b !&L S94L
Clint 2shaltso Dtreptef
Southbsst lorid Wa er saaag n District
Peat o0ftee low 457
r oekseille, loerida 33512
'Dear Clint .
smat to Ch. 443, ElenLa Stattes zrvisr*a the definition of
"otol nt m if vpill m apply to the Diaetet. Zn our opinion.
this revision will nit &nply to the Distric t e forth boelo.
Section 441.03(5) () is) oew and provides in pertinent pUrt,
So at follows 3
Sn The trm ployrmr t" tSalt include
Snrvite prteorm in the employ
of may po~liS al subAivtion of this
The tar "poUttifle sobdiviiton. in ,r opinLion, braces the
eoacept of diret pmplte etleatia m i e 0"eountbility to the
L el eMeCate threat fer. by W .war a counIty 1s cetainly
Ma pM tel sudtivinmr of the itte. em the thor hma4n the
Dsetri is o aly iatdietly tan er h -a o he elwterate. ed
those, sbOal not be included under ob Mai etf "political
*ubtIvitiote" anless i4Prsy pas tidat suah in a particular
Aetwr s* defitie a t n e. 'm tw im tant nme, Ch. 443
Seo not o.fste a Sl Mg aoS *es r.S. st. o () control
the seatiet wsill peit. Zn this obs* tamhe e quoted stttfe
SOctober 2, 1974
Clint Schults, Director -2-
reads political subdivision et this state" not\" g this state'"
u does 51.01(9). The dItihpation ia praseolegy. I believe,
is sigamficant IA that the t latte a siply coaoneWr overnmuntal
entity located in the state whereas the former clearly connotes
am entity which is an integral part of state government, which
the District is not.
In addition, in Atty. Gen. Op. 72-210, the Attornel~ y earsa
has concluded that the Central and Southern oeed Control District
is not a political subdivision of the state. The CaCD, like the
District, is a public corporation and, thus, the rationale and
conclusion of the above cited opinion should apply equally to the
oXBDO8S, TUCKa, MCHO EN, SMZt,
COPft & TAUB
Myron G. Gibbons
RE: Opinion on whether SWFWMD is a "political subdivision"
under F.S. 443
DATE: October 2, .1974
Attached is a draft of an opinion letter to Clint Schultz
pursuant to your previous request.
As you can see, the conclusion of the letter is in keeping
with the District's policy to remain a: autonomous as possible
by not conceding any binding connection with the state. However,
in this case I think the desired answer may be contrary to exist-
ing Attorney General Opinions and reasonable statutory construction.
In that regard, also are attached two opinions which I feel directly
bear upon the instant question, particularly 74-7 which opines
that Ch. 440 (Workman's Compensation) applies to special districts.
Specifically, it should be noted that this opinion defines the
terms "employer" and "employment" by using F.S. 1.01(9) in pari
material with 440.02(4). Thus, while the distinction between the
use of the word "in" and the word "of" in the proposed letter is
arguable, apparently the Attorney General disagrees.
In addition, since it is a well accepted principle of con-
struction that when doubt exists as to a statutory meaning, the
purpose for which the statute was enacted is of primary importance.
With that in mind, a review of F.S. 443.02-Declaration of public
policy, reveals a very broad legislative intent to protect the
citizens of Florida from economic insecurity due to unemployment.
I believe this would be an important, if not determinative, factor
should there ever be a court test.