Graham v. Haridopolos
75 So. 3d 315
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellants, citizens and taxpayers, challenged statutes and a 2007-08 appropriations provision that restrict university expenditure of tuition and fees and condition funding on compliance with Legislature-set policies.
- The Board of Governors was originally a co-plaintiff but dismissed its claims and remained an intervenor-absent party; the dispute proceeded on the cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Legislature; Appellants sought review in the First District Court of Appeal.
- Amendment 11 (2002) added article IX, section 7 to the Florida Constitution, creating a statewide Board of Governors to manage the university system but subject to the Legislature's appropriation power.
- Appellants argued Amendment 11 divested the Legislature of power to set and expend tuition and fees, transferring it to the Board; appellees argued the Legislature retains appropriation authority over all funds, including tuition and fees.
- The court held Amendment 11 did not vest tuition/fee setting in the Board; tuition and fees remain state funds under legislative appropriation power, and the Board's management is subject to those powers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Amendment 11 vest tuition/fees setting in the Board? | Graham contends the Board controls tuition/fees under Art IX, §7. | Legislature retains appropriation power over all state funds, including tuition/fees. | No; Legislature retains power over tuition/fees. |
| Whether Art IX, §7(d) authorizes the Board to set and expend tuition and fees. | Amendment 11 transfers that authority to the Board. | Board management is subject to Legislature's appropriation power; no explicit tuition/fee setting in §7(d). | No; §7(d) does not vest tuition/fee setting in the Board. |
| Does the ballot title/summary for Amendment 11 reveal a shift of power over tuition/fees to the Board? | The ballot language suggested broad Board control of the system, implying transfer of revenue-setting powers. | No indication in the ballot that tuition/fees powers were shifted; limited to governance and management. | No clear shift disclosed; no ballot-indicated change in appropriation power. |
| Is NAACP v. Florida Board of Regents controlling here on Board authority over tuition/fees? | NAACP supports Board broader authority. | NAACP concerns Board rulemaking, not tuition/fees power; not controlling. | Not controlling; NAACP does not resolve tuition/fees power in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, and F, 589 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1991) (legislative power to raise and appropriate funds is exclusive)
- State ex rel. Kurz v. Lee, 163 So. 859 (Fla.1935) (exclusive power to decide public funds use lies with legislature)
- State v. Green, 116 So. 66 (Fla.1928) (power to appropriate funds is legislative)
- Cheney v. Jones, 14 Fla. 587 (Fla.1874) (broadly construed legislative authority to raise revenue)
- Advisory Op. to the Governor re 1967, 200 So. 2d 534 (Fla.1967) (appropriation power extends to funds from any source)
- Fla. Dep't of Educ. v. Glasser, 622 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1993) (appropriation contingencies may be related to the purpose)
- Advisory Op. to the Attorney Gen. re Local Trustees, 819 So. 2d 725 (Fla.2002) (ballot summary failure to indicate multi-branch impact; single-subject concern)
- NAACP v. Florida Board of Regents, 876 So.2d 636 (Fla.1st DCA 2004) (board rulemaking authority discussed; not dispositive on tuition/fees power)
- Brown v. Firestone, 382 So.2d 654 (Fla.1980) (budgetary appropriations must relate to the appropriation purpose)
- Advisory Op. re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486 (Fla.1994) (ballot summaries must explain effects on existing constitutional provisions)