Is the movie being screened just for state legislators in any way a violation of Florida’s Sunshine Law? Florida has strict laws governing public records and public meetings. Any meeting of lawmakers must be properly advertised and must be open to the public. So, does having some lawmakers attend a movie that directly addresses two bills before them run afoul of any laws? The News-Press asks around, and apparently no one has any heartburn over the issue.
The invitation to “Expelled” is just for legislators and their spouses, along with legislative aides. The press and public is excluded.
House Minority Leader Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, asked House general counsel Jeremiah Hawkes if that’s legal — since Florida law requires open meetings whenever two or more lawmakers meet to discuss pending business. Hawkes replied that, as long as they just watch the film and don’t discuss the issue or arrange any future votes, it’s technically legal.
John Stemberger, head of the Florida Family Policy Council, was asked if it’s a smart political tactic to have a closed meeting. He replied that it’s all right.
“It’s not a closed meeting — we invited the whole Legislature,” said Stemberger.
“There’s no business being discussed. They’re just watching a movie.”
Wow. It just gets pettier and pettier. I think you need your NCSE handlers to come help you find better things to whine about.
“There’s no business being discussed. They’re just watching a movie.”
HA!! What a bunch of bull.
It’s not like they are going to see E.T. – this movie is directly related to official business.
Minimally, a camera needs to be recording the “non-meeting” so that the legislators can PROVE that there was ZERO discussion or commentary during the movie. (For their own protection)
Also, a viewing of ‘Judgement Day” is in order as well.
Mr. Wallace,
In my day job I deal with Sunshine Laws all the time. It’s serious stuff and folks get reprimanded and lose their jobs over it if they’re not careful. Elected officials can face severe penalties for Sunshine Law violations. As much as a pain Sunshine Law can sometime seem to be, it’s an honest and serious effort to FORCE government officials to do their business out in the open for everyone to see. No shady backroom dealings permitted.
Thus, bringing up the potential problem of Sunshine Law violation in this case is a valid concern. Notice that I didn’t actually bring up the subject; the newspaper I linked to did. I admit to being immediately suspicious of a group of lawmakers being in one place out of the public eye watching something that directly relates to an issue they are considering. Just a night at the movies? Hardly.
As far as “PETTY” WW … I don’t think knowing what my elected officials are doing is petty.
Why doesn’t Mr. Hays try to obtain an advanced copy of the movie (DVD) so that it can be viewed during a regular session.
That way, no one could possibly be in violation of the Sunshine Law.
I think the legislators would appreciate that.
No one gets in trouble/ no one is in violation of any law.
But of course … that’s not the real goal now … is it?
Don’t forget about THIS is WW –
S2692 GENERAL BILL by Storms
also …
” Storms was also a proponent of sunshine laws, believing that people can only trust government officials when they can see for themselves that they are not corrupt.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_Storms
Isn’t the movie actually testimony concerning a matter before the legislature?
–” Hawkes replied that, as long as they just watch the film and don’t discuss the issue or arrange any future votes, it’s technically legal.”–
It may be “technically legal,” but to me it has the appearance of impropriety. To me, the problem is that the public will not be able to comment on the full movie until after it is released to the public next month. It is especially disturbing that the movie’s star, Ben Stein, will be in Tallahassee on Wednesday to discuss the issue.
MelM Says:
–“Isn’t the movie actually testimony concerning a matter before the legislature? “–
There is nothing wrong with the legislators seeing the movie on their own. The problem is that the legislators will get a chance to see it before the public gets a chance to see it.
Even though they are claiming that it is just a movie, it’s obviously not. This could be seen as a sermon that is preaching about the bill to the legislators. Just because it is also a “film” doesn’t make it less of a sermon. I don’t understand why this does NOT violate Sunshine laws. As MelM said, the film is testimony. I think this is a pretty clear violation.
Larry? ??? Are you agreeing with us??
I never thought I’d see the day!!
Kathy S. says,
–“This could be seen as a sermon that is preaching about the bill to the legislators . . . . I don’t understand why this does NOT violate Sunshine laws.”–
Here are the Florida “sunshine laws”:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0286/ch0286.htm
I couldn’t find anything in these laws that expressly prohibits this movie showing, but IMO this movie showing violates the spirit of these laws.
