson on [sic] May 2012, she stated to me that contracts X1409 and X1410 did not incorporate Memorandum No. 4 (2005-2006) [sic] DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures into the contract language and it should have been.” Ms. Eubanks further wrote “with the knowledge I have today that possible [sic] the focus of the investigation should have been on contracts X1409 and X1410 and the validity of the contracts.” Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she recalled discussing with Ms. Eubanks in May 2012 that the contracts with GAP were not well written. When asked if she talked with the DJJ OIG staff during their investigation, Ms. Johnson stated that she could have had a conversation with them before May 2012, but that she did not recall. She stated that she had problems with the contract language in the DJJ contracts with GAP. She said that the contract did not contain any special exceptions language, it was not well written, it did not point to the rules or statutes in certain areas. She said it did not state certain prohibitions. She said the contracts did not have adequate citations to the Florida Single Audit Act and she said the contract language did not explain the consequences for not doing the audit. She said that DJJ went through all of the DJJ contracts in general and identified lots of opportunities for improving the contract language. She said that GAP was given mixed messages about whether expenditures were allowable under the contract or state law. Ms. Johnson stated that if the contract language was not clear, the CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) was not referenced or the Florida Single Audit Act requirements were not clear, she thought that statute would pre-empt contract ambiguity, but stated that she was not an attorney. She explained that she thought statute or rule would supersede the language in two-party contracts. Pertinent Governing Directives CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) provides that: Agreements with recipients of state financial assistance, even if awarded on a fixed price basis, must require:

89

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

a. Compliance with Section 215.97, Florida Statutes (F.S.) b. Expenditures of state financial assistance be in compliance with laws, rules and regulations applicable to expenditures of State funds, including, but not limited to, the Reference Guide for State Expenditures Documentary Evidence CIG reviewers confirmed that DJJ Contract X1410 did not contain a specific reference to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06). CIG reviewers found no reference in the DJJ OIG report as to why a reference was only made to DJJ Contract X1410. DJJ Contracts X1409 and X1410 75 included references to the required compliance with the Florida Single Audit Act, but did not specifically refer to the CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06). DJJ included a reference to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) in the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Florida Single Audit Compliance Supplement for the State Project Number 80.022 - Diversion Services. An email dated July 10, 2012, from Christina Smith, Director of Accounting and Auditing, DFS, stated: GAP was appropriately designated as a recipient of State Financial Assistance and therefore had to comply with the Florida Single Audit Act as referenced in the contract. The Florida Single Audit Act identifies the auditing and accountability requirements that must be followed by State Agencies and the recipients of State Financial Assistance. GAP was required to comply with the State Projects Compliance Supplement for State Project Number 80.022. The State Projects Compliance Supplement for both Fiscal Years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 states that all costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures. The allowable cost requirements apply to GAP regardless of the contract being awarded as a fixed price contract. [emphasis added] CIG Conclusion CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ OIG report cited that “DJJ Contract X1410 not in compliance with Rule/Statute. REFERRED.” CIG reviewers found that, according to testimony, this issue involved DJJ staff and was not intended to target Ms. Lopez Lukis
75

The CIG reviewers did not perform a comprehensive assessment of the GAP contracts to determine compliance with laws, rules, and regulations. The CIG reviewers noted some omissions and inconsistencies as noted in this report and relied on testimony from DJJ staff that that the contracts were ambiguous or did not contain proper references to pertinent compliance requirements.

90

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

or GAP. CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ OIG referred this matter to DFS OFI for possible criminal investigation. However, Mr. Greenfield stated that this was also referred to DFS OFI not because it was criminal, but because they needed clarifications regarding the contract language. CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity and “Contract X1410 was not written in accordance with Florida Rule/Statutes.” As previously noted, Ms. Johnson confirmed that she had problems with the contract language in the DJJ contracts with GAP, the contract did not contain any special exceptions language, it was not well written, and it did not point to the rules or statutes in certain areas. She said it did not state certain prohibitions. She said the contracts did not have adequate citations to the Florida Single Audit Act and she said the contract language did not explain the consequences for not doing the audit. Ms. Johnson stated that if the contract language was not clear, the CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) was not referenced or the Florida Single Audit Act requirements were not clear, she thought that statute would pre-empt contract ambiguity, but stated that she was not an attorney. She explained that she thought statute or rule would supersede the language in two-party contracts. She said that GAP was given mixed messages about whether expenditures were allowable under the contract or state law. CIG reviewers found that while DJJ OIG accurately identified that Contract X1410 did not contain the proper reference to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) or did not have the required language regarding travel and reimbursement for unspent funds, the DJJ OIG failed to fully address contract language that conflicts with statutes and other guidelines. As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the DJJ OIG report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final.

91

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Ms. Eubanks further wrote “with the knowledge I have today that possible [sic] the focus of the investigation should have been on contracts X1409 and X1410 and the validity of the contracts.” CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 14.

ISSUE 15 DJJ OIG Report 76 Dated June 23, 2011, stated: Issue: Purchase of items for non-GAP employees, and GAP youths. REFERRED During this investigation it was found that GAP used state funds to purchase items for non-GAP employees, and/or enrolled youth. The alleged conduct is classified as Other/Violation of Florida Statute and may be covered by Section 812.014, F.S., Theft. OIG staff reviewed Gap [sic] receipts, bank records, American Express statements, and expense reports and found several questionable purchases. These purchases were made using state funds from GAP contract X1410 and are as follows: • On August 6, 2007, Ecklund purchased QuickBooks software in the amount of $1,604.95. On September 14, 2007, Aldana purchased the same QuickBooks software for $1,175.93….OIG staff could find no record of Ecklund reimbursing GAP. On August 22, 2007, and September 12, 2007, GAP purchased $10,682.55 worth of various computer equipment and office furniture from DW Consulting…. On May 21, 2008, Lopez-Lukis [sic] used the GAP Corporate American Express card to purchase 28 copies of ‘Writing as a Way of Healing: How Telling Our Stories Transforms Our Lives’ for $304.64 and the books were shipped to Leslie Neal at ArtSpring Inc…. On April 30, 2007, Lopez-Lukis [sic] was reimbursed $1,500.00 for Editing Services for the BGAP Documentary. BGAP is short for Bridging the Gap [sic] which is a program not related to GAP and deals with the adult prison population….

• •

76

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text.

92

August 24, 2012 Complainant’s Concerns

CIG Report # 201111160005

Ms. Lopez Lukis disagrees with the DJJ OIG finding “purchase of items for non-GAP employees and GAP youth.” Ms. Lopez Lukis said GAP never executed a contract that incorporated by reference or any other language relating to CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) or the DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures. Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that GAP complied with the terms of the contract and should not be held liable for DJJ’s contract and monitoring errors. Interviews and Written Statements Brenda Aldana, Administrative Assistant, GAP, stated that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG and was never told that she was a subject of the investigation. She stated that neither she nor others at GAP were given a chance or opportunity to respond to the allegations and she was not given a chance to provide documentation to the DJJ OIG as she was for DFS OFI. She said she thought it would have been standard procedure of the DJJ OIG to give subjects of an investigation an opportunity to respond. Jill Ecklund, former President, GAP, said that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG during their investigation. Ms. Ecklund said that she never received the DJJ OIG report where she had been named as a subject. She said she knew that Ms. Lopez Lukis had responded to the report after learning the report had been issued. She said that she thought the DJJ OIG would have talked with her and GAP about any concerns the DJJ OIG may have had. Ms. Ecklund recalled that the DJJ OIG report alleged that she had gotten paid for some computer equipment twice, but stated that this was not completely researched by the DJJ OIG. She explained that she reimbursed GAP for these expenses. She said that GAP was accused of misspending funds but it was not true. Ms. Ecklund said that there was a lot in the DJJ OIG report that was not true. She said that she was not saying that they were lying, just that they did not go far enough in their research of the facts or all that they needed to do. She said that there were no improprieties as far as she was concerned. She said that she had concerns after reading the DJJ OIG report because she was not given an opportunity to comment. She said that her belief was that the report was very one sided. She said, “it breaks my heart they’d [the DJJ OIG] accuse me of misspending the funds.” She said that getting accused of something and not even knowing about it, just was not fair. She said that the whole thing troubled her. She said that she and GAP just wanted to do the right thing and they always did. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, said this was an issue identified by the OIG and not alleged by Judge Lederman. When asked about the purchase of QuickBooks, Ms. Michael said she did not find evidence where Ms. Ecklund reimbursed

