• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
  • Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.

Public meeting access

New posts

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
I found this situation to be more disturbing than anything. I attend more governmental meetings than your average person and I have never came across a situation such as this is the past.


From WZEP news.

Some Who Attended the TDC Meeting Were Locked Out

As the Walton County TDC held a public workshop to take input on the Wayfinder sign program Wednesday evening, participants were asked to register their names at the door. Two TDC staff members stood at the door and told those entering they needed to sign in. Later, as the room filled, the doors were locked from outside access and a number of people were not allowed into the meeting room. Even after the crown thinned, the doors remained locked from the outside. Some attendees outside the meeting room complained about not being given access and about being told they must sign in. Both of these are possible violations of the Sunshine Law.

Florida has a broad set of laws governing the public's access to government meetings. This includes, government meetings with elected officials as well as most meetings of committees and boards doing business for a government or groups and organizations who make decisions and recommendations instead of a government body. A private company or group working to operate a public hospital or park facility would fall under the Sunshine Laws. The laws also govern the rights of the public to request records and to have access to their government.

Section 286.011, F.S., requires that meetings of public boards or commissions be "open
to the public at all times." For meetings where a large turnout of the public is expected, public boards and commissions should take reasonable steps to ensure that the facilities where the meeting will be held will accommodate the anticipated turnout. Meetings held at a facility which can accommodate only a small number of the public attending, when a large public turnout can
reasonably be expected, may violate the public access requirement by unreasonably restricting access to the meeting.

According to the First Amendment Foundation, there are four (4) simple requirements:
1. Meetings of boards or commissions must be open to the public.
2. Reasonable notice of such meetings must be given.
3. Minutes of meetings must be taken.
4. Venue must be accessible.

The FAF says a public agency cannot hold a meeting at any facility which discriminates based on age, race, etc., nor can a public agency unreasonably restrict public access. It must hold meetings in an accessible facility of sufficient size so as to accommodate the anticipated turnout.

Accessibility includes not having to register your attendance with the government. As this reporter entered the meeting area, two TDC staff members were at the door. One told me she needed me to sign in to attend the meeting. When told that I did not wish to register my name, she said it was for her minutes record. When told that registering a name was not a requirement, the employee grimaced as I passed. Checking with other attendees, apparently all who entered during the first part of the meeting were told they must sign in.

As the meeting progressed most seats were filled and some people were standing in the back of the room. Apparently the door outside the small lobby was locked and people outside reported being told they could not enter. It is unconfirmed who locked the exterior door, but several people said it was a TDC Board member. No fire marshal was visible and no announcement was made indicating there was a problem with not enough room or that the room was at capacity.

Attendees standing in the outside parking lot said they were denied access to the meeting due to the door being locked. This reporter attempted to open the door and gain reentry but found it locked. Eventually a TDC staff person answered a knock and asked if the people outside the door wanted in. I indicated the door needs to stay open and the staff person said her director said it should be closed. I asked the staff person if I wanted in later, and knocked, would the door be opened. She would not agree that it would. After asking the question repeatedly, a second staff person said the door would be opened. The door was shut and remained locked. Eventually, as the meeting came to a close, a county staff person, not a TDC employee, informed the staff they needed to keep the door open and blocked it from being completely closed with an urn.
 
Last edited:
I agree, WaltonGOP, I think this is a serious situation. Someone needs to acqaint the TDC staff with the Sunshine Law, among other things.

Requiring citizens to sign in order to attend a government workshop is highly unusual--
 
The TDC prefers to work under their own rules.
 
should this thread be merged with one of the ones above in 'all about sowal'?

Yes, signing in last night was highly irregular, and locking the door was not only illegal according to the law stated above, but also by safety standards. Even though there are panic bars on the doors, they should have been left unlocked during any public assembly. It is unforgivable behavior coming from any entity, but more so by a governmental one.

regarding sunshine law access, how does it come in to play when a BCC meeting is overflowing and people are standing in the anteroom, and beyond, in the hall? should the county be required to erect a tent when they anticipate an over capacity crowd due to a hot topic?
 
