Can a Florida county civil service board use public funds to hire a lobbyist?

Subject

Counties -- Lobbying

Plain-English summary

The Hillsborough County Attorney asked, on behalf of the county commission, the county administrator, and the clerk of the circuit court, whether the clerk could use county funds to pay for a contract under which the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board would hire a government-relations firm to lobby the Florida Legislature on the board's behalf. The contemplated contract was capped at $75,000. The clerk, in her pre-audit role before approving payment, doubted the board's enabling law allowed the spending. The AG agreed with that doubt.

The AG started with a point that worked in the board's favor: under a 2001 opinion, a clerk of courts can generally rely on the county commission's determination that an appropriation serves a county purpose when judging whether a payment is legal. But here the commission had also asked the AG directly about lobbying by the board, so the office addressed the merits.

The board was created by the Civil Service Act of 2000 (Chapter 2000-445, Laws of Florida). That act lets the board employ a director and staff, employ or contract for legal counsel, and contract for performance audits, all within its budget. It does not mention lobbying. The AG applied the settled rule that a statutorily created entity holds only the powers the statute expressly grants or that are necessary to carry out an express power, and that any reasonable doubt about a claimed power is resolved against it. The office also pointed to its own line of opinions holding that public funds cannot be spent on lobbying unless a statute specifically authorizes it. Given the act's narrow stated purpose, uniform administration of the county's classified civil service, the AG found no direct or implied authority for the board to hire a lobbyist, and concluded the board was not authorized to do so.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board hire a lobbyist with public money?
No. The AG concluded the board's enabling act did not authorize it, expressly or by implication, to contract for lobbying services.

Why did the board's enabling act matter so much?
Because the board is a creature of statute. Such entities have only the powers the statute grants or that are necessary to exercise a granted power. The act allowed hiring staff, legal counsel, and performance auditors, but said nothing about lobbying.

Does the same rule apply to a county itself?
Not identically. The AG noted that, under home-rule powers, a board of county commissioners may spend county funds on lobbying if it first makes appropriate legislative findings about the purpose and benefits. A statutory board like the civil service board does not have that latitude.

Can the clerk just rely on the commission's appropriation?
Generally a clerk can rely on the commission's determination that an appropriation serves a county purpose. But here the commission itself asked the AG about the lobbying expenditure, and the AG found the board lacked authority for it.

Background and statutory framework

The Civil Service Act of 2000, Chapter 2000-445, Laws of Florida, set up the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board to administer the county's classified service. The act enumerates the board's powers: setting a budget, employing a director and necessary personnel, employing or contracting for legal counsel, and contracting for required performance audits. Lobbying is not among them.

The analysis rests on a long line of Florida cases holding that special districts and other statutory entities must look entirely to their enabling statutes for authority, including Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, Halifax Drainage District of Volusia County v. State, and State ex rel. Davis v. Jumper Creek Drainage District. The principle that an officer must point to a constitutional or statutory provision before spending public money traces to Florida Development Commission v. Dickinson. The opinion also relied on the AG's own prior conclusion that public funds may not be spent on lobbying absent express statutory authority.

Citations

• Chapter 2000-445, Laws of Florida (Civil Service Act of 2000)
• Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, 82 So. 346 (Fla. 1919)
• Halifax Drainage District of Volusia County v. State, 185 So. 123, 129 (Fla. 1938)
• State ex rel. Davis v. Jumper Creek Drainage District, 153 Fla. 451, 14 So. 2d 900, 901 (Fla. 1943)
• Florida Development Commission v. Dickinson, 229 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/counties-lobbying
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1559

Original opinion text

Mr. Chip Fletcher

Hillsborough County Attorney

Post Office Box 1110

Tampa, Florida 33601

RE: COUNTIES – COUNTY FUNDS – SPECIAL DISTRICTS – HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE BOARD – use of funds to hire lobbyist. Ch. 2000-445, Laws of Fla.

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

On behalf of the Hillsborough County Commission, the Hillsborough County Administrator, and the Hillsborough County Clerk of the Circuit Court, you ask the following question:

Does the Hillsborough County Clerk of the Circuit Court have the legal authority to use county funds to pay expenditures incurred by the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board under a contract with a government relations business entity that will represent the interests of the Board in the State of Florida legislative process?

In sum:

While the appropriation of funds by the Hillsborough County Commission for use by the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board to hire a lobbying firm to represent the interest of the Board may be considered by the clerk of courts as a reliable basis for the legality of such an expenditure, it would appear that the civil service board’s enabling legislation does not directly or by implication authorize the Board to contract with a lobbying firm to represent its interest before the Florida Legislature.

