Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Ruling may open more meetings

A county official wonders whether other groups aren't violating the Sunshine Law.

By JUSTIN GEORGE
Published July 11, 2005

LECANTO - From now on, everything that a group of representatives from several national, state and local government agencies does when it discusses the possible Suncoast Parkway extension through Citrus County must be done in public.

But Citrus County Development Services director Gary Maidhof wonders if other government meetings, from the important to the mundane, need to follow the rules of Florida's Sunshine Law, too.

He thinks the ruling expanded the scope of the powerful Sunshine Law.

Maidhof's concerns stem from a ruling that Tallahassee Circuit Judge Janet Ferris issued in April.

Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, a Department of Transportation division, is studying whether the tollway, which runs north from Tampa to Hernando County, should be extended from U.S. 98 northwest through Citrus, ending at U.S. 19 near Red Level.

Part of the study included convening the Environmental Resource Regulatory Agency Group, or EERAG, which included representatives of Citrus County, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Federal Highway Administration and several other agencies.

Their task was to study impacts a highway would leave in Citrus. They met privately, claiming they weren't making any decisions.

Teddi Bierly, who lives in Sugarmill Woods, and Bobby Roscow, a Citrus County property owner, filed suit. They said decisions were being made, and the public should be able to watch the meetings.

Judge Ferris ruled that the closed meetings violated the state's Sunshine Law.

Now, representatives of Florida's Turnpike Enterprise are trying to turn back the clock and host public meetings, at which they are expected to divulge nearly everything they discussed in the closed meetings. During a corrective meeting on June 28 that was open to the public, Maidhof voiced his concerns.

If Ferris believed ERRAG meetings should comply with the Sunshine Law, why shouldn't other, similar government meetings?

Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine Law provides a public right of access to governmental proceedings at both the state and local levels, according to the state attorney general's Web site. It applies to any gathering of two or more members of the same government board to discuss matters that will foreseeably come before that board for action.

The Sunshine Law requires that meetings of boards or commissions be open to the public, reasonable notice of such meetings be given and minutes be taken.

The law applies to elected or appointed boards or commissions statewide.

The law has stringent requirements, such as advertising the meeting times and dates and the prohibition of board members speaking about board business outside board meetings. If all the rules are applied to all groups like EERAG, Maidhof said, government could come to a near halt.

"It hamstrings staff's ability to function and it slows down the government approval process and sends more things to litigation," he said.

Maidhof said he did not see much difference between what the parkway group was doing at its meetings and what other government groups do, such as the Florida Springs Task Force or Kings Bay Advisory Group.

Recently, the proboating group Standing Watch asked why the Florida Springs Task Force didn't follow the Sunshine Law after a consultant investigated boats' impacts on Silver Glen Spring Run, off Lake George.

"The answer was that there were no decisions made here today," Maidhof recalled.

But he wants to be sure. He asked DOT to seek a legal opinion from the Attorney General's Office to make sure other groups, like the Springs Task Force, aren't violating the Sunshine Law as the parkway group was found to have done.

He advised DOT to do so, he said, after an assistant state attorney said that would be smart after the attorney gave the issue a quick, cursory look.

But DOT attorneys don't think such a legal opinion is needed.

"The judge's ruling in our case concerned only the specific facts of our case," Florida's Turnpike Enterprise spokeswoman said, reading from a legal statement. "No new case law was created and hence no precedent was established in this matter for future Sunshine Law cases."

"We have no plans at this time to seek an attorney general's opinion," she added.

Other attorneys agreed. If DOT appealed Ferris' ruling and lost, then, they said, the judge's ruling gains greater importance and might set a precedent.

"I don't view her order as being at odds with or expanding the scope of the Sunshine Law," said Ross Burnaman, the attorney for the plaintiffs whose victory made the parkway group open their meetings.

--Justin George can be reached at 860-7309 or jgeorge@sptimes.com

[Last modified July 11, 2005, 01:00:09]