Charity v. Florida State University, 95-2553

• Decision Date: 13 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-2553,95-2553
• Citation: 680 So.2d 463
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: 113 Ed. Law Rep. 991, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D657 Douglas A. CHARITY, Appellant, v. The FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, Appellee.

Page 463

680 So.2d 463

113 Ed. Law Rep. 991, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D657

Douglas A. CHARITY, Appellant, v. The FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, Appellee.

No. 95-2553.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

March 13, 1996.

Douglas A. Charity, pro se, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Gregory A. Chaires, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, Douglas Charity (hereafter petitioner, or appellant) seeks reversal of a final order of the Division of Administrative Hearings rendered in a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. The order declares valid proposed rule 6C2-5.0021 promulgated by The Florida State University (hereafter University, or appellee). We affirm.

The parties stipulated in the proceeding below to certain facts which the hearing officer incorporated into his final order. For the most part, these facts deal with the communications and discussions between various deans and other officials of the University, including its general counsel, concerning the review and possible repeal or revision of the University's Rule 6C2-5, Florida Administrative Code, entitled "Academic Matters." As stated by the hearing officer in his order, proposed rule 6C2-5.0021 repeals some of the current rules in Chapter 6C2-5, which rules contain University curricula, and other rules pertaining to admission and readmission requirements and procedures, graduation and retention requirements, and other matters. The proposed rule additionally provides for incorporation by reference of University catalogs, bulletins, and other publications specifically identified in the proposed rule. ¹ According to the language of the proposed rule, these publications "establish, contain or prescribe various academic and curriculum matters that include admission and degree requirements, course offerings, fields of study, academic calendars, facilities available to students, faculty and staff of the University, and other matters of educational delivery...." ²

Upon consideration and review of the facts as stipulated and the evidence presented below, which consisted of documentary exhibits and published materials, together with the testimony of the petitioner, the hearing officer found that the petitioner had failed to establish that the proposed rule constituted an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as the term is defined in section 120.52(8)(a)-(e), inclusive, Florida Statutes. ³ The final order contains an analysis and discussion of the proposed rule in the light of each factor included within the statutory definition, and appellant has failed to demonstrate any error in the hearing officer's conclusions. We therefore affirm without further discussion the findings and conclusions of the hearing officer concerning the validity of the rule.

We note, however, as found by the hearing officer, that petitioner's primary concern expressed in his testimony below appears to be focused on his contention that the University currently employs policies that are not contained in the documents incorporated within the proposed rule. We agree with the further conclusion of the hearing officer that such concerns do not provide grounds upon which to invalidate the proposed rule in this proceeding. The extent to which this (or other practices about which petitioner, as a student or former student, might complain) would afford grounds for relief under other provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, is not before us in this appeal. We express no opinion regarding the availability of other remedies, except to note that the provisions of section 120.57 do not apply "to any proceeding in which the substantial interests of a student are determined by the State University System." Subsection 120.57(5)(a), Florida Statutes. See Metsch v. University of Florida, 550 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989) (applicant denied admission to law school was not entitled to administrative hearing under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes).

One additional aspect of the final order merits our consideration. Under the heading "Conclusions of Law," the hearing officer, in paragraph 21 of the order, states, in part Since the subject matter of proposed rule 6C2-5.0021 would appear to be encompassed within the boundaries of curriculum identified in Hazelwood, ⁴ the various publications set forth in the rule qualify for exemption from rule making pursuant to Section 120.52(16)(c)5., Florida Statutes.

Petitioner devotes virtually his entire argument on appeal to an attack upon the correctness of this portion of the order. Clearly, as petitioner argues on appeal, if the proposed rule encompasses matters beyond the scope of "curriculum," which is exempt from rulemaking under section 120.52(16)(c)5., it follows that, to the extent the University is required by law to adopt rules governing its operation and administration, the University must comply with the rulemaking procedures of section 120.54. ⁵ We find it unnecessary to address this portion of the order other than to note that, if the hearing officer had concluded that the subject matter of the proposed rule was exempt from rulemaking, the denial of the petition would have been based on that ground. That the hearing officer did not base his order on this ground is evident from the extensive findings and conclusions justifying his decision on the merits. Because these findings and conclusions provide a correct and independent basis for the decision reached by the hearing officer, the inclusion in the order of an erroneous reason or rule for the same result would not be grounds for reversal. See Springfield v. Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 648 So.2d 802, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ("the law is so well settled as to require no citation of authority to the effect that a correct result or judgment, though based on an erroneous reason or rule,...