Home › Blogs › gilcreque's blog › Save Our Aquifer Group Files Complaint with State Attorney's Office

Save Our Aquifer Group Files Complaint with State Attorney's Office

Submitted by gilcreque on Wed, 08/12/2009 - 9:14am
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE: 
Some information on the previous news release may not have come through...
Find additional pertinent audio and the City emails at:  www.saveouraquifer.org
 
August 11, 2009
 
Save Our Aquifer Group Files Complaint with State Attorney's Office Regarding City of Rockledge Potential Violations of the Sunshine Law:
 
Representatives of Save Our Aquifer (SOA) filed a complaint with the State Attorney's office today alleging that officials of the City of Rockledge have violated two provisions of the Florida Sunshine Law. In the complaint, SOA said that a series of secrent one-on-one meetings by City Council members with the City Manager and the City's consulting engineers Jones Edmunds and Associates (JEA) were a violation of the requirement that council meetings be open to the public.  SOA also said that the City Council members were improperly using their personal computers and private email addresses and that the City Clerk was not archiving emails from those computers, in violation of the state's public records law.  
 
The complaint was hand delivered to the state attorney's office by Richard Glenn, Vice Secretary of Save Our Aquifer, Inc.  SOA was formed in opposition to the City of Rockledge's plan to annually inject 180 million gallons of partially treated sewage wastewater into the Floridan aquifer (370 - 470 feet below) via a shallow Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) injection well.
 
SOA has learned that on the morning of May 6th, less than 48 hours after a Public Forum in Viera regarding the controversial ASR well, James McKnight, City Manager for Rockledge, sent an email to Council members' private email accounts to arrange a date for a series of private, individual meetings between the council members and JEA representatives.  The Public Forum on May 4th had been arranged upon a motion of Councilwoman Georgia Phillips on April 1st to discuss the ASR injection well.  The 3 - 1/2 hour Public Forum provided an opportunity for Council to submit questions and make informed decisions, yet they chose to meet without public notice behind closed doors with JEA and rehash, and again be persuaded by their engineering firm's mis-information.  So hush-hush were these private meetings, that at the City Council meeting later that night of the 6th, McKnight, when asked by Save Our Aquifer members about the City's plan, did not mention the in-the-works private sessions.   SOA members had put extensive energy into the Public Forum, and so were disappointed when their attempts to elicit the thoughts and opinions of City Council on May 6th were met by blank stares.  The secret, individual meetings with the Mayor and Council members were held at Rockledge City Hall on June 18, 2009.  Representatives for JEA,  City Manager James McKnight and Alan LaDuke, Director of the Wastewater Treatment Department, attended all of the meetings.  To date, SOA has only been able to obtain a schedule of those meetings, including an appearance by the JEA Project Manager at the Rockledge Rotary Club breakfast June 18, 2009.  
 
---Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine Law was enacted in 1967. Today, the Sunshine Law can be found in Chapter 286 of the Florida Statutes.  Throughout the history of Florida's open government, its courts have consistently supported the public's right of access to governmental meetings and records. As such, they also have been defining and redefining what a public record is and who is covered under the open meetings law.  Florida voters have overwhelmingly showed their support for government in the sunshine at all levels of government. They have made it clear they believe that open government provides the best assurance of government that is responsive and responsible to the needs of the people.  
 
Given the actions of the City officials to conceal the planning and occurrence of the meetings, the use of private email accounts, the close coordination of the questions and answers, and the presence of the same staff members in each meeting, Save Our Aquifer believes there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation of whether or not these meetings were a violation of the Sunshine Law.
 
Read the letter that was delivered to Norman P. Wolfinger's Office: 

 
 
Additional information, some of the City E-mails and Audio clips can be found at: www.saveouraquifer.org
 
CONTACT Save Our Aquifer:
Richard Glenn:  (321) 298-6726
P.O. Box 251 Cocoa FL 32923, 
 
****************************
FLORIDA TODAY POLL RESULTS:
Archived on Monday, July 27th
Poll Question:   Should all meetings with Rockledge City Council members on the injection well issue be in public?
Yes.  They should be in public.  352 votes 
No.    They should not be in public.  31 votes
 
 
***************************
SUNSHINE MANUAL
 
2. Circumstances in which the Sunshine Law may apply to a single individual or
where two board members are not physically present
...
 
"Certain factual situations, however, have arisen where, in order to assure public access
to the decision-making processes of public boards or commissions, it has been necessary to
conclude that the presence of two individuals of the same board or commission is not
necessary to trigger application of s. 286.011, F.S. As stated by the Supreme Court, the
Sunshine Law is to be construed "so as to frustrate all evasive devices." Town of Palm Beach
v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473, 477 (Fla. 1974)."
 
e. Use of nonmembers as liaisons between board members
 
"The Sunshine Law is applicable to meetings between a board member and an individual
who is not a member of the board when that individual is being used as a liaison between, or
to conduct a de facto meeting of, board members. See, AGO 74-47 (city manager is not a
member of the city council and thus, may meet with individual council members; however, the
manager may not act as a liaison for board members by circulating information and thoughts
of individual council members). Compare, AGO 89-39 (aides to county commissioners would
not be subject to the Sunshine Law unless they have been delegated decision-making functions
outside of the ambit of normal staff functions, are acting as liaisons between board members,
or are acting in place of the board or its members at their direction)."
 
"For example, in Blackford v. School Board of Orange County, 375 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1979), the court held that a series of scheduled successive meetings between the school
superintendent and individual members of the school board were subject to the Sunshine Law.
While normally meetings between the school superintendent and an individual school board
member would not be subject to s. 286.011, F.S., these meetings were held in "rapid-fire
succession" in order to avoid a public airing of a controversial redistricting problem. They
amounted to a de facto meeting of the school board in violation of s. 286.011, F.S."
 
"Similarly, in Sentinel Communications Company v. School Board of Osceola County,
No. CI92-0045 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. April 3, 1992), the court found that a series of private
meetings between a school superintendent and individual school board members which were
scheduled by the superintendent to present and consider staff recommendations concerning the
administrative structure of the school system and to privately address any objections or
concerns that the board might have, should have been held in the sunshine. The court said that
its decision should not be construed to prohibit individual board members from meeting
privately with staff or the superintendent for informational purposes or on an ad hoc basis.
However, "[i]t shall be construed to prohibit the scheduling of a series of such meetings which
concern a specific agenda." Thus, the court enjoined the board and its superintendent "from
holding any further closed door meetings to formulate Board policy, discuss matters where
Board action is contemplated, or otherwise conduct the public's business.""
 
"In Citizens for a Better Royal Palm Beach, Inc. v. Village of Royal Palm Beach, No. CL
91-14417 AA (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. May 14, 1992), the court invalidated a contract for the sale of
municipal property when it determined that after the proposal to sell the property which had
been discussed and approved at a public meeting collapsed, the city manager met individually
with council members and from those discussions the property was sold to another group. The
circuit court found that these meetings resulted in a substantial change in the terms of sale and
that the execution of the contract, therefore, violated the Sunshine Law."
 
*****************
Please forward freely.....