SUNSHINE LAW - Title XIX Public BusinessWith all the rhetroic that has been posted on this board trying to justify why more and at-large commissioners are needed has been somewhat narrow in scope and certainly overlooked or just plain ignored Chapter 286 Florida Statutes. The point/in case is the arguments why only one commissioner attended a workshop instead of all five and that at-large commissioners would have attended. While the Government in Sunshine Law permits more than one attending, it is COMMON practice to send ONE elected offical to represent the body. This eliminates the appearance of two or more from same body discussing anything which will come before it. It would not make any difference if there were 5 or 7 or whether they are single members or at large districts, the results would be the same. Elected officials are keenly aware to not put themselves in a position which might result in a Government in the Sunshine violation being filed against them. Related: alabayea's blog | login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Tags: Single member districts vs at-large
Submitted by Sunflower on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 1:30pm.
Alabayea and Angela - Thanks to you both for your clarification on the Sunshine and attendance of meetings by all commissioners. It is good information and I'm glad you've explained it so clearly. Angela - I did read yours in the other thread as well. Thanks. Judy Link to petition: http://24.23.126.8/Petition.pdf
Submitted by Baxley on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 9:10pm.
The meeting was properly advertised if ALL the commissioners wanted to attend. Personally, I don't have a problem with only Chereese going. I didn't care enough to go myself. Camp Blanding is a long way from Clay Hill. Now, if they had been trying to put a 3-mile buffer around the Kangaroo (aka Clay Hill Mall & Truck Stop), then I might've got my panties in a wad. On second thought, that might not be a bad idea either. I simply took the opportunity to point out that with single-member districts, no other commissioner should have to worry about it. Right? I had no idea it was going to start such a firestorm. It was really just a smart-alecky shot across the bow of the "Lo unto the single-member district" crowd. I didn't know they were so easy to get riled up (yeah, right).
Submitted by Angela on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 9:29pm.
If the meeting met the requirements of the Sunshine laws and giving all the Commissioners the green light to attend. Then post the minutes on the blogs. That's a requirement as well to met the laws. They are required to be public records. I don't think an article in the newspaper meets the minutes requirement. It was just a low blow against single member districts and an opportunity to bash the voters for voting for single members districts. All while praising the at large positions you worked on as a member of the CRC. Your statment, " It was really just a smart-alecky shot across the bow of the "Lo unto the single-member district" crowd." Is that the voters who voted for the single members are specific people in the community that proposed the idea. However, I can't support breaking the laws even if it is the sunshine laws. They could have spent time and money properly advertising the meeting, making it a workshop and taking minutes as required by Florida Laws. I was a little disappointed that people would protray the meeting as such when it clearly did not meet the laws of the State of Florida. Riled up or clearing up the misconception? I think the laws are clear. Submitted by Sunflower on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 9:41pm.
Baxley: You disappoint me. "Only" Commissioner Stewart "going" is not the point. It was her district, her meeting, and she was to report back to the full BCC. The Sunshine law was made clear earlier in this thread and it doesn't matter whether all the commissioners/representatives were at large or single member. Two or more in the same group, without it being official, is against the Sunshine law. They cannot have lunch together and discuss issues without it being against the Sunshine and that has been made very clear. As a member of the CRC, your statement casts doubt as to the Charter Review Commission's credibility. To quote you: "I simply took the opportunity to point out that with singe-member districts, no other commissioner should have to worry about it. Right?" WRONG, Bax. And...Groucho would not be proud of your representation. Link to petition: http://24.23.126.8/Petition.pdf People are talking about ...Here are the recent blog postings with the most comments. |
Who's online
There are currently 3 users and 90 guests online.
Online usersRecent comments |
I talked about this in another blog called Camp Blanding and where were the other Commissioners. And why they weren't there. It was because of legalities.
You are right other Commissioners could have attended. But the way I see the law is they would have had to attend with tape over their mouth and ears. Because if Commissioner Stewart had even stated how she planned to vote on the matter to the public it would have violated the laws of discussing things that might come up for a vote in the forseeable future.
That's why they appointed her to be the representative and was to report back to the full board.
You are right it had nothing to do with single members or at large and the results would have been the same. If you are a sitting Commissioner it's wise not put yourself in that situation because people are watching.