author: PER CURIAM. ANSTEAD, C.J.,

text:
    FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, etc., Petitioner, v. Reed SOMBERG, etc., Respondent.
    No. SC01-731.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Feb. 6, 2003.
    Louise H. McMurray and Carmen Y. Cartaya of McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz, & Cartaya, P.A., Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
    Douglas F. Eaton of Sheftall & Torres, P.A., Miami, FL, for Respondent.
    Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Jo-sefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, P.A., Miami, FL, for the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, Amicus Curiae.
    Jane Kreusler-Walsh and Rebecca J. Mercier-Vargas of Jane Kreusler Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for the Coalition to Protect America’s Elders, Amicus Curiae.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in Somberg v. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., 779 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), in which the Third District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the decision in First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve the decision in Somberg, which held that the damages available to a personal representative bringing a cause of action under section 400.023(1), Florida Statutes (1997), are not limited by the damages provided for in Florida’s Wrongful Death Act.

FACTS

Respondent, Reed Somberg, is the personal representative for the estate of Irving Ellis. Somberg, 779 So.2d at 668. In 1998, Ellis was admitted to a nursing home that was run by the petitioner, Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. Id. According to Somberg’s allegations in the trial court, Ellis contracted an infection, the nursing home failed to treat the infection, and Ellis died from complications a short time later. See id. Respondent filed an action against the nursing home in a suit that included a claim for wrongful death and a claim for violating the “right to receive adequate and appropriate health care” set out in chapter 400 of the Florida Statutes (1997), Florida’s Nursing Home Act. See 779 So.2d at 668.

Subsequently, respondent dropped the wrongful death claim and pursued only the chapter 400 claim. See id. The nursing home moved for summary judgment alleging “that chapter 400 damages for pain and suffering were eliminated in this case by the Wrongful Death Act.” Id. Somberg opposed this motion, asserting that section 400.023, Florida Statutes, specifically authorizes the personal representative of a deceased patient to bring suit where the cause of the patient’s death resulted from a violation of the patient’s statutory rights. See id. The trial court entered a partial summary judgment in the nursing home’s favor.

On appeal, the Third District reversed the summary judgment while acknowledging that “the issue before us is a substantial one on which the districts are divided.” Id. The Third District illustrated the division between the districts by comparing the holding in First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“[T]he elements of damages recoverable by the personal representative of a deceased nursing home resident whose death results from deprivation of the deceased’s rights are limited to those which a personal representative is specifically authorized to recover under the Wrongful Death Act.”), with the holding in Beverly-Enterprises Florida, Inc. v. Spilman, 661 So.2d 867, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Both the plain language of the statute and the transcripts of the committee hearings indicate that the legislature did not intend for damages under section 400.023 to be limited by the Wrongful Death Act where the nursing home’s infringement or deprivation of the patient’s rights resulted in the patient’s death.”). In its holding, the Third District adopted the reasoning of the Fifth District’s opinion in Spilman, while certifying conflict with the Fourth District’s opinion in Hamilton.

ANALYSIS

The issue raised in this case is whether a personal representative for a deceased nursing home patient who brings a cause of action for a violation of the patient’s statutory rights pursuant to section 400.023, Florida Statutes (1997), is limited to the damages provided for in the Wrongful Death Act when it is claimed that the patient’s death resulted from a deprivation or infringement of the patient’s statutory rights set out in chapter 400. Upon review of the conflicting decisions and the relevant statutes, we hold that the plain language of section 400.028(1) explicitly demonstrates that the damages of the Wrongful Death Act do not control the damages available under chapter 400.

Plain Language of Chapter 100

It is well settled that legislative intent is the polestar that guides a court’s statutory construction analysis. See State v. Rife, 789 So.2d 288, 292 (Fla.2001); McLaughlin v. State, 721 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Fla.1998). When the Court construes a statute, “we look first to the statute’s plain meaning.” Moonlit Waters Apartments, Inc. v. Cauley, 666 So.2d 898, 900 (Fla.1996). Furthermore, “[w]hen the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.” Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984) (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc., v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931)).

Section 400.023(1), Florida Statutes (1997), reads, in relevant part:

Any resident whose rights as specified in this part are deprived or infringed upon shall have a cause of action against any licensee responsible for the violation. The action may be brought by the resident or his or her guardian, by a person or organization acting on behalf of a resident with the consent of the resident or his or her guardian, or by the personal representative of the estate of the deceased resident when the cause of death resulted from the deprivation or infringement of the decedent’s rights. The action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such rights and to recover actual and punitive damages for any deprivation or infringement on the rights of a resident. Any plaintiff who prevails in any such action may be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of the action, and damages.... The remedies provided in this section are in addition to and cumulative with other legal and administrative remedies available to a resident and to the agency.

§ 400.023(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Notably, section 400.023(1) specifically states that a claimant will be entitled to recover actual and punitive damages for any violation of the rights of a nursing home resident. Moreover, as noted by the Fifth District in Spilman, the Legislature not only included broad provisions for damages in chapter 400, but expressly stated that these statutory damages were authorized in addition to any other remedies that already existed. Furthermore, there is no reference in chapter 400 to the Wrongful Death Act or any other indication that the damages contemplated by or recoverable under section 400.023(1) are to be limited to those listed in the Wrongful Death Act. Thus, a cause of action brought under section 400.023(1) constitutes an independent cause of action with its own set of statutory damages.

If the Legislature had intended for the Wrongful Death Act to control damages available in a personal representative’s action against a nursing home, it could have very easily provided for the application of the provisions of the Wrongful Death Act in chapter 400. See St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961, 973 (Fla.2000) (stating that “[i]f the Legislature intended for the Wrongful Death Act to control the elements of damages available in a medical malpractice arbitration” it could have provided for the application of the Wrongful Death Act to the Medical Malpractice Act). Logically, if the Legislature had intended for the Nursing Home Act to be limited by the Wrongful Death Act, it would have said so, rather than broadly providing not only for damages but also for a personal representative to claim those damages.

Accordingly, a plain reading of section 400.023(1) indicates that the damages provided for are not limited by the Wrongful Death Act. Thus, we hold that based on the plain language of section 400.023(1), the damages recoverable in a cause of action brought under that section are not limited by the Wrongful Death Act.

Spilman and Hamilton

In the opinion below, the Third District identified the conflict between the Fourth and Fifth Districts as to whether the Wrongful Death Act controlled damages for causes of action brought under section 400.023(1). Somberg, 779 So.2d at 668 (adopting the position of the Fifth District’s decision in Spilman and certifying conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in Hamilton). In Spilman, the Fifth District disagreed with a nursing home’s argument that any damages available to a personal representative under chapter 400 were controlled by the Wrongful Death Act. Spilman, 661 So.2d at 868. Writing for the court, Judge Peterson emphasized the plain meaning of the language in section 400.023(1) expressly authorizing the recovery of damages, as well as the express language providing that the chapter 400 remedies were in addition to and cumulative of any other legal and administrative remedies available to a resident. See id. Judge Peterson also found confirmation of his policy analysis in the legislative history surrounding the 1986 amendment to section 400.023(1), which gave personal representatives the right to bring a suit for violations of a decedent’s chapter 400 rights. See id. at 869.

In Hamilton, the Fourth District came to a different result, in part because the court disagreed with Spilman’s reliance on “legislative committee reports” because “a long line of Florida case law holds that the legislative history of a statute is irrelevant where the wording of a statute is clear.” Hamilton, 740 So.2d at 1195-96. The Fourth District also relied on the rule of statutory construction that presumes that the Legislature does not intend for a statute to change the common law unless the statute is explicit and clear in that regard. See id. The Hamilton court noted that because causes of action for wrongful death did not exist at common law, all causes of action for wrongful death are created and controlled by the Wrongful Death Act. See id.

