Judges: Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Filed Date: 1/13/2000
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Ms. Josefina M. Tamayo General Counsel Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Dear Ms. Tamayo:
On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Children and Families, you ask substantially the following question:
Are meetings of the board of directors of the Family Services Coalition, Inc., an entity performing services for the Department of Children and Families pursuant to section
In sum:
Meetings of the board of directors of the Family Services Coalition, Inc., an entity performing services for the Department of Children and Families pursuant to section
According to the information provided by your office, District 4 was required by the Legislature in 1996 to institute a foster care privatization pilot program.1 The foster care program in the district was formerly administered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Family Services Coalition, Inc. (Coalition), however, now acts as the management service organization for an alliance of residential providers who directly provide residential, clinical, and case management services for adolescents. The Coalition, which is a nonprofit agency, is governed by a thirteen-member board of directors composed of member agencies, consumers and advocates. From the information provided to this office, it appears that the only function of the Coalition, which was incorporated in 1997, is to manage the foster care services pursuant to the contract with the department. You, therefore, ask whether the Coalition is subject to the open meetings requirements of section
Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, section
"All meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision . . . at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times[.]"2
The statute has been held applicable to private organizations when the private entity has been created by a public agency, when there has been a delegation of the public agency's governmental functions, or when the private organization plays an integral part in the decision-making process of the public agency.3
Recent decisions by the courts in considering the applicability of the open government laws to private entities have focused on whether the private entity is merely providing services to the public agency or is standing in the shoes of the public agency. For example, in Memorial Hospital-West Volusia, Inc. v. News-JournalCorporation,4 the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that a private organization, performing and carrying out the obligations of a public agency under a lease agreement, was subject to open meetings requirements of both the Constitution and the Government in the Sunshine Law.5 In that case, a hospital authority had delegated the performance of its public purpose to a private organization. As the Supreme Court noted, when the actual public function is transferred, public access follows. While the Court did not reject the dominion or control test established inCity of Miami Beach v. Berns6 for factual situations similar to the one presented in Berns, the Court stated:
"[W]e simply find that the Authority's delegation of the performance of its public purpose to West Volusia, Inc. is similar to the delegation of official acts by Marston that caused the search and screening committee in Wood to come within section
This office has also considered a private entity that has been delegated a public function to be subject to the provisions of the open government laws. For example, in Attorney General Opinion 98-49, this office stated that an association designated by a county to carry on duties of a dissolved county fine arts council and receiving funding from specialty license plates is subject to Sunshine Law.8
In the instant inquiry, the coalition, although a private agency, in effect stands in the place of the department in the management of foster care services in District 4.9 Accordingly, I am of the opinion that meetings of the board of directors of the Family Services Coalition, Inc., an entity performing services for the Department of Children and Families pursuant to section
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
RAB/tgk
"(5) Beginning in fiscal year 1996-1997, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services shall establish a minimum of 5 model programs. These models must be established in the department's districts 1, 4, and 13; in subdistrict 8A; and in a fifth district to be determined by the department, with the concurrence of the appropriate district health and human services board. . . . Providers of these model programs . . . must be established, community-based organizations within the district or subdistrict. Contracts with organizations responsible for the model programs shall include the management and administration of all privatized services specified in subsection (1), except for funds necessary to manage the contract. . . ."
Subsection (5) has been subsequently amended (see, s. 193, Ch. 97-101, Laws of Florida, s. 14, Ch. 99-168, Laws of Florida, and s. 2, Ch. 99-206, Laws of Florida), and was renumbered as subsection (6) by s. 14, Ch. 99-168, Laws of Florida. Cf., s.
City of Miami Beach v. Berns , 245 So. 2d 38 ( 1971 )
Prison Health Services, Inc. v. Lakeland Ledger Pub. Co. , 718 So. 2d 204 ( 1998 )
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-WEST v. News-Journal , 729 So. 2d 373 ( 1999 )
Stanfield v. Salvation Army , 695 So. 2d 501 ( 1997 )
Putnam County Humane Soc., Inc. v. Woodward , 740 So. 2d 1238 ( 1999 )