MEMORANDUM I 8
KEY WORDS: iy a
TO: MGG : _
RE: SOUTHWEST FLORIDA MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: ANNUAL LEAVE PAY
The director of SWFWMD resigned his position effective
October 31, 1972. Prior to this date he took his annual leave,
which period would run to the effective date of his resignation.
While on annual leave, but prior to the effective date of his
resignation, he began work in his new position with the City of
May SWFWMD pay its former director his annual leave
salary for the period of his annual leave up to October 31, 1972,
during which he was also employed by the City of Tampa in his
P SHORT ANSWER:
The specific question presented by the above facts is a
novel one and therefore has not been decided by either case law or
Attorney General's opinions in Florida. The problem then boils
down to a question of statutory interpretation to determine
whether SWFWMD is prohibited from paying him this annual leave
salary. The applicable statutory provisions are F.S. 216.262 (1)
(c) and (d), which read as follows:
(c) "No individual employed by a state agency
fmay hold more than one employment during his
normal working hours with the state, such working
hours to be determined by the head of the State
agency affected, unless approved by the department."
(d) "No individual employed by a state agency
may fill more than one full-time equivalent
established position, received compensation
simultaneously from any appropriation other
than appropriations for salaries, or receive
compensation simultaneously from more than
one state agency unless approved by the depart-
ment during each fiscal year."
The initial question presented by the above statutory
provisions is whether SWFWMD is a "state agency" within the
purview of Chapter 216, Florida Statutes. In this regard, a
state agency is defined by F.S. 216.011 as "any official, officer,
commission, board, authority, counsel, committee or department
of the executive branch or the judicial branch, as herein defined,
of state government." Unfortunately F.S. 216.011 fails to define
"executive branch" and obviously SWFWMD is not a part of the
judicial branch of the state government. Because of this legislative
gap the status of SWFWMD-and whether it is a "state agency" under
Chapter 216, F.S. is difficult to resolve conclusively. Reading
Chapter 216 as a whole, however, it is my opinion that its purpose
is to govern direct administrative branches of the state government,
and not quasi-governmental bodies such as SWFWMD. The definition
of state agency under Chapter 216 has not been determined by case
law or attorney general's opinion and thus my conclusion in this
regard is based solely on basic principles of statutory construction.
| m ,,
SAssuming that SWFWMD is a "state agency" within the
purview of Chapter 216, the problem still remains whether F.S.
216.262 prohibits SWFWMD from paying' its previous director his
full annual leave salary. In this regard, I do not feel that F.S.
216.262 (1) (c) presents any problem since Mr. Twachtmann began
his work with the City of Tampa while on "annual leave" which
'r should be considered as being "off duty hours" and certainly not
normal duty hours. On the other hand, F.S. 216.262 (1) (d) may
present a problem since it provides in pertinent part "no individual
employed by a state agency may receive compensation simul-
taneously from more than one state agency ." Applying this
language to our problem, the answer revolves, again, around the
definition of "state agency." If SWFWMD is not a "state agency"
obviously there is no problem. But even assuming that it is a
"state agency"within the definition provided by F.S. 216.011,
in my opinion it would be an unreasonable interpretation to also
include the City of Tampa, a municipal corporation, within the
term "state agency." To do. so in this case would be contrary to
reasonable statutory construction and not in line with the apparent
purpose of Chapter 216, Florida Statutes.
Thus, utilizing the above interpretations, it would seem
that even though SWFWMD is, or may be, a "state agency" within
the purview of F.S. 216.011 and F.S. 216.262, the City of Tampa
is not such a "state agency." For this reason, Mr. Twachtmann
should not be considered as "receiving" compensation simultaneously
from more than one "state agency" and therefore the prohibition of
F. S. 216.262 (1) (d) should not apply.
For the reasons discussed above, it is my opinion that
SWFWMD is not prohibited from paying its former director his full
annual leave salary.