Florida Statute 20.051 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 20
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 20.051

20.051 Review of programs.—

(1) To achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness of government as intended by s. 6, Art. IV of the State Constitution, and to promote quality management and accountability as required in s. 19, Art. III of the State Constitution, all programs, functions, and entities must be reviewed by the executive and the legislative branches. The review must identify and examine the purpose of each program, function, or entity to ensure that each program, function, or entity is administered in the most effective and efficient manner possible, and to assess the public benefit derived from the program, function, or entity. Reviews must determine whether the function, program, or entity:

(a) Serves an identifiable purpose that benefits the public and accomplishes the purpose for which it was created;

(b) Operates efficiently and effectively within its statutory framework, and whether there are any statutory changes that would likely increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the function, program, or entity;

(d) Serves a beneficial purpose to state agencies in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the operations of the state;

(e) Directly or indirectly increases or decreases the costs of any goods or services, and whether any identified increase in cost is more harmful to the state than any of the harm that could occur absent the function, program, or entity;

(f) Is situated within an organizational structure that promotes its efficient and effective administration and does not duplicate activities conducted in other agencies of the state; and

(g) Could be assigned to another state agency or to private enterprise, and if so, the most efficient way of doing so.

(2) Unless other criteria are specifically provided by law, any review of a function, program, or entity scheduled for repeal by law must be conducted in accordance with the criteria specified in subsection (1). In conducting a review of a function, program, or entity scheduled for repeal, the presumption is in favor of the repeal. The need for or benefits derived from a program, function, or entity subject to repeal and prior review must be compelling as measured by these criteria for the function, program, or entity to be continued.

History.—s. 5, ch. 94-235.

F.S. 20.051 on Google Scholar

F.S. 20.051 on Casetext

Amendments to 20.051

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 20.051

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 20.051.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 20.051

Total Results: 9

VIOLETTE FIELDS, etc. v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-06-23

Snippet: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 23, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D20-0051 Lower Tribunal No. 08-1274 ________________ Violette Fields, etc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

JOSIE MACHOVEC v. PALM BEACH COUNTY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-01-27

Snippet: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Executive Order 20-51, directing the Florida Department of Health to issue

Whiley v. Scott

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-08-16

Citation: 79 So. 3d 702, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 451, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1900, 2011 WL 3568804

Snippet: light of the passage of Amendment 4 and section 20.051, Florida Statutes; and no subsequent opinion of

State v. Ell-Gee, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1971-12-07

Citation: 255 So. 2d 542, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5619

Snippet: law [e. g. Commonwealth v. Broadland, 315 Mass. 20, 51 N.E.2d 961 (1943); Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194

Hoffman v. Carson

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1971-07-07

Citation: 250 So. 2d 891, 49 A.L.R. 3d 1078

Snippet: law [e.g. Commonwealth v. Broadland, 315 Mass. 20, 51 N.E.2d 961 (1943); Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194

Chase v. City of Sanford

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1951-12-07

Citation: 54 So. 2d 370, 1951 Fla. LEXIS 1735

Snippet: of the police power. See Flynn v. Horst, 356 Pa. 20, 51 A.2d 54; Maxwell & Quinn Realty Co., Inc., v. City

Cassens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1934-05-01

Citation: 154 So. 522, 114 Fla. 659, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1911

Snippet: Instalment $1,000.00 20 $51.04 2,000.00 40

Rast v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1920-05-10

Citation: 79 Fla. 772, 84 So. 683

Snippet: appeared to be $7,747.00, and for the year 1917, $20,051.25, making the total sum of $27,798.25 deficit

Stewart v. DeLand-Lake Helen Special Road & Bridge District

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1916-02-15

Citation: 71 Fla. 158, 71 So. 42

Snippet: issue which is here questioned violates Sections 20, 51 and 52 of such Charter Act, Chapter 6678. Section