County attorney gives IDA a detailed Sunshine Law refresher, warns against private deliberations

County Attorney Michael Rodriguez delivered an extended refresher on Florida’s Sunshine Law at the Oct. 21 Flagler County Industrial Development Authority meeting, advising members to limit private communications about board business and explaining notice, minutes, and quorum rules.

Rodriguez said the Sunshine Law’s constitutional basis is Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and that it is codified in Florida Statutes §286.011. He summarized the three core requirements: meetings must be open to the public, given reasonable notice, and have minutes taken.

“The law applies to meetings of two or more members of the same board or commission when discussing some matter which foreseeably will come before the board,” Rodriguez said. He cautioned members that even seemingly informal written communications can create legal and public-perception problems and urged members to conduct board business at open meetings instead of email or group texts.

Rodriguez described practical remedies for gatherings that might otherwise risk violating Sunshine: if two or more members will attend an outside forum and wish to discuss matters that may foreseeably come before the board, the county can publish notice of the meeting and arrange for a clerk’s representative to take minutes, converting the event into a noticed Sunshine meeting.

He also addressed remote attendance and meeting logistics, noting state law requires a physical quorum at the meeting site for a hybrid meeting with remote participants. He warned that electronic exchanges on social media can trigger Sunshine issues when members reply directly to one another, even if the post is public.

On voting and conflicts of interest, Rodriguez said a member present at a meeting generally must vote unless a statutory financial conflict exists that would confer a special private gain or loss to the member or a close associate; if that is the case, the member must abstain and file the required disclosure with the Commission on Ethics.

Rodriguez also outlined the consequences for violations: knowing violations of the Sunshine Law can be a second-degree misdemeanor, carrying possible jail time or fines; noncriminal infractions and attorney’s-fee exposure also apply to boards found to have violated the law.

“If you think, you know, can I do this? Most times, just don't,” Rodriguez said, urging caution and recommending that members contact the county attorney’s office when in doubt. He said the office will prepare a memorandum answering specific questions the board raised about representation in Sunshine/ethics complaints and other procedural issues under Chapter 159.

The presentation was delivered in an interactive format with questions from board members about social-media groups, whether a clerk is required at outside forums, and the scope of permissible ex parte contacts. Rodriguez walked the board through examples and case citations used by appellate courts and the attorney general’s opinions.

The board asked counsel to provide a written memorandum clarifying several points, including whether the county will provide legal representation to an individual member or the board as a whole in Sunshine-law complaints. Rodriguez said he would prepare that memo and deliver it through staff.