Framework for Public Discourse

In the 1970’s one of the prominent requirements for federal grant programs was demonstrated evidence of public participation. This meant that the local government had to hold public hearings and allow citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions on the proposed project that would be funded by the grant. Since that time, many people have come to recognize the value of an environment that encourages public discourse and healthy debate of public policy.

This is also the theme of the “sunshine law” and the “open records law”. Any matter that may come to the City Commission for a vote is off–limits for discussion between two City Commissioners, or between two members of a board appointed by the City Commission. Any such discussions would be considered to be a public meeting, requiring proper notice of the meeting, and minutes being taken.

The Attorney General’s Office has advised that reasonable rules may be adopted by a local government to ensure the orderly conduct of meetings. For example, a rule which limits the amount of time an individual may address the City Commission may be adopted provided that the time limit does not unreasonably restrict the public’s right of access. In another example, a court ruled that the mayor of one city did not violate a citizen’s First Amendment Rights when he attempted to confine the speaker to the agenda item in the meeting and then had the speaker removed when the speaker appeared to become disruptive (Page 45, volume 30, Florida Government in the Sunshine Manual.)

The open records law allows review of practically any city record. The definition of a record is defined rather broadly to facilitate access to local government documents.

The City of Lake Wales’ Score

In my estimation, the City of Lake Wales scores well in making information available that is necessary for public discourse. The City’s website is filled with information including City Commission agendas, staff reports, adopted policies such as the strategic plan, and user friendly documents like the city budget. City staff also makes themselves available to meet with citizens to explain programs and policies. Each City Commission meeting has a call for citizens to come to the podium and address the Commission, and there is an extensive array of advisory boards that develop policies and make decisions in their areas of expertise.

The Pledge of Civility

To establish a “standard of behavior for public meetings”, the City Commission adopted an ordinance in 1998 that contains the following:

1. We may disagree, but we will be courteous and respectful of one another.


2. We will not engage in personal attacks.


3. We will direct all comments to the issue under consideration.

This standard is written on a plaque on the podium in the Commission chambers under the heading of the “Pledge of Civility”.

A Corollary: Seek Information Before Forming an Opinion

In addition to the “Pledge of Civility”, I would like to add a corollary: that with the availability of information as noted above, it is counter-productive to have public discussion when inaccurate information is sometimes dispensed as the gospel truth. It is not clear if this is done out of an ignorance of the facts, a disregard for the facts, or simply using the old debate tactic of distorting the facts and then attacking the distortion. Anyone who chronically dispenses opinion based on inaccurate information eventually loses all credibility. However, in the meantime, the inaccurate information brought to the public stage negatively impacts our town. In our information-rich environment there is no excuse for not asking questions or researching answers before pronouncing an opinion. Asking questions and gathering information should be step one before entering the public forum. Only then can thoughtful and influential public discourse take place.

Government in The Sunshine

Recently I was eating lunch in a restaurant with a City Commissioner. A citizen came over to the table to ask, “Are you breaking the Sunshine Law?” The answer is no, and the question indicates a misunderstanding of the law. Let’s review the basics of this famous law and some of its unusual applications.

The Basics

For cities and counties, the fundamental focus of the Sunshine Law is two-fold:

1. Two elected officials on the same board cannot discuss anything that may foreseeably come before the board for a vote unless they are at an open meeting, with reasonable notice, and with minutes being taken. This requirement also applies to boards whose members are appointed by the elected board. This law, Florida Statutes 286.011 – 286.012 and 286.26 is referred to as the Open Meetings Law; and


2. Records of cities and counties are open for inspection unless they are specifically exempted. This law, Florida Statutes 119.01 – 119.19 and numerous exemptions in other sections of Chapter 119, is referred to as The Public Records Law or Open Records Law.

The Application of the Law

Every year the Office of the Attorney General prints a book entitled Government-In-The-Sunshine Manual. It is telling that the Open Meetings Law as reprinted in the manual is less than 5 pages; the Open Records Law is 33 pages. These sections are preceded by 177 pages of explanation and followed by 76 pages of exemptions to the laws, 17 pages of related court cases, and 81 pages of an alphabetical listing of exemptions. This seems to indicate that the basic idea of the law is straightforward –but its application takes many convoluted twists and turns to cover a wide variety of situations. The courts have been defining and redefining various aspects of the law over the years, such as what is a public record and who is covered by the Open Meetings Law. The state legislature also occasionally makes changes in the law –hence the need for a new and updated manual every year.

Consider the following examples:

• The Open Meetings Law does not apply to committees appointed only for “fact-finding,” to homeowners’ associations, or to federal agencies. Meetings of staff members are normally not subject to the law; however, a group of staff members meeting as a committee that has delegated authority is subject to the law. Perhaps the area of the law with the most inquiries involves whom the law applies to.


• Another interesting issue arises with written reports: the use of a written report by one commissioner to inform other commissioners of a subject which will be discussed at a public meeting is not a violation –as long as prior to the meeting there is no interaction related to the report among the commissioners who wrote the memo. The report, however, is subject to the Open Records Law.


• A city manager, county manager, or school superintendent may meet with individual elected board members –but may not circulate the thoughts of one member to another.

Open records laws are worldwide phenomena. Wikipedia –the free encyclopedia on the internet –reports that Sweden’s Freedom of Press Act of 1766 is thought to be the oldest such law dealing with open records. In Florida, the roots of the present Open Records Law go back to 1909. On the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 1966.

Florida was the first state to pass an open meeting law in 1967. While all of the other states now have such a law, their provisions vary.

The state attorney general’s website – www.myfloridalegal.com – has an extensive section on Florida’s Government-In-The-Sunshine Law from which most of this material was taken.