As noted above, we find the plain language of section 400.023(1) to explicitly and clearly create a cause of action separate and independent from the Wrongful Death Act with its own damages. Therefore, there is no need to resort to an examination of legislative history or other rules of statutory interpretation and construction to determine that section 400.023(1) damages are not controlled by the Wrongful Death Act.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based upon the reasoning set out above, we approve of the decisions in Somberg and Spilman regarding those courts’ holdings that chapter 400 damages are not controlled by the Wrongful Death Act and disapprove of the decision in Hamilton to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which LEWIS, J., concurs.

SHAW, Senior Justice, concurs in result only.

ANSTEAD, C.J.,

specially concurring.

I concur in the majority’s opinion that the plain meaning of the language in section 400.023(1) demonstrates that damages available to a personal representative under section 400.023(1) are not limited by the Wrongful Death Act.

In addition to the plain language, however, I also find support for this conclusion in the legislative history and purpose of chapter 400 and the Wrongful Death Act as described by Judge Peterson in his opinion on Spilman. In particular, I find the examination of this history helpful in determining the Legislature’s intent, especially given the fact that district courts have arrived at contrary conclusions of how chapter 400 and the Wrongful Death Act should operate together. Compare Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. v. Spilman, 661 So.2d 867, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), with First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Notably, both the Spilman and Hamilton courts appear to have based their decisions on the “plain language” of the statute, yet they arrived at different conclusions. In Hamilton, which criticized the Fifth District for using legislative history in Spilman, the Fourth District stated:

There is nothing unclear or ambiguous in the legislative language, and thus the legislative intent must be determined primarily from the language of the statute. It appears evident that the Spilman court, in reaching its decision as to the legislative intent, leaned heavily on the legislative committee reports. But, a long line of Florida case law holds that the legislative history of a statute is irrelevant where the wording of a statute is clear.

Hamilton, 740 So.2d at 1195-96 (citation omitted). It is true that this Court has stated where the language of a statute is clear, there is no need to rely on other canons of statutory interpretation. City of Miami Beach v. Galbut, 626 So.2d 192, 193 (Fla.1993). However, because there is obviously some confusion surrounding the interpretation of the two statutes, I believe that the Fifth District in Spilman appropriately looked to legislative history to support its analysis of the issue. Thus, like the Fifth District, I find a closer examination of the Legislature’s intent to be instructive.

Wrongful Death Act

The Legislature’s expressed intent in enacting the Wrongful Death Act was “to shift the losses resulting when wrongful death occurs from the survivors of the decedent to the wrongdoer.” § 768.17, Fla. Stat. (1997). The survivors that can recover damages are statutorily defined to be “the decedent’s spouse, children, parents, and, when partly or wholly dependent on the decedent for support or services, any blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters.” § 768.18(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Section 768.19, Florida Statutes (1997), explains when an action for wrongful death may be brought, while 768.20, Florida Statutes (1997), explains:

The action shall be brought by the decedent’s personal representative, who shall recover for the benefit of the decedent’s survivors and estate all damages, as specified in this act, caused by the injury resulting in death. When a personal injury to the decedent results in death, no action for the personal injury shall survive and any such action pending at the time of death shall abate.

§ 768.20, Fla. Stat. (1997). Section 768.21, Florida Statutes (1997), contains a list of damages that are recoverable in a wrongful death action. The damages include such items as the value of lost support and services, damages for the surviving spouse and minor children, damages available to parents of a minor child or an adult child if there are no other survivors, medical and funeral expenses, and lost earnings. This Court has noted that the primary purpose underlying the enactment of the Wrongful Death Act was “to provide recovery to those who need it, specifically the surviving spouse, children, and dependents of the decedent.” White v. Clayton, 323 So.2d 573, 575 (Fla.1975). The Court has also explained that the Wrongful Death Act was designed to ensure that any recovery “be for the living and not for the dead.” Martin v. United Security Servs., Inc., 314 So.2d 765, 768 (Fla.1975).

Chapter 100 — the Nursing Home Act

In contrast, the Nursing Home Act, chapter 400 of the Florida Statutes, relates to nursing homes and health care facilities and the persons those facilities serve. Part II of the act states that its purpose is “to provide for the development, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for ... [t]he health, care, and treatment of persons in nursing homes and related health care facilities” and for “[t]he construction, maintenance, and operation of such institutions which will ensure safe, adequate, and appropriate care, treatment and health of persons in such facilities.” § 400.011, Fla. Stat. (1997).

Section 400.022 expressly sets out a nursing home resident’s statutory rights, which include, in part, such rights as the right to civil and religious liberties, the right to uncensored communication, the right of a resident to be adequately informed of his or her medical condition, the right to adequate and appropriate health care, the right to be treated courteously, fairly, and with the fullest measure of dignity, and the right to refuse medication or treatment.

Section 400.028(1), the statutory provision at issue in this case, was enacted in 1980 to create a private cause of action for persons whose chapter 400 rights have been violated. As it was originally enacted, section 400.023(1) stated, in part:

(1) Any patient whose rights as specified in this part are deprived or infringed upon shall have a cause of action against any facility responsible for the violation. The action may be brought by the patient or his guardian or by a person or organization on behalf of a patient with the consent of the patient or his guardian. The action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such rights and to recover actual and punitive damages for any deprivation or infringement on the rights of a patient.... The remedies provided in this section are in addition to and cumulative with other legal and administrative remedies available to a patient and the department.

§ 400.023(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1980). Section 400.023(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which is applicable to the cause of action in this case, reads, in relevant part:

Any resident whose rights as specified in this part are deprived or infringed upon shall have a cause of action against any licensee responsible for the violation. The action may be brought by the resident or his or her guardian, by a person or organization acting on behalf of a resident with the consent of the resident or his or her guardian, or by the personal representative of the estate of the deceased resident when the cause of death resulted from the deprivation or infringement of the decedent’s rights. The action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such rights and to recover actual and punitive damages for any deprivation or infringement on the rights of a resident. Any plaintiff who prevails in any such action may be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of the action, and damages.... The remedies provided in this section are in addition to and cumulative with other legal and administrative remedies available to a resident and to the agency.

§ 400.023(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). As the Court notes, there is no reference in chapter 400 to the Wrongful Death Act or any other indication that the damages contemplated by or recoverable under section 400.023(1) are to be limited to those listed in the Wrongful Death Act.

Spilman

In Spilman, a nursing home resident died after being admitted to a hospital for treatment of infections allegedly contracted while he was in a nursing home. See 661 So.2d at 868. On appeal, the nursing home argued that the damages available under section 400.023(1) were controlled by the Wrongful Death Act rather than the survival statute. See id. Pursuant to chapter 400, the jury had awarded damages for the decedent’s physical and mental pain while he was alive, damages not available under the Wrongful Death Act. See 661 So.2d at 868. In addition to the plain meaning of the language in section 400.023(1) which expressly authorizes the recovery of damages, as well as the express language providing that the chapter 400 remedies were in addition to and cumulative of any other legal and administrative remedies available to a resident, Judge Peterson also found confirmation of his policy analysis in the legislative history surrounding the 1986 amendment to section 400.023(1), which gave personal representatives the right to bring a suit for violations of a decedent’s chapter 400 rights. See id. at 869. Additionally, Judge Peterson, quoting the answer brief of the Office of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, pointed out that under the nursing home’s theory:

[I]t would be cheaper for a nursing home to kill its residents and thereby limit claims by personal representatives to the damages listed in the Wrongful Death Act. Such construction not only offends the strong public policy that nursing homes are to “promote maintenance or enhancement of the quality of life of each resident,” but basic statutory construction. See Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1051, 1054 (1986) (statutes should not be given a meaning that leads to an absurd or unreasonable result).

661 So.2d at 869. The Fifth District ultimately concluded through Judge Peterson’s opinion, and based on the plain language of the statute and the legislative history, “that the legislature did not intend for damages under section 400.023 to be limited by the Wrongful Death Act where the nursing home’s infringement or deprivation of the patient’s rights resulted in the patient’s death.” Id.

