SPILLIS CANDELA & PARTNERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CENTRUST SAVINGS BANK, F/K/A DADE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, DADE COUNTY AND CITY OF MIAMI, AND MIAMI CENTER ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A Florida appellate court affirmed that the Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals violated the Sunshine Law by allowing an advisory committee comprised of Board members to deliberate and vote in private on a matter affecting fire resistivity provisions for a parking garage. The court held that ad hoc advisory boards, regardless of their limited power to recommend, are subject to the Sunshine Law's open meeting requirements.
An ad hoc advisory board, even with limited power to recommend and no authority to bind the agency, is subject to the Sunshine Law. The committee's private deliberations and vote constituted a Sunshine Law violation, and the Board's perfunctory ratification without a full public hearing could not cure that violation. Only a full, open public hearing by the Board could have remedied the violation.
[1] An ad hoc advisory board, even if its power is limited to making recommendations to a public agency and it possesses no authority to bind the agency, is subject to the Su…
[2] Deliberations and votes of an advisory committee, even if conducted in private for a short period, violate the Sunshine Law when the public is excluded from the decision-…
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“An ad hoc advisory board, even if its power is limited to making recommendations to a public agency and even if it possesses no authority to bind the agency in any way, is subject to the Sunshine Law.”
Establishes the core legal principle that advisory boards cannot escape Sunshine Law requirements merely because their power is limited to recommendations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals appointed a committee, mostly comprised of Board members, to report on the correctness of fire resistivity …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. Stat. § 286.011 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s determination that the Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals violated section 286.- Oil, Florida Statutes (1987), commonly-known as the Sunshine Law. We affirm.
The Board appointed a committee which, with one exception, was comprised of Board members. The committee’s purpose was to report on the correctness of plans relating to fire resistivity provisions of the South Florida Building Code for the Cen-trust Tower parking garage. After a public committee hearing on the matter, the committee recessed and deliberated on the matter for several minutes. These deliberations and the resulting vote were conducted in private without the inclusion of the public. Thus, the public was not given the opportunity to express views or to participate in the decision-making process.
Thereafter, the Board was presented with the committee’s report. Contrary to the recommendation of its own attorney, the Board ratified the committee’s report without a full and open public hearing on the matter. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred in holding that the committee was an advisory board subject to the Sunshine Law. The law is quite clear. An ad hoc advisory board, even if its power is limited to making recommendations to a public agency and even if it possesses no authority to bind the agency in any way, is subject to the Sunshine Law. Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1974); IDS Properties, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 279 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The committee here, made a ruling affecting the decision-making process and it was of significance. As a result, it was improper for the committee to reach its recommendation in private since that constituted a violation of the Sunshine Law. Similarly, the committee’s violation of the Sunshine Law was not cured by the Board’s perfunctory ratification of the committee’s report. Only a full, open public hearing by the Board could have cured any problem. Tolar v. School Board of Liberty County, 398 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1981).
Accordingly, the trial court properly held that there was a violation of the Sunshine Law.
AFFIRMED.
HERSEY, GEORGE W., LETTS, GAVIN K., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zorc v. City OF Vero Beach, 722 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…full, open hearing will cure a defect arising from a Sunshine Law violation. Such violation will not be cured by a perfunctory ratification of the action taken outside of the sunshine. See Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc., v. Centrust Savings Bank, 535 So. 2d 694, 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (County Board of Rules and Appeals did not cure its committee’s violation of Sunshine Law by perfunctory ratification of committee’s report; only full, open hearing by Board would have cured problem); 19 Government-In-The-Sun…
-
Monroe Cnty. v. Pigeon KEY Historical Park, Inc., 647 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…self need not reconvene in public to discuss the subject matter considered in private. Only a full, open public hearing by the public agency can correct the committee’s Sunshine Law violations. Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc. v. Centrust Sav. Bank, 535 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Here, the Commission held two public hearings to address the subject matter previously considered by the Committee. Third, the Sunshine Law does not provide that eases be treated differently based upon their level of public impo…1 / 4
-
Port Everglades Auth. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 652 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ourt held that the “[m]ere showing that the government in the sunshine law has been violated constitutes an irreparable public injury so that the ordinance is void ab initio.” See [*1171] also Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc. v. Centrust Savs. Bank, 535 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding trial court determination that Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals violated Sunshine Law and invalidating the Board’s resulting recommendation) and Blackford v. School Bd. of Orange County, 375 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th D…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Town OF Palm Beach v. Jules T. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974)
- Tolar v. The Sch. Bd. OF Liberty Cnty., 398 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1981)
- IDS Props., Inc. v. Town OF Palm Beach, 279 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)