Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Sarasota
48 So. 3d 755
| Fla. | 2010Background
- Citizens appeal a trial court decision validating bonds for a Baltimore Orioles spring training project funded by Sarasota County and City bonds.
- The MOU with the Orioles, approved July 22, 2009, obligates County funding and facility renovations at Ed Smith Stadium and County-related sites; the Interlocal Agreement assigns the City’s Ed Smith complex to the County with related obligations.
- The County’s negotiations were led by Bullock with consultants and staff; no formal negotiating committee or board was created, and Bullock retained ultimate negotiating authority.
- Public meetings and discussions occurred from November 2008 through July 22, 2009, including multiple public hearings and deliberations about financing and terms.
- Citizens alleged Sunshine Law violations, asserting improper advisory consultations and improper private briefings; the trial court denied these objections and validated the bonds.
- The Court of Florida, on appeal, held that the negotiations team was informational, one-on-one staff briefings were permissible, and email exchanges were cured by subsequent public action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bullock's negotiations team served as a Sunshine Law board. | Citizens contends the team acted as a board subject to 286.011. | City/County assert the team was advisory/informational, not exercising decision-making authority. | The negotiations team was informational; not a board; Sunshine Law not required. |
| Whether one-on-one staff briefings before July 22, 2009 violated the Sunshine Law. | Citizens argue briefings violated open meetings rule. | City/County argue staff briefings are permissible fact-finding and not deliberations. | Informational briefings before the public meeting were not Sunshine Law violations. |
| Whether email communications among board members violated Sunshine Law and were cured by public meetings. | Citizens allege improper deliberations via email outside sunshine. | City/County contend later public action cured any defect. | Any email violation was cured by subsequent independent, open public action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Marston, 442 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1983) (Sunshine Law remedial; broad construction to prevent evasion)
- Lyon v. Lake County, 765 So.2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (informational gathering not subject to 286.011)
- Tolar v. School Bd. of Liberty County, 398 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1981) (sunshine violations cured by independent final action in sunshine)
- Gradison v. Town of Palm Beach, 296 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1974) (ceremonial acceptance of secret actions not always void)
- Bd. of Pub. Instruction v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1969) (staff consultations for information not deliberations)