First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton

On the other hand, in Hamilton, the Fourth District recognized the Spilman decision, but held “in direct conflict with Spilman, that the personal representative of a deceased nursing home resident ... may not recover damages for a decedent’s pain and suffering arising from the same injuries causing death.” Hamilton, 740 So.2d at 1195.

The Fourth District’s rationale was based on its recognition that wrongful death actions did not exist at common law and therefore “all claims for wrongful death are created and limited by Florida’s Wrongful Death Act.” Id. The Fourth District then gave four reasons that it disagreed with the Fifth District’s Spilman decision.

First, the court disagreed with the Fifth District’s reliance on “legislative committee reports” because “a long line of Florida case law holds that the legislative history of a statute is irrelevant where the wording of a statute is clear.” Id. at 1195-96. Second, the court noted that there was no language in the amendment to the statute that stated specifically and explicitly “that the statute was intended to change the common law and allow the personal representative of a deceased nursing facility resident to recover damages for the resident’s pain and suffering from injuries causing the resident’s death.” Id. at 1196. Third, the Fourth District observed that the Spilman holding “would clearly conflict with the Wrongful Death Act, which was enacted” to eliminate pain and suffering damages and “would allow multiple actions and multiple claims for pain and suffering contrary to clear legislative intent of the Wrongful Death Act.” Id. Fourth, the court disagreed with the contention that limiting damages to those under the Wrongful Death Act would make it cheaper for the nursing home to “kill its residents” because the damages would be less. See id. The Hamilton court failed to address the language in section 400.023(1) that indicated that the statutory cause of action was cumulative with and in addition to other remedies.

Statutory Remedies

This Court has agreed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s recognition that “[w]hen the legislature creates a statutory cause of action ... it is presumed to know the common law of contract and tort and the limitations on such remedies created by judges.” Comptech Int'l, Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd., 753 So.2d 1219, 1223 (Fla.1999) (quoting Facchina v. Mut. Benefits Corp., 735 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). In the context of this case, the Legislature is presumed to be aware of the existing state of the law when it added the right of a personal representative to bring a cause of action for a violation of a resident’s rights under chapter 400.

Further, as noted by the Fifth District in Spilman, the Legislature not only included broad provisions for damages in chapter 400, but specifically stated that these statutory damages were authorized in addition to those remedies that already existed. The Fourth District’s reliance on the fact that section 400.023(1) does not explicitly state that it “was intended to change the common law” does not provide any explanation for why Wrongful Death Act damages would apply to the exclusion of the damage provisions that are listed in section 400.023(1). Of course, neither the Wrongful Death Act nor the section 400.023(1) cause of action was available at common law. Both sections provide remedies and damages, but the fact that those remedies were not available at common law would appear irrelevant to a determination of which set of statutory damages applies.

Furthermore, even if there were some relevancy to the fact that the cause of action was statutorily created and not available at common law, when a statute is both in derogation of the common law and remedial in nature, this Court has held that rules of strict construction “should not be applied so as to frustrate the legislative intent.” Irven v. Dep’t. of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 790 So.2d 403, 406 (Fla.2001) (citing Golf Channel v. Jenkins, 752 So.2d 561, 566 n. 4 (Fla.2000), and Stokes v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 213 So.2d 695 (Fla.1968)). “The statute should be construed liberally in order to give effect to the legislation.” Id.

The private cause of action was added to the nursing home statute to give residents a way to protect their chapter 400 rights. Limiting damages to only those available under the Wrongful Death Act does not give effect to legislative intent. As previously noted, the availability of Wrongful Death Act damages requires statutory survivors and the Act was designed “to provide recovery to those who need it, specifically the surviving spouse, children, and dependents of the decedent.” White v. Clayton, 323 So.2d 573, 575 (Fla.1976). Because nursing home residents are less likely to have surviving spouses and rarely will have dependent minor children, the damages recoverable will necessarily be much less. In the instant case, the respondent claims that no damages are recoverable under the Wrongful Death Act with regard to Mr. Ellis’s death. If Mr. Ellis had survived the alleged mistreatment, there would be no such limitation on damages. Under the Fourth District’s decision, the death of Mr. Ellis might absolve the nursing home from payment of damages, whereas if he were able to survive the mistreatment, the costs could potentially be considerable. This result does not appear to be what the Legislature intended in enacting either the Wrongful Death Act or the Nursing Home Act.

Further, the Hamilton court’s assertion that the Spilman holding would create conflict with the Wrongful Death Act because it would allow multiple actions and multiple claims for damages ignores the fact that both can coexist in harmony without “double recovery” problems. This assertion, of course, ignores the plain language in chapter 400 providing that its remedies are available in addition to other remedies.

Courts are obligated “to adopt an interpretation that harmonizes two related, if conflicting, statutes while giving effect to both.” Palm Harbor Special Fire Control Dist. v. Kelly, 516 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla.1987). To the extent that the purposes of the Wrongful Death Act and chapter 400 can potentially be at odds, courts should avoid denigrating one in favor of the other and instead give effect to both. Moreover, I am confident in a trial court’s ability to prevent improper double recoveries for the same types of damages under both the Wrongful Death Act and chapter 400.

Thus, for the above reasons, I concur in the majority’s decision that damages available under a section 400.023(1) action are not limited to those available under the Wrongful Death Act.

LEWIS, J., concurs.

      . §§ 768.16-768.27, Fla. Stat. (1997).

        . § 400.022(1)(l), Fla. Stat (1997).

      . In 2001, the Legislature substantially revised section 400.023(1). See § 400.023, Fla. Stat. (2001).

      . Moreover, although the Third District in the decision below followed the Fifth District's decision in Spilman, the court noted that "strong arguments can be made on each side of the issue presented here.” Somberg v. Fla. Convalescent Ctrs., 779 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

      . Although we have stated that the plain meaning of the statute cannot be altered by examining legislative history, see, e.g., Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So.2d 294, 299 (Fla.2000), there is no rule totally precluding the examination of legislative history where the statutory language is clear. Moreover, this Court has relied on the plain meaning of statutes and legislative history in determining the legislature’s intent on a number of occasions. See, e.g., State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345, 347 (Fla.2000) (noting that Court’s holding was based on the plain language of the statute, and recognizing that the plain language interpretation was supported by legislative history); Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co., 748 So.2d 993, 1000 (Fla.1999) ("In addition to consideration of the plain language of sections 320.643(1) and 320.643(2), we find that the legislative history underlying those statutory subsections supports our conclusion regarding their relationship.”); State v. Mark Marks, P.A., 698 So.2d 533, 542 (Fla.1997) ("Accordingly, we find that the legislative history, like the plain language of section 817.234(1), supports a conclusion that the statute applies to both first-party and third-party claims.”); Streeter v. Sullivan, 509 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.1987) ("Were these provisions even slightly ambiguous, an examination of legislative history and statutory construction principles would be necessary.”).
      Furthermore, there may be situations where the plain meaning of a particular statute appears to conflict with legislative history. While the plain meaning of the statute would control the issue, it would be beneficial to mention the conflicting legislative history to put the Legislature on notice that, if they did not intend for the statute to operate according to its plain meaning, the Legislature should amend the statute. See, e.g., Dolly Bolding Bail Bonds v. State, 787 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("We are concerned that the legislative history of this amendment offers some indication that the legislature did not intend the result required by the plain meaning of the statute. If the intent was not to discharge a forfeiture when the bonded defendant fails to appear because he or she has been jailed or imprisoned in another state, we suggest the legislature clarify the language in section 903.26.”).

      . The 1980 Senate's Staff Analysis and Economic Impact Statement for the legislation described the situation that gave rise to the need for a private cause of action:
      A recent Dade County Grand Jury report has again focused public attention on the substandard conditions that exist in some of Florida’s 331 licensed nursing homes. The report described health hazards and deficiencies in patient care that allegedly have been allowed to continue for years.

