Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Sarasota
48 So. 3d 755 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government body's potential Sunshine Law violations can be cured by subsequent, independent final action taken in public that is not a mere perfunctory ratification of prior secret decisions. Additionally, ad-hoc advisory groups that only perform fact-finding and informational functions without delegated decision-making authority are not subject to the Sunshine Law's open meeting requirements.
Facts:
- The Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners directed its staff to negotiate with the Baltimore Orioles to relocate the team's spring training operations to Sarasota.
- Deputy County Administrator David Bullock was assigned to lead the negotiations and formed an ad-hoc group of consultants and county staff to advise him and gather information.
- Bullock and his team conducted negotiations with the Orioles over several months through private meetings, phone calls, and emails, which culminated in a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
- During the negotiation period, some County Board members exchanged emails with each other regarding the Orioles proposal, with the last such exchange occurring on April 12, 2009.
- Throughout the process, the Board held numerous public meetings to discuss the potential deal, where various proposals were debated, modified, and rejected in open session.
- In the days immediately preceding the final vote on the MOU, Bullock and other county staff conducted individual, one-on-one informational briefings with each Board member to explain the complex agreement.
- On July 22, 2009, the Board held a four-hour public hearing, took testimony from approximately forty citizens, and then voted to approve the MOU and related agreements.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Sarasota and the County of Sarasota filed separate complaints in trial court seeking validation of bonds to finance the Orioles agreement.
- Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government ('Citizens') filed a separate lawsuit alleging the County had violated the Sunshine Law.
- The trial court consolidated the bond validation cases and the Sunshine Law complaint.
- Following a four-day bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment validating the bonds and denying Citizens' complaint.
- Citizens appealed the trial court's judgment directly to the Supreme Court of Florida, challenging only the determination that the County did not violate the Sunshine Law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a county official's private consultations with an ad-hoc advisory team, one-on-one staff briefings with individual commissioners, and prior email exchanges among commissioners violate Florida's Sunshine Law if the ultimate decision is made after robust, independent public hearings on the matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, these actions do not violate Florida's Sunshine Law. The court held that the law applies to bodies with delegated decision-making authority, not to staff or advisory groups that serve a purely fact-finding or informational role. Bullock's 'negotiations team' did not have decision-making authority; they were advisors assisting him. The court also found that one-on-one informational briefings between staff and individual board members are permissible and do not constitute a meeting under the Sunshine Law, as long as the staff member does not act as a conduit between board members. Finally, the court concluded that any potential Sunshine Law violation arising from the prior email exchanges between board members was cured by the subsequent series of robust public meetings, which were not a 'perfunctory ratification' of secret decisions but constituted 'independent, final action in the sunshine' where the matter was fully debated and considered anew.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of Florida's Sunshine Law by distinguishing permissible government staff work from prohibited secret meetings. It reinforces the principle that only committees with delegated decision-making authority, not those with purely informational or fact-finding roles, are subject to open meeting requirements. The decision is most significant for solidifying the 'cure' doctrine, establishing that potential violations can be remedied through subsequent, thorough, and independent public hearings. This provides a practical framework for government bodies to correct procedural missteps while still advancing public business, though it also creates a risk that agencies might view the cure as a way to excuse initial non-compliance.
Unlock the full brief for Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Sarasota