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).
7 comments:
Proof and evidence that they "hired a whole lawfirm" instead of just one guy? If you have it then let's get it! "I think so" isn't worth 2 cents. First you bring the evidence..then you make the arguments man. Also actual examples of how he short changes the county will have to be given since you've already determined that's what is happening.
Proposed contract is here: https://stjohnsclerk.com/minrec/agendas/2025/041525cd/04-15-25REG08.pdf It is an illegal, unconscionable, unconstitutional contract of adhesion, signed by the donee-beneficiary, RICHARD CHRISTIAN KOMANDO, law partner of current Florida House Rules & Ethics Committee Chair, the 2026-2027 Florida House Speaker, SAMUEL PAUL GARRISON.
They put BGK in the contract because Komamdo belongs to that firm. They didn't ask him to leave the firm as precondition to become county attorney... therefore they put his group in the contract. What law has been broken and what constitutional violation has occurred? Be specific.
Answered repeatedly. This proposed contract stinks on ice. How do we enforce F.S. 112 if we con't even know the names of KOMANDO's clients? Delegating core government function to corporate law firm violates conflict of interest laws, it violates the non-delegation doctrine, and it violates RFP terms. We advertised for a County Attorney, a living breathing person -- not the law firm of the Florida House Speaker-elect. I've asked for an investigation by the SJC Inspector General. Anyone voting for this corrupt contract should be investigated by the FBI and FDLE. In the words of Henry Kissinger, at a Washington football game after a bad call, "On vot theory?" The explanation offered by "Pete" suggests that he and "they" don't have an answer. If they wanted to hire KOMANDO as Interim County Attorney, it should not have been under false pretenses. Citizens did not know until recently that the contract was with BGK. As Jefferson said, "A public office is a public trust."
Our Florida Constitution guarantees our right to Sunshine meetings and Open. Records. Article I, Section 24 of our Florida Constitution has been violated. Vice Chair Clay Murphy was delegated authority to meet with KOMANDO to negotiate a contract. That never happened. Read Clay Murphy's late-night text message explaining what didn't happen. Pray for Clay.
"Pete" makes a circular argument as to why the contract proposal is with BGK and not KOMANDO. "Pete" won't answer questions. "Pete" won't identify himself. Wonder why?
"Pete" wrote, "They put BGK in the contract because Komamdo belongs to that firm. They didn't ask him to leave the firm as precondition to become county attorney... therefore they put his group in the contract....." Please share with people of St. Johns County the legal reasoning behind this fatuous post hoc justification. Please be prepared to a swear questions from the FBI and to testify under oath before a federal grand jury and The Florida Bar about your repeated harassing posts in support of contracting out the County Attorney function to a law firm co-owned by the Florida Speaker-designate 2026-2027.
Post a Comment