Judges: Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Filed Date: 5/11/1987
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Honorable Jerry Hill State Attorney Tenth Judicial Circuit 250 North Wilson Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830
Dear Mr. Hill:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on substantially the following question:
IS A MEETING OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE, APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND COMPOSED OF CITY OFFICIALS, WITH OFFICIALS OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO DISCUSS A PROPOSAL TO DONATE OR SELL CITY LAND TO THE CHAMBER SUBJECT TO THE SUNSHINE LAW, s.
286.011 , F.S.?
Your inquiry indicates that the ad hoc committee, consisting of one member of the city council, the city manager and the city attorney, was appointed by the mayor to meet with officials of the chamber to explore a proposal to give city land to the chamber. The committee was not empowered to enter into an agreement with the Chamber of Commerce; however, I have been informed that the committee was appointed by the mayor to determine the financial and other conditions of the transfer of the land from the city to the chamber. The meeting between the members of the committee and the chamber resulted in the preparation of a draft deed which was presented by the committee to the city council. Based upon these factual circumstances, you inquire whether the Government-in-the-Sunshine Law is applicable to meetings between the ad hoc committee and the Chamber of Commerce.
Initially, I note that this office is not authorized to comment upon the validity of actions which have already occurred; such a determination is one which the judiciary, and not this office, must make. My comments are limited to a discussion of the applicability of the Government-in-the-Sunshine Law to such an ad hoc committee and no comment is expressed regarding the validity of any actions which may have been taken by the committee.
The "Government-in-the-Sunshine Law," s.
All meetings of any board or commission . . . 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, and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting.
It has been stated by this office and the Florida courts that the Sunshine Law is applicable to any gathering where two or more members of a public board or commission discuss matters on which foreseeable action will be taken by the board or commission. See, e.g., Times Publishing Company v. Williams,
In AGO 84-16, this office determined that "for s.
Therefore, to the extent that public agencies utilize ad hoc committees, delegating to the committees a portion of the decision-making process, such committees are subject to and must comply with the requirements of s.
In the instant inquiry, the ad hoc committee was delegated the authority to meet with officials of the Chamber of Commerce to discuss and formulate a land-transfer proposal to be recommended to and acted upon by the city council. Thus it appears that the committee, responsible for proposing a land-transfer deed and the conditions for such transfer, played an integral part in the decisional process. Accordingly, it is my opinion that such an ad hoc committee is subject to and must comply with the requirements of the Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, s.
In sum, it is my opinion, unless and until legislatively or judicially determined otherwise, that meetings of an ad hoc committee appointed by the mayor and playing an integral part in the decisional process with respect to matters upon which foreseeable action will be taken by the agency or authority are subject to the provisions of Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine Law.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Prepared by:
Lagran Saunders Assistant Attorney General
Times Publishing Company v. Williams , 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5837 ( 1969 )
Cape Publications, Inc. v. City of Palm Bay , 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1588 ( 1985 )
Hough v. Stembridge , 278 So. 2d 288 ( 1973 )
IDS Properties, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach , 279 So. 2d 353 ( 1973 )