Opinion ID: 2533069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the negotiations team

Text: Citizens contend that the trial court erred when ruling that Bullock and the individuals he consulted in negotiating with the Orioles (the so-called negotiations team) were not a board or commission subject to the Sunshine Law. However, we agree with the City and County and affirm the trial court. At the outset, we note the following: [A] trial court must make three determinations during a bond validation proceeding: (1) whether the public body has the authority to issue the subject bonds; (2) whether the purpose of the obligation is legal; and (3) whether the authorization of the obligation complies with the requirements of law. City of Gainesville v. State, 863 So.2d 138, 143 (Fla.2003). On appeal, this Court reviews the trial court's findings of fact for substantial competent evidence and its conclusions of law de novo. Id. (citing City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So.2d 25, 31 (Fla.1992); Panama City Beach Cmty. Redev. Agency v. State, 831 So.2d 662, 665 (Fla.2002)). Bay County v. Town of Cedar Grove, 992 So.2d 164, 167 (Fla.2008). This appeal regarding alleged Sunshine Law violations only concerns the third item above, whether the authorization complies with the requirements of law. Article I, section 24(b) of the Florida Constitution provides: All meetings of any collegial public body of the executive branch of state government or of any collegial public body of a county, municipality, school district, or special district, at which official acts are to be taken or at which public business of such body is to be transacted or discussed, shall be open and noticed to the public and meetings of the legislature shall be open and noticed as provided in Article III, Section 4(e), except with respect to meetings exempted pursuant to this section or specifically closed by this Constitution. And section 286.011, Florida Statutes (2009), commonly known as the Government in the Sunshine Law, provides in part: 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, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, 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. The board or commission must provide reasonable notice of all such meetings. Because section 286.011 was enacted in the public interest to protect the public from `closed door' politics ... the law must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and protective purpose. Wood v. Marston, 442 So.2d 934, 938 (Fla.1983). As this Court has explained, [t]he statute should be construed so as to frustrate all evasive devices. This can be accomplished only by embracing the collective inquiry and discussion stages within the terms of the statute, as long as such inquiry and discussion is conducted by any committee or other authority appointed and established by a governmental agency, and relates to any matter on which foreseeable action will be taken. Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So.2d 473, 477 (Fla.1974). Mere showing that the government in the sunshine law has been violated constitutes an irreparable public injury.... Id. Therefore, where officials have violated section 286.011, the official action is void ab initio. Id. All governmental authorities in Florida are subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Law unless specifically exempted. See art. I, § 24(c), Fla. Const. The requirements may also apply to committees subordinate to or selected by traditional governmental authorities. This Court in Wood explained that the dispositive question is whether decision-making authority has been delegated to the committee. 442 So.2d at 939. Where the committee has been delegated decision-making authority, the committee's meetings must be open to public scrutiny, regardless of the review procedures eventually used by the traditional governmental body. See id. at 939-40 (Where a body merely reviews decisions delegated to another entity, the potential for rubber-stamping always exists. To allow a review procedure to insulate the decision itself from public scrutiny invites circumvention of the Sunshine Law.). In contrast, a committee is not subject to the Sunshine Law if the committee has only been delegated information-gathering or fact-finding authority and only conducts such activities. See id. at 940-41; see also Lyon v. Lake County, 765 So.2d 785, 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (When a committee has been established for and conducts only information gathering and reporting, the activities of that committee are not subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes.). Whether, in fact, the delegation is a delegation of decision-making authority or fact-finding authority is evaluated according to the nature of the act performed, not on the make-up of the committee or the proximity of the act to the final decision. Wood, 442 So.2d at 939 (emphasis omitted). In this case, the trial court's order included factual findings regarding the roles of the individuals Bullock consulted when negotiating with the Orioles. Specifically, the trial court found that the people and entities Bullock met with ... operated in the roles of advisor, consultant and facilitator to assist him in the performance of his duty to negotiate with the Orioles. The trial court found that these individuals did not deliberate with, or without, him. Bullock retained and exercised the ultimate authority to negotiate the terms of the MOU that would be submitted to the [Board] for consideration. These factual findings are supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. See Lyon, 765 So.2d at 790 (reviewing trial court's factual finding that a meeting was informational for competent substantial evidence in the record). For example, Bullock testified that there was never a committee formed to negotiate any aspects of the MOU. Bullock also testified that he only consulted with the County's chief financial planning officer for information regarding potential funding and financing mechanisms and that the County's parks and recreation director would provide information because this is essentially a recreational facility. Additionally, the County's project coordinator testified that she provided staff support by making copies, typing letters, and scheduling meeting rooms. There was also testimony from the County Administrator that the baseball experts' responsibilities were to advise staff as to the makeup of what should be [in] an MOU, the issues to be aware of[, and] to provide some comparative analysis of other such deals around the country. And individual members of the so-called negotiating team testified that they were not delegated any authority to negotiate with the Orioles and that everything was under the direction of Bullock. Therefore, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings that the individuals consulted by Bullock performed an informational and fact-finding role in assisting Bullock. Because the individuals consulted by Bullock served an informational role, the so-called negotiations team did not constitute an advisory committee subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Law. As explained above, only advisory committees acting pursuant to a delegation of decision-making authority by the governmental entity are subject to the open meetings requirement of section 286.011. Advisory committees functioning as fact-finders or information gatherers are not subject to section 286.011. See Lyon, 765 So.2d at 789; Cape Publ'ns, Inc. v. City of Palm Bay, 473 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Bennett v. Warden, 333 So.2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). This is not a situation where Bullock and the individuals he consulted made joint decisions. Cf. Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Instead, these individuals were simply providing advice and information, which does not make the negotiations team a board or commission subject to the Sunshine Law. See, e.g., McDougall v. Culver, 3 So.3d 391, 393 (Fla.2d DCA 2009) ([T]he senior officials provided only a recommendation to the Sheriff but they did not deliberate with him nor did they have decision-making authority. Therefore, we conclude that the use of the memoranda did not violate the Sunshine Law.); Jordan v. Jenne, 938 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Because the [group] provided only a mere recommendation to the inspector general and did not deliberate with the inspector general, the ultimate authority on termination, we conclude that the [group] does not exercise decision-making authority so as to constitute a `board' or `commission' within the meaning of section 286.011, and as a result, its meetings are not subject to the Sunshine Act.). Citizens argue that the statutes regarding economic development agencies should alter this analysis. Citizens specifically point to section 288.075(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), which provides: Upon written request from a private corporation, partnership, or person, information held by an economic development agency concerning plans, intentions, or interests of such private corporation, partnership, or person to locate, relocate, or expand any of its business activities in this state is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution for 12 months after the date an economic development agency receives a request for confidentiality or until the information is otherwise disclosed, whichever occurs first. The County acknowledges that Bullock was acting as an economic development agency and that the Orioles' proprietary information was not released pursuant to section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes (2009), of the Public Records Act after the Orioles invoked the exemption outlined in section 288.075(2)(a). However, this does not mean Bullock and the individuals he consulted were a board or commission within the meaning of section 286.011 of the Sunshine Law. If an individual is not already a member of a board or commission governed by the Sunshine Law, nothing about working on economic development projects or receiving proprietary information converts him or her into one. Accordingly, this Court affirms the trial court's ruling regarding Bullock and the individuals he consulted while negotiating with the Orioles.