The Sunshine State's Shadow: Threats to Government Transparency

Posted on November 13, 2023by with No comments

TALLAHASSEE, FL. In recent years, Florida lawmakers have made it more difficult to enforce the Sunshine Law, which guarantees the public's right to access government meetings and records. There have been several bills passed that have limited the reach of the Sunshine Law or made it harder for the public to make sure the law is followed. For example, representatives have passed laws that make it easier for public bodies to close meetings to the public and that exempt more types of public records from disclosure.

In 2016, a bill was passed that excluded certain types of meetings from the Sunshine Law, such as meetings of the governor's cabinet and meetings of state agencies to talk about lawsuits. Then, in 2021, another bill was passed that made it tougher for the public to take legal action to enforce the Sunshine Law by making the burden of proof higher and requiring plaintiffs to pay a bond.

Another way that Florida is going after the Sunshine Law is through litigation. The state has been sued by open government advocates a number of times in recent years for violating the Sunshine Law. In 2019, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of open government advocates in a case involving the governor's cabinet, finding that the cabinet had violated the Sunshine Law by holding secret meetings. However, the Legislature has also filed a number of lawsuits challenging the Sunshine Law, arguing that the law is too broad and violates the First Amendment rights of public officials.

Furthermore, the Florida Attorney General's Office has also been less aggressive in enforcing the Sunshine Law. In 2022, the Attorney General's Office filed only six Sunshine Law lawsuits, compared to 20 lawsuits in 2018.

These developments are concerning for those who believe in open government. The Sunshine Law is essential for ensuring that the public has access to information about how their government is operating. When public bodies can close meetings and withhold records, it makes it more difficult for the public to hold their government accountable.

Overall, Florida is going after the Sunshine Law in a number of ways. The state is narrowing the scope of the law through legislation and challenging the law in court in order to make it more difficult to enforce.

Here are some specific examples of how the Florida government has gone after the Sunshine Law in recent years:
  • In 2019, the governor's office tried to prevent the public from attending a meeting of the governor's cabinet by closing the doors to the meeting room and refusing to allow members of the press to enter.
  • In 2020, the state legislature passed a bill that made it more difficult for the public to sue to enforce the Sunshine Law.
  • In 2021, the state legislature passed a bill that exempted certain types of meetings from the Sunshine Law, including meetings of the governor's cabinet and meetings of state agencies to discuss litigation.
  • In 2022, the state legislature passed a bill that made it more difficult for the public to access public records by requiring public agencies to charge higher fees for copying records.
There are a number of things that can be done to protect open government in Florida. First, the Legislature should repeal the laws that have made it more difficult to enforce the Sunshine Law. Second, the Florida Supreme Court should overturn its ruling that allows public bodies to close meetings to discuss matters that are already publicly known. Third, the Florida Attorney General's Office should be more aggressive in enforcing the Sunshine Law.

Finally, the public needs to be aware of the threats to open government and be prepared to speak out against them. The public can also play a role in enforcing the Sunshine Law by filing complaints with the Florida Attorney General's Office and filing lawsuits when they believe that public bodies are violating the law.

Is Revenge Taking Priority over Taxpayer Money in the City of Satellite Beach?

Posted on November 06, 2023by with No comments

 

SATELLITE BEACH, FL., At first, the City had organized a public "workshop," but it was suddenly canceled just a few hours before it was supposed to start. The people who had come to City Hall and were interested in attending were told by the police officers that it was now going to be a "private meeting." The elected officials Frank Catino, Mark Brimer, and Mindy Gibson can be seen in photos and videos taken on September 17, 2018, the day they privately discussed concerns about water contamination and a possible group of cancer cases. 

The people not allowed to attend the meeting tried various approaches to hold the council members accountable, but they encountered obstacles. The police declined to accept any reports, and later, it came to light that the chief instructed them not to collect statements. Florida State Attorney Phil Archer refused to investigate the incident, and when the residents filed ethical complaints, they were not accepted and returned to them.



Furthermore, Jeff Dubitsky, a resident of Satellite Beach and a father of five, endured severe harassment. He received an intimidating bundle of papers in his mailbox containing unreasonable demands, including the disclosure of health information from his organization, which was gathering feedback from the public. Elected official Mindy Gibson was discovered to have had extensive communication with the harasser, who even suggested using automated programs to financially harm Dubitsky's nonprofit organization, Fight for Zero. Public records revealed that the City of Satellite Beach utilized taxpayers' money to print this troubling packet. 


Emails also indicate that officials in Satellite Beach attempted to bypass the sunshine law in September 2018 by altering their attendance. This deceitful strategy undermines people's right to access information, be informed, and report freely on news without interference from the government. 



PFAS chemicals were discovered to be utilized at the military facility located near the city, which led to their presence being detected in the underground water. The open meetings law states that the public should have had the chance to participate in the meeting addressing PFAS pollution. This would have been the fair and lawful approach to treating taxpayers.


Those denied access to the meeting went to the legal system and initiated a lawsuit, accusing a violation of the sunshine law designed to ensure transparency. Despite having to endure a lengthy 18-month wait, the case was eventually dismissed by Judge George T. Paulk from the Eighteenth Circuit Court, consequently preventing the individuals who initiated the lawsuit from presenting their evidence or calling witnesses to testify in court.


The plaintiffs challenged the ruling made by the court, but the higher court supported Judge Paulk's decision to dismiss the case. The higher court did not provide a justification for its ruling, but it did acknowledge that the lawsuit was legitimate and not filed with malicious intent. Moreover, the higher court rejected the City's plea for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and expenses, which were filed on March 8, 2022.


The city persisted in pursuing the victims whose rights were violated, even though they were not awarded compensation, and instead used taxpayer funds to appeal to the lower court, accompanied by the City Attorney and additional council, in order to cover their legal costs. Nonetheless, Judge Paulk denied the city's plea for attorney fees once again on October 2, 2023.


Even though the City of Satellite Beach did not receive attorney fees in two rulings and the City attorney had reservations about challenging the decisions of two judges, the council still chose to pursue another appeal on October 25, 2023.


In recent years, the Florida Legislature has passed multiple bills that have restricted the impact of the Sunshine Law or made it more difficult for the general public to enforce it. For example, in 2016, a bill was approved that exempted certain types of meetings from the Sunshine Law, such as gatherings of the governor's cabinet and state agency meetings regarding legal issues. In 2021, another bill was passed requiring a higher burden of proof and requesting plaintiffs to pay a bond, which makes it more challenging for the public to take legal action to ensure the Sunshine Law is upheld.

Here are some specific examples of how the Florida government has gone after the Sunshine Law in recent years: 
  • In 2019, the governor's office tried to prevent the public from attending a meeting of the governor's cabinet by closing the doors to the meeting room and refusing to allow members of the press to enter.
  • In 2020, the state legislature passed a bill that made it more difficult for the public to sue to enforce the Sunshine Law.
  • In 2021, the state legislature passed a bill that exempted certain types of meetings from the Sunshine Law, including meetings of the governor's cabinet and meetings of state agencies to discuss litigation.
  • In 2022, the state legislature passed a bill that made it more difficult for the public to access public records by requiring public agencies to charge higher fees for copying records.

Many people are concerned about how the City of Satellite Beach is handling its finances. They are worried about the steep increase in taxes and disagree with the decision to use taxpayer money on unnecessary legal battles like this one, especially since the violation was clearly captured on camera and the council members were being secretive. 


During the October City Council meeting, it was mentioned that this legal action is being pursued to set an example and discourage others from suing the city. A number of concerns were raised at the meeting. The council acknowledged that a considerable amount of funds had been allocated to this specific case. However, the residents argue that the problem arises from the exorbitant fees imposed by their attorneys. The residents in the area are also wondering if their taxes are paying for the entire cost of hiring lawyers for the three individuals involved in the violation and are not entitled to use the funds from the City. Finally, the only council member involved in the legal case, Mindy Gibson, made a decision on this issue, which residents argue is a clear conflict of interest.


This has sparked a public discussion about the City's motives and why they insist on pursuing these fees, which will ultimately end up costing taxpayers more money in the long run.


This story was originally published in the Advocates' Voice, a journalism project, and republished here with permission. 

Sunshine Law Violations in the News

Posted on August 24, 2023by with No comments

 
Florida Sunshine Law in the News

1/6/2004 Some school officials want sunshine law exemption

3/6/2009 Sunshine law is often ignored in practice
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2009/03/07/sunshine-law-is-often-ignored-in-practice/15993830007/

5/30/2013 Residents concerned city officials may be violating Florida's Sunshine Law

6/8/2013 Did St. Pete Beach Violate Sunshine Law With Closed-Door Meetings?

10/30/2013 City of Miami Sued Over Florida’s Sunshine Law Public Meeting Requirement

12/8/2014 ‘Missing’ emails undermine Sunshine Law

1/21/2015 Sunshine Law violation questioned in Santa Rosa


11/7/2017 Florida's Sunshine Law Shines Over Elected, Public Bodies

2/27/2018 Appeals court: St. Pete violated Florida’s Sunshine Law

4/4/2018 Milton City Council under investigation for possible Sunshine Law violation

9/19/2018 Citizens question if Satellite Beach violated Florida's open meeting laws

2/4/2019 State Attorney's Office investigating possible Sunshine Law violation in Loxahatchee Groves

2/12/2019  It's Easier Here: Why the Sunshine Law is useless, money wars, Parkland conversations

12/26/2019 Good Riddance to a Dreadful Year for Florida's Rapidly Eroding Sunshine Law

6/3/2020 Frank LoMonte Comments on Alleged Pinellas County Sunshine Law Violation

7/28/2020 Destin mayor asks Ethics Commission to review possible Sunshine Law violations

9/28/2020 Cape Coral mayor accused of Sunshine Law violation following FDLE investigation

9/30/2020 Cape Coral mayor won’t answer questions about Sunshine Law violation

3/22/2021 FDLE: No crimes, Sunshine Law violations

9/5/2021 Judge rules Nassau County violated Florida public records law in lawsuit filed by Rayonier

11/18/2021 Madeira Beach resident accuses commissioners of Sunshine Law violations — again

12/1/2021 Osceola County violated Sunshine Law amid 2020 COVID response

1/8/2022 DeSantis removes two commissioners arrested for possible Sunshine Law violations

1/20/2022 In the dark: Florida lawmakers creating new ways to keep public records private

7/8/2022 Photo of Jacksonville City Council members at bar sparks discussion over Sunshine Law

11/15/2022 Broward School Board may have violated Sunshine law, will soon start search for new superintendent

11/23/2022 Mexico Beach Planning Board members removed after Sunshine Law violation charges

3/17/2023 Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis seeks to limit Sunshine laws

3/18/2023 DeSantis casts shade on Florida’s open-records Sunshine Law

4/28/2023 Here's a newsflash: Violating Florida's open meetings law carries serious consequences

5/7/2023 Advocates say lawmakers are chipping away at Florida's Sunshine Laws

5/16/2023 Seminole Charter School Faces Probe over Sunshine Law Records Violations

5/18/2023 Escambia Co. school board member accuses others of violating Sunshine Law after firing superintendent

5/19/2023 Gov. DeSantis clouds Florida Sunshine laws

6/6/2023 Former Florida city council member turns himself into jail on Sunshine law violations

6/8/2023 No decision during hearing of Alfie Oakes v. Collier School Board over superintendent

Exploring Transparency in Government: The Satellite Beach Lawsuit and Florida's Sunshine Law

Posted on March 29, 2023by with No comments
Brevard County City 4th of july

A lawsuit filed against the City of Satellite Beach highlights the importance of correctly determining whether a meeting must be made open to the public. The sunshine law helps citizens learn what their government is doing. Courts rarely punish Sunshine Law offenders, even though they can order those offenders to pay civic penalties and the litigation expenses of citizens who prove the violations.


