Title: Proposed Rules of The Department of State, Division of Elections
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00052827/00001
 Material Information
Title: Proposed Rules of The Department of State, Division of Elections
Alternate Title: Letter from L. M. Blain to Stephen Nall, Esq., Department of State re: Proposed Rules of The Department of State, Division of Elections chapter 1S-1, Florida Administrative Code, with suggestions and objections to the proposed rules authorizing the depart
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
General Note: Box 5, Folder 18 ( SF Rules, Standardization of Numbering ), Item 93
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00052827
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text


GARY A. GIBBONS (813) 223-3888
P. O. BOX 10449
(904) 222-0960

Stephen Nall, Esquire REPLYTO: Tampa
General Counsel
Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Re: Proposed Rules of The Department of
State, Division of Elections
Chapter 1S-1
Florida Administrative Code

Dear Mr. Nall:

Thank you for providing the opportunity to appear before you in
the April 8, 1980 hearing on proposed Chapter 1S-1. We are filing
this letter within ten days of the hearing, in accordance with
your authorization, as written suggestions and objections to the
proposed rules.

1. Rule 1S-1.001(8) and Rule 1S-1.002(4): The first of these
two rule subsections authorizes the Department of State to
change the number of any rule or any part of a rule when
the change is needed to preserve the overall integrity of
the numbering system used in the Florida Administrative
Code and provides that the Department give proper notifica-
tion of the change. The second of these rule subsections
provides that the Department may alter a catch line for a
rule section admitted by the adopting agency if it does not
sufficiently indicate the content of the section to make it
useful for indexing purposes. We suggest that in both these
subsections provision be made for the adopting agency to
concur with the change made by the Department of State. In
Rule 1S-1.001(8), the words "and concurrence" should be added
after the words "upon proper notification" in line 2 of that
subsection. In Rule 1S-1.002(4), the words "after proper
notice and concurrence" should be added after the words
"Department of State" in line 3 of the subsection.

Stephen Nail, Esquire
April 15, 1980
Page Two

2. Rule 1S-1.002(1) -- Required typing element: This subsection
provides for an OCR-B (Printing and Publishing Number 3) typing
element. We believe that the Department already has recognized
that an OCR-B and a Printing and Publishing Number 3 are two
different types of elements. Our information from the Depart-
ment is that the Printing and Publishing Number 3 is the
specified element.

Our objection to the use of this element is its unavailability
in a printwheel for use on a Qume word processing printer. We
understand that the necessary printwheel is not available from
IBM or other suppliers, but only from a company headquartered
in California and at considerable delay and expense. We,
therefore, suggest that the rule be modified either to provide
for a different typeface, or if this is not possible because
of optical scanning limitations, to provide the option of
submitting the final form of the rules in diskette form so
that they may be transferred by your Department to magnetic
cards to be produced on a mag card typewriter in the required

3. Rule 1S-1.002 -- Requirement of two different forms of rules:
The proposed rules provide for each agency to submit its
proposed rules in two forms: an original form set out exactly
as the rules are to appear in the Florida Administrative Code
and two copies of a coded form showing additions by under-
lining and deletions by struck-through type. Providing two
different forms, both of which must be certified by the
agency, provides considerable extra work and the possibility
of discrepancies. Agencies that do not have word processing
equipment will have to type their rules twice, once in coded
form and once in uncoded form. Agencies with word processing
equipment may avoid the necessity for complete retyping, but
must go through the time and expense of removing coding from
the coded version to produce the original version. Additionally,
if a discrepancy were found between the coded and uncoded
versions, the agency would have certified both versions and the
Department would be in a position of being unsure as to which
version was correct.

We believe that the coding marks can be removed from the coded
version by your optical scanner. This can be done by blacking
through the struck-through words and the underlining with a
black pen so that those characters will not be picked up by
the optical scanner. In this way, only one form of the rules
would need to be submitted.

