CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG v. BRUCE WRIGHT
241 So. 3d 903 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, section 286.011(8), a private meeting between a government body and its attorney is only permissible if the discussion is strictly confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures. Using such a meeting to discuss the merits, draft language, or policy reasons for new legislation violates the law.
Facts:
- Four homeless individuals sued the City of St. Petersburg in federal court, challenging the constitutionality of the City's trespass ordinance in a case known as Catron v. City of St. Petersburg.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that the ordinance might violate procedural due process because it did not provide a way for individuals to contest a trespass warning.
- In response to the appellate ruling, the St. Petersburg City Council scheduled a private 'shade' meeting with the city attorney's office on October 13, 2011, to discuss the pending Catron litigation.
- During this private meeting, an assistant city attorney presented a draft amendment to the trespass ordinance designed to cure the constitutional defect identified by the Eleventh Circuit.
- The council members, mayor, and attorneys proceeded to discuss the specific language of the draft amendment and the urgent policy reasons for passing it, such as resuming enforcement against panhandling and other activities.
- A council member moved to approve the ordinance during the private session before being reminded that such action was not permitted.
- Immediately following the conclusion of the private shade meeting, the City Council resumed its public meeting and approved the trespass ordinance amendment on its first reading.
Procedural Posture:
- The Reverend Bruce Wright filed a lawsuit against the City of St. Petersburg in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
- Wright moved for summary judgment, arguing the City Council violated the Sunshine Law.
- The circuit court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that the private 'shade' meeting did not violate the law, but that the council violated statutory notice requirements when it subsequently voted on the ordinance.
- The circuit court voided the ordinance amendment on the grounds of the notice violation.
- The City of St. Petersburg (Appellant) appealed the final summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
- Bruce Wright (Appellee/Cross-Appellant) cross-appealed the circuit court's specific ruling that the shade meeting itself was lawful.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city council violate Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, section 286.011, by discussing the specific terms and policy justifications of a proposed ordinance during a private 'shade' meeting with its attorneys, even when that meeting is convened to discuss pending litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Northcutt, J.
Yes. A city council violates Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law when its discussion in a private attorney-client session extends beyond the narrow statutory exceptions. The attorney-client exemption in section 286.011(8) is strictly limited to 'settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures.' The transcript of the City's shade meeting conclusively demonstrates that the discussion was not confined to these topics. Instead, the council and its attorneys debated the merits of a proposed ordinance, reviewed its specific terms, and crystallized a consensus to pass it. This use of a private meeting to secretly deliberate on legislation is precisely what the Sunshine Law was enacted to prevent, as it allows for 'the crystallization of secret decisions to a point just short of ceremonial acceptance.'
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the extremely narrow scope of the attorney-client litigation exemption to Florida's Sunshine Law. It serves as a clear precedent that government bodies cannot use the pretense of discussing litigation strategy to engage in substantive legislative deliberations outside of public view. The court's focus on the actual content of the discussion, rather than its stated purpose, signals to public officials that any deviation from the strict statutory limits of settlement and litigation costs will likely result in their actions being invalidated. This ruling strengthens public access and transparency by preventing the 'shade meeting' from becoming a loophole for conducting the public's business in private.
