 i
n
b
o
x
|
Constitution Revision Commission
The Constitution Revision Commission is getting down to business as 37 commissioners
from all walks of life come together to recommend changes to Florida's constitution.
Public hearings will also be held throughout the year to give members of the general
public an opportunity to speak. Any changes recommended by the commission will do directly
to the voters for ratification at the general election in 1998, without review by the
legislature, the governor or anyone else. Various committees have been formed to look at
issues ranging from education to the citizen initiative process.
More information is available through the commission's web site located at
www.law.fsu.edu/crc. The site provides a variety of information including upcoming
meetings, a list of commission members, proceedings, commission committees, news articles,
as well as procedures for submitting suggestions to the commission for review. Associated
Industries of Florida (AIF) also will provide updates on the commission's activities
through Florida Business Network, AIF's on-line governmental information system.
 Chase Stays On As Lobbyist For AIF
Jodi L. Chase, executive vice president & general counsel of Associated Industries
of Florida (AIF) for the past seven years, left AIF to join the law firm of Broad &
Cassel. "It's personal growth," says Chase. "I have to go out there and try
on my own, and see what I can do."
Chase will continue to lobby for AIF as an attorney with the law firm, and will
continue to provide her outstanding representation of the business community within the
Florida Legislature. "AIF is the best association in the country," she states.
"I'll always be a loyal ally to AIF."
 Clean Air At What Cost?
A proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to tighten national air
quality standards for ozone and fine particles (particulate matter) is full of hot air say
many Florida business owners. Critics believe that the estimated $150 billion a year it
will cost to comply with the new EPA standards will far outweigh the promised benefits of
protecting public health. Opponents of the proposal, such as the Florida Coalition for
Clean Air, say that if the standards are implemented, the biggest losers will be the
American people.
"Businesses of all sizes will pay for the new air pollution/controls up front, but
the high costs will be passed on. Workers will lose jobs, families will pay more for
transportation, gasoline, electricity, and most other goods and services," claim
members of the coalition. "as a result, they will have less to spend on education,
retirement, and their own health care."
State analysts predict Florida's business community will not be hit as hard by the new
requirements because pollution in Florida is less severe thanks to persistent sea breezes
over the peninsula. However, state environmentalists warn that certain breezes can blow
regions of South Florida right out of compliance with EPA particulate matter standards.
Every year during June and July summer trade winds blow dust from Africa 3,500 miles
across the Atlantic to Florida -- blanketing most of Dade and Broward counties. That was
enough in 1993 to triple the air pollution level in South Florida.
Serious public demand is being made for EPA to reconsider its proposal and make
much-needed changes. Seventeen of the state's 23 U.S. House members and Republican Sen.
Connie Mack have written the White House expressing opposition to the rules.
Calling All Employers
As a result of new federal legislation, Florida will require all employers in the state
to report new hires, effective Oct. 1, 1998. This marks a change from current Florida law,
which had only required reporting of new hires by employers with 250 or more employees.
The New Hire Reporting Program helps the state to locate non-custodial parents delinquent
in their child support payments and to collect court-ordered payments through wage
withholding. The information also is used to detect abuses of the unemployment
compensation program.
When the program goes into full effect next year, all employers will be required to
provide the following information on new hires: 1) employee name, address and social
security number (DOB optional); 2) employer name, address, and Federal Employer ID number;
3) date of hire (same as first day of work under current system).
Employers may report the information by mail, telephone or fax. Copies of W-4 forms are
accepted along with the State UI Account number (the number from the UCT-6W report) and
the first day of work. Employers who currently report new hires and want to report the
information on diskette or magnetic tape should contact the Department of Labor and
Employment Security at (850) 921-3540 for record layout requirements.
The Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) is working to educate employers about the new
reporting requirements, as well as to identify employers' needs and expectations for
making the program successful. Employers with questions should call DOR Child Support
Enforcement at (850) 922-9590.
Don't Look Now
Maybe now that the state of Florida has settled its lawsuit against tobacco companies,
efforts to repeal the abominably unjust Medicaid-third-Party Liability Act will succeed.
Even if they do, the strategy unveiled in the tobacco wars will survive to threaten every
manufacturer, distributor, retailer, and citizen in the nation.
There's nothing new about plaintiffs' attorneys soaking entire industries. What makes
the tobacco litigation so ominous is that it unveiled a highly sophisticated formula
plaintiffs' lawyers use in there quest for money.
The lawsuits against tobacco companies were born when a few plaintiffs' lawyers hopped
onto there private planes and made rounds of state capitals, recruiting politicians to
file lawsuits against cigarette manufactures on behalf of taxpayers. Eventually, about 40
states jumped on the litigation train.
In the end, passage of the Florida law was really little more than a symbolic victory.
Facing war on so many fronts, the tobacco industry had little choice but to capitulate.
Politicians and plaintiffs' lawyers alike have maintained the fiction that this exercise
was undertaken in the interests of the people. So what did they do for us?
First of all, we will enjoy expansion of government power through tobacco-subsidized
health programs. Some may believe that is a fine thing, but just wait until the
plaintiffs' lawyers come back to the politicians with another plan to raise state revenues
without raising taxes. And come back they will.
Mass torts, such as the tobacco lawsuits, are more than methods to pad plaintiffs'
lawyers' bank accounts. They also represent a sort of litigation research and development
effort, testing techniques and establishing precedents to use in the next round of
lawsuits.
In the Florida case, trial lawyers established some eerie precedents that won't go away
with the settlement (see Civil Rico: New Weapon of Choice?).
The model of threatening industries with the cudgel of lawsuits will undergo further
refinement. After all, how can plaintiffs' lawyers resist hefty legal fees? Or politicians
headlines? What activist will say no to money to implement a favorite program without
raising taxes?
As for the rest of us, the prospects are a little bleak. We'll pay higher prices for
legal products while we give up just a little more freedom. |
