Florida State Bd. of Architecture v. Wasserman
| Decision Date | 15 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 55151,55151 |
| Citation | 377 So.2d 653 |
| Parties | The FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE and the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Appellants, v. Carl WASSERMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James C. Rinaman, Jr. and Gerald W. Weedon of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for appellants.
Edward S. Jaffry of Horne, Rhodes, Jaffry, Stephens, Bryant, Horne & Chapman, Tallahassee, for appellee.
This cause is before the Court on appeal of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in which that court passed upon the constitutionality of a state law. Wasserman v. Florida State Board of Architecture, 361 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.
In October, 1973, Carl Wasserman applied for admission to the practice of architecture in Florida pursuant to section 467.11, Florida Statutes (1973), which governs admission without examination. This section incorporates by reference the general requirements of section 467.08, Florida Statutes (1973). One of the requirements is a degree from a school or college of architecture. The board of architecture initially rejected the appellee's application on the ground that he did not possess the required degree.
Appellee then petitioned the board for consideration of his application under the equivalency standard in section 467.08(1)(b)5, that is, to decide whether he "had training which shall be found by the board to be fully equivalent to such degree." This second application was denied on the ground that appellee's education, training and experience were not the equivalent of the educational program required for graduation by professional schools and colleges of architecture.
The appellee then instituted a declaratory judgment action, seeking a judicial construction of the "training" equivalency standard of section 467.08. The circuit court held
that the phrase "training which shall be found by the Board to be fully equivalent to" a degree in architecture means that an applicant must have acquired by any combination of private study, classroom education, on-the-job training and/or other practical experience a degree of proficiency found by the Board after study of each applicant's qualifications, to be fully equal to the degree of competency as an architect possessed by a graduate of an accredited school.
The board then held a hearing on appellee's petition for consideration of his claim of equivalency in light of the circuit court's construction. Again the application was rejected, following which the appellee requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). The hearing officer recommended denial of the application, and the board followed the recommendation, once again rejecting appellee's bid for admission to the practice of architecture in Florida.
On appeal, the district court held that section 467.08(1)(b)5 constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative authority contrary to article III, section 1, Florida Constitution. The statute, the court said, confers upon the board "the unbridled discretion to determine who will and who will not practice architecture in this state." Wasserman v. Florida State Board of Architecture, 361 So.2d at 795.
Section 467.11, Florida Statutes (1973), pursuant to which the appellee sought admission to the practice of architecture without being required to sit for an examination, provides as follows:
Hereafter no person shall be admitted to the practice of architecture in this state without an examination except that a certificate of registration may be issued upon filing of application and payment of the same fees as if qualified by examination to a person who meets the requirements of applicants for examination as set forth in § 467.08 and has passed a standard examination and holds a current certificate issued by the national council of architectural registration boards and who furnishes satisfactory evidence of continued honorable professional practice after the passing of such examination together with satisfactory evidence of his present ability and integrity.
The requirements of applicants for examination, referred to in the above quoted section, are found in section 467.08(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1973):
(b) Any applicant for examination shall establish by satisfactory evidence to the board with his application that:
1. He is twenty-one years of age;
2. He is a citizen of the United States or has pending a declaration of intention so to become;
3. He is of good moral character;
4. He is a graduate of an accredited high school or has education equivalent thereto; and
5. He is either a graduate of a school or college of architecture appearing upon the list of approved schools and colleges of architecture as adopted and published by the board in its rules, with graduation therefrom evidenced by a diploma setting forth the applicant's degree, or has had training which shall be found by the board to be fully equivalent to such degree, and a minimum of one year of diversified training in offices of registered practicing architects.
Section 467.09(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1973), which delineates the scope of the profession of architecture and defines inter-professional privileges between architects and engineers, provides in pertinent part:
(A)ny person who shall be engaged in the planning or design for the erection, enlargement or alteration of buildings for others or furnishing architectural supervision of the construction thereof shall be deemed to be practicing architecture and be required to secure a certificate and all annual renewals thereof required by the laws of this state as a condition precedent to his so doing.
