Opinion ID: 1857114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitutionality of the Agency

Text: Associated Industries argues that the Agency was created in violation of article IV, section 6, of the Florida Constitution because it resulted in the establishment of a twenty-sixth department. The trial court agreed. This holding would preclude the Agency from pursuing the causes of action authorized by the Act. The relevant part of the Florida Constitution reads as follows: All functions of the executive branch of state government shall be allotted among not more than twenty-five departments, exclusive of those specifically provided for or authorized in this constitution. The administration of each department, unless otherwise provided in this constitution, shall be placed by law under the direct supervision of the governor, the lieutenant governor, the governor and cabinet, a cabinet member, or an officer or board appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the governor.... Art. IV, § 6, Fla. Const. This section of the constitution makes it abundantly clear that Florida shall have a limited executive branch. With the exception of those departments specifically authorized by the constitution, there cannot be more than twenty-five executive departments in existence at any time. The legislature created the Agency in 1992. That act reads as follows: Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Effective July 1, 1992, section 20.42, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 20.42 Agency for Health Care Administration.There is created the Agency for Health Care Administration within the Department of Professional Regulation. The agency shall be a separate budget entity, and the director of the agency shall be the agency head for all purposes. The agency shall not be subject to control, supervision, or direction by the Department of Professional Regulation in any manner, including, but not limited to, personnel, purchasing, transactions involving real or personal property, and budgetary matters. (1) DIRECTOR OF HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION.The head of the agency is the Director of Health Care Administration, who shall be appointed by the Governor. The director shall serve at the pleasure of and report to the Governor. Ch. 92-33, § 1, at 241, Laws of Fla. The trial court based its conclusion that this agency was unconstitutionally structured in violation of the 25 department limit of Article IV, § 6 of the Florida Constitution upon two assumptions: (1) that the Agency is a department; and (2) that twenty-five departments were in place prior to the Agency's creation. We disagree. As set out below, we conclude that the Agency was created as a valid agency within an existing department by the express language of the statute. Consequently, we need not determine the number of departments in existence in 1992. This Court is deferential when reviewing a legislative determination as to the meaning of a constitutional provision. In Greater Loretta Improvement Ass'n v. State ex rel. Boone, 234 So.2d 665, 669 (Fla.1970), we stated: [W]here a constitutional provision may well have either of several meanings, it is a fundamental rule of constitutional construction that, if the Legislature has by statute adopted one, its action in this respect is well-nigh, if not completely, controlling. This rule of construction is tempered by reason, and this Court will not give a constitutional provision an impossible or irrational construction simply to validate a given statute. [8] Our role is to determine whether the legislature has adopted a rational construction of the constitutional limitation on executive departments. The legislature has set forth a policy concerning this issue as follows: 20.02 Declaration of policy. . . . . (2) Within constitutional limitations, the agencies which comprise the executive branch should be consolidated into a reasonable number of departments consistent with executive capacity to administer effectively at all levels. The agencies in the executive branch should be integrated into one of the departments of the executive branch to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness as intended by s. 6, Art. IV of the State Constitution. . . . . (5) Departments should be organized along functional or program lines. § 20.02, Fla. Stat. (1993)(emphasis added). Thus, the legislature has clearly stated its intention that departments should be organized with special attention given to keeping similar functional responsibilities within the same department. The Agency was created as an independent agency within the Department of Professional Regulation. The Agency's director is appointed by, and reports directly to, the governor. We find that the placement of the Agency within the Department of Professional Regulation [9] was within the prerogative of the legislature. It cannot be disputed that the Agency's functional responsibilities include the regulation of health care activities in the state. The Agency does much more than initiate claims to recover Medicaid expenditures from third parties. Numerous amicus briefs filed by the hospital industry indicate a high level of concern regarding the trial court's adverse ruling as to the Agency. Those briefs explain the numerous Agency responsibilities in the regulation of hospitals and health-care providersresponsibilities certainly indicating that the Agency is a vital regulatory body within the health-care industry. The Department of Professional Regulation was responsible for many similar functions. Thus, the Agency's placement was a logical extension of the regulatory functions of the Department of Professional Regulation. We find no merit in Associated Industries' claim that our functional analysis will render the disputed departmental limitation meaningless. First, nothing changes as to the number of departments allowed in Florida. To accept Associated Industries' argument would mean that the legislature could not direct that an agency within a department must report directly to the governor. That result was neither intended nor required by the constitutional limitation on the number of departments. Our decision today does not permit the legislature to create a twenty-sixth department. Neither does the legislature gain the freedom to create numerous autonomous agencies. As we have stated, all agencies must be functionally related to the departments in which they are placed. We certainly are not sanctioning departments that resemble hodgepodges. [10] However, we do not believe that the constitutional departmental limitation prevents the legislature from placing an agency within a department, even though the agency itself reports directly to the governor, so long as that agency is functionally related to the department in which it is placed. Accordingly, we find no constitutional infirmity in the Agency's structure.