Council, police chief set to violate Sunshine Law

NOTE: The following is an email that was sent to from me to city council members, City Manager Isaac Turner, and Police Chief Julie Williams, on May 17, 2010. Now three days later, despite advice from First Amendment Foundation lead attorney Barbara Peterson, Turner is still planning on having council members meet one-on-one with Police Chief Julie Williams to discuss, out of the public eye, allegations raised by the Herald-Tribune and by Venice Florida! dot com. 

Subject: The upcoming one-on-one meetings with Julie Williams, set to address concerns that I raised publicly at the last city council meeting.

These are different than the one-on-one agenda meetings. According to Barbara Peterson at the First Amendment Foundation, the meetings with Williams would be clear violations of the Sunshine Law for two reasons. One -- they are a continuation of discussion started during a public meeting. Secondly, the one-on-one meetings with Williams would be for the purpose of holding the discussion with council members away from public eyes and would involve the dissemination of new information that the public is entitled to.

One of Williams' defenses will be that she cannot discuss this publicly as parts are part of ongoing investigations. Not valid. Anything that she legally cannot discuss publicly she is likewise prohibited from discussing with any of you.

I described the situation to Peterson in great detail to avoid confusion and to make absolutely sure I was standing on firm ground. A lengthy discussion followed, the gist of which is above.

Below is an excerpt from Peterson's email to me that is on point.

The Sunshine Law is applicable to meetings between a board member and an individual who is not a member of the board when that individual is being used as a liaison between, or to conduct a de facto meeting of, board members. See AGO 74-47 (city manager is not a member of the city council and thus, may meet with individual council members; however, the manager may not act as a liaison for board members by circulating information and thoughts of individual council members). Compare AGO 89-39 (aides to county commissioners would not be subject to the Sunshine Law unless they have been delegated decision-making functions outside of the ambit of normal staff functions, are acting as liaisons between board members, or are acting in place of the board or its members at their direction).

For example, in Blackford v. School Board of Orange County, 375 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), the court held that a series of scheduled successive meetings between the school superintendent and individual members of the school board were subject to the Sunshine Law. While normally meetings between the school superintendent and an individual school board member would not be subject to s. 286.011, F.S., these meetings were held in "rapid-fire succession" in order to avoid a public airing of a controversial redistricting problem. They amounted to a de facto meeting of the school board in violation of s. 286.011, F.S.

Similarly, in Sentinel Communications Company v. School Board of Osceola County, No. CI920045 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. April 3, 1992), the court found that a series of private meetings between a school superintendent and individual school board members which were scheduled by the superintendent to present and consider staff recommendations concerning the administrative structure of the school system and to privately address any objections or concerns that the board might have, should have been held in the sunshine. The court said that its decision should not be construed to prohibit individual board members from meeting privately with staff or the superintendent for informational purposes or on an ad hoc basis. However, "[i]t shall be construed to prohibit the scheduling of a series of such meetings which concern a specific agenda." Thus, the court enjoined the board and its superintendent "from holding any further closed door meetings to formulate Board policy, discuss matters where Board action is contemplated, or otherwise conduct the public's business."

In Citizens for a Better Royal Palm Beach, Inc. v. Village of Royal Palm Beach, No. CL 9114417 AA (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. May 14, 1992), the court invalidated a contract for the sale of municipal property when it determined that after the proposal to sell the property which had been discussed and approved at a public meeting collapsed, the city manager met individually with council members and from those discussions the property was sold to another group. The circuit court found that these meetings resulted in a substantial change in the terms of sale and that the execution of the contract, therefore, violated the Sunshine Law.

Anything Williams has to say can be made in writing (a public record, and I request any such communication in advance right now with this sentence) or at the next open city council meeting.

I will raise holy hell and scream cover up if you have these discussions privately and I later find out about them (and you know I will).