Can a Florida regional workforce development board take votes by proxy?

Plain-English summary

Writing for the Chair of the Citrus, Levy, Marion Regional Workforce Development Board, a requester asked whether the board could use proxy voting in certain situations. The question grew out of section 445.007(1), Florida Statutes, which requires a two-thirds vote of the entire board to approve a contract with an organization or individual represented on the board, with the conflicted member abstaining.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Gerry Hammond first explained a procedural limit: when the office considers a question about the duties of a collegial body, it requires a majority of that body to join the request, which ensures the body itself wants the issue resolved. Because only the chair had asked, the office offered general comments rather than a formal opinion.

On the substance, the board is a multi-county independent special district under section 445.007. Special districts have only the powers expressly granted or necessarily implied, and any reasonable doubt about a claimed power is resolved against it. The statute does authorize the board to meet by telecommunications, including establishing a quorum that way, subject to public-notice and access requirements, and it makes the board subject to the public-records and open-meetings laws. But nothing in section 445.007 authorizes proxy voting. The office observed that the Legislature has expressly authorized proxy voting for some other special districts in other statutes, and in the absence of similar specific authority here, it could not say a regional workforce development board may validly conduct business by proxy. It also suggested the requester consult the Agency for Workforce Innovation, which administers Chapter 445.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. 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: Can a Florida regional workforce development board vote by proxy?
A: The office could not say it may. Nothing in section 445.007 authorizes proxy voting, and because special-district powers must be express or necessarily implied, the office would not validate a power the statute does not grant.

Q: Why didn't the office issue a firm opinion?
A: Because only the board chair, not a majority of the board, joined the request. The office requires a majority of a collegial body to join before it issues a formal opinion on that body's duties.

Q: Can the board meet and vote remotely at all?
A: Yes, by telecommunications. Section 445.007(1) lets the board, its committees, and subdivisions use telecommunications to conduct meetings and even establish a quorum, as long as the public gets proper notice and reasonable access.

Q: Do other Florida special districts get to use proxy voting?
A: Some do, by specific statute. The opinion pointed out that the Legislature has expressly authorized proxy voting for certain other districts, which underscored the absence of such authority for workforce boards under section 445.007.

Background and statutory framework

Regional workforce development boards are multi-county independent special districts created under section 445.007, part of the Workforce Innovation Act of 2000 (Chapter 445), administered by the Agency for Workforce Innovation. Section 445.007(1) requires a two-thirds vote of the entire board to approve a contract with a board-represented entity, ties conflict disclosure to section 112.3143, and authorizes telecommunications meetings while subjecting the board to chapters 119 and 286 and Article I, section 24 of the state constitution.

The opinion applied the settled rule that special districts have only expressly granted or necessarily implied powers, with doubts resolved against the power (Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District; State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of Dentistry; City of Cape Coral v. GAC Utilities). Because section 445.007 authorizes telecommunications meetings but is silent on proxy voting, and the Legislature has granted proxy authority elsewhere when it intended to, the office concluded it could not validate proxy voting for the board.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• § 445.007, Fla. Stat. (regional workforce boards), including § 445.007(1) (two-thirds vote; telecommunications meetings)
• § 112.3143, Fla. Stat. (voting conflicts disclosure)

Cases:

• Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, 82 So. 346 (Fla. 1919), special districts have only granted or implied powers
• State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 297 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), doubts resolved against a claimed power
• City of Cape Coral v. GAC Utilities, Inc., of Florida, 281 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1973)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/workforce-development-board-proxy-voting
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8192

Original opinion text

Mr. Robert A. Stermer

7763 Southwest Highway 200

Ocala, Florida 34476

Dear Mr. Stermer:

On behalf of the Chair of the Citrus, Levy, Marion Regional Workforce Development Board, you have asked for this office's assistance in determining whether the board may utilize proxy voting under certain circumstances.

