CHARLES L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, REGION VI, DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATED SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS A. MCDONALD, ETC., CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND REHABILITATED SERVICES, APPELLEE
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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a trial court's interpretation of the state constitution allowing legislative subcommittees to exercise the same investigative and subpoena powers granted to standing and select committees. The decision resolved a constitutional question about whether subcommittees are integral parts of committees with delegated authority or subordinate bodies without such powers.
The court held that the constitutional grant of powers to "committees" of the Legislature extends to subcommittees thereof. Subcommittees are integral parts of the committee system serving on behalf of the principal committee and under its direct control, and therefore possess the same reasonable powers that committees possess, including the authority to issue subpoenas duces tecum.
[1] The powers granted to legislative committees under the Florida Constitution extend to subcommittees thereof.
[2] The plain meaning rule dictates that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to their most usual and obvious meaning.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“no distinction is made as to standing committees, select committees, or subcommittees thereof. * * * * * . . thereby permitting the chairman of a properly constituted sub-committee to issue a subpoena duces tecum.”
The trial judge's holding that the constitutional provision extends subpoena power to subcommittees without distinction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Director of Region VI, Division of Family Services challenged the authority of the Chairman of the Public Assistance Subcommittee of the House Com…
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 Constitutional Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the able trial judge’s construction of Fla.Const. art. Ill, § 5, F.S.A., in his holding that the grant of powers therein to “committees” of the Legislature extends to the subcommittees thereof.
It is this construing of our constitution by the trial court which vests jurisdiction here. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2). The facts and issues are stipulated; they are directed toward the constitutional provision first cited. Oral argument was waived with request for accelerated consideration and briefs were duly filed and have been carefully studied.
As the trial judge so well put it:
“[N]o distinction is made as to standing committees, select committees, or subcommittees thereof.
*683* * * * *
. . thereby permitting the chairman of a properly constituted sub-committee to issue a subpoena duces tecum.”
The trial judge’s construction is supported by the reference in his final decree to the conjunctive use of the term “each such committee” in the authorizing Fla.Stat. § 11.143(5) (b), F.S.A., as referring back to the initial provision in that statute (1) which empowered “each standing or select committee or sub-committee thereof” to review state agencies, to inspect their books and records and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and other evidence.
The “plain meaning rule” applies:
“The words and terms of a Constitution are to be' interpreted in their most usual and obvious meaning .... The presumption is in favor of the natural and popular meaning in which the words are usually understood by the people who have adopted them.” City of Jacksonville v. Continental Can Co., 113 Fla. 168, 151 So. 488, 489-490 (1933); quoted in City of Jacksonville v. Glidden, 124 Fla. 690, 169 So. 216, 217 (1936).
The constitutional grant is to the Legislature, leaving the actual mechanics and procedures for its implementation to the wisdom of that body which has by its Rule 6.14(a) and (b) of the Florida House of Representatives, as well as by the above statute, referred to “each standing or select committee or sub-committee thereof” in granting this power to “each such committee”. Rule 6.15 expressly mentions “subcommittees” in setting forth subpoena procedures.
Appellant contends that a subcommittee by its nature is a body of less official standing than that of a principal committee; that the subcommittee “is but a servant of the servant and should not be given the power of the master, unless specifically specified in the constitution.” We do not so view it; rather, the subcommittee would seem to be more in the nature of an integral part of the whole, with the “servant” performing on behalf of its “master.” Certainly this is the manner in which the subcommittees of legislative bodies function on behalf of the principal committee and under its direct control and appointment. It is really serving for the committee and should have those reasonable powers not otherwise restricted which the committee has; otherwise, the legislative body is stymied in its effective use of the committee system which is a very integral part of the legislative scheme and without which it could not function so effectively.
We view the several citations by appellant to be distinguished.1 They all go one step outside the Legislature to grant a power which here is within the committee. Johnston v. Gallen, 217 So.2d 319 (Fla.1969), was an improper grant to a single member.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Apportionment LAW Appearing AS Senate Joint Resolution 1 E, 414 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1982)…ontended by the house, that is not what they grammatically wrote. We conclude that we must interpret the constitutional provision as it has been grammatically written and, consequently, must reject the position of the house. See Johnson v. McDonald, 269 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1972); City of Jacksonville v. Continental Can Co., 113 Fla. 168, 151 So. 488 (1933). PART III Objection to Geographic Separation of District 27. Certain residents in the eastern portion of house district 27 challenge the contiguity of the V…
-
Moffitt v. Honorable Ben C. Willis, 459 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1984)…procedures. Forbes v. Earle, 298 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974) (the court did not lack the subject matter jurisdiction to determine the extent of a committee’s power to issue a subpoena binding on the Judicial Qualifications Commission); Johnson v. McDonald, 269 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1972) (court had jurisdiction to declare the power of a sub-committee to issue a subpoena duces tecum); Hagaman v. Andrews, 232 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1970) (court determined the power of a committee chairman to subpoena bank records); Johnston v. Galle…
Authorities Cited
- City of Jacksonville & Alexander Ray v. Cont'l Can Co., 113 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1933)
- City of Jacksonville & John L. Hall v. The Glidden Co., 124 Fla. 690 (Fla. 1936)
- Hutchins v. Hon. Nathan Mayo, 143 Fla. 707 (Fla. 1940)
- Husband v. Cassel, 130 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1961)
- Johnston v. Gallen, 217 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1969)