      Section 400.022, Florida Statutes, contains a list of nursing home patients' rights, copies of which must be provided to each patient or to his or her guardian at the time of, or before, the patient's admission to the facility. The law further requires nursing homes to provide staff training with regard to patients’ rights to ensure compliance with the law. Florida’s nursing home legislation, however, does not include a private right of action which explicitly provides a patient with the statutory authority to take legal action against any facility that deprives a patient of his rights pursuant to Chapter 400, Part I.

      Fla. S. Comm, on Health & Rehabilitative Servs., CS for SB 1218 (1980) Staff Analysis at 1-2 (June 10, 1980) (emphasis added).

      . Section 46.021, Florida Statutes (1997), also known as the "survival statute,” provides: "No cause of action dies with the person. All causes of action survive and may be commenced, prosecuted, and defended in the name of the person prescribed by law.”

      . Specifically, Judge Peterson relied on transcripts from the hearings on House Bill 154 during the 1985 regular session and House Bill 79 during the 1986 session:
      REP. CANADY: This bill would amend Chapter 400, which sets forth the law concerning nursing homes. And in Chapter 400 currently there is set forth sort of a nursing home residents’ Bill of Rights. It’s a detailed listing there of the rights that the people who live in nursing homes have under the law. The law also gives the residents of nursing homes the right to bring a legal action to enforce those rights if they’re violated. So essentially, if a resident of a nursing home is mistreated in some way— and that's really what it all boils down to— then the resident can sue the operator of the nursing home for damages and so on to redress that wrong that has been done. There’s an anomalous situation under the laws that now exist in that although a resident can do that, if the resident is treated so badly that the resident actually dies as a result of that, the cause of action does not survive so that no suit can be brought. In my home county we had this exact same situation come up. So the proposed — the proposal here would be to simply extend that cause of action to the personal representative of the estate of a deceased nursing home resident.

      REP. BILL BANKHEAD: Would you have any idea as to the limits of liability for the nursing home owners that might arise out of a suit so foul?
      CHAIR: Don’t get yourself going, Mr. Bankhead, he may know the answer to that.
      REP. CANADY: It would be the same as the — if a cause of action were brought by a living resident.
      REP. DAVE THOMAS: Could I make one comment to Mr. Bankhead? ... Are you implying that we should limit the liability of nursing homes that beat people to death?
      REP. BANKHEAD: [inaudible]
      CHAIR: All in jest. Secretary call the roll on the bill.
      Fla. H.R. Comm, on Health & Rehabilitative Serv., tape recording of proceedings (April 8, 1985) (available at Fla. Dep't of State, Bureau of Archives & Records Management, Tallahassee, Fla.) (comments of Rep. Canady) quoted in Spilman, 661 So.2d at 869.
      Accordingly, House Bill 154 proposed that the statute be amended to allow suits to be brought by personal representatives, but this bill apparently died during the 1985 legislative session. The following year, the same bill was introduced during the 1986 regular session. A portion of the floor debate reflects the purpose of the proposed amendment:
      HOUSE BILL NO. 79:
      REP. CANADY: Members, this bill has been before the Committee before and actually has passed the House last session. It is a bill that changes Chapter 400. Under Chapter 400 currently the residents of nursing homes are given certain rights, basically the right to be treated decently and receive proper care. They are also given a legal remedy in case those rights are violated and not properly honored. However, there’s an anomaly under the law in that if a nursing home resident is abused and they survive that they can bring a lawsuit. However, if they’re abused so badly that they die, the cause of action is lost. So this bill would simply amend the statute to provide that the personal representative of the estate of a deceased nursing home resident would also be able to bring an action under Chapter 400 to redress the rights of a deceased nursing home resident.
      Fla. H.R. Comm. on Health & Rehabilitative Serv., tape recording of proceedings (Apr. 8, 1986) (available at Fla. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Archives & Records Management, Tallahassee, Fla.) (comments of Rep. Canady) quoted in Spilman, 661 So.2d at 869.

      . As the Court notes, if the Legislature had intended for the Wrongful Death Act to control damages available in a personal representative's action against a nursing home, it could have very easily provided for the application of the provisions of the Wrongful Death Act in chapter 400.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM. PARIENTE, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    MEDIA GENERAL CONVERGENCE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. CHIEF JUDGE OF the THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Respondent. Charles J. Crist, Jr., et al., Petitioners, v. Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Respondent.
    Nos. SC01-1396, SC01-1398.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Feb. 13, 2003.

      Gregg D. Thomas, Carol Jean LoCicero and James J. McGuire of Holland & Knight LLP, Tampa, FL; Thomas E. Warner, Solicitor General, and T. Kent Wetherell, II, Richard A. Hixson, and Matthew J. Conigliaro, Deputy Solicitors General, Tallahassee, FL; and Patricia R. Gleason, General Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioners.

      C. Steven Yerrid and Richard C. Alvarez of the Yerrid Law Firm, Special Counsel to the Office of the Chief Judge, Tampa, FL, for Respondent.
    W. Robert Vezina, III, Mary Piccard Vance, and Frederick J. Springer of Vezi-na, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A., Tallahassee, FL; and W. Dexter Douglass and Thomas P. Crapps of the Douglass Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for the Florida Conference of Circuit Court Judges, Amicus Curiae.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal, which certified a question to be of great public importance. See Media Gen. Convergence, Inc. v. Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 794 So.2d 631, 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Because the Second District’s certified question is broader than the actual dispute in this case, we rephrase and divide the question to address the documents that were the subject of the dispute in this case:

I. WHETHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED OR MADE BY THE CHIEF JUDGE REGARDING COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR BY A JUDGE CONSTITUTE PUBLIC RECORDS?
II. IF THE DOCUMENTS DO CONSTITUTE PUBLIC RECORDS, ARE THE DOCUMENTS OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AFTER THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS?

For the reasons that follow, we answer the first rephrased certified question in the affirmative, and the second rephrased certified question in the negative. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we quash the Second District’s decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

Petitioners Media General Convergence, Inc., and Media General Operations, Inc., were, respectively, the owner of television station NewsChannel 8/WFLA-TV (“WFLA”) and the publisher of The Tampa Tribune newspaper (“the Tribune”). This review proceeding involves requests WFLA and the Tribune made to Judge F. Dennis Alvarez, Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, for access to records involving “information about complaints of sexual harassment and/or sexually inappropriate comments or behavior made against Hillsborough Circuit Judge Edward Ward.” These records requests will be referred to as the “Judge Ward records.”

Although Chief Judge Alvarez did not produce any records to the petitioners and no records were produced under seal to the Second District, we are able to determine additional material facts based on the appendices filed by both parties before the Second District and made a part of the record in this case. These appendices include records supplied by the Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) to the petitioners.

The records released by the JQC indicate that Chief Judge Alvarez learned of complaints regarding Judge Ward’s behavior toward other circuit court judges and judicial assistants, and received information regarding this behavior. The records received or generated by Chief Judge Alvarez include affidavits executed by two judicial assistants regarding behavior by Judge Ward that the judicial assistants considered inappropriate; e-mails between Judge Ward and one of the judicial assistants, as well as e-mails between Judge Ward and another circuit judge; and memoranda by Chief Judge Alvarez’s employee memorializing Chief Judge Alvarez’s discussions during a meeting with Judge Ward involving the complaints against him and the follow-up meeting with the judicial assistant and the judge for whom she worked.

Some time after the petitioners’ initial request for the Judge Ward records, the JQC found probable cause to believe that Judge Ward had sent sexually explicit emails and made inappropriate overtures to two female Hillsborough County Circuit Judges and two female judicial assistants. The JQC filed formal charges against Judge Ward on March 1, 2000, and on that same day, the Tribune renewed its request in writing to Chief Judge Alvarez for “any and all documents and materials relating to complaints and/or allegations of inappropriate conduct” concerning Judge Ward. However, the Tribune did not indicate in its request that the JQC had found probable cause in the Judge Ward case. On March 2, 2000, WFLA requested the Judge Ward records telephonically.