93

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

GAP. She said regarding DW Consulting, this company was owned by Ms. Lopez Lukis’ son and husband and she had questions about these purchases. When asked about the expenses cited in the DJJ OIG report, Ms. Michael stated that she questioned these expenses, but that interviews should have been conducted to gather more information. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said that there were several questions he had concerning purchase of office equipment by GAP. Mr. Greenfield said that the DJJ OIG report only stated what they had found before conducting interviews. He further stated that they identified the facts, reported the facts, and asked DFS OFI if they thought these were questionable expenditures. Mr. Greenfield stated that the DJJ OIG wrote that this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS OFI. He said DJJ OIG did not make a determination about these expenditures. He added that without talking with Ms. Lopez Lukis they would not know what transpired. He said had they had the chance to interview the subjects, they could have clarified the issues. He added that they were not allowed to follow the process. Mr. Greenfield said in a written statement dated April 25, 2012, that “It was never my intent for the report referred to DFS to be published as a closed report. It was IG Eubanks’ decision and direction not to conduct further interviews after receiving the DFS report; this was against my advice.” Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, said in an interview on April 30, 2012, that she does not know why no one was interviewed between the issuance of the DFS OFI Memorandum and the issuance of the DJJ OIG report. When asked if the DJJ OIG report went out without interviews, Ms. Eubanks stated, “that’s correct.” Ms. Eubanks stated that she did not recall having a conversation with Mr. Greenfield about doing more interviews. When asked if she would be surprised that Mr. Greenfield said she “ordered” him not to do interviews, she said she rarely “ordered” anyone to do anything and said, “I don’t recall ordering him not to do more interviews.” Ms. Eubanks said that at the time of referral to DFS OFI her belief was everyone had been interviewed except the subjects and witnesses because of the possibility of the alleged violations being criminal. Ms. Eubanks stated that Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, called her prior to issuing the Memorandum in May 2011. She said that Mr. Geier told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them [DFS OFI], and because there was no intent to defraud, the DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Ms. Eubanks said that she discussed the report with DFS OFI, but did not meet with them to review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Ms. Eubanks said that the DJJ OIG realized that the money calculations were different between the DFS OFI Memorandum and the DJJ OIG report. She said the DJJ OIG reviewed their documents and that DFS OFI had gotten additional documents to lessen the amounts questioned in their report by “$10,000.” She said that she asked for the

94

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

documents the DFS OFI received. Ms. Eubanks said that she went to Mr. Berkowitz, in June 2011, and discussed that the DFS OFI Memorandum was less than the DJJ OIG report. In a subsequent interview on May 31, 2012, when asked if she recalled Mr. Greenfield informing her that interviews were not conducted by DFS OFI, Ms. Eubanks said she did not recall. When asked if Mr. Greenfield told her that he thought interviews still needed to be conducted before the DJJ OIG report could be finalized, Ms. Eubanks said she did not recall that conversation. When asked how complete she thought the investigation was when the DJJ OIG report was finalized, Ms. Eubanks said, “70%.” Ms. Eubanks said in a written statement provided May 31, 2012, that “In my inquiry with Ms. Johnson on [sic] May 2012, she stated to me that contracts X1409 and X1410 did not incorporate Memorandum No. 4 (2005-2006) [sic] DFS Reference Guide for State Expenditures into the contract language and it should have been.” Amy Johnson, former Chief of Contracts, currently the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, DJJ, stated that she recalled discussing with Ms. Eubanks in May 2012 the issue that the contracts with GAP were not well written. When asked if she talked with the DJJ OIG staff during their investigation, Ms. Johnson stated that she could have had a conversation with them before May 2012, but that she did not recall. She stated that she had problems with the contract language in the DJJ contracts with GAP. She said that the contract did not contain any special exceptions language, it was not well written, it did not point to the rules or statutes in certain areas. She said it did not state certain prohibitions. She said the contracts did not have adequate citations to the Florida Single Audit Act and she said the contract language did not explain the consequences for not doing the audit. She said that DJJ went through all of the DJJ contracts in general and identified lots of opportunities for improving the contract language. Ms. Johnson stated if the contract language was not clear, the CFO Memorandum No. 04 (2005-06) was not referenced or the Florida Single Audit Act requirements were not clear, she thought that statute would pre-empt contract ambiguity, but stated that she was not an attorney. She explained that she thought statute or rule would supersede the language in two-party contracts. Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that he did not recall dealing with the DJJ OIG prior to their report being issued on June 23, 2011, but once he received the report he thought the findings seemed fairly serious and the expenditures did not seem appropriate. He stated that he did not read the contracts at that time, but relied on the conclusions in the DJJ OIG report. He said that DFS OFI “backed them up.” He stated that he recalled that the bulk of the money that was questioned was paid prior to the contract date. He said that lots of times DJJ would settle an issue like this with the provider. He stated that he received a copy of the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum in June 2011. He said that both reports suggested that the DJJ take

95

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

action. He said that they were attempting to do that, but had not taken any action yet. He said that normally the findings would be distributed to the appropriate division for handling. He said that in this case the findings would be distributed to Ms. Strange since they pertained to a detention contract. He also said that normally a copy of the report would go to the provider and DJJ management would enter into discussions with the provider about what money was due back, if any. Mr. Berkowitz said that after he reviewed the DJJ OIG report, he saw that Secretary Walters’ name was mentioned. He said that he had a conversation with Secretary Walters and that Secretary Walters knew both Ms. Lopez Lukis and Judge Lederman. He said that he saw a potential for a conflict of interest so after discussions, he prepared a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Woody from Secretary Walters delegating responsibility and action to him. He said this took place in September 2011. Mr. Berkowitz said that the DJJ had not acted prior to the time Ms. Lopez Lukis made the complaint to the CIG, but they had discussed it internally. He said that the DJJ is now on hold pending the CIG review of the DJJ OIG investigation. Pertinent Governing Directives State Projects Compliance Supplement (2006-2007) for State Project Number 80.022, Diversion Services, Allowable Costs, states “All costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures.” DJJ Contract X1409, amendment #2 stated GAP Video Project (completed and distribution in process) a. GAP obtained a grant from the community, partnered with the Department of Juvenile Justice, ex-GAP participants (adults), and local media celebrities. GAP staff coordinated and with GAP partners, produced a GAP DVD, which features an overview of the program. b. These DVDs have been mass-produced and were distributed to key public figures in the juvenile justice system and court arena as well as to the Department of Juvenile Justice partners (detention, probation, and administrative personnel). These DVDs were distributed to educate the public and community interests about girls struggling with juvenile justice issues and GAP’s intervention techniques. c. The DVDs are also used for training, conferences and networking purposes. Memorandum of Agreement #708 between Ms. Lopez Lukis (prior to her being employed by GAP) as Independent Project Coordinator, ArtSpring, Inc., Girls Advocacy Project under the authority of the Administrative Office of the Courts, The Florida

