Florida Statute 112.24 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS

Chapter 112
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 112.24

112.24 Intergovernmental interchange of public employees.—To encourage economical and effective utilization of public employees in this state, the temporary assignment of employees among agencies of government, both state and local, and including school districts and public institutions of higher education is authorized under terms and conditions set forth in this section. State agencies, municipalities, and political subdivisions are authorized to enter into employee interchange agreements with other state agencies, the Federal Government, another state, a municipality, or a political subdivision including a school district, or with a public institution of higher education. State agencies are also authorized to enter into employee interchange agreements with private institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations under the terms and conditions provided in this section. In addition, the Governor or the Governor and Cabinet may enter into employee interchange agreements with a state agency, the Federal Government, another state, a municipality, or a political subdivision including a school district, or with a public institution of higher learning to fill, subject to the requirements of chapter 20, appointive offices which are within the executive branch of government and which are filled by appointment by the Governor or the Governor and Cabinet. Under no circumstances shall employee interchange agreements be utilized for the purpose of assigning individuals to participate in political campaigns. Duties and responsibilities of interchange employees shall be limited to the mission and goals of the agencies of government.

(1) Details of an employee interchange program shall be the subject of an agreement, which may be extended or modified, between a sending party and a receiving party. State agencies shall report such agreements and any extensions or modifications thereto to the Department of Management Services.

(2) The period of an individual’s assignment or detail under an employee interchange program shall not exceed 2 years. Upon agreement of the sending party and the receiving party and under the same or modified terms, an assignment or detail of 2 years may be extended by 3 months. However, agreements relating to faculty members of the State University System may be extended biennially upon approval by the Department of Management Services. If the appointing agency is the Governor or the Governor and Cabinet, the period of an individual’s assignment or detail under an employee interchange program shall not exceed 2 years plus an extension of 3 months or the number of years left in the term of office of the Governor, whichever is less.

(3) Salary, leave, travel and transportation, and reimbursements for an employee of a sending party that is participating in an interchange program shall be handled as follows:

(a) An employee of a sending party who is participating in an interchange agreement may be considered as on detail to regular work assignments of the sending party or in a leave status from the sending party except that the receiving agency shall pay the salary and benefits of such employee during the time, in excess of 1 week, that the employee is working for the receiving agency. However, an employee of a sending party who is participating in an interchange agreement pursuant to s. 10, chapter 91-429, Laws of Florida, shall be considered as on detail to regular work assignments of the sending party, and the sending party shall reimburse the receiving agency for the salary and benefits and expenses of such employee and any other direct costs of conducting the inspections during the time the employee is working for the receiving agency.

1. If on detail, an employee shall receive the same salary and benefits as if he or she were not on detail and shall remain the employee of the sending party for all purposes except that supervision during the period of detail may be governed by the interchange agreement.

2. If on leave, an employee shall have the same rights, benefits, and obligations as other employees in a leave status subject to exceptions provided in rules for state employees issued by the department or the rules or other decisions of the governing body of the municipality or political subdivision.

(b) The assignment of an employee of a state agency on detail or on leave of absence may be made without reimbursement by the receiving party for the travel and transportation expenses to or from the place of the assignment or for the pay and benefits, or a part thereof, of the employee during the assignment.

(c) If the rate of pay for an employee of an agency of the state on temporary assignment or on leave of absence is less than the rate of pay he or she would have received had the employee continued in his or her regular position, such employee is entitled to receive supplemental pay from the sending party in an amount equal to such difference.

(d) Any employee who participates in an exchange under the terms of this section who suffers disability or death as a result of personal injury arising out of and in the course of an exchange, or sustained in performance of duties in connection therewith, shall be treated, for the purposes of the sending party’s employee compensation program, as an employee who sustained injury in the performance of duty, but shall not receive benefits under such program for any period for which the employee is entitled to, and elects to receive, similar benefits under the receiving party’s employee compensation program.

(e) A sending party in this state may, in accordance with the travel regulations of such party, pay the travel expenses of an employee who is assigned to a receiving party on either detail or leave basis, but shall not pay the travel expenses of such an employee incurred in connection with work assignments at the receiving party. If the assignment or detail will exceed 8 months, travel expenses may include expenses to transport immediate family, household goods, and personal effects to and from the location of the receiving party. If the period of assignment is 3 months or less, the sending party may pay a per diem allowance to the employee on assignment or detail.

(4)(a) When any agency, municipality, or political subdivision of this state acts as a receiving party, an employee of the sending party who is assigned under authority of this section may be given appointments by the receiving party covering the periods of such assignments, with compensation to be paid from the receiving party’s funds, or without compensation, or be considered to be on detail to the receiving party.

(b) Appointments of persons so assigned may be made without regard to the laws or regulations governing the selection of employees of the receiving party.

(c) During the period of an assignment, the employee who is detailed to the receiving party shall not by virtue of such detail be considered an employee of the receiving party, except as provided in paragraph (d), nor shall the employee be paid a wage or salary by the receiving party. The supervision of an employee during the period of the detail may be governed by agreement between the sending party and the receiving party. A detail of an employee to a state agency may be made with or without reimbursement to the sending party by the receiving party for the pay and benefits, or a part thereof, of the employee during the period of the detail.

