Case Title: Citizens of Florida v. Mayo

Citation: 357 So. 2d 731

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1978-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
357 So. 2d 731 (1978)
The CITIZENS OF the State of FLORIDA, Petitioners,
v.
William T. MAYO, Chairman, William H. Bevis, Commissioner, and Paula F. Hawkins, Commissioner, As and Constituting the Florida Public Service Commission, Respondents.
No. 50446.

Supreme Court of Florida.
April 6, 1978.
*732 Larry Levy, Public Counsel and C. Earl Henderson and Peter Andrew Knocke, Associate Public Counsel, Tallahassee, for petitioners.
William L. Weeks, Gen. Counsel, and Barrett G. Johnson, Tallahassee, for Florida Public Service Com'n, respondents.
D. Fred McMullen, Lee L. Willis and James D. Beasley of Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor, Tallahassee, for Tampa Elec. Co., intervenor-respondent.
R.Y. Patterson, Jr., and Daniel O. White, Winter Park, for Fla. Gas Co., intervenor-respondent.
Walter H. Alford, Miami, for Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., intervenor-respondent.
Dan R. Schwartz, in pro. per.
ADKINS, Justice.
We have for review by writ of certiorari an order of the Public Service Commission denying a petition of public counsel wherein he sought to have the Commission institute rule making proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1975) for the purpose of adopting an amendment to the Commission's rule regarding agenda conferences (25-1.40, Florida Administrative Code) in the form proposed by public counsel.
An agenda conference is a medium for decision making. A particular matter does not come up before the Commissioners at an agenda conference until after all steps involved in the development of the record in such matters have been concluded. An agenda conference is analogous to jury deliberations in a court trial, or a conference among a panel of judges following oral argument on an appeal. The Commission holds its conferences with its advisory staff in public on a regularly scheduled basis, as provided in Rule 25-1.40. These conferences, called agenda conferences, deal with whatever matters are ready for decision at the time they are held, and typically cover many cases. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, an agenda is prepared and distributed to the public in advance listing those cases scheduled for decision at a given conference. In addition, all summaries by advisory staff are public documents.
This proceeding was prompted by petitioner's stated desire to actively participate in Commission agenda conferences. The existing Commission rule governing agenda conferences reads:
Petitioner here faults the Commission for denying his petition to amend the foregoing rule to read as follows:
Petitioner does not allege that the Commission departed from appropriate rule making procedures in disposing of his petition for an amendment to the rule, nor does he seek a determination by this Court that the existing Commission rule governing agenda conferences is invalid. The order under review does not purport to pass directly upon the validity of the existing rule.
Petitioner does not challenge the order as constituting a refusal by the Commission to exercise its discretion to adopt rules of practice or procedure as required in Section 120.53, Florida Statutes (1975).
Petitioner says that Section 350.0611, Florida Statutes (1975) mandates the adoption of his proposed rule amendment verbatim. He relies upon the following portion of the statute:
His argument would have to rest upon this principle for this Court cannot require the adoption of a specific rule by the Public Service Commission. See State ex rel. Allen v. Rose, 123 Fla. 544, 167 So. 21 (1936); State ex rel. Corbett v. Churchwell, 215 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1968).
The agency rule making function involves the exercise of agency discretion and this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on an issue of discretion. State v. A.C.L.R.R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969 (1908); Section 120.68(12), Florida Statutes (1975).
In Gulf Power Company v. Bevis, 296 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1974), we reviewed and approved a rule of the Commission which had been adopted for the purpose of implementing a constitutional provision imposing a corporate income tax on utilities. We approved the rule with an "admonition" and "caveats" but recognized the discretion of the Commission in the rule making process.
The only question before us is whether Section 350.0611, Florida Statutes, supra, mandates the adoption of the rule. *734 It does not and we agree with the statement of the Commission as follows:
We approve and adopt this reasoning.
Petitioner also contends that the Commission is required to adopt rules to comply with Section 120.53, Florida Statutes (1975) and that these rules must be in substantial compliance with the model rules. He specifically says that model rule 28-1.33 (Florida Administrative Code) is applicable to the Commission and requires that any restriction of public access to agency proceedings be supported by statutory authority. The Commission, in its order, disposed of this contention in the following language:
We approve and adopt this reasoning of the Commission.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ of certiorari is discharged.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C.J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.