Oldham v. Rooks
| Decision Date | 20 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 48034,48034 |
| Citation | 361 So.2d 140 |
| Parties | Gordon G. OLDHAM, Jr., State Attorney of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Appellant, v. Ralph F. ROOKS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Mary Jo Carpenter and Charles W. Musgrove, Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Tampa, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Gary E. Wagner, of Bradshaw, Wagner & Mountjoy, Inverness, for appellee.
The instant cause is an interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Citrus County which held Section 839.07, Florida Statutes (1973), 1 unconstitutional. We accept jurisdiction and treat the interlocutory appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Burnsed v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 290 So.2d 13 (Fla.1974).
On October 16, 1973, appellee, Rooks, a county commissioner, participated in a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, where sealed bids for material were considered. King Roberts Asphalt & Pavement, Inc., a Florida corporation, was the low bidder for certain sand seal material and asphaltic concrete material. By unanimous vote these two bids were awarded to this corporation. Rooks owned less than 10 percent of the capital stock of the corporation.
On February 2, 1974, the Board of County Commissioners considered sealed bids for contract road work. Allen Contracting and Paving, Inc., was the low bidder for paving on certain roadways. The board voted unanimously in favor of awarding the contract to this company. Rooks owned less than 10 percent of the capital stock of this company.
The state attorney of the circuit advised Rooks by letter that he intended to file an information charging Rooks with a violation of Chapter 839, Florida Statutes. Rooks immediately filed a complaint seeking an injunction on the ground that Section 839.07, Florida Statutes (1973), was unconstitutional. He alleged that if an information were filed by the state attorney the Governor would remove Rooks from his official office as county commissioner; that Rooks would be suspended from his profession as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission; and that his minority stock ownership in the involved corporation would be placed in jeopardy.
The trial court, after an evidentiary hearing, entered an order declaring the statute unconstitutional, but reserved ruling on Rooks' application for a restraining order pending receipt of memorandum of law from each party pertaining to the question of whether the court has the right to enjoin the filing of the information. This interlocutory appeal resulted.
Rooks says the statute under attack was in direct conflict with Section 286.012, Florida Statutes (1973), which reads as follows:
No member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission, or agency who is present at any meeting of any such body at which an official decision, ruling, or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting in regard to any such decision, ruling, or act, and a vote shall be recorded or counted for each such member present, Except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of § 112.311, § 112.313, § 112.314, § 112.315 or § 112.316. In such cases said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of § 112.313. (Emphasis supplied)
The provisions of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, referred to are the standards of conduct for public officers and employees. Section 112.314(1), Florida Statutes (1973), reads as follows:
No officer or employee of a state agency or of a county, city, or other political subdivision of the state shall transact any business in his official capacity with any business entity of which he is an officer, director, agent, or member or in which he owns a controlling interest.
"Controlling interest" means ownership, directly or indirectly, of 10 percent or more of the outstanding capital stock in a corporation. Section 112.312(3), Florida Statutes (1973).
Rooks says he was literally "between the rock and the hard place." Under Section 286.012, Florida Statutes (1973), he was required to vote because he owned less than 10 percent of the capital stock in the corporation. On the other hand, under Section 839.07, Florida Statutes (1973), it was unlawful for him to vote if he were "in any way interested" in the contract awarded to the corporation. The state recognizes the conflict but says that Rooks need only enter a vote Against the awarding of the contract to the company in order to reconcile the application of the two statutes. The State further says that a negative vote would not make the commissioner a party to the letting of the contract for the purposes of Section 839.07, Florida Statutes (1973). The fact that Rooks registered a vote would place him in compliance with Section 286.012, Florida Statutes (1973).
While we affirm the result reached by the trial court in its order, we find it unnecessary to reach the question of whether Section 839.07, Florida Statutes (1973), is unconstitutional because it is our view that the statute was repealed by implication by Sections 112.312(3) and 112.314(1), Florida Statutes (1973). Because there are other grounds which support our judgment and dispose of the issues presented, we will not decide this cause on constitutional grounds. Singletary v. State, 322 So.2d 551 (Fla.1975); Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority v. State Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 283 So.2d 99 (Fla.1973). This well-established principle is particularly applicable where this Court has recently ruled Section 839.07, Florida Statutes (1973), constitutional, albeit on a different ground of attack. State v. Dinsmore, 308 So.2d 32 (Fla.1975).
