Title: Opinion File 73-30 thru 73-33
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003342/00001
 Material Information
Title: Opinion File 73-30 thru 73-33
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Buddy Blain's Collections - Opinion File 73-30 thru 73-33
General Note: Box 14, Folder 3 ( Opinions 1972 - 1973 - 1972 - 1973 ), Item 27
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003342
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, 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


S7 I 3 -30



KEY WORDS: &a zA_






October 29, 1973


TO: LMB
FR: TEC
RE: SWFWMD (R)

Issue:
May a basin board provide basin funds for the Pinellas County
Commission to use in pursuing judicial review of a SWFWMD (R)
order?

Conclusion:
Such an expenditure or gift of public funds would be improper
if for a non-public or "private" purpose. Thus if the
basin board cannot sue in its own right due to the lack of
San "aggrieved injury" and the basin board is merely pursuing
private grievances the expenditure would be improper.

Reasoning:
(A) Section 12 (12) of Ch. 73-190 Laws of Florida establishes
a list of seven items which shall be funded by basin monies.
Because of the language "Basin Board monies shall be
utilized for: there appears to be some question as
to whether or not Basin Board monies may be used for other
activities not listed therein. Resolution of this question
is dependent upon what a court finds to be the legislative
intent behind the statute. There appear to be good
arguments for both positions. I will assume therefore that
in proper circumstances the Basin may expend basin funds
pursuing legal action in the courts.

(B) The question then becomes, may the Basin Board expend
basin funds to aid a third party in its suit against the
District? The answer would appear to be yes, if the Basin
Board could have acted in its own right against the District.
However, where the Basin Board would not sue in its own
right due to lack of an "aggrieved interest" such an expen-
diture would amount in the final analysis to an attempt to
rdo indirectly an act which may not be done directly. This
attempt to circumvent the provisions of 373.173 (1) would
appear to be beyond the authority of the Basin Board.







10/29/73


(C) Act VII, 10 of the Florida Constitution does not
appear to restrict the gift of public funds to other
governmental entities, although it has been held applicable
to gifts to public corporations. Herr vs. City of St. Peters-
burg, 114 So. 2d. 171 (1959).

(D) I could locate no statutes which limit the expenditure
of public monies in such a way as to prevent the gift of
such money to a third party for purposes of pursuing liti-
gation.

(E) It should be pointed out that if the Basin Board does
not itself have an "aggrieved interest" in the dispute
between Pinellas County and the District, such an
expenditure could be construed as being for the private
benefit of the Basin Board members. Use of public funds to
satisfy private grievances would appear to be highly improper.
See Adams vs. Housing Authority of Daytona Beach (1952, Fla.)
60 So. 2d. 663. Holding a special law unconstitutional as
an attempt to authorize the expenditure of public funds for
a non-public purpose. Additional cases supporting proposition
that public funds must be used foe public purposes:
State vs. North Miami (1952, Fla.) 59 So. 2d. 779.
State vs. Inter-American Center Authority (1962, Fla.)
143 So. 2d. 1.



TEC/gh


cc: MGG "/






-I-










October 29, 1973


TO: LMB
FR: TEC
RE: SWFWMD (R)

Issue:
May a basin board provide basin funds for the Pinellas County
Commission to use in pursuing judicial review of a SWFWMD (R)
order?

Conclusion:
Such an expenditure or gift of public funds would be improper
if for a non-public or "private" purpose. Thus if the
basin board cannot sue in its own right due to the lack of
an "aggrieved injury" and the basin board is merely pursuing
private grievances the expenditure would be improper.

Reasoning:
(A) Section 12 (12) of Ch. 73-190 Laws of Florida establishes
a list of seven items which shall be funded by basin monies.
Because of the language "Basin Board monies shall be
utilized for: there appears to be some question as
to whether or not Basin Board monies may be used for other
activities not listed therein. Resolution of this question
is dependent upon what a court finds to be the legislative
intent behind the statute. There appear to be good
arguments for both positions. I will assume therefore that
in proper circumstances the Basin may expend basin funds
pursuing legal action in the courts.

(B) The question then becomes, may the Basin Board expend
basin funds to aid a third party in its suit against the
District? The answer would appear to be yes, if the Basin
Board could have acted in its own right against the District.
However, where the Basin Board would not sue in its own
right due to lack of an "aggrieved interest" such an expen-
diture would amount in the final analysis to an attempt to
do indirectly an act which may not be done directly. This
attempt to circumvent the provisions of 373.173 (1) would
appear to be beyond the authority of the Basin Board.


3 -32


*y


i-






^^ Page 2
10/29/73


(C) Act VII, 10 of the Florida Constitution does not
appear to restrict the gift of public funds to other
governmental entities, although it has been.held applicable
to gifts to public corporations. Herr vs. City of St. Peters-
burg, 114 So. 2d. 171 (1959).

(D) I could locate no statutes which limit the expenditure
of public monies in such a way as to prevent the gift of
such money to a third party for purposes of pursuing liti-
gation.

(E) It should be pointed out that if the Basin Board does
not itself have an "aggrieved interest" in the dispute
between Pinellas County and the District, such an
expenditure could be construed as being for the private
benefit of the Basin Board members. Use of public funds to
satisfy private grievances would appear to be highly improper.
See Adams vs. Housing Authority of Daytona Beach (1952, Fla.)
60 So. 2d. 663. Holding a special law unconstitutional as
an attempt to authorize the expenditure of public funds for
a non-public purpose. Additional cases supporting proposition
that public funds must be used foe public purposes:
State vs. North Miami (1952, Fla.) 59 So. 2d. .9.
State vs. Inter-American Center Authority (1962, Fla.)
143 So. 2d. 1.



TEC/gh


cc: MGG




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