Konish: How the GRU Authority became a “separate legal entity” and what it means
Letter to the editor
It had generally been believed that a transfer of ownership of GRU to the GRU Authority would have to occur before the Authority would be declared a separate legal entity. Instead, this has resulted from a federal judge’s ruling in response to yet another private nuisance suit.
Judge Allen Winsor writes in dicta, relied upon in the GRU press release issued around Sept. 9, as “paving the way for the GRU (Authority’s) complaint against the city”, on page 5 of his order:
“Municipal departments—unlike other types of special units, districts, and municipal agencies that the Legislature creates for specific purposes— are generally not separate legal entities with the capacity to sue or be sued.” (p.5)
The GRU Authority was found to be a unique “municipal agency” that is much different from a “municipal department.” (p.7)
Examining the closest thing to our GRU Authority, the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), Judge Winsor noted that the appointment of members by the governor and the power of eminent domain distinguish the GRU Authority from the OUC.
Judge Winsor reasoned:
“… a city and its utility commission can be distinct legal entities without being completely separate” (i.e. transfer of GRU ownership to GRU Authority is not requisite) (p.7).
The final blows delivered by Judge Winsor are as follows:
“And the City’s primary ‘obligation’ under section 7.10 is to effectuate an orderly transition of GRU control to the Authority.” (p.9). “City” here refers to the Gainesville City Commission.
“But ‘federal courts have no authority to erase a duly enacted law from the statute books.'”
“How the debacle of two groups battling for control might resolve is anyone’s guess.” (p.11)
It is noteworthy that the GRU Authority legal challenge is against the City (NOT the City Commission) and the County Supervisor of Elections.
The Florida Attorney General was an Intervenor-Defendant, and hopefully this will be the case with the newly filed GRU Authority legal challenge to the GRU referendum.
It is evident that the word “Authority” means what it says. The GRU Authority has usurped nearly all powers of the City Commission AND the s.3.06 GRU General Manager and is in rarified air above and beyond that of the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC).
The wisdom of and necessity for a Bond Validation Proceeding is in grave doubt. GRU utilization of profiteering Bond Counsel supervised by the fired City Attorney has become more dubious. The City Attorney’s flawed effort to represent both the City Commission and GRU has come to its illogical conclusion. The City Attorney’s office has disqualified itself in regard to representation of BOTH the City Commission and GRU in any litigation regarding the assailed GRU referendum, Bond Validation Proceeding, and possibly other matters.
As Judge Winsor noted, the unfettered ability of the GRU Authority to sue the City (Commission) over any matter has opened a Pandora’s Box. The Authority can also sue Alachua County for millions in unpaid streetlight GRU bills.
Jim Konish, Gainesville
The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Assertions of facts in letters are similarly the responsibility of the author. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.
Judge Windsor is WRONG. His legal reasoning is flawed. It’s time he got into another line of work.
Uh huh. You must be on the 11th Circuit. Thank you for your wisdom.
Paulie want a cracker? I hope so, cause Paulie aint gettin anything else she may want. Stop crying Paulie Paulie Pound Cake and be thankful that GRU is no longer ruined, I mean run by the sh*tty commission, I mean city commission. GRU is an important asset owned by the citizens of Gainesville and not a piggy bank for pet projects of the commission. Now 1-800-get-grip and be thankful that your Governor saw the damage being done by various commissions and step in to make sure the commission stop racking up the debt on OUR utility.
That’s not much of a rebuttal. Can you please explain why you believe the judge is wrong, and note the logical errors in his legal reasoning?
Yes Anonymous,
The Judge is wrong because I said he is wrong. I have been raised my entire life and never been told I am wrong, so I can’t be wrong. My mommy and daddy have run blocker for me my entire life. One time I got a bad grade on a test because I forgot to bring home my study guide, and my mommy and daddy went to the school and had that teacher fired. Another reason I know I am right is because I have never been exposed to rejection or failure, so I have to be right about everything. I can prove that I am right about everything, just ask my mommy and daddy.
May, I asked you where you got your law degree since you seem know so much
Socialists do not understand business NOR our Constitution. Just by watching them you can see they got into politics simply due to uneducated envy and illogical thinking. A dangerous mix that has destroyed so many other commie lands and cities in history. 👺👹👿💩🤡
Jennifer. Please change 1856 to 1869. Please add the word “ownership” to the end of footnote 5. To date, the previous private nuisance plaintiffs have been unable to locate a viable Defendant. This appears to have changed with Judge Winsor’s opinion. We will soon see if the City is dismissed from Walker’s suit.
As if this judge was the SC and able to make ridiculous claims – like our current SC – to rationalize his parties illegal actions. Konish thinks these claims carry weight. Here’s the best part:
“But ‘federal courts have no authority to erase a duly enacted law from the statute books.’”
Of course they do, putting aside whatever “duly enacted law” means. If it violates the rules of gravity – or the legal rights of owners – in another partisan power play, hell yes they can. Winsor is just playing wide receiver in this particular play.
I don’t know if it is separate or not, but if it is separate, GRU should stop the money transfers TODAY. The old city ordinance where the Commission ordered their subsidiary GRU to hand over money would seem to no longer be valid. The city cannot order a separate entity to hand over money any more than you or I could order GRU to hand over millions to us.
Or does the City have a contract with the new GRU where the separate GRU promises to give free money to the City out of the goodness of their hearts because it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling?
The city owns GRU. Decisions of the city are made by it’s elected leaders, who voters can remove if they don’t like them. The “authority” answers only to a Governor, and neither can be replaced by the citizens of Gainesville. Basically, that’s the theft of GRU from the city by the state GOP. This would not happen in a red county and we all know it.
This BS word play by nuisance posters like Konish based on a word salad “decisions” by a hack judge who’s part of the GOP team is ridiculous.
Konish please accept my apology from this failed and multi-sued builder to a slum lord and bed bug breeder. What I meant to say is I like to toss salad not read word salad. Speaking of toss salad what are you doing for dinner?
In your scenario, the 40% of GRU customers who reside outside the city limits could be made to subsidize the lavish lifestyle of the Gainesville City Commission with no recourse. How is that fair or constitutional?
The 40% of GRU customers who live outside the city – I am one of them – do not own GRU like city residents do. Just as we have had no say in how Duke or FPL spent their profits, we similarly have none in how GRU spends it’s profits, though annexation is an option. Tough luck for us, and most utility customers in the US who are not served by a utility owned by their government are in the same position. The Florida Public Service Commission has oversight on rates. The “authority” is acting in the interests of non-city residents – that is people who do not own GRU – which only highlights what a hostile and literal take-over this bill was. If the state or the county wants it, they should buy it.
That being said, when this bogus take over bill was being debated on the House floor, Gainesville’s representative Hinson offered an amendment to let county residents opt out of GRU service – it was voted down on a party line vote, the GOP against it.
What does they can be run off really mean – many terms, 8 years of unrecoverable financial damage,
I agree.
Of course you do, you traitor to the city you tried to get elected in. Was giving away GRU in your platform?
LOL. No, giving away GRU was Pegeen’s plan which started when she allowed a foreign entity run by an energy speculator to build a privately owned power plant on GRU property and agreed to pay 3x’s the market rate for 100% of the power it generated.
It was 4X whether needed or not.
“Konish: How the GRU Authority became a “separate legal entity” and what it means”
What it really means to the Gainesville City Commission is a licence to STEAL $$$ from the GRU ratepayers for their vision of a homeless utopia.
I am disgusted by this. GRU belongs to the citizens of Gainesville. Therefore, when I am elected I will direct VP Walz to appoint his wife to resurrect the wood burning facility which ran so well for years. During my upcoming visit with Dr Prizzia and the gifted Mary Alford we will discuss the implementation of my ideas. Do I have the support of this forum????
As the backward mayor of Gainesville, I 100% support you. And I am in agreement with continuing to burn our trees to create energy as we make builders pay mitigation fees to remove trees for affordable housing.
Mr Konish:
“It had generally been believed that a transfer of ownership of GRU to the GRU Authority would have to occur before the Authority would be declared a separate legal entity.”
Reading Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey’s ruling from a year ago
alachuachronicle.com/order-granting-motions-for-summary-judgment/
I was under the impression she had basically found the Authority was a separate legal entity then.
What am I missing?
Then the “authority” has to buy it. Show us the cash.
Judge Dempsey found that the City Commission lacked standing to sue anybody over HB 1645, that the parties sued in the Nee/Akerman were immune and had defenses, and that all eight counts were insufficient as a matter of law. Since the City Commission does not ENFORCE HB 1645, only the GRU Authority can challenge the constitutionality of HB 1645. The ability to sue or be sued “apart from the City” is an entirely different matter.
Thanks Jim, this helps understand what is happening all the lawsuits that keep increasing the cost for all residents. Costs of living here are the real matter, the rest is gibberish amounting to disguised, jazzed up support, for political parties and their city incumbents.
Utilities are all monopolies who have absolute control over what they charge customers, like all the residents of a city or county.
I once thought that GRU could be a better monopoly than a business owned utility and for years it was. But a new, politically inspired generation changed all that, as the evidence documents. This was arranged surprisingly without regard for the terrible impact on the poorest citizens without apology for the consequences and for mess they created.
So, the current debate and myriad of nasty, costly lawsuits about who runs the monopoly, a party controlled political body or a business, boils down a number, the price per Kwh/household for all who are forced by the monopoly to pay.
The deepest study of the difference is: “Price Efficiency Differences Between Public and Private Utilities: An Empirical Analysis of US Electric Utilities of the differences”
For example, it states:
“Boylan (2018) …Political distortions, measured through firms’ ability to quickly react electricity prices with respect to changes in inputs (costs), can be seen as a measurement of firm efficiency. …The model measures the change in price of electricity based on firm ownership type, and political events, among other regressors. The paper finds evidence that IOUs [businesses owned by investors] are quicker to react prices to cost changes, deeming IOUs more efficient vehicles in political distortions”
So how have we done by comparison with IOU monopoly? The monopoly here, run until recently by the political body, successively increased their charges per Kwh to residents exceeding the other monopolies by more than 22% not including numerous charges for living outside certain political boundaries where add on charges take it even higher. The rate here is 18.92¢, the state average is 14.85¢
Gainesville 13 cents per Kwh on average vs 18 cents here is the cost for the working families who own a home and those who rent. This amounts to a severe economic burden that has become the way of Gainesville along with other exceptions from the mean like extraordinary salaries paid to management by the political monopoly.
Trust not any monopoly, the data is the only truth.
COORECTION: LAST PARAGRAPH
Gainesville’s cost per Kwh amounts to a severe economic burden for many citizens. We also appear to deviate from the mean of most cities on other essentials like the extraordinary salaries paid to management by the politicians in charge.
I don’t understand how a case that is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice has decided anything with regard to the status of the GRU Authority. Perhaps a lawyer with experience in Governmental matters can weigh in on this.
“Lederer did not specify what the OUC was, only what it was not” and Winsor did in dicta. The judge used a rationalization to justify dismissing the case against the City “in dicta” (1). How does this decide anything?
1) “A Judge’s statement or opinion that has no legal bearing on the case before the court. In Latin, “in” means “not” or “without”; “dicta” means an “authoritative statement.” In dicta, then, translates to “not an authoritative statement “or “without authority.”