Issue link: https://newsleader.uberflip.com/i/203490
Sarasota News Leader November 1, 2013 OPINION I was not there. I do not know if Atwell and Chapman engaged in skullduggery to circumvent the law and whip up some policy in secret. Lawyers can argue the facts of the case. What I want to argue is that two or more commissioners have the right to meet and talk with their constituents. For years city and county commissioners have enjoyed an open invitation to attend a variety of community events. The regular meetings of the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA) are a good example. On the first Saturday of the month, the CCNA members gather upstairs at the Waldemere Fire Station. The neighborhood leaders are often joined by two or more city commissioners. The latter come to gauge the temper and temperature of the city's distinct areas. When individual neighborhood associations meet, it is not rare to find two or more city commissioners attending. The venue may or may not be public, as some neighborhood groups meet in churches. In neither case is any "notice" given in the legal sense, but in both cases, the "commissioner-guests" are often invited to speak and take questions. If constituents' invitations lead to infractions of the Open Meeting Act — as Citizens for Sunshine alleges — then elected and appointed board members would be wise to decline such appearances. However, this quickly would lead to a disconnect between the leaders and the led. And it would raise Page 83 a major obstacle to good government, which involves give-and-take between leaders and constituents. The Sunshine laws are not "geographic"; they are "discursive." In other words, the entire membership of a board can be in one room without any notice, for example, for a night at the opera. Only if those members start to talk about topics they will later discuss and vote on at their board meetings do the requirements of the Open Meetings Act apply. Put another way, the members can be in the same place at the same time, and they can listen and ask questions of their constituents. That is a vital component of democracy. Only if they debate among themselves the merits and liabilities of future action will the law be violated. We do not know the evidence or testimony the attorneys for Citizens for Sunshine will introduce in this case. The brief filed with the lawsuit says only, "Defendants Chapman and Atwell spoke at the meeting about the homeless/transient issue in the presence of each other" — just as they have spoken about similar issues before the CCNA and other neighborhood groups. I will not address the merits of the Citizens for Sunshine case. But if the desire is to erect a barrier between citizens and policy makers, the plaintiffs are hurtling down the wrong track. We need more, not less, communication between city leaders and residents. %