96

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Department of Juvenile Justice and The Florida Department of Corrections, executed for the period of February 1, 2006 to January 31, 2007, stated that The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the general conditions that will govern the responsibilities of the parties in implementing a writing workshop entitled Bridging the Gap (BGAP). The parties wish to implement the writing workshop to educate female juvenile offenders on the issues faced by female adult inmates and the mistakes made by these individuals that contributed to their serving long incarcerations. Absent this Agreement, there is no venue for girls in detention to interact with women in prison to gain the important understanding of the lifetime impact criminal mistakes can have on young lives…This partnership between ArtSpring and GAP allows two organizations that have earned the respect of the DJJ and the Department [of Corrections] to work together to expand their resources to ‘bridge-the-gap’ between girls and women in the criminal justice system. Documentary Evidence Based on an email dated July 16, 2012, from Mr. Geier, DFS, to Ms. Case, CIG, he stated, “Regarding the Quickbooks purchased by Eckland [sic], you will find attached the response and documentation from Ms. Lukis [sic] showing that Eckland [sic] purchased it, was reimbursed by GAP and then returned it to the vendor. Subsequently, GAP subtracted the $1604.95 from one of Eckland’s [sic] travel reimbursements.” An email dated July 10, 2012, from Christina Smith, Director of Accounting and Auditing, DFS, stated GAP was appropriately designated as a recipient of State Financial Assistance and therefore had to comply with the Florida Single Audit Act as referenced in the contract. The Florida Single Audit Act identifies the auditing and accountability requirements that must be followed by State Agencies and the recipients of State Financial Assistance. GAP was required to comply with the State Projects Compliance Supplement for State Project Number 80.022. The State Projects Compliance Supplement for both Fiscal Years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 states that all costs must be directly related to service of juvenile justice youth and permissible under the Guide to State Expenditures. The allowable cost requirements apply to GAP regardless of the contract being awarded as a fixed price contract. [emphasis added]

97

August 24, 2012 CIG Conclusion

CIG Report # 201111160005

CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ OIG report stated, “During this investigation it was found that GAP used state funds to purchase items for non-GAP employees, and/or enrolled youth.” CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ OIG referred this matter to DFS OFI for possible criminal investigation. CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees, but CIG reviewers could not locate a reference to these specific purchases in the DFS OFI Memorandum to Ms. Eubanks. Ms. Ecklund told CIG reviewers that had she been interviewed, she could have supplied proof that she had in fact reimbursed GAP for the QuickBooks software. CIG reviewers obtained records from DFS OFI that supported that Ms. Ecklund had “reimbursed” GAP for the software purchased. Regarding the other expenses cited in the DJJ OIG report, it is unclear if the DJJ OIG determined the legal relationship between the DJJ contracts with GAP and the Memorandum of Agreement #708 between Ms. Lopez Lukis as Independent Project Coordinator, ArtSpring, Inc., Girls Advocacy Project under the authority of the Administrative Office of the Courts, The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and The Florida Department of Corrections. However, a copy of the memorandum was attached as an exhibit to the DJJ OIG report. While expenditure guidelines require that expenses be program related, the DJJ OIG failed to conduct interviews or additional investigative activity to determine the purpose for these expenditures, the source of funds used to cover these expenditures, whether the expenses were GAP related, and the governing directives GAP applied to believe the expenses were allowable under the contract. As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the DJJ OIG report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final. Ms. Eubanks stated that she was aware that DFS OFI obtained additional documentation from GAP that lessened the dollar amount of questionable expenses from the amount that the DJJ OIG found prior to referral to DFS OFI, but also said she

98

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

did not meet with DFS OFI staff or review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers conclude that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 15.

ISSUE 16 DJJ OIG Report 77 Dated June 23, 2011, stated: Issue: Falsified invoices. REFERRED During this investigation it was found that Lopez-Lukis [sic] falsified invoices for services rendered to DJJ under contract X1409. The alleged conduct is classified as Other/Violation of Florida Statute and Falsification and may be covered by Section 817.034, F.S., Florida Communications Fraud Act, Section 812.014, F.S., Theft, Section 839.13, F.S., Falsification and United States Code 18 USC Sec. 1341 Mail Fraud. OIG staff reviewed e-mail correspondence between GAP employees. In an email dated May 14, 2007, Lopez-Lukis [sic] responded to an earlier e-mail sent to her by former GAP Director/Advisor Mary Woolley Larrea [sic] entitled, ‘Re: GAP Miami Staff.’ Woolley-Larrea wrote that Lopez-Lukis [sic] estimated 52-60 youths for the balance of the contract and that this estimate is ‘on the higher end for reimbursement.’ The e-mail showed that Lopez-Lukis [sic] inserted the following comment: ‘We will adjust GAP Miami invoices regardless of the number of girls served in order to invoice the remaining balance of the GAP Miami contract.’ GAP serves the Miami-Dade Regional Juvenile Detention Center (MDRJDC) under Contract X1409 which is a Fixed Price/Unit Price Contract. GAP Inc. is paid per youth served at the MDRJDC. OIG staff contacted DJJ Contract Monitor Sharon Shore who confirmed that she receives the GAP Miami [Contract X1409] invoices initially via e-mail and then followed up with a hard copy via United States Mail. Complainant’s Concerns Ms. Lopez Lukis disagrees with the DJJ OIG finding “falsified invoices.” Ms. Lopez Lukis advised that she believes this is the most egregious allegation within the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Lopez Lukis said she believes the finding involving falsified invoices should

77

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text.

99

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

not have been left in the DJJ OIG report because DFS OFI “proved that GAP’s invoices had not been falsified,” and did not identify any criminal activity by GAP. Ms. Lopez Lukis said the DJJ OIG should not have relied on her email exchange with Ms. Woolley-Larrea 78 as their evidence that she falsified invoices, because the email exchange was taken out of context. Ms. Lopez Lukis said her exchange with Ms. Woolley-Larrea was actually a discussion about the possibility that they would need to make a downward adjustment to their billing because forecasted numbers indicated that GAP would serve more, not fewer girls than allowed for billing under the contract. Additionally, Ms. Lopez Lukis noted that she was “never involved in the billing process and thus could never have filed a false invoice.” Ms. Lopez Lukis also pointed out that the DJJ OIG report incorrectly listed the date on the email exchange as 5/14/2007, when it was actually 5/14/2008. Ms. Lopez Lukis said the DJJ OIG should have interviewed her regarding this allegation because she would have been able to provide evidence to refute the finding. Ms. Lopez Lukis also said the DJJ OIG should have reconciled the questionable invoices with the “JJIS [Juvenile Justice Information System] system, which would have confirmed the girls were in detention on the days the census showed they received services.” Ms. Lopez Lukis said if the DJJ OIG had done these two things, they would have found that GAP’s invoices accurately reflected the number of girls served. Additionally, Ms. Lopez Lukis said that Ms. Michael did not “conduct a thorough investigation of the GAP Miami invoices in question.” Interviews and Written Statements Sharon Shore, Governmental Analyst II, South Region, DJJ, stated that she was the Contract Manager for DJJ Contract Number X1409 with GAP and was responsible for overseeing the program, processing the invoices, and ensuring that services were delivered in accordance with the contract. When asked if she had any concerns about GAP’s contract, she said, “no.” When asked what her understanding was regarding GAP, she said it was a girls’ program intended to provide services for them. She said it was a reimbursement contract. She said that GAP is reimbursed per girl served. She said that it was her responsibility to verify that the girls served were in fact in the detention center when the invoices were processed. She said she would verify that they were not being double billed for the girls. She said she would email Ms. Aldana or Ms. Lopez Lukis if she found any errors. She said they would fix the invoices and resubmit them when errors were found. Kay Bozeman, Management Review Specialist, DJJ, stated that she was the Contract Monitor for DJJ Contract number X1410 with GAP. When asked if she had
CIG reviewers contacted Ms. Woolley-Larrea to determine if she had any comments concerning the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Woolley-Larrea confirmed that she spoke with Ms. Michael some time ago and has nothing to add at this time.
78

