The Citizens for Sunshine lawsuit against Susan Chapman focuses on a meeting of merchants who invited City Commissioners to attend a breakfast and hear concerns about the impact of the homeless on downtown. My perspective on the case is informed by my experience as a Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government plaintiff in Sunshine and public records cases. The SCRG board believed the opaque nature of spring training negotiations created serious public harm due to lack of accountability in allocating millions in public assets.  The unenforced promise to build a Cal Ripken youth academy is just one example of public harm related to the case we litigated alongside Citizens for Sunshine.

What is the goal of Citizens for Sunshine in litigating a case where it is difficult to demonstrate public harm? The intention of the Sunshine Law, to prevent backroom deals and horse-trading, clearly has not happened here. Commissioners Susan Chapman and Suzanne Atwell, both originally named in the lawsuit, disagree to this day on approaches to addressing homelessness.  What backroom deal is being cured by this case? 

Claims that Commissioners Atwell and Chapman improperly discussed the homeless issue at the merchants’ meeting are ridiculous to those of us who have observed their behavior at numerous public meetings over the years. They consistently bend over backwards to avoid discussion of issues which could come before the Commission. Where is the evidence of illegal discussion? The claim that either Commissioner suddenly departed from their typical behavior and discussed homelessness, an ongoing City concern, is absurd.  

It appears the primary issue in this case may be related to public notice of any meeting attended by Commissioners where topics likely to come before the Commission are discussed by others. Beyond public notice, exact adherence to Sunshine Law may require government minutes be taken, and such meetings are open to public and held in a venue which accommodates anyone who wants to attend. The thing is, the City of Sarasota is already complying with these standards. Is Citizens for Sunshine also working to ensure other Florida communities do the same? It can also be argued that rigid adherence to these requirements places unreasonable burdens on civic organizations. They must submit their meeting agendas to the City early enough for the City attorney to determine if the meeting requires public notice, and to arrange for someone from the City to attend and take minutes. Commissioners are now attending fewer civic meetings. Citizens for Sunshine may be creating barriers to public engagement rather than enhancing it. 

None of the board members of Citizens for Sunshine are residents of the City of Sarasota. As explained by a member of their legal team, issues for litigation are brought to the CFS board without identifying the officials involved. The CFS board makes decisions about litigation without the context typical of a watchdog organization—ongoing residency and participation in the community and personal knowledge of the issue.  

A member of the Citizens for Sunshine legal team posed a question to City police in addressing their treatment of the homeless: It may be legal, but is it morally correct?

Seems like the same question is relevant to this Sunshine case.

Cathy Antunes serves on the boards of the Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations and Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government.

The Detail