The Florida Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling that validated the issuance of bonds by Sarasota County and the City of Sarasota, a measure the municipalities undertook to entice the Baltimore Orioles to hold its spring training in Sarasota.
The municipalities had entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Orioles, which obligated the municipalities to renovate a stadium complex with funds raised through the issuance of bonds. In exchange, the team would, among other things, relocate to Sarasota for spring training.
In a bid to prevent the use of public funds as an enticement, the Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government, et al. sued, alleging, as previously reported in Sports Litigation Alert (http://www.hackneypublications.com/sla/archive/001002.php), that “the deliberations to bring the Orioles to Sarasota were in a ‘dark back room’ despite being advertised by the County Commissioners as a public meeting. The group claimed that the County Commissioners sidestepped Florida open government law by shielding the public from having a voice in the decision to bring the Orioles to Sarasota.”
After a trial court ruled for the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed, claiming that the trial court “erred when ruling that a deputy county administrator and the individuals he consulted in negotiating with the team (the so-called negotiations team) were not a board or commission subject to the Sunshine Law.”
The state Supreme Court sided with the defendant, finding that “because the individuals consulted by the deputy county administrator served an informational role, the so-called negotiations team did not constitute an advisory committee subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Law.”
The plaintiffs also appealed the trial court’s finding that “the private staff briefings of individual board members in preparation for the July 22, 2009 public hearing did not violate the Sunshine Law.” The high court found otherwise, noting that “informational briefings for individual members of the Board were not violations of the Sunshine Law. … Were this so, the value of staff expertise would be lost and the intelligent use of employees would be crippled.”
The final appeal centered on its finding that the circulation among board members violated the Sunshine Law. This alleged violation was “cured by subsequent public meetings regarding the negotiations and agreement with the team,” according to the high court.
Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government, etc., et al., v. City of Sarasota, Florida, etc., et al.; S.Ct.Fla.; No. SC10-1647, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1787; 35 Fla. L. Weekly S 627; 10/28/10
Attorneys of Record: (for appellants) Andrea Flynn Mogensen of the Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, Sarasota, Florida; Gregg D. Thomas and Paul R. McAdoo of Thomas and Locicero, PL, Tampa, Florida. (for defendants) Susan H. Churuti and Michael S. Davis of Bryant Miller Olive, P.A., Tampa, Florida and Robert M. Fournier, City Attorney and Michael A. Connolly, Deputy City Attorney of Fournier and Connolly, P.A., Sarasota, Florida, on behalf of The City of Sarasota; Stephen E. DeMarsh, County Attorney, Frederick J. Elbrecht, and Alan W. Roddy, Deputy County Attorneys, Sarasota, Florida, and Ed Vogel, III and Michael Lawrence Wiener of Holland and Knight, Lakeland, Florida, on behalf of Sarasota County, Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County, Florida, Shannon Staub, Nora Patterson and Joe Barbetta. Victor Lee Chapman of Barrett, Chapman and Ruta, P.A., Orlando, Florida, on behalf of First Amendment Foundation, Inc., as Amicus Curiae.