You state that the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board (board) is considering the engagement of a lobbying firm to represent the interests of the board before the Florida Legislature under a contract with a cap of $75,000.00 for such services. The funds would be appropriated by the Hillsborough County Commission. The Clerk of Court, in her pre-auditing function before approving payment, does not believe that expenditure of the funds for such a purpose is authorized under the board’s enabling legislation.

In Attorney General Opinion 2001-29, this office found that a clerk of courts should be able to rely upon a county commission’s determination that a county purpose will be served by its appropriation when he or she is evaluating the legality of a payment. In this instance, however, the county commission has also asked for this office’s comments on the expenditure of funds for lobbying by the Board.[1]

Chapter 2000-445, Laws of Florida, establishes the "Civil Service Act of 2000" for Hillsborough County, which applies to all classified personnel employed in specified agencies and authorities within the county, unless otherwise exempted.[2] The Hillsborough County Civil Service Board is created to conduct the business of the district, including the establishment of an annual budget and the expenditure of appropriated funds for the purposes of the act.[3] The act further enumerates powers and duties of the board, specifically authorizing the board to "[e]mploy, discipline, and terminate a director and such other personnel as necessary to carry out the purposes of this act and within the scope of its budget."[4] Moreover, the board has specific authority to "[e]mploy, discipline, and terminate or contract for legal counsel as may be needed and within the scope of its budget"[5] and to contract for performance audits as required by law.[6]

As a statutorily created entity, the district may only exercise such powers as have been expressly granted by statute or must necessarily be exercised in order to carry out an express power.[7] Moreover, any reasonable doubt as to the lawful existence of a particular power sought to be exercised must be resolved against the exercise thereof.[8]

This office previously determined that in light of a county’s home rule powers, a board of county commissioners may expend county funds for lobbying provided that it first makes appropriate legislative findings as to the purpose of the expenditure and the benefits which would accrue to the county.[9] Numerous opinions of the Attorney General, however, adhere to the general principle that public funds may not be expended by a district or other statutory entity unless there is a specific statutory provision authorizing such expenditure.[10] More specifically, this office has stated that public funds may not be expended by public entities for lobbying purposes unless expressly and specifically authorized by state law.[11]

The stated purpose of Hillsborough County’s civil service act is to "establish a system for the formulation and implementation of procedures to ensure the uniform administration of the classified service" for the county.[12] Considering this limited purpose, along with the distinction between who may be employed by the board and the ability to contract for a legal counsel, there is no direct or apparent authority for the board to contract for lobbying services.

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board is not authorized to contract with a government relations business entity that will represent the interests of the Board in the State of Florida legislative process.

Sincerely,

Pam Bondi

Attorney General

PB/als

[1] Memorandum to Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners, December 6, 2013, reporting board approval of items A-1 through A-59 at December 4, 2013, meeting; Agenda Item A-13, Request an opinion from Florida Attorney General regarding appropriate use of County funds.

[2] Sections 3 and 4, Ch. 2000-445, Laws of Fla.

[3] Section 7, Ch. 2000-445, Laws of Fla..

[4] Section 7(2)(f), Ch. 2000-445, Laws of Fla.

[5] Section 7(2)(g), Ch. 2000-445, Laws of Fla.

[6] Section 7(2)(x), Ch. 2000-445, Laws of Fla.

[7] See Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, 82 So. 346 (Fla. 1919); Halifax Drainage District of Volusia County v. State, 185 So. 123, 129 (Fla. 1938); State ex rel. Davis v. Jumper Creek Drainage District, 153 Fla. 451, 14 So. 2d 900, 901 (Fla. 1943) (because the districts are creatures of statute, each board of supervisors must look entirely to the statute for its authority); Roach v. Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District, 417 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). And see Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 89-34 (1989), 96-66 (1996), 98-20 (1998), and 04-26 (2004).

[8] Halifax Drainage District of Volusia County v. State, supra; State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 297 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1974); City of Cape Coral v. GAC Utilities, Inc., of Florida, 281 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1973). And see, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 02-30 (2002) and 04-48 (2004).

[9] See Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 88-52 (1988).

[10] See, e.g., Ops. Att’y Gen. Fla. 77-08 (1977), 75-120 (1975), 68-12 (1968), 71-28 (1971), 78-12 (1978), 73-148 (1973), 67-20 (1967), and 74-299 (1974). See also Florida Development Commission v. Dickinson, 229 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1970) (to perform any function for the state or to expend any money belonging to the state, the officer seeking to perform such function or to incur such obligation against the state must find and point to a constitutional or statutory provision authorizing him to do so).

[11] See Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 77-08 (1978) and authorities cited therein, wherein this office stated that this conclusion, that public funds may not be expended by a statutory entity for lobbying purposes unless expressly and specifically authorized by statute, is consistent with the weight of authority throughout the country.

[12] Section 2, Ch. 2000-445, Laws of Fla.