The Satellite Beach Lawsuit and Florida's Sunshine Law

In September 2018, citizens arrived at a publicly posted meeting; they were met by police officers who informed them that it was a "private meeting" and only a select few citizens were allowed inside. The meeting was initially advertised as a public "workshop" but was abruptly canceled by the City on the day of the meeting.

A group of residents took legal action when they were denied access to a meeting they had scheduled with Robert Bowcock, an expert on water issues who has worked alongside Erin Brockovich. The purpose of the meeting was to address concerns about PFAS contamination and potential health risks. However, only certain citizens could attend, as the Council selectively chose who could participate, leaving others out.

One of those residents permitted into the meeting later sent an 11-page packet, which contained intimidations and harassment, to the plaintiff's house. They were even found in public records suggesting placing "bots" on the plaintiff's nonprofit organization's website, causing financial harm. Investigation revealed that the City of Satellite Beach was involved in the packet, as it was printed by the City Manager's assistant on November 19, 2018, using taxpayers' funds, as shown in public records.
Suggesting placing "bots" on the plaintiff's nonprofit organization's website

 
Packet printed at City Hall
Sharing details about advocates, such as addresses

Multiple sources, including video footage, photos, documents, and testimonies from several residents, professionals, and media outlets, confirm that elected officials Mindy Gibson, Mark Brimer, and Frank Catino were behind closed doors. The Sunshine Law ensures that meetings involving "official business by any agency" are accessible to the public. It prohibits public officials from holding private meetings to discuss any matter on which the public board or commission will take foreseeable action.

According to public records, government officials have admitted to trying to bypass the sunshine law by rotating officials during meetings. This shows that they are willing to violate the constitutional right of access. Such actions only serve to diminish trust in the government. Instead of avoiding transparency, city officials should welcome it. 

It has been discovered that PFAS chemicals were utilized at Patrick Space Force Base (previously known as Air Force Base), leading to the detection of these chemicals in the groundwater of Satellite Beach City. Following the open meetings law, the public should have been allowed to attend the meeting regarding PFAS contamination. Mayor Frank Catino made a statement on September 19, 2018, confirming that the meeting's purpose was to address concerns about the contaminated water.

A lawsuit was filed by citizens whose rights were violated, and after 18 months, Judge Paulk dismissed the case. Due to pandemic restrictions, the hearing was conducted over the phone, and government attorneys repeatedly postponed it while modifying and updating paperwork. Due to this decision, the plaintiffs could not present their evidence or witnesses in court.

The plaintiffs decided to challenge the court's ruling, but the appellate court supported Judge Paulk's decision to dismiss the case. However, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision. The court also ruled that the lawsuit was not frivolous or filed in bad faith and rejected the city's request for attorneys' fees and costs filed on March 8, 2022. 

The government officials consider the dismissal a victory since the judge didn't proceed with the case. They aim to schedule a hearing in April 2023 and return to Judge Paulk in the lower court to request attorneys' fees and costs, despite the appellate court rejecting their motion.  

The government officials avoided a trial with photos, video, documents, and witness evidence. However, instead of dropping the case, they are now pursuing the victims for payment of their legal fees, even though their rights were violated. By continuing this legal battle and returning to the lower court, the government is creating a financial burden for the affected families. Furthermore, they are utilizing taxpayer money to retaliate against those who acted to safeguard lives in their community.


Scientific testing, studies, medical screening guidance, a FUDS designation, new drinking water advisory levels, and national discussions have all substantiated the plaintiff's concerns regarding water contamination in 2018.


To donate, please visit https://gofund.me/e7c8fb17


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)