100

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

any concerns about the types of costs or invoices submitted by GAP, she said she did not have any concerns. She stated when she monitored the program, she found GAP was following the contract. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, said this was an issue identified by the OIG and not alleged by Judge Lederman. When asked if there were any falsified invoices, she said, “no” and explained that she did not find any problems with the invoices. She said she found the email referenced in the DJJ OIG report and that was the only piece of evidence of possible falsification. She said she had nothing else. Ms. Michael said that she requested the invoices submitted by GAP from the DJJ Contract Managers. She said she reviewed the invoices and matched the census reports to the JJIS and found no discrepancies. Ms. Michael stated that all she found was the referenced email and that was the basis for the referral to DFS OFI on this issue. When asked if she could draw a conclusion today based on what she had, Ms. Michael said, “no” and said that she would have interviewed youth, detention staff, and conducted a case file review had she been allowed. Ms. Michael said that the percentage of completion of the investigation when the DJJ OIG report was finalized in June 2011 was approximately 50%. She explained it was her intention to do more, but she was instructed by Mr. Greenfield that it was done and to write it up. She said that Mr. Greenfield told her Ms. Eubanks said it was done and to write it up. She questioned if that was supposed to be done without interviews and Mr. Greenfield told her “No, write it up, it’s done.” She said she did a lot of work and thought that she needed to do more research, interview the youth, interview GAP staff and detention staff, interview the Certified Public Accountants, and conduct follow up interviews with her initial contacts. She also said she intended to perform a case file review of services and verify documents received with those that submitted them before the case could be finalized. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said, “We clearly needed to do more work.” He also said that the DJJ OIG did not make any conclusion which is why the DJJ OIG report stated that this allegation was “REFERRED” to DFS. Mr. Greenfield said that had Ms. Lopez Lukis been interviewed along with all the others, this could have been clarified. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, was informed there was no evidence whatsoever that anyone falsified invoices and when asked if she had a comment, she said, “Nope.” Ms. Eubanks said in an interview on April 30, 2012, that she does not know why no one was interviewed between the issuance of the DFS Memorandum and the issuance of the DJJ OIG report. When asked if the case went out without interviews, Ms. Eubanks stated, “that’s correct.” Ms. Eubanks stated that she did not recall having a conversation with Mr. Greenfield about doing more interviews. When asked if she would be surprised that Mr. Greenfield said she “ordered” him not to do interviews, she said she rarely “ordered” anyone to do anything and said, “I don’t recall ordering him not to

101

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

do more interviews.” Ms. Eubanks said that at the time of referral to DFS OFI her belief was everyone had been interviewed except the subjects and witnesses because of the possibility of the alleged violations being criminal. Ms. Eubanks stated that Mr. Geier, DFS OFI, called her prior to issuing the report in May 2011. She said that Mr. Geier told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them [DFS OFI], and because there was no intent to defraud, the DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Ms. Eubanks said that she discussed the report with DFS OFI, but did not meet with them to review their records prior to signing the DJJ OIG report as final. In a subsequent interview on May 31, 2012, when asked if she recalled Mr. Greenfield informing her that interviews were not conducted by DFS OFI, Ms. Eubanks said she did not recall. When asked if Mr. Greenfield told her that he thought interviews still needed to be conducted before the DJJ OIG report could be finalized, Ms. Eubanks said she did not recall that conversation. When asked how complete she thought the investigation was when the DJJ OIG report was finalized, Ms. Eubanks said, “70%.” In a written statement received on May 31, 2012, Ms. Eubanks wrote “I agree with Ms. Lopez Lukis. We did not do a complete job.” Documentary Evidence CIG reviewers completed a comparison of the draft investigative report referred by the DJJ OIG to the DFS OFI on January 29, 2010, and the final report released by DJJ OIG on June 23, 2011. This comparison revealed that the DJJ OIG made no substantive additions [emphasis added] to their report before signing it as final other than the two paragraphs detailing information from DFS OFI’s Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, that no criminal activity was found. One paragraph is stated verbatim on page two of this report and the second paragraph states, “On June 2, 2011, as directed by in the DFS report of their findings, the OIG provided this report was provided [sic] to the ‘DJJ Legal Office and Management’ for consideration of any available avenues for disallowing costs associated with contract X1410 and recover funds from GAP.” The DJJ OIG Report 79 template language contained in the draft DJJ OIG report sent to DFS OFI states: Statement of Accordance Section 20.055, Florida Statutes, establishes the Office of Inspector General in each state agency to provide a central point for coordination of and responsibility for activities that promote accountability, integrity, and efficiency in government. In carrying out the investigative duties and responsibilities specified in this section, each inspector general shall initiate, conduct, supervise, and coordinate investigations designed to
79

DJJ OIG footnotes were omitted from this text.

102

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

detect, deter, prevent, and eradicate fraud, waste, mismanagement, misconduct, and other abuses in state government. On [month ##, yyyy], in accordance with Section 20.055(6)(e) [sic] Florida Statute, a copy of this completed investigative report was provided to [Provider Name] a specific entity contracting with the state, and to [subjects’ title & full name], an individual(s) substantially affected as defined by Section 20.055(6)(e). On [month ##, yyyy], [Provider Name] responded to the investigative findings. On [month ##, yyyy], [Staff last name] responded to the investigative findings. or As of [month ##, yyyy], no response was received from [Provider Name] or [Staff last name]. CIG reviewers noted that after the DFS OFI Memorandum was received by the DJJ OIG, the second paragraph above from the Statement of Accordance section of the final DJJ OIG report was removed. This paragraph contained the template language regarding the specific entities contracting with the state and individuals substantially affected receiving the report for review, comment, and inclusion in the final report as required by Section 20.055, F.S.

CIG Conclusion The DJJ OIG report cited that “it was found that Lopez-Lukis [sic] falsified invoices for services rendered to DJJ under contract X1409.” The DJJ OIG referred this matter to DFS OFI for possible criminal investigation, but CIG reviewers could not locate a reference to “falsified invoices” in the DFS OFI Memorandum to Ms. Eubanks. CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI concluded their investigation and in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, to Ms. Eubanks, stated DFS OFI did not identify any criminal activity on the part of GAP or GAP employees. CIG reviewers confirmed that DFS OFI recommended in their May memorandum that “DJJ review the processes used at the detention facilities to log and record visitors who visit and/or provide services to the girls at the facilities. We found the logs were not detailed enough to identify when GAP staff visited the girls with dates and times for such visits.” Other than citing the single email from Ms. Lopez Lukis to Ms. Woolley-Larrea, no evidence was obtained by DJJ OIG to support the wording “during this investigation it was found that Lopez-Lukis [sic] falsified invoices for services rendered to DJJ under contract X1409.” When informed that the wording as quoted above states specifically that Ms. Lopez Lukis falsified invoices and asked if she could draw a conclusion today based on what she had, Ms. Michael said, “no” and added that she had planned to conduct further investigative activity. Mr. Greenfield testified that “we clearly needed to do more work.” Ms. Eubanks stated in a written statement received on May 31, 2012, “I agree with Ms. Lopez Lukis. We did not do a complete job.”

103

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

As previously stated in CIG Conclusion for Issue 3, Ms. Michael, Mr. Greenfield, and Ms. Eubanks each acknowledged during their interviews that the investigation was not complete when the DJJ OIG report was finalized. However, testimony was conflicting as to the reason why interviews were not conducted prior to the release of the DJJ OIG report. Ms. Michael stated she still needed to interview GAP and detention staff, complete case file reviews, interview the youths as to services that were received, interview the accountants, conduct follow-up interviews with the initial complainants, and interview the subjects. Mr. Greenfield told CIG reviewers that he expected to conduct additional interviews and, if necessary, conduct additional investigative activity once the DFS OFI Memorandum was received. According to Mr. Greenfield, Ms. Eubanks “ordered” that no further interviews be conducted and to close the case. During her interview, Ms. Eubanks stated she did not recall this conversation with Mr. Greenfield, but acknowledged that interviews were not conducted and the DJJ OIG report was only 70% complete at the time she signed it as final. Based on the review of case documentation, interviews conducted, and written statements obtained, CIG reviewers found no evidence during a review of the DJJ OIG case file to support falsification of invoices by Ms. Lopez Lukis or GAP. Further, CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ OIG investigator found no discrepancies when comparing DJJ records to GAP invoices. CIG reviewers determined that the DJJ OIG failed to thoroughly and sufficiently investigate the matters related to Issue 16.