Responding to the requests by separate letters dated March 6, 2000, Chief Judge Alvarez stated that “any records in my custody pertaining to your request have already been furnished to the [JQC] pursuant to its request.” Furthermore, Chief Justice Alvarez explained: “It is my understanding that such records will only become public upon their admission into evidence at a subsequent JQC proceeding. It is also my understanding that until such public proceeding, JQC investigatory records remain confidential.”

On March 8, 2000, WFLA and the Tribune again wrote to Chief Judge Alvarez, requesting access to

any records, including e-mail correspondence, you, your staff, the Court Administrator, his staff, or Court Communications & Technology Services personnel obtained, received or reviewed and that contain or refer to the text of any e-mail messages among Judge Edward Ward and any of the [people who made complaints regarding Judge Ward’s behavior], Access is also requested to any records, including e-mail messages, between you (or your staff) and any other Hillsborough County Circuit Court Judge, County Court Judge, or court staff member concerning Judge Ward.

Furthermore, WFLA and the Tribune requested that Chief Judge Alvarez retrieve or make copies of the records for review to the extent that he had transferred the records to the JQC.

On that same day, WFLA and the Tribune made a second request for access to the following documents:

any correspondence, electronic correspondence, documents or other records made or received by the Chief Judge’s Office or the Court Administrator’s Office concerning fraternization, romantic relationships or sexual contact between any Hillsborough County Circuit Court or County Court Judge, and any personnel assigned to any courthouse located in Hillsborough County, whether such personnel are employed by the state of Florida, Hillsborough County, the Hills-borough County Sheriffs Office, or some other private or governmental entity.

These records will be referred to as the “fraternization records.” Chief Judge Alvarez denied the request for the fraternization records, explaining that “[t]o the extent that any judicial records you have requested exist, please be advised that such records would be confidential and exempt from public accessibility under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051(c)(8)(A).”

After Judge Alvarez denied access to both sets of records, WFLA and the Tribune filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Second District, seeking an order compelling Chief Judge Alvarez to disclose the requested records. The Second District denied the petition but certified a question of great public importance. See Media Gen. Convergence, 794 So.2d at 636. The Second District majority first explained that whether the documents at issue were public depended on “whether they are ‘judicial records’ within the meaning of Florida Rule of Judicial Procedure 2.051.” Id. at 633. The Second District concluded as follows:

By and large, none of the documents requested by the petitioners is a “judicial record” as defined in the rule. The reason has to do with the purely administrative nature of the office of the chief judge. The Florida Constitution, article V, section 2(d), states that the chief judge “shall be responsible for the administrative supervision of the circuit courts and county courts in his circuit.” Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.050 details the administrative duties of a circuit chief judge. Neither the constitution nor the rule imbues him with authority to supervise the social, romantic or sexual behavior of other judges or, for that matter, of anyone else. Indeed, a chief judge, as such, has no official role in investigating judicial misconduct of any kind. That duty is vested in the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and the chief judge plays no part in its investigative or adjudicatory process. Art. V, § 12, Fla. Const.; Fla. Jud. Qual. Comm’n R. For the most part, then, the documents requested of Judge Alvarez could not have been made or received by him in his capacity as chief judge pursuant to court rule, law or ordinance, or in connection with the transaction of official business. Simply put, they are not judicial records subject to compulsory public access. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.051(b).

Id. Furthermore, the Second District concluded that to the extent the requested documents constituted public records, the documents would be exempt from disclosure under rule 2.051(c)(8), which exempts from public disclosure records “deemed to be confidential by court rule.” Id. at 635.

In a dissenting opinion, Acting Chief Judge Fulmer concluded that the records at issue constituted judicial records subject to public disclosure. See id. at 636 (Ful-mer, A.C.J., dissenting). Judge Fulmer explained that the majority construed the public records provisions too narrowly, and that “[t]he administrative responsibilities of a chief judge are not so rigid as to enable this court to predetermine exactly what documents could have been generated by him in all transactions of official business.” Id. at 637. Judge Fulmer noted that the majority ignored the established facts in the record that Chief Judge Alvarez did make and receive records while investigating alleged misconduct in his capacity as chief judge. See id. In Judge Fulmer’s view, any action that relates to the day-to-day functioning of the courts constitutes the transaction of official business, “whether or not the action taken is expressly listed as a duty in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.050.” Id. Further, Judge Fulmer concluded that no exemption applied to render the records in this case confidential. See id. at 637-38.

II.

In answering the rephrased certified questions in this case, we must engage in a two-step analysis. First, we must determine whether the documents sought are, in fact, public records. See Hill v. Prudential Ins. Co., 701 So.2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Second, if the documents constitute public records, we must determine whether the documents are exempt from public disclosure as a result of a constitutional, statutory or rule-created exemption. See id. The determination of what constitutes a public record is a question of law entitled to de novo review. See Amos v. Gunn, 84 Fla. 285, 94 So. 615, 634 (1922).

Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution, entitled “Access to public records and meetings,” provides in pertinent part:

(a) Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government....

(Emphasis supplied.) Therefore, pursuant to article I, section 24(a), a document constitutes a public record if it is “made or received in connection with the official business” of a public employee.

In 1992, this Court adopted rule 2.051 pursuant to the provisions of article I, section 24(d), of the Florida Constitution. See generally In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin.—Public Access to Jud. Records, 608 So.2d 472 (Fla.1992); art. 1, § 24(d), Fla. Const. The Court explained in adopting rule 2.051:

The amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration are, in part, designed to clarify the rules on public access to the records of the judicial branch of government and its agencies. In light of Florida’s strong public policy in favor of open government, the public is entitled to inspect the records of the judiciary, with certain exemptions.
... In its administrative role, the judiciary is a governmental branch expending public funds and employing government personnel. Thus, records generated while courts are acting in an administrative capacity should be subject to the same standards that govern similar records of other branches of government.

In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., 608 So.2d at 472-78 (emphasis supplied and footnote omitted).

At the time the petitioners in this case filed their requests, rule 2.051 defined “judicial records” as

documents, exhibits in the custody of the clerk, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, recordings, data processing software or other material created by any entity within the judicial branch, regardless of physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, that are made or received pursuant to court rule, law or ordinance, or in connection with the transaction of official business by any court or court agency.

Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.051(b) (1995) (emphasis supplied). This definition of “judicial records” is virtually identical to the legislative definition of “public records” contained in section 119.011(1), Florida Statutes (2001), insofar as section 119.011(1) defines “public records” as “all documents ... made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency.” (Emphasis supplied.)

This Court has never considered the scope of “official business” with regard to members of the judiciary. However, this Court has considered “official business” with regard to public records requests under chapter 119. For example, in the landmark decision Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Associates, Inc., 379 So.2d 633, 640 (Fla.1980), this Court held “that a public record, for purposes of section 119.011(1), is any material prepared in connection with official agency business which is intended to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type.” Furthermore, this Court has held that personnel records may constitute pub-lie records under chapter 119, and that “[w]hat is kept in personnel files is largely a matter of judgment of the employer, but whatever is so kept is a public record and subject to being published.” Michel v. Douglas, 464 So.2d 545, 547 (Fla.1985); see also Mills v. Doyle, 407 So.2d 348, 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (holding that grievance records of teachers employed by county school board are “public records” under chapter 119).

III.

With these general principles in mind, we analyze the request for records directed to Chief Judge Alvarez regarding “complaints of sexual harassment and/or sexually inappropriate comments or behavior made against Hillsborough Circuit Judge Edward Ward,” which we have referred to as the Judge Ward records. As noted above, the threshold question is whether the Judge Ward records were public records, that is, records made or received by Chief Judge Alvarez “in connection with the transaction of official business” under rule 2.051.

