THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIAS DANN, DAVID WINGATE, JANET WORTH, DAVID WILSON, E. TALLEY SCHMIDT, HARRY SCHMIDT, AND ROBERT GLOTZBACH, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida State University appealed a DOAH hearing officer's determination that the university's merit salary procedures constituted an invalid rule because they were not subjected to the required rulemaking process under Florida Administrative Code Section 120.54. The court affirmed, holding that the procedures were agency statements of general applicability affecting faculty members' private interests and therefore required formal rulemaking.
The court held that the merit salary procedures constituted agency statements of general applicability affecting private interests that must be adopted as rules through the required rulemaking process. The procedures did not qualify for exemption as internal management memoranda, agency budget preparation, or contractual provisions from collective bargaining.
[1] Agency procedures for award of merit salaries and other pay increases, if of general applicability and affecting private interests, are invalid if not subjected to the ru…
[2] Faculty members have standing to challenge agency procedures that are likely to have a continuing impact on the determination of their annual salaries.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The procedures apply generally and equally to each segment of the University and to each faculty member.... Although the procedure is for use internally within the University, it affects the private interest of each faculty member in the compensation he or she receives for services performed for the University.”
Establishes that the procedures affected private interests and thus did not qualify for the internal management memorandum exemption.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida State University implemented a document setting forth procedures for awarding merit salaries and other pay increases to faculty members. Facul…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Private Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Chief Judge.
The university appeals an order of a DOAH hearing officer determining that a document setting forth university procedures for award of merit salaries and other pay increases was an invalid rule because it was not subjected to the rulemaking process required by Section 120.54. On the basis of State Dept. of Administration v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the hearing officer concluded that these procedures were agency statements of general applicability, not falling into any statutory exception under Section 120.52(14), and as such, must be adopted as rules. 1 Fla.Admin.L.Repts. A-518 (1979). We affirm.
Initially, we agree with the hearing officer that the faculty members challenging this document had standing to do so since these procedures were likely to have a continuing impact on determination of their annual salaries. We also agree that this document was not exempt from the rule-making process as an “internal management memorandum” under Section 120.-52(14)(a), which excludes such documents if they “do not affect ... the private interests of any person.” As the hearing officer concluded:
The procedures apply generally and equally to each segment of the University and to each faculty member.... Although the procedure is for use internally within the University, it affects the private interest of each faculty member in the compensation he or she receives for services performed for the University.
Moreover, these merit salary procedures were virtually self-executing, like the Stevens employee “bumping” guidelines, “intended by their own effect to create rights, or to require compliance, or otherwise to have the direct and consistent effect of law.” McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 346 So. 2d 569, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The record here indicates that, as in Stevens, the salary document was “issued by the agency head for implementation by subordinates with little or no room for discretionary modification.” 344 So. 2d at 296. Compare Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Florida Police Benevolent Ass’n, 400 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Nor did this document qualify as a nonrule under Section 120.52(14) as “preparation or modification” of an “agency budget” or “contractual provisions reached as a result of collective bargaining.” As the hearing officer indicated, the university’s budget officials played no role in the development of the document. And although the document did refer to a collective bargaining agreement, it was not itself a contractual provision of this agreement.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Novoa, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…certain outside employment, including remunerative employment. We have consistently held agency policy affecting the pecuniary interests of agency employees to be outside the internal management memorandum exception. See Florida State Univ. v. Dann, 400 So. 2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (“Although the procedure is for use internally within the University, it affects the private interest of each faculty member in ... compensation.... ”); State, Dep’t of Admin, v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290, 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1…1 / 2
-
Amos v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 444 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…nt of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Florida Police Benevolent Association, 400 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Florida State University v. Dann, 400 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). . Florida Cities Water Co. v. Public Service Commission, 384 So. 2d 1280, 1281 (Fla.1980); An-heuser-Busch, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 393 So. 2d 1177, 1181-1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). . Carlyon v. Weeks, 387 So.…
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Schluter, 705 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…n.” State, Dep’t of Admin. v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290, 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). This record does not establish that memoranda or other statements of the policies actually challenged below “were virtually self-executing,” Florida State Univ. v. Dann, 400 So. 2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), or even that such memoranda or other statements existed. See State, Dep’t of Commerce v. Matthews Corp., 358 So. 2d 256, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (holding agency’s policy was not “a statement of general applicability to whi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDONALD v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- State v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Fla. Police Benevolent Ass'n & Marcus A. McGowan, 400 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)