Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES vs. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, 77-000308RX (1977)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000308RX Visitors: 18
Judges: KENNETH G. OERTEL
Agency: Department of Financial Services
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 1977
Summary: This proceeding stems from a petition filed by Richard A. Morrow, Director of Finance and Accounting, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services against the Comptroller and the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Respondents. The Department of Agriculture challenges the validity of a rule adopted by the Comptroller. The proceeding was conducted under Section 120.56, F.S., which gives this division the authority to determine the validity of administrative rules. APPEARANCES Fo
More
77-0308.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


RICHARD A. MORROW, DIRECTOR ) FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING, FLORIDA ) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND ) CONSUMER SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 77-308RX

) GERALD A. LEWIS, COMPTROLLER ) AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )

BANKING AND FINANCE )

)

Respondent. )

)


FINAL ORDER


This proceeding stems from a petition filed by Richard A. Morrow, Director of Finance and Accounting, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services against the Comptroller and the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Respondents. The Department of Agriculture challenges the validity of a rule adopted by the Comptroller. The proceeding was conducted under Section 120.56, F.S., which gives this division the authority to determine the validity of administrative rules.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Jack Shoemaker, Esquire For Respondent: James M. Barclay, Esquire

The rule in question is 3A-40.19(4), Florida Administrative Code. That rule among other things requires that no central billing invoice reflecting credit card charges shall be paid by the Department of Banking and Finance unless certain requirements are met: to wit, the State shall provide a copy of employees' travel vouchers covering the travel period that corresponds with the airline ticket or rental car charges reflected upon the central billing.


The rule therefore determines how the Comptroller's Office shall issue warrants to reimburse other state agencies and employees for official travel. The Department of Agriculture contends that the rule is unnecessary unwise, arbitrary, unfair, and is in conflict with statute law. For all the above reasons, the Petitioner contends the rule is invalid.


The rule is certainly unpopular with other state agencies for it requires them to submit additional papers in the processing of normal state expenses.

The Petitioner and other agency witnesses who testified at this hearing stated that it would be better for each agency to corroborate employee travel and that it is unnecessary for the Comptroller's Office to double check their travel records before issuing warrants for reimbursement.

It must be stated at the outset that when a rule is challenged for being arbitrary or unwise a very high standard of, proof is required in order to sustain that position. That standard is the same as it would be were an act of the legislature being challenged. Florida Citrus Commission v. Owens, 239 So.2d 840. It suffices to say that the Petitioner did not satisfy that burden of proof. The Comptroller's Office is charged with being the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State and has the authority to require affirmative proof of the nature of the expense before issuing payment. See Section 17.04, F.S. Furthermore, Section 20.05(5), F.S., gives each head of a department the authority to adopt administrative rules which would carry out the responsibilities of that agency.


The main thrust of the Petitioner's contention is that the rule is annoying and pointless. However, the rule does give the Comptroller's Office a means to double check payment of travel vouchers to assure the payments are authorized.

A rule cannot be determined to be invalid because experts might disagree as to its wisdom. Fussell v. U.S. 100 F2d 995. It is, therefore,


ORDERED:


That the petition in question is denied.


DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.


KENNETH G. OERTEL, DIRECTOR

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675


Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1977.


COPIES FURNISHED:


Jack Shoemaker, Esquire

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304


James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex

Tallahassee, Florida 32304


Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedure Committee Room 101, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Ms. Liz Cloud Department of State

403 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304


Docket for Case No: 77-000308RX
Issue Date Proceedings
Apr. 25, 1977 Final Order. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 77-000308RX
Issue Date Document Summary
Apr. 25, 1977 DOAH Final Order
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer