As a city council member in Florida, you have to be careful about how you conduct your work outside of public meetings. The Sunshine Law requires that all meetings where official acts are to be taken must be open to the public and provide reasonable notice. This means that any discussions or actions that could lead to a proposal or decision by the council must be done in a public and transparent manner. If you have meetings or discussions with experts or work on grant proposals outside of public meetings, you need to make sure that this information is shared with the rest of the council and the public to comply with the Sunshine Law. The Sunshine Law in Florida says that all meetings of public boards and commissions must be open to the public. This applies to formal meetings and also to informal gatherings where members discuss matters that the board will take action on. Members can’t communicate with each other about public business outside of public meetings, even through third-person intermediaries. However, the law doesn’t apply if a member talks to other people about public business, as long as they don’t talk to other board members about it. In Florida, the “Sunshine Law” applies to meetings of any public board or commission. This means that two or more members of the board or commission cannot have private meetings outside of official meetings. However, the law does not apply to communications of a single member with people who are not on the board or commission, even if the board or commission has given permission for the communication. Thirty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in the case of Rowe v. Pinellas Sports Authority that the bonds to build a stadium were not invalid. The court said that there were no illegal meetings because there were never two or more people with decision-making power from the same government group present at the same time. The court also said that the private discussions about the stadium financing did not violate the law because no decision-making officials were involved. In simple terms, the law says that any time two or more members of a public board get together and talk about something that the board will take action on, it has to be a public meeting. This rule also applies when a higher board gives some of its powers to a lower board or group. But if an individual person is given a task that the whole board could do, that person doesn’t have to follow these rules when doing the task, even if they meet with others. If a government agency has to attend mediation to settle a lawsuit, they might send one person from their board to represent them. This is because board meetings have to be open to the public, but mediations are private. The courts have said it’s okay for just one board member to go to mediation, as long as any settlement they agree to is brought back to the whole board for approval. Some people argue that having just one board member at mediation is against the law, but the courts disagree. The Attorney General opinions about whether the Sunshine Law applies to a lone individual are not consistent and shouldn’t be relied upon. They are not well explained and don’t follow other legal opinions or case law. So, they shouldn’t be followed by courts or government law practitioners. Attorney general opinions in Florida are not binding on courts and may be rejected if they are not consistent over time. Some opinions have flawed analysis, such as citing dictum within court opinions and misapplying the law to the specific facts of a situation. For example, one opinion incorrectly stated that the presence of two members of a public body is not always necessary for a violation of the Sunshine Law to occur, which is not consistent with the actual requirements of the law. It’s important for courts to carefully consider these opinions and not rely on them if they are not well-supported or accurately applied to the relevant legal principles. The attorney general’s opinion on the Sunshine Law is based on a case that doesn’t actually support their conclusion. They used a quote from the case, but the facts of the case were not relevant to the situation at hand. They also failed to discuss a case that actually addressed the scenario they were considering. It’s important to consider the facts of a case and not rely on vague statements when interpreting the law. Some attorney general opinions on this topic are inconsistent. In one case, the attorney general said that the mayor and council members could meet without following the Sunshine Law as long as they were only talking about coordinating city departments. However, this goes against the Sunshine Law, which applies to every step in the deliberative process. In another opinion, the attorney general raised concerns about a council member negotiating in private with a garbage contractor without clear instructions about the nature of the negotiations. These inconsistencies create confusion about when public officials can meet without following the Sunshine Law. The attorney general said it’s okay for a city council member to meet with a private garbage contractor as long as the purpose is just to gather information and the council member doesn’t have the power to make decisions on their own. This is different from past opinions and aligns more with case law. In another opinion, the attorney general said it’s okay for the chairman of a community agency to negotiate a job contract with a candidate as long as the chairman is only exploring options and reporting back to the agency for a decision. If the chairman can make decisions on their own, it has to be done in public. In the 1990s, the attorney general’s office issued opinions allowing single members of advisory boards to meet outside of public view to discuss certain topics. However, these opinions contradict earlier opinions and are not consistent over time. In 2013, the Manatee County Commission wanted to negotiate a new employment agreement with its county administrator, but the Sunshine Law does not make exceptions for discussing personnel matters in private. The Manatee County Commission had to negotiate a contract with the county administrator. To avoid breaking the law, they delegated the negotiation to their chairman and had two meetings with him and the administrator, along with their lawyers. The draft agreement was eventually presented to the full commission at a public meeting and was adopted. A news publication sued the county, claiming the meetings were illegal, but the court ruled in favor of the county. The Sunshine Law in Florida was created to keep government officials from making secret deals behind closed doors. It’s important for citizens to be able to see their elected officials at work so they can trust their government. But the law shouldn’t make it impossible for officials to do their jobs. It doesn’t apply to individuals talking about things that might come up for the government, as long as not too many officials are involved in the discussion. These are references to legal cases and laws in Florida. They talk about the “Sunshine Law,” which requires public officials to have open meetings. Some of the cases mentioned involve different district courts of appeal in Florida. The author is an assistant county attorney in Manatee County. This information is provided by the City, County and Local Government Section. It’s about following rules and serving the public in the legal profession.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/me-myself-and-i-does-floridas-sunshine-law-apply-to-communications-of-a-lone-member-of-a-board-or-commission/
Leave a Reply