Section 839.07 was enacted by the legislature in 1891 (Chapter 4020, Laws of Florida (1891)) and has remained in force essentially unchanged until the present day. The only amendment to the law occurred in 1971 which amendment was part of an act designed to reclassify criminal penalties generally. See Section 1017, Chapter 71-136, Laws of Florida. The significance of the amendment was to reclassify the penalty for violation of the statute from a maximum term of one year imprisonment in the county jail or a fine of $500 to a maximum term of one year imprisonment and/or a fine of $1,000.
Sections 112.312(3) and 112.314(1) find their origin in Chapter 67-469, Laws of Florida. Section 112.312(3) defining "controlling interest" remained unchanged until 1974 when it was substantially amended by Chapter 74-177, Laws of Florida. Section 112.314(1) was amended by Chapter 69-335, Laws of Florida, to add officers and employees "of a county, city or other political subdivision of the state" within its purview. Other pertinent sections of Part III, Chapter 112, were also amended by Chapter 69-335 to make the law applicable to officers and employees of counties, cities and other political subdivisions of the State as well as officers and employees of a state agency who were encompassed within the original legislation.
Also relevant to the issue here presented was the amendment in 1970 to Section 112.317, Florida Statutes (1969), dealing with violations of any provision of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. By Chapter 70-144, Laws of Florida, the criminal penalty of fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year was added to the civil sanctions for violation of any provision of Part III, Chapter 112. As originally enacted and until 1970, the sanctions included dismissal from employment, removal from office, "or other penalty as provided by law." Section 7, Chapter 67-469, Laws of Florida.
As originally enacted and as amended to include officers and employees of counties, cities and other political subdivisions of the State, the declared legislative policy of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, was:
Section 1. Declaration of policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the legislature that no officer or employee of a state agency, and no member of the legislature or legislative employee, shall have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any business or transaction or professional activity or incur any obligation of any nature which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public interest. To implement such policy and to strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of Florida in their government, there is herein enacted a code of ethics setting forth standards of conduct to be observed by state officers and employees in the performance of their official duties. It is the intent of the legislature that this code shall serve not only as a guide for official conduct of the state's public servants but also as a basis for discipline of those (sic) violate the provisions of this act.
Section 1, Chapter 67-469, Laws of Florida.
It is apparent that by Chapter 67-469, Laws of Florida, the legislature intended to deal pervasively with the subject matter of conflict between the official duties and private interests of public officials and employees. Section 839.07, Florida Statutes (1973), deals with this very subject matter although not in as broad terms because it is limited to public works contracts, whereas Section 112.314(1), Florida Statutes (1973), proscribes the transaction of "Any business in his official capacity with any business entity of which he (the public official or employee) is an officer, director, agent, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carawan v. State
...1983 and the rule of lenity in 1974, the courts must presume that later statutes are passed with knowledge of prior laws. Oldham v. Rooks, 361 So.2d 140, 143 (Fla.1978). Thus, a construction is favored that gives each statute a field of operation, as opposed to a construction that considers......
-
V.K.E. v. State
...presumption that later statutes are passed by the Legislature with the knowledge of prior existing laws." Id. (citing Oldham v. Rooks, 361 So.2d 140, 143 (Fla. 1978), and J.A. v. State, 633 So.2d 108, 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)). Here, sections 938.08 and 938.085 were enacted in 2001 and 2003, ......
-
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Stamford
...to support the position that an attempt to amend a previously repealed statute is generally ineffective.12 See Oldham v. Rooks , 361 So. 2d 140, 143 (Fla. 1978) ("[a]s a general rule of statutory construction, an act amending a section of an act repealed, even by implication, is void"); Lam......
-
Whether The Ten-Year Minimum Sentence In 18 U.S.C. § 924(C)(1)(B)(I) Applies To Semiautomatic Assault Weapons
... ... violations of the statutory offense were not sufficient to ... disrupt the original law. Id.; cf. Oldham v. Rooks, ... 361 So.2d 140 (Fla. 1978) (after determining that the Florida ... legislature had implicitly repealed an 1891 law as of 1970, ... ...