Initially, I must advise you that this office, when considering a request for an opinion involving the duties and responsibilities of a collegial body, requires that a majority of the members of the body join in the request for an opinion.[1] This ensures that the collegial body itself is interested in resolving the issue and will give the response from this office due consideration. Although you indicate that the Chair of the Workforce Development Board has requested this opinion, it is not clear that a majority of the members of the board have joined in the request. Therefore, my comments will be general in nature but, I trust, will be helpful to you in resolving this matter.

The Citrus, Levy, Marion Regional Workforce Development Board is a multi-county independent special district created pursuant to and operating under section 445.007, Florida Statutes. This statute provides that

"If the regional workforce board enters into a contract with an organization or individual represented on the board of directors, the contract must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire board, and the board member who could benefit financially from the transaction must abstain from voting on the contract. A board member must disclose any such conflict in a manner that is consistent with the procedures outlined in s. 112.3143."[2]

You have asked whether the requirement of "a two-thirds vote of the entire board," would allow proxy voting by board members.

It is a well established rule that special districts have only such powers as are expressly granted to them by law or those necessarily implied because they are essential to carry into effect those powers expressly granted; any reasonable doubt as to the lawful existence of a particular power sought to be exercised must be resolved against the exercise thereof.[3] While it is clear from a reading of the enabling legislation for the district that the powers granted to it are broad, those powers are limited to accomplishing the purposes of the district.[4]

I would note that the language of section 445.007(1), Florida Statutes, specifically recognizes that

"[t]he board, its committees, subcommittees, and subdivisions, and other units of the workforce system, including units that may consist in whole or in part of local governmental units, may use any method of telecommunications to conduct meetings, including establishing a quorum through telecommunications, provided that the public is given proper notice of the telecommunications meeting and reasonable access to observe and, when appropriate, participate. Regional workforce boards are subject to chapters 119 and 286 and s. 24, Art. I of the State Constitution."

Thus, the workforce development board is specifically authorized to use telecommunications to conduct its meetings so long as the statutory requirements are met.

However, nothing in section 445.007, Florida Statutes, authorizes the use of proxy votes for conducting official business of the board. The Legislature has provided statutory authorization for special districts to utilize proxy voting in a number of other statutes.[5] In the absence of specific statutory authority for the members of a regional workforce development board to conduct business using proxy voting, I cannot say that such a power may be validly exercised.[6]

In addition, you may wish to discuss this matter with the Agency for Workforce Innovation. Chapter 445, Florida Statutes, the "Workforce Innovation Act of 2000," is implemented and administered by the Agency for Workforce Innovation and that agency may be able to provide additional assistance in this regard.

I trust that these informal comments may be helpful to you in resolving this issue. Thank you for contacting the Florida Attorney General's Office for assistance.

Sincerely,

Gerry Hammond

Senior Assistant Attorney General

GH/tsh

[1] See Department of Legal Affairs Statement Concerning Opinions (copy enclosed).

[2] Section 445.007(1), Fla. Stat.

[3] See, e.g., Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, 82 So. 346 (Fla. 1919); Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 89-34 (1989); 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).

[4] See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 2009-13 (water control district not authorized to purchase multi-use golf course facility located within district that includes a driving range, restaurant, bar, sewer plant, and related businesses); 2007-24 (use of water authority's funds to host a fishing tournament or sponsor a soccer league would not appear to be related to authority's duties to foster and improve tourism through improvement of streams, lakes, canals); 86-90 (1986).

[5] See, e.g., s. 153.53(3)(d), Fla. Stat., authorizing proxy voting for the establishment of a county water and sewer district; s. 189.4051, Fla. Stat., (special requirements and procedures for districts with governing boards elected on one-acre/one-vote basis); s. 190.006, Fla. Stat., (community development districts).

[6] Any reasonable doubt as to the lawful existence of a particular power sought to be exercised by an administrative agency or officer of the state must be resolved against the exercise thereof. 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).