Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency, Inc. v. Commission on Ethics, 77-1397
| Decision Date | 01 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1397,77-1397 |
| Citation | 354 So.2d 932 |
| Parties | FLORIDA GULF HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. The COMMISSION ON ETHICS of the State of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horace A. Andrews of Harris, Harris & Andrews, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Walter Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
By petition for writ of certiorari petitioner, Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency, Inc. (FGHS), seeks review of opinion CEO 77-102 issued July 21, 1977 by respondent, Commission on Ethics of the State of Florida. Upon consideration of the matter the petition is granted.
Petitioner requested an advisory opinion from respondent concerning the applicability of the financial disclosure law, Section 112.3145, Florida Statutes (1975), to members of the governing board of FGHS.
'Is a person who becomes a member of the governing body of Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency, Inc., . . . by action of the governing body in filling a vacancy on its board, a "local officer" pursuant to F.S. 112.3145?'
Respondent answered the posed question in the affirmative on the basis that because of their broad powers, including the power to expend public funds and to affect the lives of citizens, members of a governing board of a Health Systems Agency fall within the class of public officials for which financial disclosure was intended, despite the fact that such agencies are legally structured as non-profit (sic) corporations.
That opinion referred to a previous opinion, CEO 77-18 issued February 17, 1977, which found the financial disclosure law applicable to the members of the governing body of the Florida Panhandle Health System Agency, Inc. reasoning that:
As each HSA has the authority to establish plans for the future development of health facilities in its area, to make grants and to enter into contracts in furtherance of those plans, we find that the powers, jurisdiction and authority of each HSA are not solely advisory. Therefore an HSA is not an advisory body for purposes of financial disclosure.
The health planning functions of each HSA and the legal authority to implement its plans give each HSA broad power to influence the lives of persons within its jurisdiction. Because of this authority, we feel that the members of the governing body of each HSA, the persons who are responsible for its decision, undoubtedly fall within the class of public officials for which financial disclosure was intended by the Legislature. Moreover, had each HSA been structured as a public regional planning body or a single unit of local government (as the Act contemplated), instead of as a nonprofit corporation, members of its governing body would clearly constitute 'local officers.' As a result, we refuse to believe that the legal structure of an HSA is of material consequence here.
FGHS is a private, nonprofit corporation formed according to the corporate laws of this state and pursuant to the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974 (Act). 42 U.S.C. §§ 217a, 229, 291b, 300k-t (1977). There is no dispute that petitioner complied with the provisions of the pertinent state law with regard to its organization as well as with the applicable federal law and that it was the legal entity properly designated as the health system agency for Area IV of Florida. The legal structure of a health service agency may be either (1) a nonprofit, private corporation, (2) a public regional planning body, or (3) a unit of general local government. 42 U.S.C. § 300l -1(b)(1) (1977). A member of a public regional planning body or local government is subject to Section 112.3145 by virtue of his position as a "local officer." Respondent concluded that since the members of the agencies occupy identical positions and perform identical functions under the Act regardless of its form of organization, a member of a private corporation who is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Hill
...statute according to the precise language adopted by the legislature.") (quoting Fla. Gulf Health Sys. Agency, Inc. v. Comm'n on Ethics, 354 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)). "[T]he intent of the legislature must guide our analysis, Page 3and that intent must be determined primarily from......
-
Toiberman v. Tisera
...and construe a statute according to the precise language adopted by the legislature") (quoting Fla. Gulf Health Sys. Agency Inc. v. Comm'n on Ethics, 354 So.2d 932, 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)). "[T]he intent of the legislature must guide our analysis, and that intent must be determined primaril......
-
Kasischke v. State
..."`must construe a statute according to the precise language used by the legislature'" (quoting Fla. Gulf Health Sys. Agency Inc. v. Comm'n on Ethics, 354 So.2d 932, 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978))). "[T]he intent of the legislature must guide our analysis, and that intent must be determined primari......
-
Adain v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 87-302
...we must ascribe to words within a statute their ordinary meaning. Beard, 369 So.2d at 385; Florida Gulf Health Sys. Agency, Inc. v. Commission on Ethics, 354 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). And, while the unemployment compensation statute is remedial and thus to be construed liberally, § 443.......