Accordingly, the law is applicable to any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more members of the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the public board or commission. Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Sarasota, 48 So. 3d 755, 764 (Fla. 2010). And see City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971); and Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1969).
It is the how and the why officials decided to so act which interests the public, not merely the final decision. As the court recognized in Times Publishing Company v. Williams, 222 So. 2d 470, 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), disapproved in part on other grounds, Neu v. Miami Herald Publishing Company, 462 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1985):
Every thought, as well as every affirmative act, of a public official as it relates to and is within the scope of his official duties, is a matter of public concern; and it is the entire decision-making process that the legislature intended to affect by the enactment of the statute before us.Thus, two members of a civil service board violated the Sunshine Law when they held a private discussion about a pending employment appeal during a recess of a board meeting. Citizens for Sunshine, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, No. 2010CA4387NC (Fla. 12th Cir. Ct. February 27, 2012), available online in the Cases database at the open government site at MyFloridaLegal.com. Similarly, the Attorney General’s Office advised that the following gatherings are subject to the Sunshine Law:
- a public forum hosted by a city council member with city council members invited to attend and participate in the discussion, Inf. to Jove, January 12, 2009;
- “executive work sessions” held by a board of commissioners of a housing authority to discuss policy matters, AGO 76-102;
- “workshop meetings” of a planning and zoning commission, AGO 74-94; and
- “conference sessions” held by a town council before its regular meetings, AGO 74-62. Cf. AGO 04-58 (“coincidental unscheduled meeting of two or more county commissioners to discuss emergency issues with staff” during a declared state of emergency is not subject to s. 286.011 if the issues do not require action by the county commission); and
- Inf. Op. to Spencer, April 23, 2003 (where city charter provides that special meeting of the council may be called by three members of the council, Sunshine Law is not violated if three members call a special meeting; “[t]he members must, however, be mindful not to discuss substantive issues which may come before the council in their consideration of whether a special meeting is necessary”).
The Sunshine Law is, therefore, applicable to all functions of covered boards and commissions, whether formal or informal, which relate to the affairs and duties of the board or commission. “[T]he Sunshine Law does not provide that cases be treated differently based upon their level of public importance.” Monroe County v. Pigeon Key Historical Park, Inc., 647 So. 2d 857, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See, e.g., Inf. Op. to Nelson, May 19, 1980 (meeting with congressman and city council members to discuss “federal budgetary matters which vitally concern their communities” should be held in the sunshine because “it appears extremely likely that discussion of public business by the council members [and perhaps decision making] will take place at the meeting”). (Florida Office of the Attorney General // © )
