Bigelow v. Howze, 72--884
| Decision Date | 20 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--884,72--884 |
| Citation | 291 So.2d 645 |
| Parties | Maurice H. BIGELOW et al., Appellants, v. James A. HOWZE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Elwood P. Safron and Guy S. Emerich, Punta Gorda, for appellants.
John P. Harllee, III, of Harrison, Johnston, Harllee & Porges, Bradenton, for appellee.
William J. Roberts and Wilson W. Wright, Tallahassee, for State Association of County Attorneys, amicus curiae.
This is an appeal from an order declaring void a public contract by reason of a violation of Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., commonly known as the Government in the Sunshine Law.
In early 1972, the County Commission of Charlotte County determined the need for contracting with a reappraisal firm to do a comprehensive reappraisal of the real and personal property in the County. After meeting with several firms, the Commission narrowed its choice to Hunnicutt and Associates, Inc. and Howze and Associates. At a regular meeting, the Commission appointed a committee composed of two of its five members and the Tax Assessor for the purpose of investigating and reporting the ability of the two firms to do the job. The County Attorney was an ex-officio member of the committee. At a subsequent public meeting, the full Commission authorized the committee to conduct a fact-finding trip to Tennessee for the purpose of interviewing state officials who had worked with these firms.
After meeting with the appropriate officials and while still in Tennessee, the members of the committee concluded to recommend Hunnicutt. However, the committee was in doubt as to one aspect of Hunnicutt's proposal, so it met with a Hunnicutt representative for breakfast at the Holiday Inn in Punta Gorda to clarify the matter. While this meeting was not secret in the sense that it was behind closed doors, neither the press nor the public was apprised that the meeting would take place.
The committee then recommended Hunnicutt to the Commission. However, upon a complaint being voiced by a representative of Howze, the Commission voted not to accept the recommendation of the committee but to thereafter bring the matter for a conclusion before the full Commission. At this point, the committee was disbanded. The Commission held a subsequent public meeting at which Hunnicutt and Howze resubmitted their proposals. Thereafter, the full Commission awarded to Hunnicutt the same contract which had been proposed by the committee. The Commission ratified the award of the contract in a subsequent meeting.
Howze filed a suit for injunctive relief against the Commission seeking to declare the contract void. Following a trial, final judgment was entered against the Commission in which the contract was declared to be void. In the judgment, the court observed that the two commissioner committee members had unintentionally violated the Sunshine Law by holding secret meetings on the contract prior to its being brought up for formal vote.
The record clearly supports the fact that the two commissioners had agreed during the course of their Tennessee trip that they would vote for the contract to be awarded to Hunnicutt. The most important point raised by the County is whether such action by duly appointed members of the committee constitutes a violation of the Sunshine Law where adequate publicity was given of the committee's fact-finding trip to Tennessee. The State Association of County Attorneys, which was permitted to appear amicus curiae, stated the issue to be whether public officials who are delegated fact-finding responsibility for the purpose of reporting back to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Lynch v. Conta
...should apply under the circumstances, he was able to avoid the dubious results that have occurred under that law. In Bigelow v. Howze (Fla.App.1974), 291 So.2d 645, 647, it was held that the decision making processes of a duly appointed subcommittee of a public body, if composed of more tha......
-
Killearn Properties, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee
...Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So.2d 38 (Fla.1971), Grapeland Heights Civic Ass'n v. City of Miami, 267 So.2d 321 (Fla.1972), Bigelow v. Howze, 291 So.2d 645 (2d DCA 1974).) However each and every discussion among City Commissioners need not be made in the sunshine. Nor is it necessary that writ......
-
Order Declaring Annexation Dated June 28, 1978, Issued by Frazier, Matter of
...in violation of Open Meeting laws, will not cure the violations, will not "breathe life" into the prior illegal action. Bigelow v. Howze, 291 So.2d 645 (Fla.App.1974); Kramer v. Board of Adjustment, Sea Girt, 80 N.J.Super. 454, 194 A.2d 26 (1963). We think that principle applies here. The e......
-
Hawkins v. City of Fayette
...violation of North Dakota's open meeting law, and that the action was void. No rationale for the holding was given. In Bigelow v. Howze, 291 So.2d 645 (Fla. App.1974), the action of a county commission committee in regard to which of two firms should be awarded a contract to appraise real a......
-
Public Meeting Statutes and Public Sector Collective Bargaining
...a quorum was present, but whether the members deal with any matter on which foreseeable action may be taken.(fn52) In Bigelow v. Howze, 291 So.2d 645 (Fla. App. 1964), the Sunshine Act was held to have been violated when two of the five members of a County Commission, on a fact-finding trip......