Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 19 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. JJ-112,JJ-112 |
| Parties | FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Walter THOMAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Gen. Counsel, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Richard A. Belz, of Florida Legal Services, Inc., Prison Project, Gainesville, for appellee.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
On February 8, 1978, the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) of the Department of Administration entered an order in consolidated case nos. 77-728R and 77-1258R. The order found that certain practices and procedures of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission (hereinafter the Commission) were rules and as such were invalid because of the failure of the Commission to properly adopt them pursuant to § 120.54, Fla.Stat. Pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b) (1)(C) and § 120.68, Fla.Stat., the Commission, through its attorney, filed a timely notice of appeal seeking review of the DOAH order. We now have for consideration appellee's motion to dismiss wherein it is argued that this appeal is void as a matter of law because the decision of the Commission to take this appeal constitutes "formal action" so as to require that the decision be reached in an open and public meeting as required § 286.011, Fla.Stat., which statute is commonly known as Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law. We now hold that the decision to take this appeal from a DOAH hearing officer's order is not one which triggers the public meeting requirements of the Government in the Sunshine Law. Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss.
Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
286.011 Public meetings and records; public inspection; penalties
(1) All meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation or any political subdivision, except as otherwise provided in the constitution, at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule, regulation or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting.
It is clear that requisite to the application of the Sunshine Law is a meeting of two or more public officials. Mitchell v. School Board of Leon County, 335 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). It is equally clear that the Sunshine Law would apply to all meetings of the Parole and Probation Commission. The facts of this case reveal that the Commission never met to determine whether to appeal the order now under review. The commencement of this appeal was, in the words of the Commission, "performed in the normal course of business by the Legal Department of this agency". The appeal was filed "with the approval of the Chairman and other members of the Commission, following individual discussions between legal staff and each commissioner concerning the final order rendered". In the absence of a meeting, the Sunshine Law is not applicable. Mitchell, supra. We cannot, however, allow this fact to mark the end of our inquiry, for it is obvious that the spirit, intent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Wainwright
...encroachment on the Commission's deliberations. The majority relies on this court's opinion in Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Thomas, 364 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) wherein this court correctly held that the decision to take an appeal was not formal action arrived at in a "me......
-
City of San Antonio v. Aguilar
...shall perform "all services incident to his position" is a broad grant of implied authority. See Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Thomas, 364 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla.App.1978). We hold the city attorney possessed the implied authority to pursue this appeal. PRESUMPTION OF AUTHORITY No......
-
Rehab Hosp. Services Corp. v. Delta-Hills Health Systems Agency, Inc.
...of appeal without a public meeting of the board. We decline to take such an unreasonable approach. Accord: Florida Parole and Probation Comm. v. Thomas, 364 So.2d 480 (Fla.App.1978). Third, the appellant does not seek to protect the public's right to information, it seeks invalidation solel......
-
Blackford for Use and Benefit of Cherokee Jr. High School Parent-Teacher Ass'n. v. School Bd. of Orange County, PARENT-TEACHER
...County, 335 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), and Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Thomas, 364 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We also agree that the board's staff (which, of course, includes the superintendent) is not subject to ......