THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GARY HAKANSON, APPELLEE
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.
Gary Hakanson, a former risk manager for the City of Hollywood, obtained a declaratory judgment claiming that a civil service board member received an undisclosed ex-parte communication that created a presumption of prejudice. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that comments made at a public city commission meeting do not constitute an ex-parte communication under Florida law simply because a board member was in the audience.
The court held that comments made at a public city commission meeting do not constitute an offending ex-parte communication under section 286.0115 simply because a civil service board member was in attendance. Additionally, even if the incident were deemed an ex-parte communication, the statute requires disclosure before or during the meeting at which final action is taken, which did not occur here.
[1] A public comment made during a public meeting, attended by a civil service board member, does not constitute an ex parte communication under section 286.0115, Florida Sta…
[2] Section 286.0115, Florida Statutes, requires disclosure of ex parte communications to ensure an adverse party's opportunity to confront, respond, and rebut such communica…
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“Section 286.0115, Florida Statutes, requires public officials to disclose ex-parte communications in order to assure an adverse party the opportunity to confront, respond, and rebut any such disclosures so as to prevent any appearance of impropriety.”
Establishes the statutory purpose and requirement for disclosure of ex-parte communications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Hakanson was terminated as risk manager for the City of Hollywood and appealed to the civil service board. At a public city commission meeting at…
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 Public Meetings cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
Gary Hakanson, former risk manager for the city of Hollywood, obtained a declaratory judgment against the city. The judgment established that Frank Yamout, president of the Hollywood civil service board, to which Hakanson filed an appeal after his employment was terminated, had received an undisclosed ex-parte communication which triggered a presumption of prejudice pursuant to section 286.0115, Florida Statutes. We reverse.
Section 286.0115, Florida Statutes, requires public officials to disclose ex-parte communications in order to assure an adverse party the opportunity to confront, respond, and rebut any such disclosures so as to prevent any appearance of impropriety.
The alleged ex-parte communication involved statements made during a public meeting of the city commission, attended by both Yamout and Hakanson, a few months after Hakanson’s termination as risk manager. At that meeting, the assistant city manager, Ken Fields, discussing the city’s options for self-insurance plans and the cost increases of the present plan, remarked that the former risk manager, who had managed the plan, was asked to analyze and determine the reasons for the cost increases, but failed to do so.
Subsequently, at a preliminary civil service board hearing regarding Hakanson’s appeal, Hakanson’s attorney asked the board members if any of them were “biased towards the case as a result of any newspaper, radio and/or t.v. coverage.” Yamout answered in the negative.
We conclude that it was error to deny the city’s motion for directed verdict because the comments, made at a city commission meeting open to the general public, did not constitute an offending ex-parte communication simply because a civil service board member was in the audience. See generally Citizens of the State of Florida v. Wilson, 569 So. 2d 1268 (Fla.1990). Therefore, section 286.0115 is not implicated.
We additionally note that even if the incident was deemed an ex-parte communication, section 286.0115 requires that disclosure of the offending communication must be made by the public official either before or during the meeting at which final action is taken. Here, final action was not taken at the board meeting.
Therefore, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the city.
KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cardenas (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2008)…s, “requires public officials to disclose ex-parte communications in order to assure an adverse party the opportunity to confront, respond and rebut any such disclosures so as to prevent any appearance of impropriety.” City of Hollywood v. Hakanson, 866 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In order for an affected party to be able to refute or respond to the ex parte communication, disclosure of that communication must be made “before or during the public meeting at which a vote is taken . . . .” §286.0115(1)(c)(4…
Authorities Cited
- Citizens OF the State OF Fla. v. Wilson, 569 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 1990)