ISSUE 17 Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that the DJJ OIG violated Section 20.055, F.S., in that the DJJ OIG did not provide GAP or its employees an opportunity to review the report and submit a written response(s) for inclusion in the final report. Interviews and Written Statements Brenda Aldana, Administrative Assistant, GAP, stated that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG and was never told that she was a subject of the investigation. She stated that neither she nor others at GAP were given a chance or opportunity to respond to the allegations and she was not given a chance to provide documentation to the DJJ OIG as she was for DFS OFI. She said she thought it would have been standard procedure of the DJJ OIG to give subjects of an investigation an opportunity to respond. Jill Ecklund, former President, GAP, said that she was never contacted by the DJJ OIG in this investigation. Ms. Ecklund said that she never received the DJJ OIG report where she had been named. She said knew that Ms. Lopez Lukis had responded to the report after learning the report had been issued. She said that she thought the DJJ OIG

104

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

would have talked with her and GAP about any concerns the DJJ OIG may have had. She said that GAP was accused of misspending funds but it was not true. Ms. Ecklund said that there was a lot in the DJJ OIG report that was not true. She said that she was not saying that they were lying, just that they did not go far enough in their research of the facts or all that they needed to do. She said that there were no improprieties as far as she was concerned. Ms. Ecklund said that she had concerns after reading the DJJ OIG report because she was not given an opportunity to comment. She said that her belief was that the report was very one sided. She said, “it breaks my heart they’d [the DJJ OIG] accuse me of misspending the funds.” She said that getting accused of something and not even knowing, just was not fair. She said that the whole thing troubled her. She said they just wanted to do the right thing and always did. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, provided a written statement received on April 25, 2012, that stated: Sometime after the DFS report was received and after IG Eubanks ordered no further interviews be conducted I went to her with my concerns about providing the OIG report to the effected [sic] entity and substantially effected [sic] individuals without affording them (GAP and Vicki LopezLukis [sic]) the opportunity to be interviewed. At that time IG Eubanks directed we would not be providing the report to GAP or Ms. Lopez-Lukis [sic] for review and comment. I believe I told IG Eubanks something to the effect that her decision was in violation of statute and she said something about not wanting to deal with the backlash from Secretary Wansley Walters; who IG Eubanks had previously shared, was a close friend of Ms. Lopez-Lukis [sic]. IG Eubanks told me to take the paragraph related to the effected [sic] entity review out of the report. This paragraph was part of the Report of Investigation template and was located in the Statement of Accordance section. I told IG Eubanks I had a real problem with this and she indicated there would be no further discussion on it. A few days later as we were making edits to the report I still had strong concerns over her decision. As she was preparing to go on one of her many vacations, I wrote a note and attached it to the blue routing page, which accompanied the report and left it for her review. When I came in the next workday the report was on my desk and as I recall it IG Eubanks had written across the note for me to remove the effected [sic] entity section and that I should sign the report in her absence as she was now on leave (vacation). I was so upset by this that I telephoned Investigator Teresa Michael and told her what IG Eubanks wanted me to do. I don’t remember the details of what Investigator Michael and I talked about but I do recall that I later called IG Eubanks on her personal cell phone (as she rarely used her department cell phone) and again told her about my concerns. IG Eubanks was very loud with me and said she was ordering me to take the paragraph out. At

105

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

that point I felt if I did not comply with her instructions I would be subjected to retaliatory action for insubordination. I told her I would take the paragraph out but I would not sign the report and it would wait till she returned from leave. With that the call ended. I thought I had saved my note which IG Eubanks wrote on, but I have not been able to locate it. I had hoped IG Eubanks would use her leave time to rethink her intent to not send the report to the effected [sic] entity and substantially effected [sic] individuals. It was never my intent for the report referred to DFS to be published as a closed report. It was IG Eubanks’ decision and direction not to conduct further interviews after receiving the DFS report; this was against my advice. It was IG Eubanks [sic] decision and direction to remove the effected [sic] entity paragraph from the report; against my clear and repeated concerns and cautions. It was never my intent to deny the effected [sic] entity or substantially effected [sic] individuals their right to review and comment on this report. IG Eubanks could have allowed the report to go through the statutory review process without inclusion of the paragraph. Inclusion of the paragraph is not a statutory requirement. Reports of Investigation are not considered issued until signed by the inspector general or their designee. Effected [sic] entities and/or substantially effected [sic] individuals are routinely, and in accordance with statute, given the opportunity to review and comment on the investigative findings prior to issuance. It was IG Eubanks’ decision not to afford GAP, Ms. Lopez-Lukis [sic] and other substantially effected [sic] individuals the opportunity to review and comment. IG Eubanks signed and thereby issued the report knowing this statutory requirement had not been met. During his interview, when asked why he did not report his concerns to the CIG regarding the report not going to the provider, Mr. Greenfield stated that he thought he would be subjected to retaliatory action for insubordination by Ms. Eubanks for doing so. Teresa Michael, Investigations Coordinator, DJJ, stated that Mr. Greenfield called her and he told her Ms. Eubanks told him she wanted him to remove the section of the report regarding Section 20.055, F.S. Ms. Michael recalled having a discussion with Mr. Greenfield about Ms. Eubanks’ directions and Mr. Greenfield being upset about the directions he had received from Ms. Eubanks, but she said it was not until the complaint was filed that she understood which section Mr. Greenfield told her he was asked to remove. Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, said when asked about whether she “ordered” Mr. Greenfield to remove the template paragraph from the report, she replied that she did not recall ordering him to remove it. When asked if Mr. Greenfield refused to sign the report, Ms. Eubanks stated Mr. Greenfield would not usually sign reports for her. She said that she always signs final investigative reports. She could not recall the discussion about removing the paragraph from the report template or giving directions

106

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

not to send the report to the affected entity or substantially affected individuals, but she agreed that this report had not complied with the Section 20.055, F.S., requirement. During her testimony Ms. Eubanks confirmed she signed the DJJ OIG report and that her signature indicated that the report was final. Based on her testimony on May 31, 2012, Ms. Eubanks said that she believed she had a series of conversations with Mr. Berkowitz and that she does this on any case that is outside of the normal process. She said after she received the DFS OFI Memorandum, she gave it to Mr. Berkowitz. Ms. Eubanks said that she told Mr. Berkowitz, in June 2011, that the DJJ OIG report was in agreement with DFS OFI’s even though the DFS OFI Memorandum was for less money. Ms. Eubanks said that the DFS OFI Memorandum recommended that a copy of the DFS OFI Memorandum be given to the General Counsel to seek repayment of the funds. Ms. Eubanks said that she and Mr. Berkowitz had a series of conversations over several days. She said that they discussed that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for GAP was Ms. Lopez Lukis. She said, at the end of the DJJ OIG investigation, Ms. Lopez Lukis was no longer the CEO, but Mr. Berkowitz told her that they were dealing with GAP as a whole and not just one person. Ms. Eubanks said that Mr. Berkowitz was going to prepare a letter to GAP for the Secretary’s signature, but she was concerned because Secretary Walters’ name was on receipts contained in the exhibits to the DJJ OIG report. She said she figured the DJJ OIG report would be a public record and briefed the Secretary. She said that Mr. Berkowitz wanted to send the DJJ OIG report with the DFS OFI Memorandum to GAP. She said that she and Mr. Berkowitz agreed they had to let GAP respond. She said that Mr. Berkowitz drafted a letter for Secretary Walters, but she did not sign the letter at that time. She said that this was in June when the DJJ OIG report was issued. Ms. Eubanks said then on July 9, 2011 a youth died in Palm Beach and the DJJ OIG “got caught up in that.” Based on a written statement received by the CIG on May 31, 2012, Ms. Eubanks wrote the following in pertinent part: There was some confusion for me in this matter. I believed at the time that the statutory requirement had been made by [DFS] OFI to provide a copy of the report to the provider. I was also advised by the GC [DJJ General Counsel] that the [DJJ OIG] report would be sent to the provider with a cover letter from the Secretary offering GAP an opportunity to discuss the findings. To the best of my knowledge the Secretary never signed the letter, the report was not sent, and I was told that she disassociated herself from this issue approximately 5 months later.

