CopyCited 61 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1991 WL 250980
...Mills, Gainesville, amicus curiae. Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, interested party. BARKETT, Justice. We have for review the order of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Dade County, Florida, in which the court declared unconstitutional sections
216.011(1)( ll ) and
216.221, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...Comptroller, Treasurer, Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner of Education, and all as members of the Administration Commission (hereinafter "Commission"). [2] The trial court granted the children's request and held sections
216.011(1)( ll ) and
216.221, Florida Statutes (1989), unconstitutional and enjoined the Commission from attempting to restructure the 1991 Appropriations Act pursuant to the budget reduction procedure established in chapter 216....
...of Control,
62 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1952). We find the children have demonstrated the existence of present ascertainable facts which were sufficient to permit the trial court to afford declaratory relief. The central issue in this case is whether the legislature, in passing section
216.221, violated the doctrine of separation of powers by assigning to the executive branch the broad discretionary authority to reapportion the state budget. Section
216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in relevant part: If, in the opinion of the Governor, after consultation with the revenue estimating conference, a deficit will occur in the General Revenue Fund, he shall so certify to the commission....
...delegate its lawmaking function to another branch notwithstanding policy considerations or the fiscal operations of other states which do not have Florida's constitutional prohibitions against the delegation of powers. Thus we must ascertain whether section 216.221(2) delegates the legislative responsibility to establish law....
...The Commission nevertheless argues that the ability to balance the budget through the reduction process of chapter 216 does not encompass a delegation of legislative power. Rather, it contends that reducing the budget is not the same as "appropriating." We construe the power granted in section 216.221(2) as precisely the power to appropriate....
...cate its lawmaking function and would enable another branch to amend the law without resort to the *266 constitutionally prescribed lawmaking process. This delegation strikes at the very core of the separation of powers doctrine, and for this reason section 216.221 must fail as unconstitutional....
...They left total discretion to executive branch officials. That is, the statutes did not indicate which land to designate as areas of critical state concern in Askew, or which position to cut in Orr, or which confidential information could be released in Lewis. Likewise, in this case, section 216.221 does not indicate which budgeting priorities to maintain or to cut from the original appropriation....
...e fiscal period. The Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission, however, may not be assigned the task of redrafting the appropriations bill once it has passed the legislature and has been approved by the Governor, an avenue that section 216.221 attempts to open for the Commission....
...ine and weigh the multitude of needs and fiscal priorities of the State of Florida. The legislature must carry out its constitutional duty to establish fiscal priorities in light of the financial resources it has provided. Consequently, we find that section 216.221 is an impermissible attempt by the legislature to abdicate a portion of its lawmaking *268 responsibility and to vest it in an executive entity....
...tion. It would indeed be easier and more practical to permit the Commission to rewrite the appropriations bill. We are prohibited by our constitution from doing so. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order holding sections
216.011(1)( ll ) and
216.221, Florida Statutes (1989), unconstitutional as a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers....
...SHAW, C.J., and GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs with an opinion. McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED. OVERTON, Justice, concurring. I fully concur in the majority opinion. I write only to emphasize that the reason section 216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), is unconstitutional is because it grants the Governor and Cabinet unlimited legislative policy-making discretion. Other states apparently have addressed the issue of budget adjustments in a constitutional manner without requiring a special legislative session. The extent of the Governor's and Cabinet's legislative policy-making authority granted by section 216.221(2) is illustrated by the total elimination of funds appropriated by the legislature for emergency housing for homeless families with children, as well as the elimination of a special appropriation for additional aid to dependent children....
...ference of State Legislatures study relating to *270 legislative budget procedures in the fifty states, [12] noted that other states have addressed this problem in more restrictive ways without having to call the legislative body into session. While section 216.221(2) is unconstitutional, it does not mean that the legislature must reconvene every time there is a need for budget adjustments. I believe the legislature can establish a process with specific guidelines for making budget adjustments that is constitutional. McDONALD, Justice, dissenting. Section 216.221, Florida Statutes (1989), involves a statutory scheme which permits the reasonable exercise of appropriately shared authority between the executive and legislative branches. The need to maintain a balanced budget is one which is strongly ensconced in Florida's history; it is a protection for the public, and particularly for future generations, which must be guaranteed to the greatest extent possible. Section 216.221 provides the framework for such protection and I believe it is constitutional....
...e relieved of the constitutional obligation to employ the supreme executive power of the state to assure the budget was balanced. The mandates of the Constitution prevail over both the legislative and executive branches of government. In that regard section 216.221(1) is declarative of the constitutional power and responsibility reposed in the Governor....