Although Chief Judge Alvarez, in his responses to the petitioners, claimed that the requested records were exempt from disclosure, he never contended that the requested records in this case did not constitute public records. The Second District majority, however, determined that the Judge Ward records did not constitute public records. See Media Gen. Convergence, 794 So.2d at 633. The Second District reasoned that Chief Judge Alvarez could not have received the records at issue in connection with the transaction of official business because neither the Florida Constitution nor Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.050 explicitly imbues the chief judge with the authority to supervise the social, romantic, or sexual behavior of other judges, or for that matter, anyone else, and further, because the JQC has the exclusive duty to investigate judicial misconduct. See id. In reaching this conclusion, however, the Second District majority too narrowly interpreted when a record is either received or made in connection with the official business of the judiciary.

Article V, section 2(d), of the Florida Constitution provides that “[t]he chief judge [in each circuit] shall be responsible for the administrative supervision of the circuit courts and county courts in his circuit.” (Emphasis supplied.) These administrative supervision duties are implemented by rule 2.050. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.050. This administrative responsibility includes exercising “administrative supervision over all courts within the judicial circuit in the exercise of judicial powers and over the judges and officers of the courts.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.050(b)(2). As the chief judicial officer of the circuit, the chief judge has the responsibility to develop an administrative plan for the “efficient and proper administration of all courts within that circuit.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.050(b)(3). This administrative plan includes “an administrative organization capable of effecting the prompt resolution of cases; assignment of judges, other court officers, and executive assistants; control of dockets; regulation and use of courtrooms; and mandatory periodic review of the status of inmates of the county jail.” Id. Moreover, the chief judge is responsible for assigning judges to the courts and divisions, and may designate a judge in any court or court division of circuit or county courts as an “administrative judge” of any court or division to assist with the administrative supervision of the court or division. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.050(b)(4)-(5).

In discussing the importance of the chief judge’s administrative duties, this Court has explained:

The position of Chief Judge is especially important, for the Chief Judge serves as both the chief administrative officer and chief judicial officer within the circuit. In this capacity, he or she must work effectively with the judiciary, court employees, and the community at large. In his or her dealings with the public in particular, the Chief Judge is perceived as a prime representative of not only the judiciary but the entire system of justice. The position thus is a highly responsible one, requiring the utmost in sensitivity and discretion in the conduct of those who hold it. The actions of the Chief Judge, both professional and personal, must be consistent with the highest ideals embodied by law.

In re Removal of a Chief Judge, 592 So.2d 671, 672 (Fla.1992) (citation omitted). Indeed, this Court has stressed the importance of the chief judge in ensuring the effective operation of the court system:

This Court recognizes that it is imperative that the court system be managed efficiently and that available judicial time be well utilized. The primary responsibility for this lies in the hands of the respective chief judges.

In re Certificate of Judicial Manpower, 503 So.2d 328, 325 (Fla.1987).

As noted above, the records released by the JQC in this case indicate that the complaints concerning Judge Ward’s behavior towards other circuit court judges and judicial assistants were directed to Chief Judge Alvarez because he was chief judge, and thus the records generated by him and received by him were in his capacity as chief judge. He received affidavits from the two judicial assistants that detailed their allegations concerning Judge Ward’s conduct. Further, one of Chief Judge Alvarez’s employees drafted two memoranda detailing the steps Chief Judge Alvarez took in handling these complaints against Judge Ward. We thus conclude that Chief Judge Alvarez conducted his review of the Judge Ward records “in connection with” the transaction of official business, and that Chief Judge Alvarez intended to “perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type.” Shevin, 379 So.2d at 640. Therefore, the Judge Ward records constitute “judicial records” subject to public disclosure absent an applicable exemption. This interpretation is consistent with Acting Chief Judge Fulmer’s observation in her dissenting opinion in this case, where she explained: “[A]ny action taken by a chief judge that relates to the day-to-day functioning of the courts constitutes the transaction of official business, whether or not the action taken is expressly listed as a duty in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.050.” Media Gen. Convergence, 794 So.2d at 637 (Fulmer, A.C.J., dissenting).

IV.

Having concluded that the Judge Ward records constitute public records, we now address whether these records are subject to an exemption from disclosure. Rule 2.051(c), adopted in 1992, provides the exemptions applicable to judicial records. Rule 2.051(c) provides in pertinent part:

The following records of the judicial branch and its agencies shall be confidential:
(3)(A) Complaints alleging misconduct against judges, until probable cause is established;
(8) All court records presently deemed to be confidential by court rule, including the Rules of Admission to the Bar, by Florida Statutes, by prior case law of the State of Florida, and by the rules of the Judicial Qualifications Commission. ...

A.

The Second District in this case concluded that the requested records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to rule 2.051(c)(8), which prohibits disclosure of records “deemed to be confidential by court rule.” See Media Gen. Convergence, 794 So.2d at 634-35. In particular, the Second District relied on the administrative order this Court promulgated on September 23, 1993, which adopted and incorporated a uniform policy and procedure addressing, among other things, complaints of sexual harassment by or against employees of the State Courts System, and ordered that the procedure be incorporated in the State Courts System personnel rules and regulations. See id. at 635. The “Policy Statement” of the complaint procedure provides that “all complaints of discrimination [are to] be treated seriously and acted upon promptly in accordance with procedures approved and adopted by the Supreme Court or local procedures approved and adopted by the Chief Judge of the district or circuit court.” In re Personnel Rules and Regulations, Fla. Admin. Order, (Sept. 23,1993) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup.Ct.) (attached Policy Statement at 2) (emphasis supplied). Moreover, this Court’s administrative order provides that complaints made under the Supreme Court Civil Rights Complaint Procedure are deemed confidential. See id. (attached Supreme Court Civil Rights Complaint Procedure at 2). The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in accordance with this Court’s administrative order, adopted an almost identical procedure for complaints of sexual misconduct by its own personnel. Consequently, the Second District concluded that this Court’s 1993 administrative order constitutes a “court rule” granting confidentiality to all sexual harassment investigations conducted in the State’s court system. See Media Gen. Convergence, 794 So.2d at 635.

Even if the Supreme Court Civil Rights Complaint Procedures could provide a basis for triggering the exemption from public disclosure under rule 2.051(c)(8), no one involved in this case who could have invoked these procedures or the complaint procedures adopted by the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit attempted to do so. As Acting Chief Judge Fulmer explained in her dissenting opinion:

In this case, those persons who could be protected by the confidentiality provisions have expressly stated that they do not wish to initiate any complaints. Their decision not to invoke the complaint procedures in no way affects the rights of those who do invoke the procedures to receive the protections afforded by the confidentiality provisions.

Id. at 638 (Fulmer, A.C.J., dissenting). Therefore, we conclude that the Supreme Court Civil Rights Complaint Procedures may not form the basis of an exemption from public disclosure under rule 2.051(c)(8) in this case.

B.

Although we conclude that the Supreme Court Civil Rights Complaint Procedures may not form the basis of an exemption from public disclosure under rule 2.051(c)(8) in this case, we reach a different conclusion regarding the applicability of rule 2.051(c)(3)(A), which exempts from disclosure “complaints alleging misconduct against judges, until probable cause is established.” Chief Judge Alvarez contends that the records in this case were exempt under rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) until the JQC found probable cause on March 1, 2000. However, Chief Judge Alvarez concedes that once the JQC found probable cause, he was obligated to release the records in his possession to the petitioners. In contrast, the petitioners contend that because the victims in this case never filed a formal complaint, rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) is inapplicable.

We conclude that rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) is applicable under the circumstances of this case, and that it exempted the Judge Ward records from public disclosure until the JQC found probable cause on March 1, 2000. The plain language of rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) refers only to “complaints,” and does not distinguish between “formal” and “informal” complaints. Construing rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) in the manner urged by the petitioners would require this Court to read language into the rule that otherwise does not exist. This we decline to do.

