20
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
would apply as well as those reasonably expected to follow. (See Florida
Industrial Com. v. Growers Equip. Co., 12 So. 2d 889.)
The fundamental rule of construction is to ascertain and give
effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute
(lOA Florida Digest, Statutes, §181). The legislature, in providing
for a general expense fund, intended that such fund would encompass
those legislative expenses "necessary to enable the legislature to properly perform its functions." (See 24 Words and Phrases, Ch. 660.)
It would reasonably follow, in furtherance of the proper performance of legislative business, that expenses would be incurred incident
to the increase in the membership of the house such as the acquisition
of additional desks and office space for the new legislators and the
expansion of other facilities. Any other conclusion might render the
provision relating to legislative expense useless or meaningless (Webb
v. Hill, 75 So. 596).
Therefore, it is my opinion that the speaker of the house of representatives under the statutory authority given him pursuant to §1l.15
(3), F. S., would be authorized to payout of the general house expense fund those legislative expenses occasioned by the recent reapportionment litigation as are necessary to enable the house of representatives to properly perform its function.
063-14-February 14, 1963
FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF APPRENTICESHIP-EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS FOR TRAINING OTHER THAN APPRENTICESHIP
TRAINING-CH. 446, §§443.12(6), (11) AND 282.071, F. S.
To: Burnis T. Coleman, General Counsel, Florida Industrial Commission, Tallahassee
QUESTIONS:
1. May the department of apprenticeship spend any
of the funds available to it in connection with on-the-job
training in Florida other than apprenticeship training as
defined in Ch. 446, F. S.?
2. May the department of apprenticeship of the
Florida industrial commission enter into contracts with
the secretary of labor of the U. S., as contemplated by
the manpower development and training act, for the purpose of assisting in the on-the-job training of individuals
in training other than apprenticeship training but with
respect to which any expenses incurred by the department of apprenticeship will be reimbursed to the state
by the secretary of labor?
The legislature has created a state apprenticeship council and a
department of apprenticeship within the Florida industrial commission
for the purpose of making "available to the young people of Florida
an opportunity to obtain training that will equip them for profitable
employment and citizenship" and "setting up as a means to this end,
a program of voluntary apprenticeship under approved apprenticeship
agreements."
The legislature has heretofore appropriated funds for the purpose
of administering the apprenticeship program in accordance with Ch.
446, F. S. Since the legislature contemplated that such funds be used
in connection with the apprenticeship program and since it appears
that Ch. 446 contains no language authorizing expenditures for any
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
rida
.OF
',
..'
21
purpose other than in connection with such program, it is my opinion
that the department of apprenticeship would not be authorized to
spend any of the available funds in connection with "on-the-job training of individuals" as distinguished from "on-the-job training of
apprentices."
You advise our office that according to the provisions of the federal manpower development and training act of 1962 (PL 87-415), the
secretary of labor is authorized to enter into contracts with state
agencies having the requisite authority in order that such agencies
may assist the secretary of labor in making on-the-job training available to persons other than apprentices. You further advise that in
accordance with the provisions of the federal act, any expenses incurred by the department of apprenticeship in connection with the onthe-job training of individuals other than apprenticeship training will
be reimbursed to the state by the secretary of labor. Stated differently,
the state will incur no expenses in connection with assisting in on-thejob training of individuals.
While I have indicated above that the department of apprenticeship would not be authorized to expend its own funds in connection
with on-the-job training of individuals, it would seem that the Florida
industrial commission would not be precluded from providing assistance to the federal government in connection with such program where
no expenditure of state funds is contemplated. Agreements of this type
would appear to be in keeping with the general powers and duties of
the Florida industrial commission relating to employment set forth
in part as follows:
The commission with the advice and aid of advisory
councils, and through the appropriate divisions, shall take
all appropriate steps to reduce and prevent unemployment; to
encourage and assist in the adoption of practical methods of
vocational training, retraining and vocational guidance;....
(Emphasis supplied.) Section 443.12(6), F. S. (See also
§443.12 (11), F. S.)
Accordingly, it is my opinion that the Florida industrial commission (rather than the department of apprenticeship) would be authorized to enter into contracts with the secretary· of labor of the U. S. as
contemplated by the manpower development and training act for the
purpose of assisting in on-the-job training of apprentices where
any expense incurred by the commission will be reimbursed to the
state by the secretary of labor. The commission may delegate the
responsibility of administering this particular program to the department of apprenticeship subject to the limitations of expenditures as
heretofore mentioned and those contained in §282.071, F. S.
063-15-February 15, 1963
TAXATION
SEPARATELY-OWNED DWELLING UNITS WHICH OVERLAP
OR ENCROACH UPON EACH OTHER-§192.02, F. S.
To: Ray E. Green, State Comptroller, Tallahassee
QUESTION:
May dwelling units in multiple unit buildings so
constructed that parts of separate units overlap or encroach upon each other so that parts of upper dwelling
units overlap or encroach upon lower dwelling units, be
separately assessed for ad valorem taxes?