The duty of carrying out the purposes of the state's regulatory statute for architecture is imposed upon the board of architecture. § 467.01(1), Fla.Stat. (1973). The expert qualifications required of board members are set out in section 46.01(2):
(2) No person shall be eligible to appointment as a member of the Florida state board of architecture unless he shall be at the time of his appointment a citizen of the United States, a Florida resident, and a registered architect in this state, nor unless he shall have had at least ten years previous experience in the independent practice of architecture under his own name, of which five years shall have been within the state, or shall have had five years experience in such practice and not less than five years experience as a member of the faculty of the school or department of architecture at the university of Florida or the university of Miami at Coral Gables, Florida.
The legislature is prohibited by the constitution from conferring upon administrative agencies authority which the constitution assigns exclusively to the legislature itself. This is true even of agencies which are of a "quasi legislative" character. McMullen v. Newmar Corporation, 100 Fla. 566, 129 So. 870, 875 (1930). But the legislature may confer the authority to attend to the administrative details of a regulatory program. This Court has enunciated the distinction as follows:
The Legislature may not delegate the power to enact a law, or to declare what the law shall be, or to exercise an unrestricted discretion in applying a law; but it may enact a law complete in itself, designed to accomplish a general public purpose, and may expressly authorize designated officials within definite valid limitations to provide rules and regulations for the complete operation and enforcement of the law within its expressed general purpose. This principle of the law is peculiarly applicable to regulations under the police power, since the complex and ever-changing conditions that attend and affect such matters make it impracticable for the Legislature to prescribe all necessary rules and regulations.
Authority to make rules and regulations to carry out an expressed legislative purpose, or for the complete operation and enforcement of a law within designated limitations, is not an exclusively legislative power. Such authority is administrative in its nature, and its use by administrative officers is essential to the complete exercise of the powers of all the departments.
The exercise of some authority, discretion, or judgment may be incident or necessary to the performance of administrative or ministerial duties; but such authority, discretion, or judgment is subject to judicial review; and it is not among the powers of government that the Constitution separates into departments.
Bailey v. Van Pelt, 78 Fla. 337, 350, 82 So. 789, 793 (1919); State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969 (1908).
It is not necessary for the legislature, in conferring authority on a tribunal to be charged with some aspect of the police power, to prescribe specific rules of action. Permenter v. Younan, 159 Fla. 226, 31 So.2d 387 (1947). But the discretion that is granted to such an agency must be sufficiently governed by legislative standards as to constitute a judicially reviewable discretion. North Broward Hospital District v. Mizell, 148 So.2d 1 (Fla.1962); Hutchins v. Mayo, 143 Fla. 707, 197 So. 495 (1940).
The district court relied on the case of Husband v. Cassel, 130 So.2d 69 (Fla.1961). In that case, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Advisory Opinion to the Governor, In re
...assigning its constitutional duties to administrative agencies within the executive branch such as the DOR. Florida State Board of Architecture v. Wasserman, 377 So.2d 653 (Fla.1979). This nondelegation of duties doctrine places strict limitations on administrative agencies. In Under this d......
-
Solimena v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
...legislative standards and must be subject to judicial review. Reynolds v. State, 383 So.2d 228 (Fla.1980); Florida State Board of Architecture v. Wasserman, 377 So.2d 653 (Fla.1979). When "neither the agency nor the courts can determine whether the agency is carrying out the intent of the l......
-
Warner Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of Niceville
...regulations for the complete operation and enforcement of the law within its expressed general purpose. Florida State Bd. of Architecture v. Wasserman, 377 So.2d 653, 655 (Fla.1979) (quoting Bailey v. Van Pelt, 78 Fla. 337, 82 So. 789, 793 (1919)). The Florida court has also recognized that......
-
Graham v. Estuary Properties, Inc.
...guidelines may permit discretion on the part of the agency when balancing applicable considerations. See Florida State Board of Architecture v. Wasserman, 377 So.2d 653, 656 (Fla.1979). B. The thrust of the district court's holding that denial of the DRI permit was improper is that the plan......