CEO 77-91 -- July 21, 1977
ELECTED OFFICERS OF CHARTER COUNTY
APPLICABILITY OF FULL AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF s. 8, ART. II, STATE CONST.
To: (Name withheld at the person's request.)
SUMMARY:
The Sunshine Amendment, s. 8, Art. II, State Const., provides in subsection (a) that "[a]ll elected constitutional officers and candidates for such offices and, as may be determined by law, other public officers, candidates, and employees shall file full and public disclosure of their financial interests." This provision is implemented by subsection (h) of the amendment, its schedule, which provides the manner and time for filing and mandates that persons holding statewide elective office also file full and public disclosure. At this time, no statute provides that any public officer other than one who is an elected constitutional officer or who holds statewide elective office is required to file full and public financial disclosure. Therefore, the question as to the applicability of the constitutional amendment to elected officers of a charter county turns on whether they will be considered "constitutional officers" for purposes of the Sunshine Amendment.
Certain county offices are specified in s. 1, Art. VIII, State Const. It is our view that, in passing the Sunshine Amendment, the electors viewed these positions as the minimum of those in government whose holders exercise powers so important to the welfare of the state that public disclosure of their full financial interests would best secure and sustain the public trust. We are therefore of the view that persons in a charter county who exercise the same powers as those holding the constitutionally mandated positions in noncharter counties are "constitutional officers" for purposes of the Sunshine Amendment.
QUESTION:
Are the elected officers of Volusia County, a charter county, required to file full and public disclosure of their financial interests pursuant to s. 8, Art. II, State Const.?
Your question is answered in the affirmative.
The Sunshine Amendment, s. 8, Art. II, State Const., provides in subsection (a):
All elected constitutional officers and candidates for such offices and, as may be determined by law, other public officers, candidates, and employees shall file full and public disclosure of their financial interests.
This provision is implemented by subsection (h) of the amendment, its schedule, which provides the manner and time for filing full and public disclosure of financial interests. At this time, no statute provides that any public officer other than one who is an elected constitutional officer or who holds statewide elective office is required to file full and public financial disclosure. Therefore, the answer to your question turns on whether elected officers of a charter county will be considered "constitutional officers" for purposes of the Sunshine Amendment.
Section 1, Art. VIII, State Const., provides in part:
(d) COUNTY OFFICERS. There shall be elected by the electors of each county, for terms of four years, a sheriff, a tax collector, a property appraiser, a supervisor of elections, and a clerk of the circuit court; except, when provided by county charter or special law approved by vote of the electors of the county, any county officer may be chosen in another manner therein specified, or any county office may be abolished when all the duties of the office prescribed by general law are transferred to another office. When not otherwise provided by county charter or special law approved by vote of the electors, the clerk of the circuit court shall be ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners, auditor, recorder and custodian of all county funds. [Emphasis supplied.]
That section also provides in subsection (e) that the governing body of each county shall be a board of county commissioners, except when otherwise provided by county charter.
Inasmuch as the offices of sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections, clerk of the circuit court, and county commissioner are specified in the Florida Constitution, we believe that persons holding those offices are "constitutional officers" for purposes of the Sunshine Amendment. In the event that any of these offices have been abolished in a particular county and their duties transferred to another office by county charter or by special law, as expressly provided by the Constitution, we also are of the opinion that, pending legislative or judicial clarification, the holders of those new offices are "constitutional officers" for purposes of the Sunshine Amendment.
A constitutional office is one provided for by the Constitution which cannot be abolished or changed except as expressly permitted by the Constitution itself. See State ex rel. Grant v. Eaton, 114 Mont. 199, 133 P.2d 588 (1943), and 63 Am. Jur.2d Public Officers and Employees ss. 16, 17 (1972). Thus, the office of supervisor of elections which has not been abolished by county charter or special law in a particular county is a constitutional office. But where that office has been abolished by county charter and its duties transferred to another office, as expressly provided for by the Constitution, should the new office be considered a constitutional office under the Sunshine Amendment? We are of the opinion that it should.
The purpose of the Sunshine Amendment is clearly set forth in the amendment itself -- to assure the right of the people of the State of Florida to secure and sustain against abuse the public trust which is exercised by their public officials. In our view, by specifying that all elected constitutional officers and persons holding statewide elective offices shall file full and public disclosure of their financial interests, the people have delineated at a minimum those positions in government which they feel exercise powers so important to the welfare of the state that public disclosure of their full financial interests would best secure and sustain the public trust. When an elected supervisor of elections in a charter county, for example, exercises the same powers exercised by the supervisor of elections in a neighboring, noncharter county, each has been charged with an identical public trust. Thus, the Sunshine Amendment makes no distinction between an elected officer of a charter county and his fellow officer in a noncharter county.
We recognize that we may have interpreted this provision of the Sunshine Amendment somewhat broadly, but this is entirely consistent with its clear intent: to preserve and protect the public trust. Thus, our interpretation of the term "constitutional officer" might conflict, for example, with judicial construction of that term as it is found in s. 3(b)(3), Art. V, State Const., wherein it is used to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, we are of the opinion that the Sunshine Amendment should be read more expansively, to further its purpose, than s. 3(b)(3), Art. V, which was intended to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the policies behind the establishment of the district courts of appeal as courts of final appellate jurisdiction. See Lake v. Lake, 103 So.2d 639 (Fla. 1958).
Accordingly, and in the absence of legislative or judicial clarification, we are of the opinion that the elected officers of Volusia County who exercise the powers of those county officers provided for in s. 1, Art. VIII, State Const., are "elected constitutional officers" for purposes of the Sunshine Amendment, s. 8(a), Art. II, State Const., and that these officers are required to file full and public disclosure of their financial interests.