107

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

I also recall telling Mr. Greenfield that this report would be handled differently than the usual template. I do not recall any other conversations with him about the subject report. It could also be considered that this case was opened on June 9, 2008, and the [sic] 20.055 F.S. [sic] change was not in effect until July 1, 2008, making this case subject to F.S. on the date the case opened. All the implementation instructions for the bill change documents sent from Ms. Miguel on June 30, 2008, to IGs stated that these policies went into effect July 1, 2008. I did not find an implementation rule associated with the change to the statue [sic]. I also found no case law that showed this change has ever been challenged. Further, in Ms. Eubanks’ written statement under the section entitled “ADDITIONAL COMMENT 3,” she wrote: Ms. [sic] Greenfields’s former experience prior to coming to DJJ was as an investigator with the Department of Transportation. According to his prior experience that office dealt mostly with the investigations of contracts. I had a belief that Mr. Greenfield knew how to do the job as the Chief of Investigations and that he was capable of performing those duties at an advanced level including overseeing an investigation that involved contracts. I depended on the Chief of Investigations to provide me with a report that was 100% accurate, all work papers cross walked back to the report so that all statements made in a report were supported. I did not personally recheck all calculations made in the report. I depended on Mr. Greenfield to provide me with an accurate report to review. I instructed Mr. Greenfield on numerous occasions that his report template did not work for every report and I did not believe that it worked for this one. Mr. Greenfield emphatically disagreed with me about that. He was adamant that the template was suited for all reports. I find it incredulous that according to the documentation provided to the CIG’s office with reference to this case by Ms. Lopez Lukis not one grain of truth was found by her in this report. Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that he did not recall dealing with the DJJ OIG prior to their report being issued on June 23, 2011, but once he received the report he thought the findings seemed fairly serious and the expenditures did not seem appropriate. He stated that he did not read the contracts at that time, but relied on the conclusions in the DJJ OIG report. He said that DFS OFI “backed them up.” He stated that he recalled that the bulk of the money that was questioned was paid prior to the contract date. He said that lots of times DJJ would settle an issue like this with the

108

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

provider. He stated that he received a copy of the DJJ OIG report and the DFS OFI Memorandum in June 2011. He said that both reports suggested that the DJJ take action. He said that they were attempting to do that, but had not taken any action yet. He said that normally the findings would be distributed to the appropriate division for handling. He said that in this case the findings would be distributed to Ms. Strange since they pertained to a detention contract. He also said that normally a copy of the report would go to the provider and DJJ management would enter into discussions with the provider about what money was due back, if any. Mr. Berkowitz said that after he reviewed the DJJ OIG report, he saw that Secretary Walters’ name was mentioned. He said that he had a conversation with Secretary Walters and that Secretary Walters knew both Ms. Lopez Lukis and Judge Lederman. He said that he saw a potential for a conflict of interest so after discussions, he prepared a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Woody from Secretary Walters delegating responsibility and action to him. He said this took place in September 2011. 80 Mr. Berkowitz said that the DJJ had not acted prior to the time Ms. Lopez Lukis made the complaint to the CIG, but they had discussed it internally. He said that the DJJ is now on hold pending the CIG review of the DJJ OIG investigation. Robert L. Woody, Deputy Secretary, DJJ, stated that he had been delegated the responsibility for any actions relating to GAP by Secretary Walters in September 2011 in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest on her part. He said that he had attempted to schedule a few meetings with several different entities, including the DJJ General Counsel and DFS, but when The Miami Herald article came out, he ceased doing anything pending the review of the DJJ OIG investigation by the CIG. Wansley Walters, Secretary, DJJ, stated that she did not know that the DJJ OIG report had not been given to the provider for 20 days to respond. She also said that she did not know why the Inspector General had not sent the DJJ OIG report to the provider as required by statute. Secretary Walters stated that she knew the individuals involved so she delegated any actions related to GAP to Deputy Secretary Woody. Secretary Walters stated that Ms. Eubanks let her know her [Secretary Walters’] name was referenced in the DJJ OIG report. She said that Ms. Eubanks pointed out to her that her [Secretary Walters’] name appeared on [three] receipts81 for meals purchased by GAP referenced in the report. Secretary Walters said that she told Ms. Eubanks that she did not have any recollection of that and she had no knowledge that a state program bought her a meal. She said that had she known she would have stopped them from paying for

The Delegation of Authority document is dated September 21, 2011. CIG reviewers saw that the DJJ OIG report exhibits contained a reference to three meals purchased by GAP in 2007 and 2008 where Wansley Walters’ name had been handwritten on the receipts. Two were for breakfast and dinner at the Girls Reform Initiative Summit in Jacksonville, Florida and the third one was for lunch at a restaurant in Miami with staff from Senator Nelson’s office. All three receipts were prior to Ms. Walters being appointed as the DJJ Secretary.
81

80

109

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

her meal. She said that she told Ms. Eubanks not to amend the report in any way and “it is what it is.” Documentary Evidence According to the website, under the DJJ OIG Bureau of Investigations Overview section, it states in pertinent part: In accordance with Section 20.055(6)(e), [sic] at the conclusion of each investigation in which the subject of the investigation is a specific entity contracting with the state or an individual substantially affected as defined in this section, and if the investigation is not confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure by law, the inspector general shall, consistent with Section 119.07(1), F.S., submit findings to the subject that is a specific entity contracting with the state or an individual substantially affected, who shall be advised in writing that they may submit a written response within 20 working days after receipt of the findings. Such response and the inspector general’s rebuttal to the response, if any, shall be included in the final investigative report. A memorandum from Secretary Walters to Robert L. Woody, Deputy Secretary, dated September 21, 2011 and entitled “Delegation of Authority” stated: Attached to this Memorandum are a copy of the Inspector General’s Report of Investigation no.: 08-0129 and a Memorandum from the Department of Financial Services (DFS) regarding allegations of violations of policy, contract and statute in respect to the Department’s contract nos.: X1409 and X1410 with the Girls Advocacy Project (GAP). Based on the results of the investigations by the Inspector General and DFS, it was recommended that the Department seek reimbursement of funds provided to GAP, through the contracts, which were expended in violation of policy, contract or state law. These contracts, and the investigations, were initiated prior to my becoming Secretary of the Department. Because I have personal relationships with both the individual whose allegations prompted the review by the Inspector General and the Director of GAP at the time of the contracts, I have been concerned about potential conflicts of interest in addressing this issue. I have discussed the issue and my concerns with the Department’s General Counsel who has advised me, in order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, that I remove myself from involvement in this issue and delegate to you the authority to take action on behalf of the Department to recover funds that were not spent in accordance with law, policy or contract. This delegation of authority includes initiating any legal action necessary and approving any settlement of the Department’s claims.

