Of interest: FL public employers only

sonny

I think there maybe a couple others of you out there. Wanted to make sure you were aware of the Fourth District Court of Appeals recent ruling that the Government in the Sunshine Act applies to pre-termination hearings. xx( x:o :-S
The case is Dascott v. Palm Beach County. You may want to get with counsel. Obviously, the ramifications of this are scary as hell. Otherwise, happy Friday. x:'(

Don D

Do I need to apologize for reading a thread intended only for FL public employers? Although I'm neither, I do try to keep up with emerging or current events. What's this about?

sonny

No need to apologize. . I am not an expert on the whole act,( my manual is over 300 pages) It is premised on the right of the public to governmental proceeds. It is applied to 2 or members of the same board or body. If they are to discuss ANY matter that could come before them for action, the act applies. Requirements: Must be open to public, must be reasonable notice, must be minutes. This is why you never see commissioners together outside of a commission meeting. In this case, the private deliberations of a panel deliberating privately on a termination was found to be in violation. We just got notice and I haven't had time to read more so there is much yet to learn. I know my supervisor "lost sleep" over it. In essence we would have to provide public, published notice and open to the public such dealings. We keep hoping we are reading it wrong. . sorry peobably more than you want to know. .

Don D

Mississippi has the same open meetings laws as those you describe. The way they get around discussing such things in public is to go into executive session anytime they need to discuss 'personnel matters'. I hear they do lots of nighttime telephone polling of each other to see how they might vote.

Hatchetman

For over 30 years, California has had a similar law (the Brown act) regarding public policy decisions by elected officials (e.g., legislature, city councils, special districts, educational districts, county boards). However, the law does not require open meetings for personnel actions, for consideration of legal actions, and for consideration of contract negotiaton positions.

Hunter1

I think we all deal with some similar type of law. In WI, the latest things the Attorney General and District Attorneys are going after are 'negative quorums' (enough individuals to keep an action from being passed) and 'walking quorums' (telephone or email contacts among members of boards or commssions). We have advised our Boards and Commissions not to use email at all for city business because someone, either the news media or a prosecutor, sooner or later will request their records, and it will include their personal computer at home with whatever records that may contain. Could get interesting!!

Shadowfax

This is apparently not all tha unusual for most of us. Mi has had such provisions for a long time, and mandates that personnel decisions be taken at a public meeting, Unless, the employee specifically requests an executive session. There are really very few legitimate reasons for a public bodyto have closed sessions since all the business of our boards and councils is public business. I think once you get used to it it will be no problem. In my experience, it has never stopped a public body from doing what it wanted, but it has made thenm do it more carefully, and ultimately, better.

sonny

Interesting. Thanks for all your responses. It is the personnel decisions part that's new to us and appreciate your encouragement that we will get used to it. I've never had a problem with the underlying premise, but is sure can be a pain sometimes! Thanks again. I did not this was so common.