Title: In Re Advisory Opinion to Governor

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

626 So. 2d 684 (1993)
In re ADVISORY OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR  SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER  SUSPENSION AUTHORITY.
No. 81617.

Supreme Court of Florida.
November 4, 1993.
*685 J. Hardin Peterson, General Counsel, and Deborah K. Kearney, Office of the Governor, Tallahassee, for petitioner, Governor Lawton Chiles.
Richard H. Langley, Clearmont, for Lake County School Bd., and Dana P. Hoffman and Jackson O. Brownlee of Brownlee, Hoffman & Jacobs, P.A., Orlando, for Diane B. Rowden, interested parties.
Dear Governor Chiles:
We acknowledge receipt of your communication of April 16, 1993, requesting our opinion concerning your executive powers and duties to suspend school board members under article IV, section 7(a), of the Florida Constitution.[1] Omitting the formal parts, your letter reads as follows:
The above request was supplemented by your letter of May 17, 1993, which brought to our attention that the 1993 Legislature "passed House Bill 1545 pertaining to the compensation of district school board members and adding district school board members to the list of constitutional officers under chapter 145, Florida Statutes"; that "the Legislature amended the introductory phrase `county officers' by deleting the word `county'"; that "the bill analysis prepared by the House Committee on Community Affairs for House Bill 1545 states, `Chapter 80-377, Laws of Florida, moved the statutes governing salary calculations for school board members (who are not county officers) from chapter 145 to chapter 230, F.S'"; that "[t]he bill analysis for chapter 80-377 indicates that district school officials are not county officers and that they had been included in chapter 145 for salary purposes only"; that "the report concluded that `these are district officers, rather than those of the county.'" You then concluded that "[t]hese documents appear to demonstrate that the Legislature, as well as the Attorney General, has determined that district school board members are district officers rather than county officers."
The single question presented by these letters is whether a school board member is a "county" officer, in which event he or she may be suspended only under article IV, section 7(a), or a "district" officer, in which event the school board member could be suspended under the statutory authority of section 112.51, Florida Statutes (1991). For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we conclude that an elected school board member may be suspended by the governor only under the authority granted in article IV, section 7.
At the outset it is necessary to recount the history of the constitutional suspension provision and explain how this authority has been applied since the adoption of the present provision in 1968. Under the Florida Constitution of 1885, the suspension authority of the governor was found in article IV, section 15. The relevant portion of this section read as follows:
This language was revised in the 1968 revision to the Florida Constitution. The new constitutional provision dealing with the governor's *688 suspension authority is article IV, section 7. It reads as follows:
Art. IV, § 7, Fla. Const. (emphasis added).
In the Commentary to the 1968 revision, Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte compared the new suspension provision in article IV, section 7, to the provision in the Constitution of 1885:
26 Fla. Stat. Ann. 101-02, Commentary (1970) (emphasis added).
A comparison of the 1885 constitutional provision with the current provision regarding the governor's suspension authority clearly establishes that the authors of the 1968 revision to the Florida Constitution intended to limit the broader suspension power provided in the 1885 Constitution and to make it more specific as to the officers subject to the governor's suspension authority. It is also clear that, even after the 1968 revision added this limiting language, both this Court and the governors who have suspended school board members considered elected school board members to be "county officers" for the purpose of suspension. This Court, in an advisory opinion issued to the governor in 1974, distinguished between an elected and an appointed superintendent of public instruction, and held that an appointed superintendent was not subject to suspension under article IV, section 7. In so doing, we stated:
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 298 So. 2d 366, 370 (Fla. 1974) (emphasis added). Furthermore, as noted in your letter seeking this advisory opinion, twelve school board members have been suspended by the governor since the 1968 revision and all were suspended pursuant to article IV, section 7. See 26 Proclamations & Exec. Orders 303-09; 313-14; 319 (1970) (five suspensions); Fla.Exec.Orders Nos. 72-12 (Feb. 21, 1972), 77-50 (Sept. 19, 1977), 77-51 (Sept. 1977), 79-82 (Sept. 27, 1979), 81-103 (Sept. 2, 1981), *689 83-25 (Feb. 4, 1983), and 85-87 (Apr. 5, 1985).
In your letter, you note that, in order to provide a means for the suspension of officials who are not covered by article IV, section 7, the Legislature enacted section 112.52, which reads as follows:
This section was enacted to ensure that the governor has the authority to suspend those officials who are not covered under article IV, section 7, particularly district officers and members of boards and commissions whom the governor appoints.
Two additional portions of the Florida Constitution provide further background for this issue. Article VIII, entitled "Local Government," sets forth the responsibilities and operation of counties and municipalities. In section 1(d), the article identifies "county officers" as the sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections, and clerk of the circuit court. Interestingly, county commissioners are not identified as county officers but as "commissioners" under section 1(e). Article IX, entitled "Education," establishes the organization and operational responsibilities of educational governmental entities. Article IX, section 4, provides that "[e]ach county shall constitute a school district" and that "[i]n each school district there shall be a school board composed of five or more members chosen by vote of the electors... ." Article IX, also provides in section 5 for an elected superintendent of schools unless the electors change that position to one appointed by the school board.
While an argument can be made that the suspension provision in article IV, section 7, should be construed narrowly and that school board members should be characterized as "district" rather than "county" officers, we find that a broader construction is appropriate. We reach this conclusion because it is apparent that the public looks at both school board members and county commissioners as "county" officials, who have equivalent power and authority, albeit in different local governmental spheres. We recognize that article VIII, section 1(d), defines certain "county officers." We note, however, that the county officers defined in section 1(d) could not have been intended to be the only "county" officers subject to the suspension provisions of article IV, section 7, because that provision does not include county commissioners within the definition of a county official. The duties and governing authority of county commissioners are set forth in article VIII, section 1(e). School board members' duties and authority are found in article IX, sections 4(a) and 4(b), which provides that "each county shall constitute a school district" and that school board members shall "operate, control, and supervise" the schools within the county (emphasis added). Article IX, section 5, provides for a superintendent of schools, who is an elected officer unless the electors change that position to one appointed by the school board. We find that the following are county officers within the intent of article IV, section 7: the officers identified in article *690 VIII, section 1(d); county commissioners identified in article VIII, section 1(e); school board members identified in article IX, sections 4(a) and 4(b); and the elected superintendent of schools identified in article IX, section 5. In reaching this conclusion, we are not writing on a clean slate. For the last twenty-one years, both this Court and the executive branch have applied article IV, section 7, to school board members[2] and superintendents of schools. To now accept a narrow construction would require us to recede from our decision in In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 298 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1974), which, as previously noted, holds that school board members are subject to suspension by the governor under article IV, section 7.
Your letter also brings to our attention an opinion of the attorney general in which the attorney general determined that the prohibitions against dual office-holding set out in article II, section 5(a), of the Florida Constitution[3] do not apply to school board members because of the attorney general's belief that school board members are "district" officers rather than "county" officers. See Op. Att'y Gen.Fla. 84-72 (1984). You further note that, if we hold that school board members are "county" officers, there may be school board members who are in fact holding dual offices because of this attorney general opinion and that these dual office holders would be required to forfeit their first-held office. With regard to those individuals who may be holding dual offices because of the attorney general's opinion 84-73, we conclude that this opinion should be prospective in its application. This prospective application should apply only until such time as the term of one of the dual offices expires.
In conclusion, we answer your inquiry in the affirmative and find that a district school board member is a "county" officer for the purposes of your suspension authority under article IV, section 7(a), of the Florida Constitution.
McDONALD, Justice.
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues that a district school board member is a county officer for the purposes of the Governor's suspension authority pursuant to article IV, section 7(a) of the Florida Constitution. County officers are defined in article VIII, section 1 of the Florida Constitution. School boards and their members attain existence by virtue of article IX, section 4, and nowhere in the constitution are they defined as county officers. I conclude that the references made to county officers in article IV, section 7(a) encompasses only those officers, described in article VIII, section 1 of the *691 constitution, who perform general governmental functions for the county.
I believe the Governor has authority to remove a school board member under the provisions of section 112.52, Florida Statutes (1991), and not under article IV, section 7(a).
[1]  We have jurisdiction pursuant to article IV, section 1(c), Florida Constitution.
[2]  It is interesting to note that Governor Reuben O'D. Askew, who entered executive orders 72-12, 77-50, and 77-51, suspending school board members under the provisions of article IV, section 7(a), was a member of the 1968 Constitution Revision Commission and the Legislature that placed that provision before the people. Further, Justice B.K. Roberts, who participated in the majority advisory opinion to the governor in 298 So. 2d 366, was also a member of the 1968 Constitution Revision Commission.
[3]  Article II, section 5(a), Florida Constitution, reads as follows:

No person holding any office of emolument under any foreign government, or civil office of emolument under the United States or any other state, shall hold any office of honor or of emolument under the government of this state. No person shall hold at the same time more than one office under the government of the state and the counties and municipalities therein, except that a notary public or military officer may hold another office, and any officer may be a member of a constitution revision commission, taxation and budget reform commission, constitutional convention, or statutory body having only advisory powers.