Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison

• Decision Date: 01 May 1974
• Docket Number: Nos. 44099,s. 44099
• Citation: 296 So.2d 473
• Parties: TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Jules T. GRADISON, Respondent. TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Fred GLADSTONE, Respondent. TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. FAIRMONT CONVERTING CO., INC., Respondent. TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Morris LANSBURGH, Respondent. TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Perry KAYE, Respondent. TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Ralph H. SHERE et al., Respondents. TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Walter PORANSKI et ux., Respondents. TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. FIRST BANK AND TRUST CO. OF BOCA RATON, etc., Respondents. to 44106.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 473

296 So.2d 473

TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Jules T. GRADISON, Respondent.

TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Fred GLADSTONE, Respondent.

TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. FAIRMONT CONVERTING CO., INC., Respondent.

TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Morris LANSBURGH, Respondent.

TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Perry KAYE, Respondent.

TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Ralph H. SHERE et al., Respondents.

TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. Walter PORANSKI et ux., Respondents.

TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners, v. FIRST BANK AND TRUST CO. OF BOCA RATON, etc., Respondents.

Nos. 44099 to 44106.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1, 1974.

Rehearing Denied July 10, 1974.

Chester Bedell and John A. DeVault, III, Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar, Smith & Zehmer, Jacksonville, and Burns, Middleton, Farrell & Faust, Palm Beach, for petitioners.

H. L. Cooper, Jr., O'Connell & Cooper, West Palm Beach, for Jules T. Gradison, Morris Lansburgh, Perry Kaye, Ralph H. Shere and Walter Poranski.

Larry B. Alexander, Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for Fred Gladstone and Fairmont Converting Co., Inc.

Ross, Hardies, O'Keefe, Babcock, McDugald & Parsons, Chicago, Ill., and Fisher, Prior, Pruitt & Schulle, West Palm Beach, for First Bank and Trust Co. of Boca Raton.

ADKINS, Chief Justice.

By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review the consolidated cases arising out of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (IDS Properties, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 279 So.2d 353), which is accompanied by a certificate of the District Court of Appeal that its decision had passed upon a question of great public interest, to-wit:

'Whether a zoning ordinance adopted by zoning authorities and the Town Council after public hearings is rendered invalid under the § 286.011, F.S.1971, (F.S.A.), Government in the Sunshine Law, because of the nonpublic activities of a citizen's planning committee which committee was established by the town council and acting on behalf of the council in an advisory capacity participated in the formulation of the zoning plan.'

We have jurisdiction. Fla.Stat., art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A.

The Town Council of the Town of Palm Beach, hereinafter referred to as 'Town Council,' passed a resolution providing that the Council would undertake the updating and revision of the town zoning ordinances. Interviews were held with a planning firm, hereinafter called 'Planners,' and, at a public meeting, the Town Council authorized a contract with the Planners. A citizens' planning commission was decided upon and chosen by the Town Council at a nonpublic administrative meeting. The nominees were told that the Town Council had nominated each one to serve on the town planning committee for the purpose of guiding the Planners in their efforts to assure that the plan produced would be consistent with the character, image and land-use controls intended by the citizens. Changes in the plan during its formulation were made by the Planners to reflect the decisions of the planning committee.

The planning committee, a lay group of citizens, were not regularly employed personnel of the Town. The members of the committee were not landscape or civil engineers nor expert vocational zoning planners performing their work outside the scope of the sunshine law. Neither were they contractors engaged by the Town for making zoning studies, surveys or plans. To the contrary, they were a buffer lay group of citizens to serve part-time as the alter egos of the Town Councilmen to make tentative decisions guiding the zoning planners and advising the Council as to their ultimate zoning ordinances. In other words, the Council delegated to the committee much of their administrative and legislative decisional zoning formulation authority which is ordinarily exercised by a city-governing body itself--and particularly the position of the process where the affected citizens expect to be officially heard. Thus, the nature of the committee and its function reached the status of a board or commission that to act legally must comply with the sunshine law.

