Update: April 24, 2025: The proposal to outsource the St. Johns County Attorney job should be reversed, by way of a Motion to Reconsider at the May 6, 2025 St. Johns County Commission meeting. Who among us supports the proposed outsourcing of the St. Johns County Attorney job to a politically-connected dodgy law firm that refuses to list its corporate client? "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." I have requested that the St. Johns Clerk of Courts and Comptroller and County Inspector General investigate the proposed County Attorney contract. See below:
|
|
|
|
|
d. Delegation of authority to individual to act on behalf of the board
“The Sunshine Law does not provide for any ‘government by delegation’ exception; a public body cannot escape the application of the Sunshine Law by undertaking to delegate the conduct of public business through an alter ego.” IDS Properties, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 279 So. 2d 353, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), certified question answered sub nom., Town of Palm Beach. v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974). See also News-Press Publishing Company, Inc. v. Carlson, 410 So. 2d 546, 547-548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (when public officials delegate de facto authority to act on their behalf in the formulation, preparation, and promulgation of plans on which foreseeable action will be taken by those public officials, those delegated that authority stand in the shoes of such public officials insofar as the Sunshine Law is concerned).
In News-Press Publishing Company v. Lee County, 570 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), a newspaper challenged the trial court’s decision to require the parties (two cities and a county) to participate in mediation and to each appoint a representative “with full authority to bind them.”
The judge then amended the order to allow the parties to limit the representatives’ authority so that no final settlement decisions could be made during the mediation conference. On appeal, the district court concluded that the mediation’s narrow scope did not give rise to a substantial delegation affecting the board’s decision-making function so as to require the mediation to be open to the public. 570 So. 2d at 1327. And see Broward County v. Conner, 660 So. 2d 288,
290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review denied, 669 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1996) (since Sunshine Law provides that actions of a public board are not valid unless they are made at an open public meeting, a county’s attorneys would not be authorized to enter into a settlement agreement on the commission’s behalf “without formal action by the county commission at a meeting as required by the statute”). Compare Lee County v. Pierpont, 693 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), affirmed, 710 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1998) (authorization to county attorney to make settlement offers to landowners not to exceed appraised value plus 20%, rather than a specific dollar amount, did
not violate the Sunshine Law).Moreover, the Attorney General’s Office has advised that a single member of a board who has been delegated the authority to negotiate the terms of a lease on behalf of the board “is subject to the Sunshine Law and, therefore, cannot negotiate for such a lease in secret.” AGO 74-294. Accord AGO 84-54. Similarly, when an individual member of a public board, or a board member and the executive director of the board, conducts a hearing or investigatory proceeding on behalf of the entire board, the hearing or proceeding must be held
in the sunshine. AGOs 75-41 and 74-84. And see AGO 10-15 (special magistrate subject to the Sunshine Law when exercising the delegated decision-making authority of the value adjustment board).
The Attorney General’s Office has advised that a single member of a board who has been delegated the authority to negotiate the terms of a lease on behalf of the board “is subject to the Sunshine Law and, therefore, cannot negotiate for such a lease in secret.” AGO 74-294. Accord AGO 84-54. Similarly, when an individual member of a public board, or a board member and the executive director of the board, conducts a hearing or investigatory proceeding on behalf of the entire board, the hearing or proceeding must be held in the sunshine. AGOs 75-41 and 74-84. And see AGO 10-15 (special magistrate subject to the Sunshine Law when exercising the delegated decision-making authority of the value adjustment board).
However, if the board member has been authorized only to gather information or function as a fact-finder, the Attorney General’s Office has concluded that the Sunshine Law does not apply. See e.g. AGOs 95-06, 93-78, and 90-17 (if board member is authorized only to explore various contract proposals, with such proposals being related back to the governing body for consideration, the discussions between the board member and the applicant are not subject to
the Sunshine Law). Cf. State, Department of Management Services v. Lewis, 653 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (issuance of an order of reconsideration by a board chair does not violate the Sunshine Law where the purpose of the order is to provide notice of a hearing to the parties and allow them an opportunity to provide argument on the issue).
More recently, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that a statute (s. 627.091[6], F.S.), requiring a “committee” of a national insurance rating organization to comply with the Sunshine Law when meeting to discuss the need to alter Florida rates, did not apply to an actuary who performed this function instead of a committee. National Council on Compensation Insurance v. Fee, 219 So. 3d 172, 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). In Fee, the court noted that the term “committee” has been defined as a “subordinate group,” not a single person, and that “the multi-person
concept of the term ‘committee’ further finds support in well-established precedent construing the Sunshine Law.”
Moreover, if the individual, rather than the board, is vested by law, charter, or ordinance with the authority to take action, such discussions are not subject to s. 286.011, F.S. See City of Sunrise v. News and Sun-Sentinel Company, 542 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (since the mayor was responsible under the city charter for disciplining city employees and since the mayor was not a board or commission and was not acting for a board, meetings between the mayor and a city employee concerning the employee’s duties were not subject to s. 286.011, F.S.). Cf. AGO 13-14 (where contract terms regarding the police chief’s employment have been discussed and approved at a public city commission meeting, Sunshine Law does not require that the consistent written employment contract drafted by the town attorney as directed by the commission be subsequently presented to and approved at another commission meeting).
17 comments:
You'll know if they have a conflict of interest when that becomes apparent through his actions. And from the looks of all the bogus claims and intentions to violate his privacy rights... that's enough reason for him to work with BGK throughout his term as county attorney.
We shall never surrender to authoritarianism and the odd notion of hiring BRADLEY, GARRISON & KOMANDO, P.A. as putative "County Attorney." This is not normal.
Authoritarianism when people are elected and then vote on something? That's authoritarianism to you? No that's democracy and a plethora of your claims aren't based in reality. You're labeling the sun cold, water dry, and mountains will be able to fly next week.
How trite. Shopworn cliches by the carload, repetition, rodomontade, ridicule. You are boring and inarticulate. We shall never surrender to authoritarianism and the odd notion of hiring BRADLEY, GARRISON & KOMANDO, P.A. as putative "County Attorney." This is not normal. You are not normal. You are a sock puppet afraid to identify itself. Come out of the closet, pal, and tell us your name. Confession is good for the soul. What is your relationship with ETM, BGK, et al?
You get words confused a lot. You're not surrendering to democracy, which is how Komamdo got into the position he's in. He WOULD NOT be there regardless of how many votes he got if it were up to authoritarian Ed Slavin.
SJC is run for the benefit of corporate oligarchs, supported by "Pete." Come out of the closet and identify yourself. Who is "Pete?" "Why do the heathen rage?" (Psalm 2). Why do the wicked prosper? The job vacancy announcement never said that law firms could apply. Ralf Brookes would have applied if it had said so. Undemocratic, undeniably authoritarian and hierarchical, our SJC is run for the benefit of land-raping scalawags. Organizational conflicts of interest are unquestioned. BGK has private clients. ETM works for both developers and SJC.
When will "Pete" come out of the closet and identify himself? Who is "Pete?" "Pete" needs help.
Shame on you for getting people drunk on your conspiracy theories and at least one jailed. You remind me of Donald Trump!
https://bsky.app/profile/atheist-pizza.bsky.social/post/3lnjkw3cve22l
Yeah that's just one of your narratives. You said the other day that SJC is worthy of a RICO case. That's an exaggeration unless you provide actual proof and evidence of crime. Instead, just neverending claims...never any proof.
I'll not be harassed in public by a disordered mob. No thanks. How about instead you provide some proof for anything you've written about over the last few weeks. Conspiracy theories aren't proof or evidence for anything
In a proper case, SJC BoCC could be declared an "enterprise" under RICO. Deal with it.
No crime.. deal with it. Those people were chosen by elected representatives. Case not closed because there's not one to begin with. We are beginning to see what got you into trouble many decades ago. Suffice to say they did you a favor.
Stalker sock puppet cowardly "Pete" and his other sock puppets, to include "Doug Russo Fan," and "Atheist Pizza" present themselves to the world as vile bigots, defenders against sincere efforts to remedy clearcutting, flummery, dupery, nincompoopery and corruption. The poster in quo has multiple personalities. He's aping haughty homophobes. His violent imagery is directed against opponents of SJC corruption, particularly women, including two (2) County Commissioners and two (2) women citizen activist. This obscene stalker is a stench in the nostrils of our Nation. The public interest requires criminal, civil and administrative investigations. Who is "Pete" and where did he get his law degree? Who is his father? Who are his law clients? What has "Pete" ever accomplished in life? "Why do the heathen rage?" (Psalm 2). Why do the wicked prosper? Do the owners of BGK and ETM know "Pete?" If so, what agreements, understandings and relationships do they have? There's nothing "democratic" about Big Money in SJC politics, the oligarchs controlling overdevelopment in St. Johns County. Consider the history of oligarchs' one-party rule, GQP gerrymandering of SJC BoCC circa 1998, the continuing effects of Syd Perry and the overdevelopers' "Issues Group," SJC maladministration, and the oligarch's selection and vetting of developer-friendly candidates. Delegated authority to "negotiate" a County Attorney contract, BCC Vice Chair Clay Murphy's broke his promise for open public negotiation of a County Attorney contract --- no research, no negotiation and no democracy here. Propagandist "Pete" takes us for fools, threatens SLAPP lawsuits and is a corporate tool. Who is "Pete?" The BGK contract should be reconsidered. The organizational conflict of interest of SJC sharing lawyers with corporations and other counties is a stench in the nostrils of our Nation. Likewise, we need to re-evaluatethe relationship between SJC and ETM, which does work for both the County AND developers. Enough flimflam, flummery, dupery and nincompoopery from obscene, retaliatory sock puppet "Pete." His "artwork" suggests that he is need of psychiatric evaluation. His sexism and misogyny directed against two (2) women County Commissioners and two (2) women civic activists suggests that he needs a checkup from the neck up, in the words of my late client, friend and mentor, EPA Office of Inspector General Criminal Investigator Robert E. Tyndall.
Who is "Pete?"
Who is "Pete?"
Post a Comment