Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sunshine Law Coffee Event topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CDD orders legal review after concerns about 'Coffee With Candidates' event
Summary
Vice Chair Arthur Rhodes questioned HPCA involvement in an Oct. 9 candidate event and warned of possible Florida Sunshine Law issues; the board voted to have the District Manager review the matter and asked District Counsel for a written opinion.
The Heritage Pines Community Development District Board voted Sept. 17 to ask the District Manager to review a planned "Coffee With Candidates" event and to request a legal opinion from District Counsel after Vice Chair Arthur Rhodes raised concerns about HPCA involvement and potential violations of the Florida Sunshine Law.
Rhodes said he learned a letter from Kim Norton scheduled a coffee event for Oct. 9, 2024 and that candidate bios for Mr. Steele, Mr. Putman and Mr. Kleeman had been circulated. He asked who instructed Norton to schedule the event and argued that "the presence of multiple CDD Board Members at such an event could result in a violation of the Florida Sunshine Law," citing concerns about campaign-style activity tied to HPCA communications. HPCA General Manager Herb Hurley responded that "the candidates asked for the event to be scheduled so they could become known as candidates for the CDD Board" and declined to discuss further, saying attorneys should handle the matter.
On a motion by Mr. Rhodes, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, and approved unanimously, the board directed District Manager Chuck Adams to review "the implication of the outside candidates as to the alleged hostile relationship" and directed District Counsel to provide a legal opinion. Adams also reminded board members not to reply to an email about the event while the matter is under review.
The board discussed who may attend without creating a quorum problem under the Sunshine Law: Adams said sitting board members may attend only in limited, one-on-one settings and that a supervisor-elect could be treated differently depending on whether they already act as a board member.
The board did not reach a determination at the meeting; the motion asks staff and counsel to report back with legal guidance.