The trial court specifically found that the Planning Advisory Committee meetings with the Planners were not open to the public, nor were minutes taken. These meetings were numerous and detailed.

At a joint meeting of the Town Council and the planning committee the role of the committee was explained. The Town Council was of the opinion the committee should work as an 'element' of the zoning commission, and further, that the Town Council had the authority to override any changes induced by the zoning commission and 'would do so without timidity.' This joint meeting was held without notice, without members of the public or press present, and no official minutes were taken or recorded.

Thereafter, the President of the Town Council and various members of the zoning commission met with the town manager and were finally advised as to the operation of the committee. An agenda was prepared for presentation of the tentative comprehensive plan to a meeting of the Town Council. At that meeting the plan was discussed. Further executive sessions of the zoning commission were held.

Thereafter, full public meetings and hearings of the zoning commission and of the Town Council were conducted and proper procedure followed. The comprehensive zoning plan was approved in essentially the same form as that which had been produced by the consultants and the planning advisory committee.

The government in the sunshine law contains the following:

'(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.' Fla.Stat. § 286.011, F.S.A.

The only question to be determined is whether the citizens planning commission composed of private citizens, which was established by the Town Council and the members thereof appointed by the Town Council, was subject to the government in the sunshine law.

Every meeting of any board, commission, agency or authority of a municipality should be a marketplace of ideas, so that the governmental agency may have sufficient input from the citizens who are going to be affected by the subsequent action of the municipality. The ordinary taxpayer can no longer be led blindly down the path of government, for the news media, by constantly reporting community affairs, has made the taxpayer aware of governmental problems. Government, more so now than ever before, should be responsive to the wishes of the public. These wishes could never be known in nonpublic meetings, and the governmental agencies would be deprived of the benefit of suggestions and ideas which may be advanced by the knowledgeable public.

Also, such open meetings instill confidence in government. The taxpayer deserves an opportunity to express his views and have them considered in the decisionmaking process.

Those who do not attend public meetings are given ample opportunity to participate in government by securing information of governmental activities from the news media. Responsible reporting of governmental activities results in letters or telephone calls from interested citizens so that governmental officials are given the benefit of both sides of the question. No governmental board is infallible and it is foolish to assume that those who are elected or appointed to office have any superior knowledge concerning any governmental problem. Every person charged with the administration of any governmental activity must rely upon suggestions and ideas advanced by other knowledgeable and interested persons. As more people participate in governmental activities, the decisionmaking process will be improved.

Few, if any, governmental boards or agencies deliberately attempt to circumvent the government in the sunshine law. We feel that the Town Council of Palm Beach acted in good faith, but any committee established by the Town Council to act in any type of advisory capacity would be subject to the provisions of the government in the sunshine law.

The citizens' planning committee was not an organization formed by any civic group such as a taxpayer's league, better government league, civic association, etc. It was conceived and formed by the Town Council for the purpose of working with the planning consultant so that the plan produced would be consistent with the land-use controls intended by the citizens. The citizens' planning committee was an arm of the Town Council.

The Legislature would have no right to require meetings of civil organizations, unconnected with municipal government, to conform to the government in the sunshine law. However, a subordinate group or committee selected by the governmental authorities should not feel free to meet in private. The preponderant interest of allowing the public to participate in the conception of a proposed zoning ordinance is sufficient to justify the inclusion of this selected subordinate group, within the provisions of the government in the sunshine law.

Cases from other jurisdictions dealing with the scope of similar statutes compel the conclusion that bodies such as the Palm Beach Planning Committee selected by the Town Council are governed by Fla.Stat. § 286.011, F.S.A.

In Raton Public Service Co. v. Hobbes, 76 N.M. 535, 417 P.2d 32 (1966), the Board of Directors of a city-owned electric utility were held to be within the scope of a statute governing 'all other governmental boards and commissions.'

In Glick v. Trustees of Free Public Library, 2 N.J. 579, 67 A.2d 463 (1949), trustees of the Library were held to...