Opinion ID: 1598612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: statutory construction analysis

Text: Because the question presented solely involves interpretation of a statute, it is subject to de novo review. See Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. ContractPoint Fla. Parks, LLC, 986 So.2d 1260, 1264 (Fla. 2008) (citing Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla.2007)). In matters of statutory construction, we have repeatedly recognized that legislative intent is the polestar that guides the Court. Bautista v. State, 863 So.2d 1180, 1185 (Fla.2003). While that principle is undisputed, the actual application of that principle is at times difficult. In this case, if the Legislature had expressly stated that the APA governs terminations under section 1002.33(8)(d), this case would not be before us. Conversely, if the Legislature had specifically exempted school boards from the APA, as the Legislature did in the case of the Charter School Appeals Commission and the State Board of Education, there would also be no need for statutory construction to determine legislative intent. [12] The answer would be clear. However, in this case, despite the comprehensive statutory scheme set forth in section 1002.33 for the creation, operation, and termination of charter schools, the Legislature neither expressly subjected the school boards and other charter school sponsors to the APA in matters involving immediate terminations, nor expressly exempted school boards from the APA requirements. We determine that within the express text of section 1002.33, the Legislature has given clear indication of legislative intent as to procedures to be followed relative to charter schools by providing a comprehensive, detailed statutory scheme that does not intend that the provisions of the APA be incorporated into the charter school termination process. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the principle that specific statutes covering a particular subject area will control over a statute covering the same subject in general terms. See Maggio v. Fla. Dep't of Labor & Empl. Sec., 899 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla.2005). Basic to our examination of statutes, and an important aspect of our analysis here, is the elementary principle of statutory construction that significance and effect must be given to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of the statute if possible, and words in a statute should not be construed as mere surplusage. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., 948 So.2d 599, 606 (Fla.2006) (quoting Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins. of N.Y., 840 So.2d 993, 996 (Fla.2003)). In this regard, we focus first on the word immediately in section 1002.33(8)(d). That section expressly states that a sponsor, here the School Board, may immediately terminate a charter school charter upon good cause shown or where the health, safety, or welfare of the students is threatened. § 1002.33(8)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005). The Survivors charters then impose only a twenty-four-hour notice requirement upon such an immediate termination. Where, as here, the legislature has not defined the words used in a [statute], the language should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass'n v. Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings, 686 So.2d 1349, 1354 (Fla.1997). The word immediately in section 1002.33(8)(d) is not defined, and it is therefore appropriate to refer to dictionary definitions when construing statutes in order to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of words used there. Barco v. School Bd. of Pinellas County, 975 So.2d 1116, 1122 (Fla. 2008); see also Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So.2d 294, 298 (Fla.2000) (When necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning `can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary.' (quoting Green v. State, 604 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1992))). The word immediately means without interval of time. See Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 621 (11th ed.2003). Accordingly, the Legislature's use of the word immediately in section 1002.33(8)(d) indicates that the charter may be terminated without interval of time. Therefore, termination of a charter immediately means something different than termination accomplished over a period of weeks or months or, even as interpreted by the Fourth District, only something less than ninety days, which is the time frame established for non-emergency terminations of charter school charters. See Survivors, 968 So.2d at 45. Our conclusion that immediate contemplates prompt action is strengthened by the fact that the reasons for which section 1002.33(8)(d) may be invoked are limited to situations where the health, safety, or welfare of the students is threatened and where good cause for immediate termination is shown. As to situations involving threats to the health, safety or welfare of students, the emergency nature of the circumstances are apparent, as well as the need for prompt action. As to good cause for immediate termination, the School Board agrees that in the context of this statute, good cause would have to be something more than the other legally sufficient causes that govern nonemergency terminations, and that the circumstances must be exigent so as to necessitate immediate action. [13] If grounds necessitating immediate action are not present, then the district school board must utilize the provisions of section 1002.33(8)(c). On the other hand, when emergency-type situations are present, then the chance of harm to the students increases and the concomitant need for immediate action is obvious, thereby justifying immediate termination under section 1002.33(8)(d). Thus, in determining the legislative intent behind section 1002.33(8)(d), we look not just at the use of the word immediately but at the fact that this subsection addresses the type of circumstances requiring an immediate response, such as a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the students. Further, because we are dealing with an entire statutory scheme for granting and terminating charters, we do not look at only one portion of the statute in isolation but we review the entire statute to determine intent. See GTC, Inc. v. Edgar, 967 So.2d 781, 787 (Fla.2007). This is in accord with the principle that we give full effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another. Heart of Adoptions, 963 So.2d at 199 (quoting Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 829 So.2d 891, 898 (Fla.2002)). It is thus significant to our analysis that the Legislature set forth detailed procedures in section 1002.33(8)(c) for the school boards to follow for nonemergency termination and nonrenewal of a charter. Survivors concedes, and we agree, that because the Legislature set forth those detailed procedures in section 1002.33(8)(c), the APA would not apply to nonemergency terminations under that subsection. At the same time, Survivors urges us to find, as did the Fourth District, that when it comes to emergency terminations under section 1002.33(8)(d), the procedures of the APA would apply. [14] We are not required to abandon either our common sense or principles of logic in statutory interpretation. See, e.g., Bautista, 863 So.2d at 1185 (applying a common-sense approach to statutory interpretation in order to give effect to legislative intent). We consider Survivors' view to be contrary to common sense in that a school board would be subjected to more extensive procedures under the APA when emergency circumstances are present than it would be subjected to for all other terminations under the procedures set forth in section 1002.33(8)(c). Finally, we also discuss due process considerations, in part because the Fourth District stressed its concern that the charter school termination procedures must provide due process to the school whose charter is being terminated and because the court appeared to conclude that due process could be provided only by compliance with the APA. We are always mindful of our obligation to construe provisions of legislative acts consistent with the basic tenets of fairness and due process. See Larimore v. State, 2 So.3d 101, 116 (Fla.2008) revised on denial of rehearing, 34 Fla. L. Weekly S131 (Fla. Jan. 29, 2009) (citing State v. Atkinson, 831 So.2d 172, 174 (Fla.2002)). We conclude, however, that constitutional considerations do not require us to find that the procedures mandated by the APA must apply in charter school terminations. While the notice and hearing procedures contained in the APA are crafted in part to provide due process in administrative proceedings, chapter 120 is not the sole method by which a party may receive due process. The APA is a creature of the Legislature, as is the charter schools statute. Just as the APA may be evaluated to determine what due process protections are provided there, the charter schools statute is subject to a similar review. As we explained in Keys Citizens For Responsible Government, Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 795 So.2d 940 (Fla.2001): In order to determine what process is constitutionally required, the Court must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action. Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, 367 U.S. at 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743. Three factors are relevant in determining what process is constitutionally due: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government's interest. Id. at 948-49. Due process is not a technical concept with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances. Id. at 948 (quoting Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473, AFL-CIO v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961)). Instead, `due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.' Id. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). Most importantly, [t]he specific parameters of the notice and the opportunity to be heard required by procedural due process are not evaluated by fixed rules of law, but rather by the requirements of the particular proceeding. Id. In finding that the APA does not apply to immediate charter school terminations, we reiterate the Legislature's clearly stated purpose of section 1002.33(8)(d)  to provide school boards and other charter school sponsors with the ability to immediately terminate charters where there are emergency-type circumstances, such as those that threaten the health, safety or welfare of students, or where other good cause necessitating immediate action exists. The principles we discuss have led us to an interpretation that gives the greatest effect to the actual legislative language set forth in section 1002.33, more fully accomplishes the legislative purpose apparent in that provision, and honors the detailed termination and appeal statutory scheme.