(d) If the sending party of an employee assigned to an agency, municipality, or political subdivision of this state fails to continue making the employer’s contribution to the retirement, life insurance, and health benefit plans for that employee, the receiving party of this state may make the employer’s contribution covering the period of the assignment or any part thereof.

(e) Any employee of a sending party assigned in this state who suffers disability or death as a result of personal injury arising out of and in the course of such assignment, or sustained in the performance of duties in connection therewith, shall be treated for the purpose of the receiving party’s employee compensation program, as an employee who has sustained injury in the performance of duty, but shall not receive benefits under such program for any period for which he or she elects to receive similar benefits as an employee under the sending party’s employee compensation program.

(f) A receiving party in this state may, in accordance with the travel regulations of such party, pay travel expenses of persons assigned thereto during the period of such assignments on the same basis as if they were regular employees of the receiving party.

(5) An agency may enter into agreements with private institutions of higher education in this state as the sending or receiving party as specified in subsections (3) and (4).

History.—s. 149, ch. 79-190; s. 1, ch. 85-1; s. 2, ch. 88-557; s. 1, ch. 89-315; s. 19, ch. 89-367; s. 43, ch. 92-279; s. 55, ch. 92-326; s. 695, ch. 95-147; s. 33, ch. 96-399; s. 2, ch. 98-331; s. 14, ch. 2008-153; s. 50, ch. 2009-82; s. 57, ch. 2010-153; s. 61, ch. 2011-47; s. 40, ch. 2012-119; s. 39, ch. 2013-41; s. 53, ch. 2014-53; s. 75, ch. 2015-222; s. 114, ch. 2016-62; s. 53, ch. 2017-71; s. 80, ch. 2018-10; s. 107, ch. 2019-116; s. 99, ch. 2020-114; s. 2, ch. 2022-5.

F.S. 112.24 on Google Scholar

F.S. 112.24 on Casetext

Amendments to 112.24

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 112.24

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 112.24.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 112.24

Total Results: 20

Quinones v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-04-24

Citation: 271 So. 3d 1165

Snippet: 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S. Ct. 112, 24 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1969) (“It can be seen, therefore

Riggins v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-03-09

Citation: 898 So. 2d 1025, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3078, 2005 WL 545208

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969). And third, even if the instruction

Walker v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2003-07-30

Citation: 853 So. 2d 498, 2003 WL 21749060

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969). See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So

R.M. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-07-14

Citation: 763 So. 2d 1060, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9296

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969). Moreover, appellant testified

RM v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-07-14

Citation: 763 So. 2d 1060, 1999 WL 492675

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969). Moreover, appellant testified

Currington v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1998-05-22

Citation: 711 So. 2d 218, 1998 WL 256863

Snippet: (Fla. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969), when the court found a similar

Anderson v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1997-11-07

Citation: 703 So. 2d 1105, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12542, 1997 WL 689500

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969), wherein the court ruled that

Washburn v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1996-09-04

Citation: 683 So. 2d 533, 1996 WL 496967

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969), where our supreme court determined

Green v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1994-12-07

Citation: 645 So. 2d 1123, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11888, 1994 WL 685938

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); Kinnon v. State, 439 So.2d

T.S.R. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-04-03

Citation: 596 So. 2d 766, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3856

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969), citing Williams v. State, 40

TSR v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-04-03

Citation: 596 So. 2d 766, 1992 WL 63450

Snippet: (Fla. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969), citing Williams v. State, 40

State v. Rolle

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-03-01

Citation: 560 So. 2d 1154, 1990 WL 20560

Snippet: 1968) (same), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969). A presumption, on the other

D.G. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-08-08

Citation: 547 So. 2d 295, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1874, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4544

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); Glisson v. State, 85 Fla. 493

DG v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-08-08

Citation: 547 So. 2d 295, 1989 WL 88036

Snippet: (Fla. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); Glisson v. State, 85 Fla. 493

In the Interest of F.W.B. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-02-22

Citation: 538 So. 2d 969, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 532, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 957, 1989 WL 14551

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969), in which a conviction for theft

Interest of M.M. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-02-14

Citation: 547 So. 2d 139, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 461, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 652

Snippet: (Fla.1968), cert. denied 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); N.C. v. State, 478 So.2d 1142

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1988-09-16

Snippet: constitute an interchange agreement pursuant to s. 112.24, F.S., a contract for consultant other-personal-services

Bunderick v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1988-07-19

Citation: 528 So. 2d 1247, 1988 WL 75035

Snippet: (Fla. 1968), cert. denied 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969). Here, Bunderick's possession

Merritt v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1988-04-21

Citation: 523 So. 2d 573, 1988 WL 36952

Snippet: (Fla. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); Daniels v. State, 108 So.2d

Dudley v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1987-08-11

Citation: 511 So. 2d 1052, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1950

Snippet: (Fla. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969). [7] See e.g., McArthur v.