Title: Opinion File 73-88 thru 73-91
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003353/00001
 Material Information
Title: Opinion File 73-88 thru 73-91
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Buddy Blain's Collections - Opinion File 73-88 thru 73-91
General Note: Box 14, Folder 3 ( Opinions 1972 - 1973 - 1972 - 1973 ), Item 38
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003353
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

MEMORANDUM I 8
KEY WORDS: iy a
TO: MGG : _

FROM: RVW

RE: SOUTHWEST FLORIDA MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: ANNUAL LEAVE PAY


FACTS:


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

Tampa.

QUESTION PRESENTED:


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

new position?

P SHORT ANSWER:

Yes.

DISCUSSION:

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:






73-89

(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 ,,





,73-90


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




'C *
'I


F. S. 216.262 (1) (d) should not apply.




CONCLUSION:


For the reasons discussed above, it is my opinion that

SWFWMD is not prohibited from paying its former director his full

annual leave salary.


73a-91




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