EDWARD J. RUFF AND BLANCHE RUFF, HIS WIFE, AND BARBARA O'CONNELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THOMAS RICHEY, AND BILL BARNETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD SEX EDUCATION POLICY TASK FORCE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellants challenged a summary judgment dismissing their lawsuit against the school board and a task force for allegedly violating Florida's Sunshine Law (Chapter 286). The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that while the trial court erred in its initial analysis of whether the Sunshine Law applied, the judgment could be sustained on other grounds, and clarifying that the Sunshine Law does not require individual roll call votes recording each member's specific vote.
The court held that Section 286.012 does not require a roll call vote recording each member's specific vote. Rather, the statute only requires that all members present cast a vote and that the minutes reflect this by either recording or counting a vote for each member present. The summary judgment was affirmed despite the trial court's error on the applicability issue because it could be sustained on the grounds of adequate notice and the proper interpretation of Section 286.012.
[1] A governmental task force's organizational meeting may be subject to the Florida Sunshine Law.
[2] The Florida Sunshine Law requires that a vote be recorded or counted for each member present, but does not mandate a roll call vote to record each individual vote.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that it does not. The title to chapter 72-311, Laws of Florida (1972), which became section 286.012, reads: AN ACT relating to governmental boards and agencies of state, county and municipal governments; prohibiting abstention from voting by members of such boards and agencies in matters requiring votes”
Establishes the court's holding that individual roll call votes are not required and clarifies the statute's purpose was to prohibit abstention, not mandate recorded individual votes
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed suit against the School Board of Collier County and members of a Sex Education Policy Task Force, alleging violations of Florida's Su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellants seek review of a summary judgment entered by the trial court for appellees. We affirm.
Appellants filed suit against appel-lees, alleging a violation of chapter 286, Florida Statutes (1981), commonly known as the “Florida Sunshine Law” and seeking to void certain actions of the appellee “Task Force.” The trial judge found that the organizational meeting of the task force was not subject to chapter 286 and that section 286.012, Florida Statutes (1981), did not apply to the task force. That conclusion of the trial court was in error. Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1974); Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1973); Krause v. Peno, 366 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Even so, the summary judgment for appellees can be sustained based on the trial judge’s finding that notice was adequate even if chapter 286 did apply to the task force and based on the following discussion of the requirements of section 286.012, Florida Statutes.
The issue raised by appellants that most concerns us is whether section 286.012, Florida Statutes, requires a so-called roll call vote of the members of a public agency who are present and voting so that each member’s specific vote on every subject is recorded. We hold that it does not. The title to chapter 72-311, Laws of Florida (1972), which became section 286.012, reads:
AN ACT relating to governmental boards and agencies of state, county and municipal governments; prohibiting abstention from voting by members of such boards and agencies in matters requiring votes; providing an exception; providing an effective date.
The title makes no reference to the recording of votes. It was obviously directed at, as it states, “prohibiting abstention from voting.” In City of Hallandale v. Rayel Corp., 313 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), the court held that though section 286.012 requires every member of a governmental board who is present at any meeting to vote in the proceedings, the failure of a member to vote and thereby have no vote for that member recorded does not invalidate the proceeding. The wording of section 286.012 supports our conclusion that a roll call vote so as to record the individual vote of each member is not necessary. The pertinent language of the statute is that “a vote shall be recorded or counted for each such member present.” (Emphasis added.) That wording, interpreted in light of the language of the title of chapter 72-311, emphasizes that the intent of the statute is to impose a requirement that all members present east a vote and that the minutes so reflect by either recording a vote or counting a vote for each member. AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Town OF Palm Beach v. Jules T. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974)
- Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Krause v. Reno, 366 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- The City OF Hallandale v. Rayel Corp., 313 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)