110

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

Please work with the General Counsel and the Assistant Secretary for Detention Services to insure the Department takes the appropriate actions to address this issue. Pertinent Governing Directives Section 20.055(6)(e), F.S., that went into effect July 1, 2008, states: at the conclusion of each investigation in which the subject of the investigation is a specific entity contracting with the state or an individual substantially affected as defined by this section, and if the investigation is not confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure by law, the inspector general shall [emphasis added], consistent with Section 119.07(1), F.S., submit findings to the subject that is a specific entity contracting with the state or an individual substantially affected, who shall be advised in writing that they may submit a written response within 20 working days after receipt of the findings. Such response and the inspector general’s rebuttal to the response, if any, shall be included in the final investigative report. As defined in Section 20.055, F.S., “Entities contracting with the state” means for-profit and not-for-profit organizations or businesses having a legal existence, such as corporations or partnerships, as opposed to natural persons, which have entered into a relationship with a state agency as defined in paragraph (a) to provide for consideration certain goods or services to the state agency or on behalf of the state agency. The relationship may be evidenced by payment by warrant or purchasing card, contract, purchase order, provider agreement, or other such mutually agreed upon relationship. This definition does not apply to entities which are the subject of audits or investigations conducted pursuant to Sections 112.3187-112.31895, F.S., or Section 409.913, F.S., or which are otherwise confidential and exempt under Section 119.07, F.S. As defined in Section 20.055, F.S., “Individuals substantially affected” means natural persons who have established a real and sufficiently immediate injury in fact due to the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of a final report of a state agency inspector general, who are the subject of the audit or investigation, and who do not have or are not currently afforded an existing right to an independent review process. Employees of the state, including career service, probationary, other personal service, Selected Exempt Service, and Senior Management Service employees, are not covered by this definition. This definition also does not cover former employees of the state if the final report of the state agency inspector general relates to matters arising during a former employee’s term of state employment. This definition does not apply to persons who are the subject of audits or investigations conducted pursuant to Sections 112.3187112.31895, F.S. or Section 409.913, F.S., or which are otherwise confidential and exempt under Section 119.07, F.S.

111

August 24, 2012 CIG Conclusion

CIG Report # 201111160005

Based on the testimony, documentary evidence, and review of DJJ OIG case file documentation, CIG reviewers determined that, contrary to statute, the DJJ OIG did not provide GAP, an entity contracting with the state or individuals substantially affected by the DJJ OIG investigation, like Ms. Lopez Lukis 82 and others, with an opportunity to review or to submit written responses for inclusion in the final DJJ OIG report even though statute specifically mandates the Inspector General shall provide the report to a specific entity contracting with the state and individuals substantially affected by the findings, conclusions or recommendation of a final report by an agency Inspector General. Further, there are no provisions in statute to delegate this authority to anyone outside of an agency Inspector General. Therefore, CIG reviewers conclude that Ms. Eubanks failed to follow the statutorily prescribed duties for an Inspector General in accordance with Section 20.055(6)(e), F.S.

ISSUE 18 Ms. Lopez Lukis stated that the DJJ OIG prematurely released the report and improperly released GAP’s proprietary financial information to the public and media without distributing a copy of the report to GAP. Interviews and Written Statements ChristopherJoseph “C.J.” Drake, Director, Communications Office, DJJ stated that he received an email from Carol Marbin Miller with The Miami Herald regarding a public records request for the DJJ OIG report. He said that he passed this request to the Office of the General Counsel and to Mr. Greenfield. He stated that he and his office do not do any of the redacting of confidential or exempt information and he relies on the Public Information Office to do that. He said that on October 20, 2011, Mr. Greenfield responded to the first records request. He said that a second request came in for everything relating to the DJJ OIG case including all of the exhibits to the report. He said that he again worked with Mr. Greenfield and an Office of the General Counsel employee to gather the records. He said he burned all of the exhibits to a disk and provided them to The Miami Herald. He said that he asked the General Counsel’s Office if they were ready for release and he was told they were. He said that he learned later that they had provided GAP bank information and the name of a former Youth that should have been redacted to The Miami Herald. He said he found this out shortly

82

According to Ms. Lopez Lukis, she obtained a copy of the final DJJ OIG Investigative Report on November 16, 2011, from Ms. Carol Marbin Miller.

112

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

before The Miami Herald ran the article about this case. He said that he found this out from Ms. Eubanks when she came to his office to ask what had been provided. Mr. Drake said that he called Carol Marbin Miller to see if he could retrieve the documents from her and she did not agree to return them, but he confirmed that she was not planning on publishing anything related to the bank records or the former Youth in her article. He said that the story published the next day. Howard Greenfield, former Chief of Investigations, DJJ, said he spoke with C.J. Drake in Communications when the records requests came in from The Miami Herald. Mr. Greenfield said that the DJJ OIG is involved in reviewing records and redacting information when the request pertains to an OIG report. He described that the DJJ OIG consults with members of the DJJ Office of the General Counsel on records requests and redactions which he indicated he did in this case. Mr. Greenfield said that in this case, “it didn’t get checked thoroughly enough at some point.” He said, “It should’ve been checked at different stages but it fell through the cracks.” Mary Eubanks, former Inspector General, DJJ, said that the name of the former youth served by DJJ “should’ve been redacted” from the DJJ OIG report. Regarding when Ms. Lopez Lukis got the DJJ OIG final investigative report, Ms. Eubanks said it was her impression that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not know about the DJJ OIG report until Carol Marbin Miller released the article in The Miami Herald. Ms. Eubanks said Mr. Geier of DFS OFI told her that Ms. Lopez Lukis got the DFS OFI Memorandum from DFS. Ms. Eubanks said in a written statement provided on May 31, 2012, that There was some confusion for me in this matter. I believed at the time that the statutory requirement had been made by [DFS] OFI to provide a copy of the report to the provider. I was also advised by the GC [General Counsel] that the report would be sent to the provider with a cover letter from the Secretary offering GAP an opportunity to discuss the findings. To the best of my knowledge the Secretary never signed the letter, the report was not sent, and I was told that she disassociated herself from this issue approximately 5 months later.[ 83] I also recall telling Mr. Greenfield that this report would be handled differently than the usual template. I do not recall any other conversations with him about the subject report. It could also be considered that this case was opened on June 9, 2008, and the 20.055 [sic] F.S. [sic] change was not in effect until July 1, 2008, making this case subject to F.S. on the date the case opened. All the
83

The Delegation of Authority letter is dated September 21, 2011.

113

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

implementation instructions for the bill change documents sent from Ms. Miguel[ 84] on June 30, 2008, to IGs stated that these policies went into effect July 1, 2008. I did not find an implementation rule associated with the change to the statue [sic]. I also found no case law that showed this change has ever been challenged. Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel, DJJ, stated that The Miami Herald made a request for records regarding the DJJ OIG report. He stated they may have gotten several requests for records. He said he reviewed the request and decided there records were a public record. Mr. Berkowitz said that the General Counsel’s Office participated in the gathering of the documents related to this request. He explained that records requests are processed with the responsible division and, in this case, the responsible division was the DJJ OIG. He said that the DJJ OIG should have redacted the information in the report. He said it would be fair to say that the DJJ General Counsel’s Office and the DJJ OIG shared responsibility for giving GAP banking information and a former youth’s name without redaction to The Miami Herald. He stated that it was lots of documentation that they had to get out quickly. He stated that this “slipped through the cracks” and that they are “trying to be more careful.” CIG Conclusion Based on testimony, CIG reviewers determined that DJJ OIG and the DJJ General Counsel’s office released GAP bank account information and the name of a former youth served by DJJ prior to redaction as required by policy and statute to Carol Marbin Miller with The Miami Herald. However, CIG reviewers did not find evidence of ill intent in the release of the records to The Miami Herald. Further, CIG reviewers confirmed that the DJJ OIG did not distribute the report to Ms. Lopez Lukis 85 prior to The Miami Herald receiving the DJJ OIG report.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE Under the heading “Distribution List,” the DJJ OIG report indicated that copies of the DJJ OIG report with all exhibits and attachments were distributed to DJJ Assistant Secretary for Detention Services Julia Strange and Acting Superintendent of MiamiDade Regional Juvenile Detention Center John Loftheim. Under the same heading, the report indicated that copies of the Executive Summary, without exhibits or attachments, were distributed electronically to DJJ Secretary Walters, DJJ Deputy Secretary Woody, and DJJ Chief of Staff Daly.

84

85

This reference is regarding Ms. Melinda Miguel, CIG. According to Ms. Lopez Lukis, she obtained a copy of the final DJJ OIG Investigative Report on November 16, 2011, from Ms. Carol Marbin Miller.