:clap: Outstanding article. Thanks for posting.

I agree that the lockout was disturbing.

There were other things that were equally disturbing to me.

First, in his introduction Sonny Mares echoed Mary Brown's assertions at the TDC meeting regarding the funding for the signs coming from the bed tax, not taxes paid by residents. There is a valid argument to be made about tourists and home owners who rent their properties being opposed to the blue signage, but I think the more disconcerting aspect of this statement is that it reveals an attitude from some at the TDC that they are not a county governmental body, beholden to the citizens of Walton County. Yes, they are charged with attracting tourists to the area, but they do so on behalf of the citizens of this county. I sincerely hope the elected officials who appoint the TDC board members do not share the attitude conveyed by some TDC board members and officials last night.

The other thing that I found a bit disturbing was the implication that the TDC had already spent the money for the signs, so the purpose of the workshop was to choose a shade of lipstick for the pig. The number $200,000 was thrown around several times. The funding for the wayfinding signs came from a penny bed tax increase that was passed in 2004 to pay for signage and "other". So far, that one additional penny has generated $9 million. If $9 million has been raised to pay for the signs, and $200,000 has been spent on signs the vast majority or residents, owners, and visitors find unacceptable, then there should be more than enough money left in the pot.

It is just beginning to dawn on me the amount of power invested in the TDC board. The TDC oversees a slush fund of such a size that it would make a U.S. Senator jealous.
 
Last edited:
John, I think it should stay a seperate thread- it merited it's own article at WZEP. Pretty big deal and one that shows what the TDC thinks of it's mission.

rapunzel said:
It is just beginning to dawn on me the amount of power invested in the TDC board. The TDC has a slush fund of such a size that it would make a U.S. Senator jealous.

Well put! This is the real issue, the signs are just the result of the arrogance which accompanies the lack of real oversight which the TDC enjoys.
 
Last edited:
Cheis, I see your point, maybe I'll link it so it's referenced, as they are interconnected.

re the lipstick on a pig. It was running in that direction until someone(a poster on this board, I believe) in the back of the room mentioned that the scenic corridor group's recommendations should carry the most weight, since the majority of those in the room agreed that removal is the only acceptable option. the other 'ideas' on the papers were seen as window dressing, to have something to take back to TDC board.
 
regarding sunshine law access, how does it come in to play when a BCC meeting is overflowing and people are standing in the anteroom, and beyond, in the hall? should the county be required to erect a tent when they anticipate an over capacity crowd due to a hot topic?
At all times, for the BCC meetings, the doors to the court room remain open. The South Walton Annex, has an audio system, and if the Commissioners and public use the mics correctly, their voices are projected throughout the halls and outside the building, under the covered areas. If someone wanted to sit outside and listen, they could, and they could come inside, to the mic, to speak.

Sounds like the TDC didn't anticipate the large numbers of people opposing the big blue signs. I'd guess the 200+ people who were there last night, probably were over capacity for that room. Isles to the restrooms and exits were blocked with people, and technically, from a fire standpoint, it was a hazard. However, there was a microphone, and the doors should have remained open so that anyone standing outside the room could hear that which was being said.

Regarding registering attendees, I could see reasons why people would want to sign a petition against the signs, or get on an email list with people who opposed the signs, but for the TDC taking names for the people entering, that reminds me of something that a dictator would do.
 
The funding for the wayfinding signs came from a penny bed tax increase that was passed in 2004 to pay for signage and "other". So far, that one additional penny has generated $9 million. If $9 million has been raised to pay for the signs, and $200,000 has been spent on signs the vast majority or residents, owners, and visitors find unacceptable, then there should be more than enough money left in the pot.

It is just beginning to dawn on me the amount of power invested in the TDC board. The TDC oversees a slush fund of such a size that it would make a U.S. Senator jealous.

$9 million would pay for new (attractive) signs AND a county wide recycling program!!!!! :angry:
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top