Brown v. Firestone
Decision Date | 13 March 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 57959,57959 |
Citation | 382 So.2d 654 |
Parties | J. Hyatt BROWN, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. George FIRESTONE, etc., et al., Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Talbot D'Alemberte and Donald M. Middlebrooks of Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, and William T. Ryan, Sharyn L. Smith and James E. Eaton, House of Representatives, Tallahassee, for petitioners.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and J. Kendrick Tucker, Deputy Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for Secretary of State.
S. Craig Kiser, Deputy Gen. Counsel and Michael Basile, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for Comptroller of the State of Florida.
John K. Aurell, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for Governor Graham.
Chesterfield Smith and Bill McBride of Holland & Knight, Tampa, Larry Levy of Dickinson, Levy & Taylor, James R. Eddy, Pompano Beach, Donald H. Reed, Jr., Boca Raton, and Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education, Tallahassee, for amici curiae.
By petition for writ of mandamus, Messrs. J. Hyatt Brown, Herbert F. Morgan, S. Curtis Kiser, and Ralph H. Haben, Jr., as citizens and taxpayers, question the constitutional validity of a number of Governor Bob Graham's vetoes of provisions of chapter 79-212, Laws of Florida, known as the General Appropriations Act of 1979. Nominal respondents are George Firestone, Secretary of State, and Gerald Lewis, Comptroller of the State of Florida. Governor Graham was added as party respondent on November 1, 1979. Petitioners seek a judicial determination invalidating the Governor's vetoes, and the issuance of an order requiring the Secretary of State to expunge the vetoes from the official records of the state and preventing the Comptroller from disbursing state funds based on such vetoes. Jurisdiction is asserted under article V, section 3(b)(5), Florida Constitution.
After receiving the Governor's budget recommendations and conducting hearings, drafting bills and conferring through a conference committee, the Florida Legislature adopted by vote of each house Senate Bill 1297, now enacted into law as chapter 79-212. On June 28, 1979, the Governor filed with the Secretary of State his official message approving the General Appropriations Act subject to certain vetoes made under authority of article III, section 8, Florida Constitution. The vetoes here under consideration and the provisions in the Appropriations Act to which they presumably relate follow, numbered 1 through 6:
Included in item 382 on page 69 is $2,613,142 for each year of the biennium from the General Revenue Fund for the teaching hospital program. This is set out in the proviso following item 383. At the time of establishment of the USF Medical School, it was understood by all concerned that a full program of medical education could be achieved by reliance on the facilities available in the Tampa Bay community hospitals and the establishment of a state supported teaching hospital would not be necessary. Therefore, the proviso following item 383, on page 69, which constitutes an appropriation, and reads as follows, is hereby vetoed:
On page 152 following item 1131 is a proviso which reserves the use of $100,000 of the Deficiency Appropriation to the Department of State Division of Corporations. This proviso is contrary to Section 216.231, Florida Statutes, which provides procedures for the release of Deficiency Funds upon approval of the Governor and three other members of the Administration Commission. My budget recommendation provided for a Deficiency Fund of $1,461,130; however, the legislature only appropriated $400,000. It would not be prudent to reserve a portion of this deficiency appropriation and further limit the ability of the Administration Commission to respond to agency needs. If the Division's workload should increase as is anticipated by the proviso, a deficiency request could be submitted to the Administration Commission for review on its own merits. Therefore, this proviso, on page 152 following item 1131, which reads as follows, is hereby vetoed:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kim v. Bd. of Liquor License Commissioners for Balt. City
...one of the intended checks on the authority of the legislature [would be] able to be negated in practice.Id. (quoting Brown v. Firestone , 382 So.2d 654, 663-64 (Fla. 1980) ).Noting the appellate history of the one subject clause, the Delmarva Power & Light Court stated:Although in the past......
-
Department of Educ. v. Lewis, 61241
...of state funds. Therefore, appellants as taxpayers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the proviso. Brown v. Firestone, 382 So.2d 654 (Fla.1980); Department of Administration v. Horne, 269 So.2d 659 (Fla.1972); Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152, 74 So. 205 (1917). Cf. Flast......
-
Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm
...involved in Fairfield. It was therefore entirely within the Governor's authority to veto these funding sources. See also Brown v. Firestone, 382 So.2d 654 (Fla.1980) (in the context of a qualification or restriction "a specific appropriation is the smallest identifiable fund to which a qual......
-
State ex rel. Wisconsin Senate v. Thompson
...basis the assertions of power of the executive and legislative branches in relation to the appropriations act." Brown v. Firestone, 382 So.2d 654, 671 (Fla.1980).4 Of the 37 specifically challenged partial vetoes in this case, only items D-35, D-36, E-23 and E-83 were submitted to the legis......
-
The administrative process and constitutional principles.
...(Governor cannot use veto power to alter or amend substantive legislation or to reassign vetoed appropriations); Brown v. Firestone, 382 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1980). See also Chiles v. United Faculty of Florida, 615 So. 2d 671 (Fla. (11) See Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, & F, 589 So. 2d ......
-
Evaluating proviso in the state budget: is the Florida Legislature complying with the Constitution?
...of their merit. (11) The seminal case evaluating the boundaries of the appropriations single subject requirement is Brown v. Firestone, 382 So. 2d 654, 664 (Fla. 1980). Writing for the Florida Supreme Court, Justice Alan Sundberg acknowledged that the legislature is not powerless to determi......