Preview
Filing # 148238089 E-Filed 04/22/2022 03:47:56 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR GADSDEN COUNTY, FLORIDA
REGINA DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
vs CASE NO. 21000024CAA
GADSDEN SENIOR
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant
/
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
COMES NOW the Plaintiff Regina Davis by and through her undersigned attorney and
pursuant to Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, files this Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment seeking judgment in Plaintiff's favor on Count V of her Third Amended
Complaint for violations of Florida’s Sunshine law and in support thereof states as follows
I. Introduction
Before hiring Regina Davis as its Executive Director, Gadsden Senior Services, Inc.
(GSS) faced public outcry over the administration of the program where senior citizen clients
formed picket lines and protests claiming poor treatment and demanding administrative changes
See Davis Affidavit;! https:/Avww.wetv.tv/content/news/Gadsden-County-seniors-displeased-
with-administration-at-senior-center-506171851.html.7 A GSS Board Member served as interim
director until GSS hired Regina Davis to be its Executive Director. See Davis Affidavit
l Citation to “Davis Affidavit” refers to the Affidavit of Regina Davis filed on the date of
this Motion in support of this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
2 WCTV Online News Reports Link accessed April 19, 2022Davis was officially appointed at the GSS Executive Director at the October 15, 2019,
Board of Directors meeting. Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2019. Area Agency on Aging of
North Florida (the Agency), which is GSS’ main source of federal funding, instructed Davis to
implement a corrective action plan for a particular employee, which she did. See Davis
Affidavit. Davis immediately assessed the program’s statutory and regulatory obligations to
maintain its source funding through AAA. See Davis Affidavit. The employee failed or refused
to complete the corrective plan and was separated from employment. See Davis Affidavit.
Following the employee’s separation, Board Director Robert Youman communicated
with GSS staff and former staff, and with the Executive Director for the Agency suggesting to
the Executive Director that Davis’ employment be terminated. Director Youman and Reed also
appeared unannounced at staff meetings. See Davis Affidavit.
At the December 23, 2019, Board Meeting, Davis addressed the Directors specifically
about contacting staff, former staff, and the Agency, whereupon Director Linda Palmer called for
an “executive session” which was seconded by the Chair. See Meeting Minutes for December
23, 2019. Palmer excused everyone besides the Directors from the room and then closed the
doors. See Davis Affidavit. After some time, the doors opened and the meeting continued. See
Davis Affidavit; Meeting Minutes for December 23, 2019. This “executive session” was not
noticed, nor was the Board’s attorney present, and no minutes or transcripts were apparently kept
as none have been produced. See Davis Affidavit.
On January 29, 2020, the Board held a Workshop Meeting which was properly noticed
and minutes taken. As memorialized in the minutes of that Workshop Meeting, one GSS Board
Director expressed concern about allowing its employees to attend the Board’s meetings; the
attorney conducting the workshop reminded the Board that the meetings were subject to theSunshine Law and that the Board could not prevent anyone from attending. See Workshop
Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020. The Board’s attorney advised GSS it was to operate in
compliance with The Sunshine Law and that the Board could go into closed Shade Session to
discuss litigation with its attorney, but that a closed meeting must be noticed in advance and a
transcript made by a court reporter and kept as a public record. See Workshop Meeting Minutes
for January 28, 2020. Board Director McSwain specifically asked if the Board can meet privately
to discuss employees, to which its attorney replied, “the Sunshine Law is just like the county, an
employee can be present.” See Workshop Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020.
Ms. Davis asked the attorney, “Is the Shade Session the same as an Executive Session or
no,” to which the attorney responded, “You can have an Executive Session that is not in the
Shade; but you can also say this is an Executive Session.” See Workshop Meeting Minutes for
January 28, 2020, immediately following its Workshop Meeting, the Board held its Annual
Meeting and following that, its Board Meeting.
At the January 28 Board Meeting, Director Youman made a motion to amend the agenda
to add “Executive Director’s Position.” See Board Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2020. When
the item came up for discussion, Youman refused to engage the discussion and said he would do
so “in due time.” Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020. The item was tabled until the next
Board Meeting. See Meeting Minutes January 28, 2020.
