Florida Sunshine Law

Last updated

Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, commonly called the Sunshine Law, passed in 1967. It requires that all meetings of any state, county, or municipal board or commission in Florida be open to the public, and declares that actions taken at closed meetings are not binding (Section 286.011, Florida Statutes). "Meeting" is construed broadly, and is not confined to "formal" assemblages at which a ritualistic vote takes place. [1] The legislature intended to make open the entire decision-making process by the enactment of the Sunshine Law.

Exemptions to the Sunshine Law are few. The Sunshine Review Act of 1995 applies to meetings. According to that Act, an exemption must fit within one of three categories of identifiable public purposes, and must be seen as compelling enough to override a strong presumption of openness (Section 119.15(2), Florida Statutes).

Private Communication Restrictions: Board members are prohibited from using telephone conversations, social media platforms such as Facebook, email, or text messages to conduct private discussions regarding board business. While individual discussions between board members and staff or non-board members are permissible, these individuals may not serve as intermediaries to relay information between board members. For instance, it is impermissible for a board member to task staff with polling other board members to ascertain their viewpoints on a particular issue.

Binding Actions at Open Meetings: Under the provisions of the Sunshine Law, any resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action must be conducted and ratified during an open meeting to be considered legally binding. This ensures transparency and accountability in decision-making processes within governmental bodies.

Penalties for Violations: The Florida Sunshine Law enforces penalties for violations, including misdemeanors and fines. Individuals found in breach of the law may face legal consequences as prescribed by the statutes governing public access to governmental proceedings and records.

This information provides clarity on the restrictions regarding private communication, emphasizes the requirement for conducting official actions in open meetings, and outlines the penalties for non-compliance with the Sunshine Law.


Related Research Articles

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Antitrust Act</span> 1890 U.S. anti-monopoly law

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

A homeowner association, or a homeowner community, is a private association-like entity in the United States, Canada, the Philippines and certain other countries often formed either ipso jure in a building with multiple owner-occupancies, or by a real estate developer for the purpose of marketing, managing, and selling homes and lots in a residential subdivision. The developer will typically transfer control of the association to the homeowners after selling a predetermined number of lots.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), is a United States federal law which governs the behavior of federal advisory committees. In particular, it has special emphasis on open meetings, chartering, public involvement, and reporting. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) oversees the process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government in the Sunshine Act</span> Federal transparency law in the US

The Government in the Sunshine Act is a U.S. law passed in 1976 that affects the operations of the federal government, Congress, federal commissions, and other legally constituted federal bodies. It is one of a number of Freedom of Information Acts, intended to create greater transparency in government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span> Overview of the human rights history in the North American country

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. However, It can be restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California Proposition 59</span> Amendment of the Constitution of California

Proposition 59 was an amendment of the Constitution of California that introduced freedom of information or "sunshine" provisions. It was proposed by the California Legislature and overwhelmingly approved by the voters in an initiative held as part of the November 2004 elections.

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, regulations, rules, common law rulings, and directives issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Executive Office of the President, that together define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always directly perform their constitutional responsibilities. Specialized powers are therefore delegated to an agency, board, or commission. These administrative governmental bodies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

The Ralph M. Brown Act is a California law that guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. Located at California Government Code 54950 et seq., it is an act of the California State Legislature, authored by Assemblymember Ralph M. Brown and passed in 1953.

Telephone call recording laws are legislation enacted in many jurisdictions, such as countries, states, provinces, that regulate the practice of telephone call recording. Call recording or monitoring is permitted or restricted with various levels of privacy protection, law enforcement requirements, anti-fraud measures, or individual party consent.

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Many ATS claims were filed after the Second Circuit ruling in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala created a new common law cause of action for torture under the ATS: "For purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind." The Court in Sosa does not find there is a similar cause of action for arbitrary arrest and detention. They wrote that finding new common law causes of action based on international norms would require "a substantial element of discretionary judgment", and explain that the role of common law has changed since ATS was enacted meaning the Court will "look for legislative guidance before exercising innovative authority over substantive law".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Public Records Act</span> Freedom-of-information law in California, US

The California Public Records Act was a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 requiring inspection or disclosure of governmental records to the public upon request, unless exempted by law.

The open government laws in Florida are focused on three areas:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Florida</span> Floridas gun law

Gun laws in Florida regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Florida in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whistleblower protection in the United States</span>

A whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public. The Whistleblower Protection Act was made into federal law in the United States in 1989.

The copyright status of works produced by the governments of states, territories, and municipalities in the United States varies. Copyright law is federal in the United States. Federal law expressly denies U.S. copyright protection to two types of government works: works of the U.S. federal government itself, and all edicts of any government regardless of level or whether or not foreign. Other than addressing these "edicts of government", U.S. federal law does not address copyrights of U.S. state and local government.

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which required government officials recuse in cases involving a conflict of interest, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the law requires government officials to recuse themselves from advocating for and voting on the passage of legislation if private commitments to the interests of others materially affect the official's judgment. Under the terms of this law, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant. Carrigan challenged his censure in court and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in his favor, claiming that casting his vote was protected speech. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that voting by a public official on a public matter is not First Amendment speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illinois Freedom of Information Act</span> Public records law in Illinois

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq., is an Illinois statute that grants to all persons the right to copy and inspect public records in the state. The law applies to executive and legislative bodies of state government, units of local government, and other entities defined as "public bodies". All records related to governmental business are presumed to be open for inspection by the public, except for information specifically exempted from disclosure by law. The statute is modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act and serves a similar purpose as freedom of information legislation in the other U.S. states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illinois Public Access Counselor</span> Bureau under Illinois Attorney General

The Illinois Public Access Counselor (PAC) is an attorney in the office of the Illinois Attorney General who is responsible for enforcing the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Open Meetings Act (OMA). The PAC is the head of the Public Access Bureau, a group of more than one dozen attorneys who process complaints against public bodies and provide education to the public on Illinois' transparency laws.

References

  1. Times Publishing Co. v. Williams, 222 So.2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)

2. May, R. (1997). Reforming the sunshine act - JSTOR. Reforming the Sunshine Act. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40709856.pdf

Weiss, M. J., Esq. (n.d.). Florida sunshine and public records laws [PDF]. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/FloridaSunshinePublicRecordsLaws.pdf