Moreover, we conclude that the plain language of section 2.051(c)(3)(A), as well as the relevant constitutional provisions, dictate that the complaints in this case remained confidential until the JQC determined probable cause. The Florida Constitution confers upon the JQC jurisdiction to investigate and make recommendations to this Court regarding the discipline of judges. See art. V, § 12(a)(1), Fla. Const. Furthermore, article V, section 12(a)(4), of the Florida Constitution expressly provides that JQC proceedings are confidential until the JQC has found probable cause and the investigative panel of the JQC files formal charges with the clerk of this Court. In addition, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rule 23 effectuates this constitutional mandate of confidentiality, extending it to all records received by the JQC before a finding of probable cause. Rule 2.051(c)(8) exempts from public disclosure “[a]ll court records presently deemed to be confidential by ... the rules of the Judicial Qualifications Commission.”

Rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) works in conjunction with the constitutional mandate of confidentiality by exempting from disclosure all complaints alleging misconduct by a judge until probable cause is established. Because both the Florida Constitution and rule 2.051(c)(8) specifically address records in the possession of the JQC, we conclude that rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) refers to records other than those in the possession of the JQC. Indeed, whereas rule 2.051(c)(8) covers exemptions for records in the possession of the JQC before probable cause is determined, rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) covers exemptions for records other than those in the possession of the JQC, received or made by the chief judge in connection with a complaint of misconduct against a judge before there is a determination of probable cause.

Although complaints to the JQC can be initiated by any individual, it is appropriate and reasonable that the initial complaints about a judge, especially made by an employee, would be directed to the chief judge prior to any referral to the JQC. Thus, we conclude that the records associated with the complaints are exempt from disclosure until the JQC determines probable cause.

The petitioners maintain, however, that the records received by Judge Alvarez should have been subject to public disclosure before the JQC began its investigation because, by its own terms, rule 2.051(c)(8) applies only to JQC proceedings. Although we agree that rule 2.051(c)(8) refers only to JQC proceedings, we have concluded that rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) refers to records other than those in the JQC’s possession. Indeed, it would be illogical to conclude that the records in this case were subject to public disclosure until the JQC began its investigation, and then became exempt from disclosure after the JQC began its investigation and until it found probable cause. The constitutionally mandated confidentiality of JQC proceedings would be rendered meaningless under such a construction. Therefore, we conclude that when Chief Judge Alvarez received the complaints against Judge Ward, the complaints and the related records became exempt from disclosure. Moreover, these records remained exempt until the JQC determined that probable cause existed. However, once the JQC found probable cause in this case on March 1, 2000, Chief Judge Alvarez was required to turn over the Judge Ward records in his possession to the petitioners.

V.

The Second District did not specifically discuss the content of the second set of records, referred to as the “fraternization records.” The petitioners conceded at oral argument before this Court that the request seeking “any correspondence, electronic correspondence, documents or other records made or received by the Chief Judge’s Office or the Court Administrator’s Office concerning fraternization, romantic relationships or sexual contact between any Hillsborough County Circuit Court or County Court Judge and any personnel assigned to any courthouse located in Hillsborough County” was a “broad request.” The petitioners admitted that this request was really an attempt to cover matters that Chief Judge Alvarez was handling regarding the Judge Ward complaint, and does not concern “idle conversation between members of the Court and other personnel.” The petitioners also conceded that this request was not seeking to obtain notes, general e-mails, or invitations to social gatherings or lunch dates between two judicial employees. We accept this concession because general emails, notes or invitations regarding social gatherings most likely would not constitute documents made or received in connection with official court business. Of course, it is another matter where, as in the case of the Judge Ward records, the requested records relate to complaints of sexual harassment or sexually inappropriate comments made at the courthouse by a judge to a court employee.

Thus, because the petitioners have conceded that their request was overly broad and designed to further explore the allegations of sexual harassment by Judge Ward, and because no records were ever transmitted to the Second District for in-camera inspection, we do not decide whether the fraternization records constitute public records, and if so, whether they are otherwise exempt. We decline to review this aspect of the petitioners’ request without prejudice to the petitioners’ further pursuit of this matter.

VI.

The requests for the records in this case demonstrate a deficiency in the present procedure for public records requests that are overly broad or that seek records claimed to be exempt. The rules currently do not set forth a specific procedure for the appellate courts, who are responsible for review of records requests made of the circuit court, to engage in an in-camera inspection. Therefore, in this case, the requested records were never subject to an in-camera inspection.

Consequently, the petitioners assert that this Court should fashion new procedures for challenging the denial of access to public records. The petitioners contend that, despite the requirement in rule 2.051(d)(1) that this type of challenge be brought as an original action in the district courts, the district courts are not well equipped to oversee the litigation of original actions. Further, the petitioners maintain that the district courts are not capable of overseeing the use of interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests for production, or depositions. Therefore, the petitioners suggest that this Court sua sponte adopt a new procedure for challenging the denial of access to judicial records.

We agree with the petitioners that the current rule does not provide sufficient guidance both to members of the judiciary and to members of the public for resolving disputes concerning access to judicial records. However, we decline to adopt new rules for challenges to denials of judicial records requests on our own motion. Therefore, we refer this issue to the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee to study this issue and provide a recommendation to this Court.

VII

This Court has repeatedly acknowledged the strong public policy in this State that allows members of the public to have access to public records. Indeed, the Florida Constitution demands no less. However, the Florida Constitution also expressly recognizes that proceedings before the JQC are confidential until the JQC finds probable cause. Therefore, this Court must balance these competing constitutional dictates in resolving the dispute in this case.

This opinion does not seek to shield members of the judiciary from public scrutiny. All we hold today is that when an individual complains to a chief judge about judicial misconduct involving sexual harassment or sexually inappropriate behavior, any records made or received by the chief judge constitute public records. However, when that complaint is sent to the JQC, the complaint and the records associated with the complaint are confidential until the JQC finds probable cause. Once the JQC finds probable cause, the records in the possession of the chief judge are no longer exempt and become fully available to the public.

Accordingly, we answer the first rephrased certified question in the affirmative, and answer the second certified question in the negative. Further, we quash the Second District’s decision on the grounds stated in this opinion, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., and HARDING, Senior Justice, concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion.

ANSTEAD, C.J., LEWIS, J., and SHAW, Senior Justice, concur in result only.

PARIENTE, J.,

concurring.

Based on the breadth of the question certified by the Second District in this case, I concur in the majority’s decision to rephrase and divide the certified question. I also concur in the majority’s answer to the rephrased certified questions. However, I write separately to express concerns not addressed by the majority opinion involving the status of public records made or received by the chief judge regarding complaints of misconduct about another judge by a court employee.

Part of the problem vrith public records concerning members of the judiciary is that although the chief judge may be the recipient of complaints about a judge, the Florida Constitution designates the JQC as the entity charged with investigating complaints regarding violations of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. Further, because the JQC may be investigating the same conduct independently (and perhaps unknown to the chief judge), there is a potential uncertainty as to when and under what other circumstances the exemptions from public disclosure could be claimed.

In this case, we know that Chief Judge Alvarez received complaints and other related documents concerning Judge Ward before the JQC began its investigation of Judge Ward and that Chief Judge Alvarez conducted a limited investigation into the complaints by court employees. Although apparently Chief Judge Alvarez was not the source of the referral to the JQC, the JQC did investigate and determine probable cause in this case.

However, an unresolved issue is the status of records made or received by the chief judge if the complaint to the chief judge does not result in a referral to the JQC, so that the JQC never makes a probable cause determination. This could occur under several possible circumstances. For example, the chief judge could receive complaints concerning another judge and simply do nothing in terms of investigation. Alternatively, the chief judge could receive a complaint concerning another judge, conduct an investigation, and conclude that the complaint has no merit or validity. Finally, the chief judge could receive a complaint concerning another judge and determine that the complaint has validity, but decide that the better course in resolving the situation is to handle the matter internally, without referral to the JQC.