Following the Workshop Meeting on January 28, 2020, and the addition of the agenda
item later that day to discuss the Executive Director’s position, the Board planned a secret
meeting on a Saturday and asked a staff member to meet them at the facility to open the building
See Davis Affidavit. Davis emailed the Directors to remind them that any meeting had to be
noticed and the attorney present.At the February 18, 2020, Board Meeting, immediately after Davis voiced concern about
its lack of interest in its serious legal violations which she had raised, the Board called up an
agenda item titled “Executive Director’s Position.” See Meeting Minutes for February 18, 2020
With no discussion shown in the minutes to explain the agenda item, Director Palmer told the
Board, “make a motion,” and another Director stated, “It will not pass.” See Annual Meeting
Minutes for January 28, 2020. The minutes indicate Director Youman commented but was not
audible. See Annual Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020.
I. Undisputed Material Facts
Gadsden Senior Services, Inc. (GSS) is private nonprofit corporation that provides
services to local senior citizens, is substantially funded by public dollars under state and federal
regulatory control, and is a public body within the meaning of Art I, §24(b), Fla. Const., and a
“board” within the meaning of §286.011(1), Florida Statutes, and its members are subject to the
provision of Florida’s Sunshine Law. See also, Workshop Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2020
The GSS Board was advised and instructed that it’s meetings fell within the open meeting
requirements of The Sunshine Law, which is an admission against interest. Workshop Meeting
Minutes of January 28, 2020
On December 23, 2019, the GSS Board of Directors suspended a regular board meeting,
asked all attendees to leave the room, closed the door, and stated it was going into executive
session. See Davis Affidavit; Meeting Minutes for December 23, 2019. The “executive session”
meeting was not noticed, no minutes were kept, no transcript recorded, and no attorney was
present. See Davis Affidavit. Upon complete of the “executive session,” the GSS Board of
Directors re-opened the meeting and resumed its business. See Davis Affidavit.TH. ~~ Law and Argument
A. Standard of Review
Under Florida’s new summary judgment standard, and consistent with the federal
summary judgment standard, “the burden on the moving party may be discharged by
“‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party's case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); In re:
Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2021).
“[I]f the nonmoving party must prove X to prevail [at trial], the moving party at
summary judgment can either produce evidence that X is not so or point out that the nonmoving
party lacks the evidence to prove X.” Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993, 996-97 (8th Cir. 2018)
Under this rule, “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should
not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary
judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). “When the moving party has carried its
burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Therefore, in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment,
the nonmoving party must present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Id.
B. GSS is subject to The Sunshine Law.
GSS admits that it is subject to the Sunshine Law. Workshop Meeting Minutes of
January 28, 2020. GSS is private nonprofit corporation that provides services to local senior
citizens, is substantially funded by public dollars under state and federal regulatory control, andis a public body within the meaning of Art I, §24(b), Fla. Const., and a “board” within the
meaning of §286.011(1), Florida Statutes.
Cc. The “Executive Session” on December 23, 2019, Violated the Sunshine
Law
The Florida Sunshine Law (Chapter 286) requires government operate transparently and
requires meetings of public bodies be open to the public. Section 286.01 1(8) provides a limited
exception:
(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any board or commission of any
state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal
corporation, or political subdivision, and the chief administrative or executive officer of
the governmental entity, may meet in private with the entity's attorney to discuss
pending litigation to which the entity is presently a party before a court or
administrative agency, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) The entity's attorney shall advise the entity at a public meeting that he or
she desires advice concerning the litigation
(b) The subject matter of the meeting shall be confined to settlement
negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures.
(c) The entire session shall be recorded by a certified court reporter. The
reporter shall record the times of commencement and termination of the session,
all discussion and proceedings, the names of all persons present at any time,
and the names of all persons speaking. No portion of the session shall be off the
record. The court reporter's notes shall be fully transcribed and filed with the
entity's clerk within a reasonable time after the meeting
(d) The entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the
attorney-client session and the names of persons who will be attending the
session. The session shall commence at an open meeting at which the persons
chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement and estimated length
of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons attending. At the
conclusion of the attorney-client session, the meeting shall be reopened, and the
person chairing the meeting shall announce the termination of the session.(e) The transcript shall be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the
litigation
(Emphasis added.)
Such a meeting is a “shade meeting.” See Sch. Bd. of Duval Cnty. v. Fla. Pub. Co., 670 So.2d 99,
99 (Fla. Ist DCA 1996); see also, Chmielewski v. City of St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d 521, 522-23
(Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
Whatever was discussed in the “executive sessions” will never be known because GSS
called the session spontaneously at a Board Meeting without its attorney present, did not give
notice, had no court reporter and no transcript shade meeting minutes.