California’s Brown Act, which has an unusual amount of detail for a state sunshine law, says,
–“54952.2. (a) As used in this chapter, “meeting” includes any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains.
(b) Except as authorized pursuant to Section 54953, any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body is prohibited. “– (emphasis added)
— from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/54950-54962.html
A movie projector could be a “technological device that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body.” There could be a violation even if there is no verbal communication between the members of the legislative body.
S.Scott Says:
–“Larry? ??? Are you agreeing with us??”–
I always agree with what is right, but I also have some self-interest here. The movie has some things that may turn off some legislators — like appearances of Hitler and Stalin — and IMO the public should have a chance to comment about those things, too.
Of course it is official business. The movie and the academic bills are plainly linked
http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php
and the content of both comes from the same anti science pressure group.
“It’s not a closed meeting — we invited the whole Legislature,” said Stemberger.
Tonight’s the night, right?
I hope the media visibility is abundant! I believe attendees will be in clear violation of this law, and looking for a new job soon.
A link to “Judgement Day” –
Free for all legislators to watch in the privacy of their own homes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Note that Stemberger’s statement is two (2) creo tactics in one.
First, it is a direct lie. The meeting is closed.
Second, it is a red herring over semantics. The Sunshine law does not say “closed meeting” it says “meeting”.
Right Pete.
One more point I’d like to make here … Although an “Academic Freedom” bill SOUNDS like a harmless thing – for those reading this blog who may not know any better –
I think it’s important to point out where the “Academic Freedom” bill originated ..
” The Academic Freedom Petition, academicfreedompettion.com is a joint project of Discovery Institute and Motive Marketing (http://moviemarketing.biz/). For more information,
e-mail academicfreedom at discovery.org.”
( I took out the @ from the above address)
Thank you Larry for providing the link – above – to the Sunshine Law.
Here is another little bit …
” b) Any person who is a member of a board or commission or of any state agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision who knowingly violates the provisions of this section by attending a meeting not held in accordance with the provisions hereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. “
In general, I support sunshine laws. But this is a movie. Not a meeting. If anybody talks during the film, smack him in the back of his head.
I fully intend to smack Ben Stein in the back of the head. 😉
The point is that the movie will be bringing up information not visible to the general public, which is against the spirit of the Sunshine Law, as Larry said. (I feel very strange to be able to mostly agree with Larry here).
If it can be construed that the Legislature makes up their mind based on part upon watching this movie, then they would have conducted a meeting behind closed doors, even if only Ben Stein was the one who was droning on.
I can just about imagine his staged / digitally edited interview with Dawkins. “Beuller. Beuller.”
” (I feel very strange to be able to mostly agree with Larry here). ”
I know – wierd Huh PC Bash?
He even “bolded” some pertinent information.
S. Scott says,
–“Here is another little bit …
†b) Any person who is a member of a board or commission or of any state agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision who knowingly violates the provisions of this section by attending a meeting not held in accordance with the provisions hereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. “–
Well, you haven’t shown what provision of the sunshine law has been expressly violated. Also, the above statute does not apply to the state legislature. BTW, California’s Brown Act, which I cited above, also does not apply to the state legislature.
Laws often cannot cover everything — sometimes it is necessary to just apply fairness and common sense. It is probably too late now to cancel the movie showing. IMO the only ethical thing for the legislature to do now is just to do nothing about the academic freedom bills until several weeks after the public release of the movie so that the public gets a chance to comment on the movie.
You are right Larry – common sense SHOULD prevail, but often doesn’t.
You are also right, IMO, that the viewing of this movie violates the “Spirit” of the law.
(I do know the difference between “Spirit” and “Letter” – not everyone does, but their legal council should )
I also know that ignorance of the law is not a defense – even if your lawyer told you it’;s OK.
Any legislator that goes to this viewing tonight, IMO, should not be allowed to vote on this bill.
We’ll see what happens.
I have “standing” and I’m not afraid to use it! 🙂
This is what I didn’t get into my quote earlier Larry – sorry …
286.011 Public meetings and records; public inspection; criminal and civil penalties.–