114

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

CIG reviewers determined that Secretary Walters, Chief of Staff Daly, General Counsel Berkowitz, and Deputy Secretary Woody received a copy of the DJJ OIG report. CIG reviewers noted that Ms. Strange and Mr. Loftheim did not receive a copy of the DJJ OIG report and all exhibits and attachments as stated in the DJJ OIG report section titled “Distribution List.” Mr. Loftheim told CIG reviewers that he had been the Acting Superintendent of Miami-Dade Regional Juvenile Detention Center from April 21, 2009 to October 13, 2009, but in June 2011 [when the DJJ OIG report was finalized], he was the Director of Detention Services – Central Region. CIG reviewers interviewed Ms. Eubanks to determine why the distribution was not completed as reported in the June 23, 2011, DJJ OIG report, but no adequate explanation was provided.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The scope of this review included: a review of the sufficiency of the evidence, findings, and conclusions contained within the DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 and an assessment of whether the DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 was conducted in accordance with Section 20.055, F.S. (also known as the Inspector General Act.) The Inspector General Act of 1994 (Act) created an Inspector General in each state agency and outlined the duties and responsibilities of each office and its respective Inspector General. Inherent in the Act and the professional standards referenced in the Act are mandates to promote accountability, integrity and efficiency in government programs and to conduct investigations professionally, fairly and accurately. The CIG review found that the DJJ OIG failed to meet these mandates in the conduct of Investigation #08-0129. In accordance with Section 20.055(2)(j), F.S., Offices of Inspectors General are required to comply with the General Principals and Standards for Offices of Inspectors General as published and revised by the Association of Inspectors General. General Standard, Due Professional Care, which requires in part that “investigations should be conducted in a diligent and complete manner, and reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that sufficient relevant evidence is collected.” This standard was not met. CIG reviewers found concerns with each of the 12 issues listed in the DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129. And, although the DJJ OIG staff stated that conclusions were not drawn for most issues beyond “REFERRED” to DFS, the presentation of information in the DJJ OIG Investigative Report is misleading, incomplete, and in some cases, inaccurate. Further, the evidence gathered in DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 was not “sufficient,” “competent” or “relevant” to reach conclusions, as required in the professional standards. The most egregious example of failure to meet professional standards was concerning Issue 12 in the DJJ OIG Investigative Report. Although the Issue is listed as “Falsified Invoices. REFERRED,” the first sentence under this issue stated, “During this investigation it was found that Lopez-Lukis [sic] falsified invoices for services rendered

115

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

to DJJ under contract X1409.” CIG reviewers confirmed with DJJ OIG staff that no evidence was identified or found to indicate that any invoices were falsified or that contractual services were not delivered. Even the former Inspector General stated that she was informed by the DFS OFI that Ms. Lopez Lukis did not show intent or conspiracy, was not malicious, cooperated with them, and because there was no intent to defraud, DFS OFI did not find any criminal activity. Additionally, information presented as factual in DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 was preliminary and in some cases, based on speculation. During interviews, the DJJ OIG staff each acknowledged they failed to conduct interviews of the subjects named in the DJJ OIG report or other relevant witnesses identified by the investigator and Chief of Investigations. Each also acknowledged that the DJJ OIG investigation was not complete when the report was signed as final. Even though the CIG review found that some of the expenditures cited in the report may be unallowable based on governing directives, no evidence was found in the supporting documentation obtained by the DJJ OIG during their investigation that GAP knew expenditures were anything but legitimate program related expenditures. Moreover, the CIG review determined that the DJJ OIG failed to fully evaluate the language in GAP contracts that conflict with statutes and other expenditure guidelines. In a written statement, the former DJJ Inspector General stated, “with the knowledge I have today that possible [sic] the focus of the investigation should have been on contracts X1409 and X1410 and the validity of the contracts.” Further, contrary to Section 20.055(6)(e), F.S., the DJJ OIG failed to provide the entity contracting with the state and the individuals substantially affected with an opportunity to review the report and provide comments for inclusion in the final report. Although testimony is conflicting as to why this did not occur, the responsibility for doing so, in accordance with the statutory provision rests with the Inspector General. Finally, CIG reviewers did not find sufficient evidence to indicate that the noted deficiencies with DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 cited in this report were based on malice toward GAP or GAP’s employees. The DJJ OIG conducts many investigations each year to ensure quality of care and operations for the youth in DJJ custody. Nonetheless, the conduct of DJJ OIG #08-0129 was outside the parameters of Section 20.055, F.S., and was not conducted sufficiently and thoroughly. Based on the above, it is recommended that DJJ Secretary Walters consider the findings of this review and take appropriate corrective action. At a minimum, it is recommended that Secretary Walters consider the following: • provide this report to any past and future recipients of the DJJ OIG Report of Investigation #08-0129;

116

August 24, 2012 •

CIG Report # 201111160005

ensure that the DJJ case file for DJJ OIG Investigation #08-0129 accurately reflects that the CIG review contains findings contrary to the findings of the DJJ OIG Investigation; request the Chief of Contracts or the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, in consultation with the General Counsel’s Office, conduct a review of the DJJ contract protocols, including the GAP contracts, to identify lessons learned and potential enhancements to DJJ’s internal controls or contract language so that future contracts can be improved; request the Assistant Secretary for Detention Services and the Director of the Office of Program Accountability, review the background screening protocols to ensure all access to DJJ detention facilities is authorized, all background screening approvals are received, documented and communicated at appropriate intervals and with appropriate individuals, and ensure there is not a systemic issue; review the DJJ public records process, including the DJJ’s OIG, to ensure timely responses, proper redactions, and proper managerial and legal oversight; and, request that Deputy Secretary Woody and General Counsel Berkowitz, after considering this report, meet with DFS to determine appropriate follow up actions, if necessary.

• •

Additionally, the Chief Inspector General will complete the following: • advise the incoming Inspector General, upon hire, of the outcome of the CIG findings so that internal controls inside the DJJ OIG can be evaluated and enhanced where needed; advise the incoming Inspector General, upon hire, at a minimum, to finalize the DJJ OIG investigative manual and to consider the feasibility of accrediting the investigative function through the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation; develop, in consultation with the Governor’s Agency Inspectors General and Directors of Investigations/Directors of Auditing, protocols to ensure deviations from Section 20.055, F.S., are reported to the Chief Inspector General; and, develop, in consultation with the Governor’s Agency Inspectors General, protocols for referral to the DFS OFI by Agency Inspectors General.

117

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005 REVIEWER SIGNATURE PAGE

118

August 24, 2012 GAP RESPONSE

CIG Report # 201111160005

119

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

120

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

121

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005

122

August 24, 2012

CIG Report # 201111160005 CIG ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RESPONSE

August 24, 2012

Melissa McKinlay President Girls Advocacy Project, Inc. 12289 Pembroke Road, #163 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33025 RE: CIG Report #201111160005 Dear President McKinlay: Please consider this letter as acknowledgement of your August 14, 2012, response to the Office of the Chief Inspector General’s Case Review of the Department of Juvenile Justice Office of Inspector General (DJJ OIG) Investigation #08-0129. We have reviewed your response and determined that no additional work by this office is warranted at this time. Concerning Issue 15, we found insufficient documentation in the DJJ OIG Investigative Records to determine who owned DW Consulting, Inc., or why it was specifically listed as a questioned expense. As already stated, without conducting interviews, Issue 15 was not thoroughly investigated by the DJJ OIG. A copy of your response and this letter will be included in our final report (enclosed). Copies of the documents (including all attachments) provided to our office on January 11, 2012 by Ms. Lopez Lukis in response to Investigation #08-0129 will be made a part of our official case file and provided to the DJJ OIG for inclusion in their official case file for Investigation #08-0129. I sincerely appreciate you reporting your concerns to our office. Additionally, thank you for your cooperation and the cooperation of the Girls Advocacy Project, Inc. staff during our review. Respectfully,

Melinda M. Miguel Chief Inspector General Enclosure

123

Executive Office of the Governor Office of the Chief Inspector General The Capitol, Room 2103 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Office Phone Number – (850) 717-9264 Fax Number – (850) 921-0817 Whistle-blower’s Hotline – 800-543-5353

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful