Title: Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Florida’s University System
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC02-449
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 23, 2002

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC02-449
____________
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE
 ATTORNEY GENERAL
 RE: LOCAL TRUSTEES AND STATEWIDE GOVERNING BOARD
 TO MANAGE FLORIDA’S UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
[May 23, 2002]
PER CURIAM.
The Attorney General has requested that this Court review a proposed
amendment to the Florida Constitution.  Pursuant to section 15.21, Florida Statutes
(2001), the Secretary of State submitted to the Attorney General an initiative
petition which sought to amend the Florida Constitution to create a system of
governance for the state university system.  In turn, the Attorney General petitioned
this Court for a written opinion as to the validity of the petition in accordance with
article IV, section 10 of the Florida Constitution and section 16.061, Florida
Statutes (2001).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla.
-2-
Const.  
THE LANGUAGE OF THE TWO-TIER 
STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM PETITION
The following are the ballot title and summary of the proposed amendment: 
 
Ballot title:  Local trustees and statewide governing board to manage
Florida’s university system  
Ballot summary:  A local board of trustees shall administer each state
university.  Each board shall have thirteen members dedicated to
excellence in teaching, research, and service to community.  A
statewide governing board of seventeen members shall be responsible
for the coordinated and accountable operation of the whole university
system.  Wasteful duplication of facilities or programs is to be avoided. 
Provides procedures for selection and confirmation of board members,
including one student and one faculty representative per board.
 The text of the proposed amendment provides:
Article IX of the Florida Constitution is hereby amended to add the
following as Section 7:
TEXT:  State University System.-----
(a) Purposes.  In order to achieve excellence through teaching students,
advancing research and providing public service for the benefit of
Florida’s citizens, their communities and economies, the people hereby
establish a system of governance for the state university system of
Florida.
(b) State University System.  There shall be a single state university
system comprised of all public universities.  A board of trustees shall
administer each public university and a board of governors shall govern
the state university system.
-3-
(c) Local Boards of Trustees.  Each local constituent university shall be
administered by a board of trustees consisting of thirteen members
dedicated to the purposes of the state university system.  The board of
governors shall establish the powers and duties of the boards of
trustees.  Each board of trustees shall consist of six citizen members
appointed by the governor and five citizen members appointed by the
board of governors.  The appointed members shall be confirmed by the
senate and serve staggered terms of five years as provided by law.  The
chair of the faculty senate, or the equivalent, and the president of the
student body of the university shall also be members.  
(d) Statewide Board of Governors.  The board of governors shall be a
body corporate consisting of seventeen members.  The board shall
operate, regulate, control, and be fully responsible for the management
of the whole university system.  These responsibilities shall include,
but not be limited to, defining the distinctive mission of each
constituent university and its articulation with free public schools and
community colleges, ensuring the well-planned coordination and
operation of the system, and avoiding wasteful duplication of facilities
or programs.  The board’s management shall be subject to the powers
of the legislature to appropriate for the expenditure of funds, and the
board shall account for such expenditures as provided by law.  The
governor shall appoint to the board fourteen citizens dedicated to the
purposes of the state university system. The appointed members shall
be confirmed by the senate and serve staggered terms of seven years as
provided by law.  The commissioner of education, the chair of the
advisory council of faculty senates, or the equivalent, and the president
of the Florida student association, or the equivalent, shall also be
members of the board.
This Court issued an order permitting interested parties to file briefs on the proposed
amendment, and two parties did so—Education Excellence for Florida (hereinafter
“EEF”) in favor of the proposed amendment and Floridians for Education Reform
(hereinafter “FER”) in opposition to the proposed amendment.
-4-
SINGLE-SUBJECT REQUIREMENT
The first issue we address is whether the proposed amendment meets the
single-subject requirement.  Article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution
provides in pertinent part that proposed amendments based on citizen initiative
petitions  "shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith."  
The single-subject requirement applies to the citizen initiative method of amending
the constitution because
section 3 [citizen initiative] does not afford the same opportunity for
public hearing and debate that accompanies the proposal and drafting
processes of  sections 1, 2, and 4.  Accordingly,  section three protects
against multiple "precipitous" and "cataclysmic" changes in the
constitution by limiting to a single subject what may be included in any
one amendment proposal.
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 705
So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 1998).
A proposed amendment must manifest a “logical and natural oneness of
purpose” in order to satisfy the single-subject requirement.  Fine v. Firestone, 448
So. 2d 984, 990 (Fla. 1984).  This determination requires this Court to consider
whether the proposed amendment substantially affects separate functions of
government, as well as how it affects other provisions of the constitution.  See In re
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen.—Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination, 632
-5-
So. 2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 1994).  
The Attorney General and FER assert that the proposed amendment
substantially alters or performs the functions of multiple branches of government. 
Specifically, they contend that the proposed amendment substantially affects the
executive and the legislative branches of government in two ways: (1) it creates a
system of governance for the state university system located within the executive
branch of government; and (2) it elevates the university board of trustees to a
constitutional office and removes a significant portion of the Legislature’s authority
to enact legislation regulating the duties and responsibilities of the university boards
of trustees and the statewide board of governors.  We disagree.
We find the present case to be akin to Advisory Opinion  to the Attorney
General re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, 705 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1998). 
In Fish & Wildlife, the proposed amendment created a new independent commission
which differed from the old commission by expanding its authority to include
regulation of marine aquatic life.  Through legislative delegation, marine aquatic life
was regulated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, the Department of
Environmental Protection, and the Department of Agriculture.  In addition, the
proposed amendment did not create a new entity where none existed; rather, it built
upon an established constitutional entity.  Id. at 1354.  This Court held that “[w]hile
-6-
the initiative may affect more than one branch of government, we cannot say it
substantially changes or performs the functions of multiple branches of government
in violation of article XI, section 3.”  Id. at 1354. 
In the present case, the proposed amendment would affect the executive and
legislative branches by authorizing the statewide board of governors to “operate,
regulate, control, and be fully responsible for the management of the whole
university system” which is currently the legislative responsibility and duty of the
Florida Board of Education, an organization located within the cabinet system of the
executive branch.  See §§ 229.004, 229.0072(4), Fla. Stat. (2001).  As in Fish &
Wildlife, we find that the sole purpose of the proposed amendment is to create a
governance of the state university system.  The enumeration of the duties and
responsibilities of the statewide board of governors and the local university boards
of trustees is a necessary component of  a single dominant plan that complies with
the single-subject requirement.  While the proposed amendment may affect more
than one branch of government, we cannot say it substantially alters or performs the
functions of multiple branches of government in violation of article XI, section 3. 
“A proposal that affects several branches of government will not automatically fail.” 
Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 705 So. 2d at 1353-54.  Furthermore, we see
no danger of logrolling here.
1.  Article IX, section 1 of the Florida Constitution provides in relevant part: 
“Adequate provision shall be made by law . . . for the establishment, maintenance,
and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs
that the needs of the people may require.”  
2.  Article IX, section 3, Florida Constitution provides that “[m]embers of any
appointive board dealing with education may serve terms in excess of four years as
provided by law.”
-7-
FER also asserts that the proposed amendment substantially affects
provisions of the Florida Constitution, particularly sections 11 and 32 of article IX
relative to education, without informing the voters of its impact.  We disagree.  Even
though the proposed amendment interacts with both provisions by providing a two-
tier governing system specifically for the state university system, it does not
substantially affect or change either one.  "[T]he possibility that an amendment
might interact with other parts of the Florida Constitution is not sufficient reason to
invalidate the proposed amendment."  Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen.—Fee on the
Everglades Sugar Prod., 681 So. 2d 1124, 1128 (Fla. 1996).  
We therefore conclude that the only subject embraced in the proposed
amendment is the two-tier system of governance of the state university system.  Its
provisions, which create a statewide board of governors and local boards of trustees
for each state university, are logically related to the subject of the proposed
amendment.  See Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen.—Limited Marine Net Fishing, 620
-8-
So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1993).  Thus, we find that the proposed amendment is functionally
and facially unified and therefore complies with the single-subject requirement.
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS
The second issue is whether the ballot title and summary express the chief
purpose of the proposed amendment in plain and unequivocal language.  Section
101.161 of the Florida Statutes governs the requirements for ballot titles and
summaries and provides, in relevant part:
Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is
submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment .
. . shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the
ballot . . . .   [T]he substance of the amendment . . . shall be an
explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief
purpose of the measure.  The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not
exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly
referred to or spoken of.  
§ 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Limited
Political Terms in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So. 2d 225, 228 (Fla. 1991) (stating
that ballot title and summary must state “in clear and unambiguous language the
chief purpose of the measure”).  These requirements make certain that the
“electorate is advised of the true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment.” 
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So. 2d 486, 490 (Fla. 1994). 
The purpose of section 101.161(1) is "to provide fair notice of the content of the
-9-
proposed amendment so that the voter will not be misled as to its purpose, and can
cast an intelligent and informed ballot."  See Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re
Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d 798, 803 (Fla. 1998).  Nevertheless, “the title and
summary need not explain every detail or ramification of the proposed amendment.” 
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting Pub. Funding of Political Candidates'
Campaigns, 693 So. 2d 972, 975 (Fla. 1997). 
FER contends that the ballot summary fails to explain that substantial changes
will occur in the existing government structure relative to the governance of the
university system.  Specifically, FER argues that the ballot summary, as well as the
proposed amendment, fails to indicate that the amendment will alter the
Legislature’s newly enacted Florida Education Governance Reorganization Act. 
This act created eleven university boards of trustees, one for each state university,
and conferred the management and oversight of the university system to the Florida
Board of Education pursuant to sections 229.001-229.0082, Florida Statutes (2001). 
We reject this contention.
This Court recently held that a ballot summary banning smoking in enclosed
workplaces fulfilled the requirements under section 101.161 even though it failed to
disclose the effect that the proposed amendment would have on existing statutory
law restricting smoking in public places.  See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Protect
-10-
People from the Health Hazards of Second-Hand Smoke, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S266
(Fla. Mar. 28, 2002).  We reasoned that the average voter was already aware that
smoking was banned in certain public places.  Id.  Likewise, we believe that the
average voter is also aware that the state university system is currently governed by
the Florida Board of Education, whose powers and duties are enumerated in chapter
229 of the Florida Statutes.  As further suggested by the proponents, it would be
virtually impossible to indicate within the word limit of the ballot summary all the
ramifications the proposed amendment would have on the Florida Education
Governance Reorganization Act. See Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen.
re—Amendment to Bar Gov’t from Treating People Differently Based on Race in
Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d 888, 899 (Fla. 2000) (“[A]n exhaustive explanation of the
interpretation and future possible effects of the amendment [is] not required.”). 
Thus, we conclude that the ballot summary adequately states its chief purpose and is
not misleading in this regard.  See Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Prohibiting
Pub. Funding of Political Candidates’ Campaigns, 693 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1997)
(determining that the ballot title and summary were not misleading and satisfied the
requirements of section 101.161 even though opponents argued that the proposed
amendment effectively invalidated existing statutory law).
FER asserts that the ballot summary fails to mention that provisions in the
-11-
state constitution would be substantially affected.  If a petition substantially modifies
a constitutional provision, then this consequence must be mentioned in the ballot
summary.  See  Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Amendment to Bar Gov’t from
Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So. 2d 888 (Fla.
2000).  Because we find that the proposed amendment does not substantially affect
or alter any provision in the state constitution, the ballot summary is not defective in
this regard.  
FER contends that the ballot summary is misleading in its inconsistent use of
the terms “local,” “accountable operation,” and “procedures for selection.”  We find
that the differing use of terminology could not reasonably mislead the voters, see In
re Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. English—The Official Language of Florida, 520
So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1988), and presume that the average voter has a certain amount of
common understanding and knowledge.  See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Protect
People from the Health Hazards of Second-Hand Smoke, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S266
(Fla. Mar. 28, 2002). 
Accordingly, we hold that the initiative petition and proposed ballot title and
summary meet the legal requirements of article XI, section 3 of the Florida
Constitution, and section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2001).  No other issue is
encompassed in this opinion, and it should not be construed as favoring or opposing
-12-
the passage of the proposed amendment.
It is so ordered.   
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding - Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Louis F. Hubener, III, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
Presentor
Robin Gibson and Kevin A. Ashley of Gibson, Valenti & Ashley, Lake Wales,
Florida; and Timothy McLendon, Co-Counsel, Gainesville, Florida,
for the Sponsor, Education Excellence for Florida
M. Stephen Turner and Kelly A. O’Keefe of Broad & Cassel, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Floridians for Education Reform