Judges: Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General Prepared by: Martin S. Friedman Assistant Attorney General
Filed Date: 10/20/1977
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
QUESTIONS:
1. Given that the commission was created with the Department of Business Regulation (s. 4(1) Ch.
2. Can the commission's staff be administratively responsible to the director of a division within the department? Is the staff director legally equal to a division director and is the commission to be treated for budgetary and personnel classification purposes as a separate entity?
3. Prior to appointment of commission members, can the Department of Business Regulation accept registrations or fees submitted by mobile home parks (s. 6 [s. 83.780])?
4. Prior to appointment of commission members, can the Department of Business Regulation accept petitions filed by tenants (s. 8 or s. 15 [s. 83.784])?
SUMMARY:
Generally, the rules of the Board of Business Regulation control administrative activities of the Mobile Home Tenant-Landlord Commission. The commission is not within one of the divisions of the Department of Business Regulation but is a separate entity within that department. Until a form is approved by the commission, the department cannot officially accept registrations by mobile home parks regulated by the act. The department, however, may accept petitions filed by tenants pursuant to s. 8(1) of the act (s. 83.784[1]).
AS TO QUESTION 1:
Chapter
To achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness, the Legislature implemented s. 6, Art. IV, State Const., by enacting the Governmental Reorganization Act of 1969, Ch. 20, F. S. The Legislature has specifically provided that structural reorganization ``should be a continuing process through careful executive and legislative appraisal of the placement of proposed new programs. . . .' Section
. . . a body established within a department and exercising limited quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial powers or both ndependently of the head of the department. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear that a commission within the Department of Business Regulation (hereinafter ``department') cannot be equated with a division within the department. A commission possesses greater authority, yet it must answer administratively to the department.See s.
The commission is autonomous only in the exercise of its quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers. Hence, the department would control the activities mentioned in your above question.
Therefore, question 1 is answered generally in the affirmative.
AS TO QUESTION 2:
As discussed previously, the commission is within the department and is autonomous only in the exercise of its quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers. However, because of such autonomy, the commission cannot be responsible to a division within the department. It would appear to operate independent of a division, but on the same administrative level. However, the commission being part-time and unsalaried, it is necessary that there be employed a person to handle the day-to-day administrative chores of the commission. This employee, although not on the level of a division director, would appear to be answerable to the executive director of the department. As the commission is not within a specific division of the department, for budgetary and personnel classification purposes it would appear more appropriate to treat it as a separate entity within the department.
AS TO QUESTION 3:
Section 6, ch.
AS TO QUESTION 4:
Section 8(1) of the act (s. 83.784[1]) provides for invoking the commission's jurisdiction by filing a petition with the commission. As discussed previously, the staff of the commission is under the authority of the executive director for administrative purposes. There is no statutory requirement that the commissioners do any act prior to receiving petitions; therefore, there is no impediment to the department accepting petitions filed by tenants pursuant to s. 8(1) of the act.
Therefore, question 4 is answered in the affirmative.
Prepared by: Martin S. Friedman Assistant Attorney General