Stephen Nail, Esquire
April 15, 1980
Page Three

We therefore suggest that the rules call for one letter-
size, double-spaced coded form of therules and two copies,
the original form to be input into your optical scanner and
the two copies used in the same manner as now provided for.

4. Rule 1S-1.002(5) -- Certification: The certification
provision is unclear. In the first place, it appears to
provide for certification for each of the three copies of
a rule that are submitted to the Department. The statute
being implemented states only that the adopting agency
"shall file with the Department of State three certified
copies of the rule it proposes to adopt." 120.54(11) (b).
We suggest that this rule be implemented by requiring only
one.certification for all three copies.

This subsection is further unclear as to whether separate
certificates have to be filed for each amendment within a
chapter. The first part of the second sentence of sub-
section 5 appears to require only a separate certificate
for each chapter affected. The second part of that sentence,
however, seems to require that a separate certification be
required for adoptions of the new rules, repeals of existing
rules, or amendments to existing rules within a chapter.
This could produce dozens of certifications for one set of
filings. We suggest that this confusion be cleared by sub-
stituting the following language: "A separate certificate
shall be filed for each chapter in which one or more rules
are being adopted, amended, or appealed. That certification
shall cover all rules within the chapter which are being

5. Rule 1S-1.002(5) (a) -- Form for certification: In accordance
with the statute being implemented, the proposed form would
require certification that there is no administrative deter-
mination pending on any rule covered by a certification. The
form does not make clear, however, what is to be certified if
there is an administrative determination pending on any rule.
Section 120.54(11)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), states that
the Department shall reject a rule upon which an administrative
determination is pending,. The statute does not state, however,
that all rules within a chapter shall be rejected merely be-
cause one of those rules is subject to an administrative deter-
mination. The form thus should provide an alternative certifi-
cation for the situation in which one rule out of the rules
within the chapter being certified is subject under an admin-
istrative determination.

Stephen Nail, Esquire
April 15, 1980
Page Four

"Additionally, paragraph 3 of the certification form
contains ambiguous language in requiring "that attached
is the original or one of two correct copies." The
alternative certification of "the original" or "one of
two correct copies" will become unnecessary if the
requirement of separate certifications is dropped, as
we have suggested. If not, the language should be
modified to show "the original" or "one of two correct
copies" as alternatives, probably through the use of
parentheses, as follows:

3. That attached is (the original) (one of
two correct copies) of each rule covered by
this certification which is hereby adopted by
the undersigned agency by and upon its filing
with the Department of State.

6. Rule 1S-1.003(7) -- Notice of disposition of declaratory
statement: The proposed rule would require that the notice
of the disposition of a declaratory statement set out a
summary of the substance of the response. Such a summary
might be relied upon as the agency's statement, when the
statement in its entirety only should be relied upon. We
suggest, therefore, that this subsection be modified to
provide that the agency set out the statute, rule, or
order number, but not summarize the substance of the

7. Rule 1S-1.004(3) -- History notes: This subsection provides
that numbers of repealed or transferred sections not be re-
assigned to sections subsequently promulgated. A problem
may arise, however, in the situation in which a provision is
repealed and later reenacted in similar or different form.
The new section, if numbered entirely differently from the
previous section, would not reflect the existence of the
earlier section and the history prior to reenactment. We
suggest, therefore, that numbers normally not be reassigned,
but that reassignment of a number be used if a subsequent
section dealing with the same subject is adopted. This could
be accomplished by adding the following clause to the end of
subsection 3: "unless subsequent sections deal with the same
subject as repealed or transferred sections formerly did."

Stephen Nail, Esquire
April 15, 1980
Page Five

Thank you for the opportunity to respond in writing to these
proposed rules. We will be glad to furnish you with whatever
further information might be helpful.

Sincerely yours,

L. M. Blain


cc: Ms. Liz Cloud, Chief
Bureau of Administrative Code

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs