Florida Commission on Ethics debates hybrid attendance for in‑person meetings; no policy change

The Florida Commission on Ethics discussed whether to allow commissioners to attend in‑person public meetings remotely in extraordinary circumstances but took no formal action.

The commission’s executive director and general counsel described legal and logistical constraints to hybrid attendance — remote participation by a commissioner while others are physically present — and outlined options for future changes. The discussion followed a staff presentation on technology needs, confidentiality risks for executive sessions and state rules governing remote and communications‑media technology (CMT) meetings.

Executive Director Carrie told commissioners the agency depends on local agency coordinators and the supervisor of elections to supply address lists for paper notices and that a transition to electronic filing should improve contact reliability. She outlined practical challenges of hybrid attendance in the court meeting space used by the commission, including the need for additional microphones, sound‑mixer inputs and the potential costs of portable equipment.

General Counsel Steve Ziolkowski summarized applicable legal guidance: full CMT (remote) public sessions are allowed under state rules if notice and access points are provided, but the commission does not hold remote executive sessions because it cannot guarantee the confidentiality required for probable‑cause or other exempt matters. Ziolkowski also noted opinions of the Office of the Attorney General finding that remote attendance to an in‑person meeting can be permitted for medical treatment, physical infirmity or other "extraordinary circumstances," but that remote attendees do not count toward the physical quorum required for the meeting.

"The participation of an absent member by telephone conference or other interactive electronic technology is permissible when such absence is due to extraordinary circumstances such as an illness," an OAG opinion quoted by general counsel states; "whether the absence of the member due to a scheduling conflict constitutes such circumstance is a determination that must be made in the good judgment of the board."

Commissioners raised practical and equity concerns: several said hybrid attendance is likely inevitable and worth preparing for, but others emphasized confidentiality risks when executive sessions address sensitive investigations. Commissioners discussed whether remote attendance should be limited to members (not parties or complainants), whether secure remote access points could be made available around the state, and whether sworn assurances or certification could be used to limit confidentiality risk.

Several commissioners said the commission should not rush to change long‑standing procedures and urged staff to research equipment needs, costs and possible statutory or rule changes; others encouraged exploring secure remote locations and improved coordinator responsibilities to limit notice failures. No motion or vote was taken on policy; staff was asked to continue researching options and report back at a future meeting.

The item followed the commission's special session to consider a financial disclosure appeal.

Key legal references discussed included Florida Statute section 286.01144 (public comment procedures), rules on communications media technology (cited as rule chapter 28‑109 in staff materials) and the Office of the Attorney General's opinions on remote participation to in‑person meetings.

Commissioners requested further information on costs and technology, and several said they favored delaying any immediate procedural change until staff presents detailed options and anticipated expenses.