Who appointed members to a Florida juvenile justice circuit board, and could the board add three more?

Plain-English summary

In this December 2007 informal letter, Florida's Attorney General's office described how the then-existing juvenile justice circuit board drew its members. Section 985.664(7) named the state attorney, public defender, and chief judge or their designees, and directed county councils in the circuit to appoint the remaining 15. It also required at least one representative from each county council. The letter quoted that rule directly: "The remaining 15 members of the board must be appointed by the county councils within that circuit."

A circuit board could later revise its bylaws to add no more than three members. The office did not say who appointed those extra members. It expressly limited its response to general comments directed to the county council because the circuit board had not requested an opinion about its own powers. For unresolved appointment questions, it suggested legislative clarification.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2007. 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

Q: Who selected the ordinary members of a juvenile justice circuit board under the 2007 law?
A: The county councils within the circuit appointed the 15 members other than the state attorney, public defender, and chief judge or their designees. The letter quoted the statute's requirement that each county council have at least one representative.

Q: Could the circuit board create extra seats?
A: The letter said a board could revise its bylaws after adopting its initial bylaws to increase its membership by no more than three. Its footnote identified section 985.664(8) as the source of that authority.

Q: Did the AG decide whether the board or county councils appointed those extra members?
A: No. The office stated that interpreting the board's authority without a request from the board made its response "general in nature and directed toward the Juvenile Justice Council." It recommended legislative clarification if appointment questions remained.

Q: What happened if a circuit had no county councils?
A: The letter noted a statutory route for the circuit board to establish its membership when county councils were not formed. It cited subsections (9) and (10), which it described as listing possible representatives for that situation.

Background and statutory framework

The Pinellas County Juvenile Justice Council asked for clarification of board and council roles in adding members. The office quoted section 985.664(7)'s ordinary composition and its requirements that council appointments reflect geography, population, juvenile justice partners, and diversity. It then noted the separate bylaw amendment authority for up to three additional seats and the contingency for circuits without county councils. The letter invoked the interpretive principles that a legislatively prescribed method must be followed and that additional exceptions are not inferred from an express list, citing Alsop v. Pierce and Thayer v. State. It stopped short of assigning the three extra appointments to a particular body.

Citations and references

The letter cites section 985.664(1), (7), (8), (9), and (10), Florida Statutes, and the Florida decisions Alsop v. Pierce, 19 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1944), and Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1976), for its interpretive discussion.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/juvenile-justice-council-additional-members
• Official print view: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8273

Original opinion text

Mr. Dave Plyer, Chair

Pinellas County Juvenile Justice Council

Post Office Box 15202

Clearwater, Florida 33766

Dear Mr. Plyer:

On behalf of the Pinellas County Juvenile Justice Council, you ask for an interpretation of section 985.664, Florida Statues, relating to the appointment of additional members to the Juvenile Justice Board. Specifically, you ask for clarification as to the roles of the boards and the councils in making appointments. Inasmuch as a response to your question involves an interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Board's authority under state law and such board has not asked this office for comment upon its powers, the response to your question will be general in nature and directed toward the Juvenile Justice Council.

Section 985.664, Florida Statutes, authorizes the establishment of a juvenile justice circuit board in each of the twenty judicial circuits and a juvenile justice council in each of the sixty-seven counties. The purpose of the boards and the councils is "to provide advice and direction to the department in the development and implementation of juvenile justice programs and to work collaboratively with the department in seeking program improvements and policy changes to address the emerging and changing needs of Florida’s youth who are at risk of delinquency."[1]

Section 985.664(7), Florida Statutes, provides:

"Membership of the juvenile justice circuit board may not exceed 18 members, except as provided in subsections (8) and (9). Members must include the state attorney, the public defender, and the chief judge of the circuit, or their respective designees. The remaining 15 members of the board must be appointed by the county councils within that circuit. The board must include at least one representative from each county council within the circuit. In appointing members to the circuit board, the county councils must reflect:

(a) The circuit’s geography and population distribution.

(b) Juvenile justice partners, including, but not limited to, representatives of law enforcement, the school system, and the Department of Children and Family Services.

(c) Diversity in the judicial circuit." (e.s.)

At any time after the adoption of the initial bylaws, a juvenile justice circuit board may revise its bylaws to increase the number of its members by not more than three.[2] It is noteworthy that should county councils not be formed within a circuit, the statute recognizes that the circuit board may establish its membership in accordance with section 985.664(10).[3]

Where the Legislature has directed how a thing is to be done, it is implicit that it may not be accomplished in another manner.[4] Moreover, where there are enumerated exceptions, no others may be inferred.[5] Should there remain issues regarding the appointment of additional members to the juvenile justice circuit board, it may be advisable to seek legislative clarification in this matter.

I trust that these comments will be of assistance to you in resolving this matter.

Sincerely,

Lagran Saunders

Assistant Attorney General

ALS/tsh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Section 985.664(1), Fla. Stat.

[2] Section 985.664(8), Fla. Stat.

[3] Section 985.664(9), Fla. Stat. Subsection (10) sets forth the representatives that may be included on juvenile justice circuit boards established under subsection (9), including representatives from: the school district; the board of county commissioners; the governing bodies of local municipalities within the county; the Department of Children and Family Services; local law enforcement agencies; the judicial system; the business community; other interested officials affiliated with public or private providers of juvenile justice programs; the faith community; victim service programs and victims of crimes; and the Department of Corrections.

[4] See Alsop v. Pierce, 19 So. 2d 799, 805-806 (Fla. 1944) ("When the Legislature has prescribed the mode, that mode must be observed. When the controlling law directs how a thing shall be done that is, in effect, a prohibition against its being done in any other way."); Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1976).

[5] See Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1976) (enumeration of specific items implies the exclusion of others not mentioned); Biddle v. State Beverage Department, 187 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (rule of expression unius est exclusio alterius applies with special force to the enumeration of exceptions to a general category which gives rise to a strong inference that no other exceptions were intended); and Williams v. American Surety Company of New York, 99 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958).