...appropriation which by law is a maximum appropriation. There must be a guard standing at the door to prevent the expenditure of funds which are not on hand and are not forthcoming. The legislation under attack recognizes this. My colleagues declare section 216.221 unconstitutional because they perceive the Commission as performing a legislative function or doing so with inadequate guidance....
...tutional obligation to preclude the expenditure of funds *271 in excess of revenue. Should the statute fall, he still has this constitutional mandate to assure that no more money is spent than is taken in. Thus, I see little to gain by striking down section 216.221....
...Horne,
269 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1972); see Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury,
56 So.2d 445 (Fla. 1952); Yon v. Orange County,
43 So.2d 177 (Fla. 1949); State ex rel. Hill v. Cone,
140 Fla. 1,
191 So. 50 (1939). The budget reductions ordered pursuant to section
216.221, Florida Statutes (1989), go to the very heart of the legislature's taxing and spending power, and thus the children have standing to invoke this constitutional challenge....
...For example, the Emergency Financial Assistance for Housing Programs mandated by the legislature to address this state's housing needs would be completely abolished. [8] The Board of Commissioners of State Institutions was the delegatee in that case. [9] We reject the Commission's assertion that section 216.221 contains sufficient guidelines....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 176, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 493, 143 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2806, 1993 WL 64606
...1991), in which we said that the reduction choices were solely within the exclusive authority of the legislature. As noted in my concurrence to that opinion: The extent of the Governor's and Cabinet's legislative policy-making authority granted by section 216.221(2) is illustrated by the total elimination of funds appropriated by the legislature for emergency housing for homeless families with children, as well as the elimination of a special appropriation for additional aid to dependent children....
...[3] Florida's Constitution requires that the state operate under a balanced budget. [4] "It is the duty of the Governor, as chief budget officer, to ensure that revenues collected will be sufficient to meet the appropriations *677 and that no deficit occurs in any state fund." § 216.221(1), Fla....
...447.309(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). [4] Article VII, section 1(d), Florida Constitution, states: "Provision shall be made by law for raising sufficient revenue to defray the expenses of the state for each fiscal period." [5] After this Court declared subsection
216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), unconstitutional in Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, & F,
589 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1991), the legislature amended section
216.221....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Among the alternatives listed, HRS recommended amending the Medicaid plan to require a freeze in nursing-home Medicaid re-imbursement rates, beginning January 1, 1990, for an indefinite period. On November 21, 1989, the AC accepted the proposal and reduced HRS's budget accordingly, pursuant to Section 216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), which provides in part: "The commission may, by affirmative action, reduce all approved state agency budgets and releases by a sufficient amount to prevent a deficit in any fund." *1301 To comply with pert...
...of which are the subjects of this appeal. In their
120.56 rule challenges, appellants claimed that HRS's emergency and permanent rules were invalid under the decision of Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, & F,
589 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1991), holding that section
216.221 was facially unconstitutional because it violated the doctrine of separation of powers....
...o amounts less than those established by the 1991 Appropriations Act. Six foster children affected by the reductions thereupon brought actions for declaratory and injunctive relief against the AC. The trial court granted the children's request, held section
216.221 unconstitutional, and enjoined the AC from implementing the budget reductions. On appeal, the supreme court held that section
216.221 was unconstitutional, because it delegated the power to reapportion the state budget to the executive branch of the government, whereas the Constitution only permits the legislature to appropriate state funds by duly enacted statutes. The court concluded as follows: Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order holding sections
216.011(1)(11)[ [5] ] and
216.221, Florida Statutes (1989), unconstitutional as a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers....
...It clearly indicates that any reductions or elimination of programs made by an agency in response to the acts of the governor and AC were void. In our judgment, this paragraph should not be understood as broadly precluding consideration of any other legal challenges to executive actions taken pursuant to section 216.221....
...1967) (on rehearing); In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Property: 1985 Mercedes Serial No. WDB7AQ4C1FF070173,
596 So.2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (and cases cited therein). Under this doctrine, this court is required to apply the Chiles decision to the issue at bar. The fact that Chiles held section
216.221 facially invalid, whereas the action at bar involves an attack on two rules implementing section
216.221 as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, does not render the Chiles rule inapplicable to the instant case....
...e payment for medical services to any [eligible] person[.] (Emphasis added.) The legislature appropriated sufficient funds to HRS for the fiscal year 1989-1990 for the purpose of reimbursing the providers at bar. Although HRS did not explicitly cite section 216.221 as one of the laws implemented by the emergency and permanent rules, the text of the notice of emergency rulemaking *1303 stated that the rule was being promulgated pursuant to the AC's decision to freeze the Medicaid rates. The parties specifically stipulated below that the budget-reduction procedure was authorized by section 216.221. The only authority given to the executive branch of government to reduce the state budget is derived from section 216.221....