I would conclude that if the chief judge does not initiate an inquiry into the validity of the complaint, then the records made or received by the chief judge would not be exempt from disclosure under rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) or any other rule. Conversely, if the chief judge, upon investigation, determines that the complaint does not have any validity, those records would be exempt under rule 2.051(c)(3)(A). Lastly, if the chief judge determines the complaint has validity and the alleged conduct rises to the level of a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, then referral to the JQC is appropriate and the records remain exempt until the JQC issues its probable cause determination. Indeed, canon 3(D)(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct is instructive and expressly provides: “A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.” Therefore, it would seem that a chief judge has an obligation to direct all complaints of sexual misconduct to the JQC whenever he or she concludes that the complaint has validity. Yet, I acknowledge that because of the variety of complaints that might come to the chief judge, the chief judge should have some discretion in handling complaints that fall short of a potential violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Accordingly, there are a variety of circumstances in which a complaint may not go beyond the chief judge and the status of these records remains uncertain.

Because the public records issue is intertwined with the independent but parallel responsibilities of the chief judge and the JQC, I concur with this Court’s referral of this complex matter to the Conference of Circuit Court Judges for study and recommendations regarding procedures a chief judge should follow when presented with complaints of misconduct regarding another judge. See majority op. at 1018-19 n. 12.

This case also highlights the necessity for rules of procedure to govern in-camera inspections of records claimed to be exempt. Thus, I also concur with the majority’s referral to the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee for development of recommended procedures for the handling of public records requests. See majority op. at 1020.

      .The Second District framed the certified question as follows:
      UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DOCUMENTS REFLECTING SOCIAL, ROMANTIC, OR SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS OF JUDGES DEEMED TO BE JUDICIAL RECORDS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE 2.051?

        Media Gen. Convergence, 794 So.2d at 636.

      . Media General Convergence, Inc., no longer exists. WFLA-TV/News Channel 8 is now owned by petitioner Media General Operations, Inc.

      . Although Chief Judge Alvarez was chief judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for all pertinent times involved in this case, he retired as a circuit judge on June 30, 2001.

      . In one case, the complained-of conduct was "unwelcomed e-mail messages of a sexual nature” toward one of the judicial assistants. In the other case, the complained-of conduct involved Judge Ward coming into the other judicial assistant's office on a Friday afternoon wearing shorts, a t-shirt and a baseball cap, and asking if the judicial assistant would join him in drinking beer.

      . Although this request appears broader than previous requests, for purposes of discussion, the records sought in this request shall be considered part of the Judge Ward records.

      . Rule 2.051(c)(3)(A) exempts from disclosure "[c]omplaints alleging misconduct against judges, until probable cause is established.”

      . Initially, the petitioners filed the petition for a writ of mandamus in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit on March 16, 2000. Chief Judge Alvarez moved to dismiss the petition because the trial court lacked jurisdiction under rule 2.051(d)(1), which provides that jurisdiction regarding access to records lies in the court with appellate authority to review the decision of the judge who denied access to the records. However, before the circuit court ruled on Chief Judge Alvarez's motion to dismiss, the petitioners filed the petition for writ of mandamus in the Second District. On August 8, 2000, the circuit court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

      . Article I, section 24(d), of the Florida Constitution provides:
      All laws that are in effect on July 1, 1993 that limit public access to records or meetings shall remain in force, and such laws apply to records of the legislative and judicial branches, until they are repealed. Rules of court that are in effect on the date of adoption of this section that limit access to records shall remain in effect until they are repealed.

      (Emphasis supplied.) Therefore, any rule-created exemption had to be in effect prior to July 1, 1993.

      . In Report of the Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records, 825 So.2d 889, 896 (Fla.2002), the Court adopted a slightly modified definition of "judicial records,” making a distinction between "court records” and "administrative records.” The modified rule defines "administrative records” as "all other records made or received pursuant to court rule, law, or ordinance, or in connection with the transaction of official business by any judicial branch entity.” This modification does not affect the issues in this case.

      . Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2001), concerns "public records” of agencies, which include "any state, county, district, authority, or municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law.” § 119.01(1 )-(2).

      . Although the Attorney General's arguments in this proceeding generally mirror the arguments of WFLA and the Tribune, the Attorney General also argues that the Second District erred in analyzing the public records issue under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051, rather than under the Florida Constitution. Because this Court’s definition of "judicial record” contained in the 1995 amendment to rule 2.051 is identical to the definition of “public records” contained in article 1, section 24(a), of the Florida Constitution insofar as both define public records as those records made or received in connection with official business, we reject the Attorney General’s argument that the Second District somehow erred in relying upon rule 2.051, rather than article 1, section 24(a), in determining whether the records at issue constituted public records subject to disclosure.

      . We do not decide the question of whether the records in the chief judge's possession are exempt from disclosure if no JQC investigation is pending, because those facts are not before us. However, because it is unclear as to what procedures a chief judge should follow when presented with complaints of sexual harassment involving a judge, we refer this important matter to the Conference of Circuit Judges for recommended guidelines consistent with this Court’s stated concern, as articulated in the policy statement of our complaint procedure, that “all complaints of discrimination [are to] be treated seriously and acted upon promptly in accordance with procedures approved and adopted by the Supreme Court or local procedures approved and adopted by the Chief Judge of the district or circuit court.” In re Personnel Rules and Regulations, Fla. Admin. Order (Sept. 23, 1993) (attached Policy Statement at 2).

      . Rule 2.051(d) provides in full:
      (d) Review of Denial of Access Request. Expedited review of denials of access to judicial records or to the records of judicial agencies shall be provided through an action for mandamus, or other appropriate appellate remedy, in the following manner:
      (1) Where a judge has denied a request for access to records in the judge’s possession or custody, the action shall be filed in the court having appellate jurisdiction to review the decisions of the judge denying access.
      (2) All other actions under this rule shall be filed in the circuit court of the circuit in which such denial of access occurs.
      Requests and responses to requests for access to public records under this rule shall be made in a reasonable manner.

      . We suggest that the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee consult with the former members of the Supreme Court Public Records Workgroup regarding this issue.

      .The commentary to this rule explains:
      Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer who has committed the violation, other direct action if available, or reporting the violation to the appropriate authority or other agency. If the conduct is minor, the Canon allows a judge to address the problem solely by direct communication with the offender. A judge having knowledge, however, that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question as to that other judge's fitness for office ... is required under this Canon to inform the appropriate authority. While worded differently, this Code provision has the identical purpose as the related Model Code provisions.
      (Emphasis supplied.)

      . Further complicating the public records procedure is the fact that although this Court has adopted a uniform policy and procedure addressing, among other things, complaints of sexual harassment by or against employees of the State Courts System, it is not clear whether this procedure applies to complaints of sexual harassment against judges.

      . Further complicating the scenario is the fact that the two complainants in this case specifically requested that Chief Judge Alvarez not refer their complaints to the JQC.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Kevin M. STEELE, Petitioner, v. Susan B. KINSEY and United Automobile Insurance Company, Respondents.
    No. SC02-152.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Feb. 13, 2003.
    Louis K. Rosenbloum of Law Offices of Louis K. Rosenbloum, P.A., Pensacola, FL; and Dale Swope, Tampa, Florida, for Petitioner.
    Hinda Klein of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans & Abel, P.A., Hollywood, FL, for Respondents.
    Philip M. Burlington of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, Amicus Curiae.
    David B. Pakula, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Florida Defense Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Steele v. Kinsey, 801 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), a decision of a district court of appeal certifying conflict with the decision of another district court of appeal. Upon reflection and further consideration, we now conclude that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ„ concur.

LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.