![]() ![]() 23, the day after the shade meeting, and the case was closed on Sept. The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled against Concerned Citizens on Aug. “We can always at a certain point speed through it and give them concessions if we have to stay out of litigation.” “Right now I don’t think they’re going to give in to anything,” said Commissioner Mike Eisner, referring to Morgan Group. He said the commission could foreseeably vote in the future on what they discussed in the shade meeting, like resolving a forthcoming damages lawsuit.Ĭommissioners also discussed how they might handle future actions, according to the transcript. Petersburg attorney, said the law also applies to discussions and deliberations. ![]() Salzman told the Times he also did not believe a Sunshine violation occurred because no action was taken at the meeting. The meeting concluded without the commission agreeing on any proposed settlement terms to present to Morgan Group. That discussion was clearly outside the boundaries of what could be discussed during a shade meeting.” He added: “The commission then engaged in a long discussion about what ‘leverage’ they had to negotiate with the developer to avoid a potential lawsuit by streamlining the development process. He said the discussion about the Army Corps of Engineers permit and how to handle future legal action had “nothing to do with the pending litigation” and was “a shocking violation of the Sunshine Law.” “There was no intent there to discuss future litigation.”īut Michael Barfield, director of public access initiatives for the Florida Center for Government Accountability, disagreed after reviewing the transcript. ![]() “It was just informational purposes,” he said. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |