Judges: Charlie Crist Attorney General
Filed Date: 3/29/2005
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Mr. Joseph E. Adams Chair, Advisory Council on Condominiums Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1030
Dear Mr. Adams:
The Advisory Council on Condominiums has asked you, as chairman of the council, to request my opinion on substantially the following question:
Are meetings between a member of the Advisory Council on Condominiums and the Director of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, who serves as an ex officio, non-voting member of the council, subject to the provisions of section
You acknowledge that two voting members of the Advisory Council must comply with the Government in the Sunshine Law if they meet to discuss matters that could potentially come before the council. Your question relates to the applicability of the Sunshine Law to a meeting between a voting member of the council and a non-voting member.
In 2004, the Florida Legislature created the Advisory Council on Condominiums.1 Pursuant to section
Section
"(a) Receive, from the public, input regarding issues of concern with respect to condominiums and recommendations for changes in the condominium law. The issues that the council shall consider include, but are not limited to, the rights and responsibilities of the unit owners in relation to the rights and responsibilities of the association.
(b) Review, evaluate, and advise the division concerning revisions and adoption of rules affecting condominiums.
(c) Recommend improvements, if needed, in the education programs offered by the division."
The council meets at the call of its chair, at the request of a majority of its membership, at the request of the division, or at such times as are determined by the council.2 A majority of the council members constitutes a quorum and formal action may be taken by vote of a majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which there is a quorum.3
The Florida Government in the Sunshine Law, section
"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."
As a statute enacted in the public interest to protect the public from "closed-door" politics, the Sunshine Law must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and protective purposes.4 Florida courts have repeatedly stated that it is the entire decision-making process to which the Sunshine Law applies and not merely to the formal meeting of a public body at which voting is conducted to ratify an official decision. The statute is to be applied to discussions and deliberations as well as to formal action taken by a public body.5 As the court stated in TimesPublishing Company, Etc., v. Williams:
"[I]t is the entire decision-making process that the legislature intended to affect by the enactment of the statute before us. . . . Every step in the decision-making process, including the decision itself, is a necessary preliminary to formal action. It follows that each such step constitutes an "official act," an indispensable requisite to "formal action," within the meaning of the act."6
Thus, the public is entitled to participate in a meaningful way in the decision-making process and this constitutional right is protected by the Government in the Sunshine Law.7
Although he or she is an ex officio member, the director of the division is designated by statute as a member of the council, which is a collegial body. He or she is involved in decision-making by the council as a participant in meetings although serving as a nonvoting member. The courts of this state have held that the Sunshine Law must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and protective purpose.8 Moreover, as the Supreme Court of Florida made clear in Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison,9 "[w]hen in doubt, [a collegial body] should follow the open-meeting policy of the State."
In sum, it is my opinion that meetings between a voting member of the Advisory Council on Condominiums and the Director of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, who serves as a member of the council in an ex officio, non-voting capacity, are subject to the provisions of section
Sincerely,
Charlie Crist Attorney General
CC/tgh
Wood v. Marston , 442 So. 2d 934 ( 1983 )
Canney v. Board of Pub. Instruction of Alachua Cty. , 278 So. 2d 260 ( 1973 )
Krause v. Reno , 366 So. 2d 1244 ( 1979 )
Board of Public Instruction of Broward Cty. v. Doran , 224 So. 2d 693 ( 1969 )
Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison , 296 So. 2d 473 ( 1974 )
Times Publishing Company v. Williams , 222 So. 2d 470 ( 1969 )