Opinion ID: 2533069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: one-on-one briefings

Text: Citizens next argue that the trial court erred in determining that the private staff briefings of individual board members in preparation for the July 22, 2009 public hearing did not violate the Sunshine Law. We agree with the contrary arguments of the City and County and affirm the trial court. This Court has explained that meetings within the meaning of the Sunshine Law include any gathering, formal or informal, of two or more members of the same board or commission where the members deal with some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the Board. Tolar v. School Bd. of Liberty County, 398 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla.1981); see also Bd. of Pub. Instruction v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693, 698 (Fla.1969). However, public officials may call upon staff members for factual information and advice without being subject to the Sunshine Law's requirements. See Occidental Chem. Co. v. Mayo, 351 So.2d 336, 342 (Fla.1977); Wood, 442 So.2d at 940 (The Second District found no violation, holding, inter alia, that the meetings were not decision-making in nature, but were `for the purpose of fact-finding to assist him in the execution of [his] duties,' [ Bennett, ] 333 So.2d at 99, and we approve the holding that such fact-finding staff consultations are not subject to the Sunshine Law.). Here, Bullock, individually and assisted by other County staff, held one-on-one meetings in the two- or three-day period immediately preceding the Board's public meeting on July 22, 2009. These meetings were informational briefings regarding the contents of the MOU, where Bullock would also ask if the individual members had any questions about the MOU. There is no evidence that Bullock or other County staff communicated what any commissioner said to any other commissioner. These informational briefings for individual members of the Board were not violations of the Sunshine Law. As this Court has explained, members of a collegial administrative body are not obliged to avoid their staff during the evaluation and consideration stages of their deliberations. Were this so, the value of staff expertise would be lost and the intelligent use of employees would be crippled. Occidental, 351 So.2d at 342 n. 10. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's ruling regarding these one-on-one meetings.