The Court must construe public records legislation in favor of openness; exemptions from
disclosure are construed narrowly and limited to their designated purpose. See Lightbourne v.
McCollum, 969 So.2d 326, 332-33 (Fla. 2007) (addressing the public records act, sections
119.01—.15); Zore v. City of Vero Beach, 722 So.2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (addressing the
Sunshine Law, section 286.011); Seminole Cnty. v. Wood, 512 So.2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA
1987) (addressing closed litigation files). The legislative history states the Shade Exemption
merely provides a governmental entity's attorney an opportunity to receive necessary direction
and information from the government entity. Anderson v. City of St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d 548,
552-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Sch. Bd. of Duval Cuty. v. Fla. Publ'g Co., 670 So.2d 99, 100
(Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quoting Staff of Fla. H.R. Comm. on Gov't Operations, CS/HB 491 (1993)
Final Bill Analysis & Economic Impact Statement at 3 (hereinafter HB 491 Staff Analysis)).
The court in Zore v. City of Vero Beach, 722 So.2d 891, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998),
explained that the exemption is limited to discussion of settling pending litigation by negotiation
and agreement among the parties. Even though there is a shade meeting exemption to theSunshine Line, this does not “provide a means for government to meet behind closed doors to
accomplish goals out of the sunshine.” /d. at 901 (quoting HB 491 Staff Analysis).
A secret meeting occurs when public officials meet at a time and place to avoid being
seen or heard by the public. When, at such meetings, officials transact or agree to transact public
business at a future time in a certain manner, they violate the government in the sunshine law,
regardless of whether the meeting is formal or informal.
The Legislature did not intend to muzzle lawmakers and administrative boards to an
unreasonable degree, but the Sunshine Law prohibits the evil of closed door government without
public scrutiny and participation. If a public official is unable to know whether, by any
convening of two or more officials, he is violating the law, he should leave the meeting
forthwith. See City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38, 41 (Fla. 1971); Anderson v. City of
St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d 548, 552-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
GSS claims it held no shade meetings. Its own meeting minutes memorialize that it did.
At its December 23, 2019, meeting, just after Davis listed all of the retaliatory measures Board
members took when she severed an employee, the Board announced the “executive session,”
dismissed all attendees, and met behind a closed door. Courts have long recognized the many
ways public boards and commissions attempt to skirt open meeting requirements. “Terms such as
managed news, secret meetings, closed records, executive sessions, and study sessions have
become synonymous with ‘hanky panky’ in the minds of public-spirted citizens.” Bd. of Pub.
Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So. 2d 693, 699 (Fla. 1969). The Sunshine Law,
requiring open meetings, was created to maintain the public’s faith in these agencies. To that
end, “boards and commissions, through devious ways, should not be allowed to deprive thepublic of this inalienable right to be present and to be heard at all deliberations wherein decisions
affecting the public are being made.” /d.
The purpose of the Sunshine Law is “to protect the public from ‘closed door’ politics”;
therefore, “the law must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and protective purpose.”
Florida Citizens All. Ine. v. Sch. Bd. of Collier County, 328 So. 3d 22, 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021),
review denied, SC21-1599, 2022 WL 775104 (Fla. Mar. 15, 2022) (citing Sarasota Citizens for
Responsible Gov't v. City of Sarasota, 48 So. 3d 755, 762 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Wood v. Marston,
442 So, 2d 934, 938 (Fla. 1983)
Here, GSS went on the record to announce its spontaneous closed meeting, removed
everyone from the room, and closed the door. It gave no prior notice, kept no meeting minutes,
made no transcript, and had no attorney present. GSS cannot present any evidence in support of
his claim that sessions were not “shade meetings.”
D. Conclusion
For the reasons more fully set forth above, Plaintiff Regina Davis, request entry of partial
summary judgment finding that GSS violated The Sunshine Law by holding a closed meeting
without proper notice, minutes, transcripts, attorney presence, or subject of discussion, and
directing GSS to comply with the Sunshine Law. Davis also requests that it be awarded fees and
costs in bringing this action.Dated this 22" day of April, 2022.
/s/Jennifer Winegardner
Jennifer A. Winegardner (133930)
jennifer@flalawfirm.com
Amy B. Kirkpatrick (148725)
amy @flalawfirm.com
RAYBOUN WINEGARDNER, PLLC
1410 Piedmont Drive East, 2™ Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Telephone: (850) 270-9064
Facsimile: (850) 422-0074
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was served on counsel of record through this Court’s e-filing
portal upon counsel of record on this 22" day of April, 2022
és/ Jennifer A. Winegardner
JENNIFER A. WINEGARDNER
10
Preview
Filing # 148238089 E-Filed 04/22/2022 03:47:56 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR GADSDEN COUNTY, FLORIDA REGINA DAVIS, Plaintiff, vs CASE NO. 21000024CAA GADSDEN SENIOR SERVICES, INC., Defendant / Motion for Partial Summary Judgment COMES NOW the Plaintiff Regina Davis by and through her undersigned attorney and pursuant to Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, files this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judgment in Plaintiff's favor on Count V of her Third Amended Complaint for violations of Florida’s Sunshine law and in support thereof states as follows I. Introduction Before hiring Regina Davis as its Executive Director, Gadsden Senior Services, Inc. (GSS) faced public outcry over the administration of the program where senior citizen clients formed picket lines and protests claiming poor treatment and demanding administrative changes See Davis Affidavit;! https:/Avww.wetv.tv/content/news/Gadsden-County-seniors-displeased- with-administration-at-senior-center-506171851.html.7 A GSS Board Member served as interim director until GSS hired Regina Davis to be its Executive Director. See Davis Affidavit l Citation to “Davis Affidavit” refers to the Affidavit of Regina Davis filed on the date of this Motion in support of this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 2 WCTV Online News Reports Link accessed April 19, 2022Davis was officially appointed at the GSS Executive Director at the October 15, 2019, Board of Directors meeting. Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2019. Area Agency on Aging of North Florida (the Agency), which is GSS’ main source of federal funding, instructed Davis to implement a corrective action plan for a particular employee, which she did. See Davis Affidavit. Davis immediately assessed the program’s statutory and regulatory obligations to maintain its source funding through AAA. See Davis Affidavit. The employee failed or refused to complete the corrective plan and was separated from employment. See Davis Affidavit. Following the employee’s separation, Board Director Robert Youman communicated with GSS staff and former staff, and with the Executive Director for the Agency suggesting to the Executive Director that Davis’ employment be terminated. Director Youman and Reed also appeared unannounced at staff meetings. See Davis Affidavit. At the December 23, 2019, Board Meeting, Davis addressed the Directors specifically about contacting staff, former staff, and the Agency, whereupon Director Linda Palmer called for an “executive session” which was seconded by the Chair. See Meeting Minutes for December 23, 2019. Palmer excused everyone besides the Directors from the room and then closed the doors. See Davis Affidavit. After some time, the doors opened and the meeting continued. See Davis Affidavit; Meeting Minutes for December 23, 2019. This “executive session” was not noticed, nor was the Board’s attorney present, and no minutes or transcripts were apparently kept as none have been produced. See Davis Affidavit. On January 29, 2020, the Board held a Workshop Meeting which was properly noticed and minutes taken. As memorialized in the minutes of that Workshop Meeting, one GSS Board Director expressed concern about allowing its employees to attend the Board’s meetings; the attorney conducting the workshop reminded the Board that the meetings were subject to theSunshine Law and that the Board could not prevent anyone from attending. See Workshop Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020. The Board’s attorney advised GSS it was to operate in compliance with The Sunshine Law and that the Board could go into closed Shade Session to discuss litigation with its attorney, but that a closed meeting must be noticed in advance and a transcript made by a court reporter and kept as a public record. See Workshop Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020. Board Director McSwain specifically asked if the Board can meet privately to discuss employees, to which its attorney replied, “the Sunshine Law is just like the county, an employee can be present.” See Workshop Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020. Ms. Davis asked the attorney, “Is the Shade Session the same as an Executive Session or no,” to which the attorney responded, “You can have an Executive Session that is not in the Shade; but you can also say this is an Executive Session.” See Workshop Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020, immediately following its Workshop Meeting, the Board held its Annual Meeting and following that, its Board Meeting. At the January 28 Board Meeting, Director Youman made a motion to amend the agenda to add “Executive Director’s Position.” See Board Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2020. When the item came up for discussion, Youman refused to engage the discussion and said he would do so “in due time.” Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020. The item was tabled until the next Board Meeting. See Meeting Minutes January 28, 2020. Following the Workshop Meeting on January 28, 2020, and the addition of the agenda item later that day to discuss the Executive Director’s position, the Board planned a secret meeting on a Saturday and asked a staff member to meet them at the facility to open the building See Davis Affidavit. Davis emailed the Directors to remind them that any meeting had to be noticed and the attorney present.At the February 18, 2020, Board Meeting, immediately after Davis voiced concern about its lack of interest in its serious legal violations which she had raised, the Board called up an agenda item titled “Executive Director’s Position.” See Meeting Minutes for February 18, 2020 With no discussion shown in the minutes to explain the agenda item, Director Palmer told the Board, “make a motion,” and another Director stated, “It will not pass.” See Annual Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020. The minutes indicate Director Youman commented but was not audible. See Annual Meeting Minutes for January 28, 2020. I. Undisputed Material Facts Gadsden Senior Services, Inc. (GSS) is private nonprofit corporation that provides services to local senior citizens, is substantially funded by public dollars under state and federal regulatory control, and is a public body within the meaning of Art I, §24(b), Fla. Const., and a “board” within the meaning of §286.011(1), Florida Statutes, and its members are subject to the provision of Florida’s Sunshine Law. See also, Workshop Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2020 The GSS Board was advised and instructed that it’s meetings fell within the open meeting requirements of The Sunshine Law, which is an admission against interest. Workshop Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2020 On December 23, 2019, the GSS Board of Directors suspended a regular board meeting, asked all attendees to leave the room, closed the door, and stated it was going into executive session. See Davis Affidavit; Meeting Minutes for December 23, 2019. The “executive session” meeting was not noticed, no minutes were kept, no transcript recorded, and no attorney was present. See Davis Affidavit. Upon complete of the “executive session,” the GSS Board of Directors re-opened the meeting and resumed its business. See Davis Affidavit.TH. ~~ Law and Argument A. Standard of Review Under Florida’s new summary judgment standard, and consistent with the federal summary judgment standard, “the burden on the moving party may be discharged by “‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2021). “[I]f the nonmoving party must prove X to prevail [at trial], the moving party at summary judgment can either produce evidence that X is not so or point out that the nonmoving party lacks the evidence to prove X.” Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993, 996-97 (8th Cir. 2018) Under this rule, “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). “When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Therefore, in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. B. GSS is subject to The Sunshine Law. GSS admits that it is subject to the Sunshine Law. Workshop Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2020. GSS is private nonprofit corporation that provides services to local senior citizens, is substantially funded by public dollars under state and federal regulatory control, andis a public body within the meaning of Art I, §24(b), Fla. Const., and a “board” within the meaning of §286.011(1), Florida Statutes. Cc. The “Executive Session” on December 23, 2019, Violated the Sunshine Law The Florida Sunshine Law (Chapter 286) requires government operate transparently and requires meetings of public bodies be open to the public. Section 286.01 1(8) provides a limited exception: (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, and the chief administrative or executive officer of the governmental entity, may meet in private with the entity's attorney to discuss pending litigation to which the entity is presently a party before a court or administrative agency, provided that the following conditions are met: (a) The entity's attorney shall advise the entity at a public meeting that he or she desires advice concerning the litigation (b) The subject matter of the meeting shall be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures. (c) The entire session shall be recorded by a certified court reporter. The reporter shall record the times of commencement and termination of the session, all discussion and proceedings, the names of all persons present at any time, and the names of all persons speaking. No portion of the session shall be off the record. The court reporter's notes shall be fully transcribed and filed with the entity's clerk within a reasonable time after the meeting (d) The entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the attorney-client session and the names of persons who will be attending the session. The session shall commence at an open meeting at which the persons chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement and estimated length of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons attending. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the meeting shall be reopened, and the person chairing the meeting shall announce the termination of the session.(e) The transcript shall be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation (Emphasis added.) Such a meeting is a “shade meeting.” See Sch. Bd. of Duval Cnty. v. Fla. Pub. Co., 670 So.2d 99, 99 (Fla. Ist DCA 1996); see also, Chmielewski v. City of St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d 521, 522-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) Whatever was discussed in the “executive sessions” will never be known because GSS called the session spontaneously at a Board Meeting without its attorney present, did not give notice, had no court reporter and no transcript shade meeting minutes. The Court must construe public records legislation in favor of openness; exemptions from disclosure are construed narrowly and limited to their designated purpose. See Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So.2d 326, 332-33 (Fla. 2007) (addressing the public records act, sections 119.01—.15); Zore v. City of Vero Beach, 722 So.2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (addressing the Sunshine Law, section 286.011); Seminole Cnty. v. Wood, 512 So.2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (addressing closed litigation files). The legislative history states the Shade Exemption merely provides a governmental entity's attorney an opportunity to receive necessary direction and information from the government entity. Anderson v. City of St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d 548, 552-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Sch. Bd. of Duval Cuty. v. Fla. Publ'g Co., 670 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quoting Staff of Fla. H.R. Comm. on Gov't Operations, CS/HB 491 (1993) Final Bill Analysis & Economic Impact Statement at 3 (hereinafter HB 491 Staff Analysis)). The court in Zore v. City of Vero Beach, 722 So.2d 891, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), explained that the exemption is limited to discussion of settling pending litigation by negotiation and agreement among the parties. Even though there is a shade meeting exemption to theSunshine Line, this does not “provide a means for government to meet behind closed doors to accomplish goals out of the sunshine.” /d. at 901 (quoting HB 491 Staff Analysis). A secret meeting occurs when public officials meet at a time and place to avoid being seen or heard by the public. When, at such meetings, officials transact or agree to transact public business at a future time in a certain manner, they violate the government in the sunshine law, regardless of whether the meeting is formal or informal. The Legislature did not intend to muzzle lawmakers and administrative boards to an unreasonable degree, but the Sunshine Law prohibits the evil of closed door government without public scrutiny and participation. If a public official is unable to know whether, by any convening of two or more officials, he is violating the law, he should leave the meeting forthwith. See City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38, 41 (Fla. 1971); Anderson v. City of St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d 548, 552-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). GSS claims it held no shade meetings. Its own meeting minutes memorialize that it did. At its December 23, 2019, meeting, just after Davis listed all of the retaliatory measures Board members took when she severed an employee, the Board announced the “executive session,” dismissed all attendees, and met behind a closed door. Courts have long recognized the many ways public boards and commissions attempt to skirt open meeting requirements. “Terms such as managed news, secret meetings, closed records, executive sessions, and study sessions have become synonymous with ‘hanky panky’ in the minds of public-spirted citizens.” Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So. 2d 693, 699 (Fla. 1969). The Sunshine Law, requiring open meetings, was created to maintain the public’s faith in these agencies. To that end, “boards and commissions, through devious ways, should not be allowed to deprive thepublic of this inalienable right to be present and to be heard at all deliberations wherein decisions affecting the public are being made.” /d. The purpose of the Sunshine Law is “to protect the public from ‘closed door’ politics”; therefore, “the law must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and protective purpose.” Florida Citizens All. Ine. v. Sch. Bd. of Collier County, 328 So. 3d 22, 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), review denied, SC21-1599, 2022 WL 775104 (Fla. Mar. 15, 2022) (citing Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. City of Sarasota, 48 So. 3d 755, 762 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Wood v. Marston, 442 So, 2d 934, 938 (Fla. 1983) Here, GSS went on the record to announce its spontaneous closed meeting, removed everyone from the room, and closed the door. It gave no prior notice, kept no meeting minutes, made no transcript, and had no attorney present. GSS cannot present any evidence in support of his claim that sessions were not “shade meetings.” D. Conclusion For the reasons more fully set forth above, Plaintiff Regina Davis, request entry of partial summary judgment finding that GSS violated The Sunshine Law by holding a closed meeting without proper notice, minutes, transcripts, attorney presence, or subject of discussion, and directing GSS to comply with the Sunshine Law. Davis also requests that it be awarded fees and costs in bringing this action.Dated this 22" day of April, 2022. /s/Jennifer Winegardner Jennifer A. Winegardner (133930) jennifer@flalawfirm.com Amy B. Kirkpatrick (148725) amy @flalawfirm.com RAYBOUN WINEGARDNER, PLLC 1410 Piedmont Drive East, 2™ Floor Tallahassee, FL 32308 Telephone: (850) 270-9064 Facsimile: (850) 422-0074 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing was served on counsel of record through this Court’s e-filing portal upon counsel of record on this 22" day of April, 2022 és/ Jennifer A. Winegardner JENNIFER A. WINEGARDNER 10