CMPA decision likely to be overturned
Tags: Community Maritime Park / Keesler v. CMPA / Sunshine issues
Progressive Pensacola supports the Community Maritime Park project. We remain confident that it can act as a catalyst for the revitalisation of the downtown area and the economic development of the community as a whole.
That said, we think it’s important to recognise that the Community Maritime Park Associates has committed repeated violations of Florida Sunshine laws. Despite the ruling of Judge Frank Bell in the matter of Keesler and Boyd v. CMPA, the violations are crystal clear. The CMPA’s board of trustees is clearly subject to Sunshine law. Those laws have been interpreted by courts in case after case as extending to citizens the right to participate, not merely by observing, but by expressing their views. Progressive Pensacola believes that this case, as many Sunshine cases have been, will be ultimately decided on appeal.
While it could be an unfortunate setback for the Community Maritime Park, Progressive Pensacola believes that the integrity of Florida’s Sunshine laws are tantamount. It’s a matter of principle, and those who may be disappointed when the Messrs. Keesler and Boyd eventually prevail would be keen to keep in mind that Chairman Collier and the other members of the CMPA brought this upon themselves by acting to stifle public input instead of making the minor adjustments necessary to comply with Sunshine.
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter
I am very glad the meetings now have public input, but I don’t think the established Sunshine law jurisprudence demands public input at these kinds of meetings to be considered “open.” Therefore, I believe Judge Bell’s ruling will stand.
I disagree with you on the jurisprudence. I can cite case after case. So can Sharon Barnett. Judge Bell simply chose to ignore it and favour the CMPA’s incredibly limited interpretation. I am very confident the DCA or if need be the Florida Supreme Court will feel otherwise.
I am so confident that this decision will be overturned that I would bet on it, and I ain’t a betting man.
You’re on, sir! How ’bout a pitcher of beer?
Definitely.
Bell didn’t rule against Collier.
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
Never happen in this town.
I’m betting with you Derek.
Derreck Cosson,
In Dec 2008 you wrote
“While I certainly agree that the CMPA should have provided a public forum all along, by my reading of the relevant statute (s. 286.011 F.S.) I can’t find a specific statutory obligation to do so.”
Now you’re saying that the case will be overturned? If you were wrong then, why should we think you’re right now?
Well, if you just read the relevant statute, there isn’t any direct requirement. What is at issue here is the interpretation of the word “open” in the statutory requirements that meetings be “open”… I wrote that prior to reviewing the relevant case law. That comment was based on a reading of statute along. Case law, though, has repeatedly broadly interpreted statute where Sunshine is concerned, and specifically affirmed in numerous cases that openness requires that the public allowed to express their views.
The comment that you cite was a first reaction. I got more information, and my conclusion changed.
That was then, this is now.
Maybe he found it along with lost of case law.
Hey mental giants — where did you get your law degrees? Can’t we move forward & hope that this issue doesn’t slow down the process further? Or would you prefer that the CMPA start from the beginning & take another few years to get to this point? Please — let this go & move on!
James I’d prefer they start from the beginning with a national request for proposals as the council promised would be done after the failure of trillium 1. that didn’t happen. Instead they did a sham rfp with minimal time to respond and shoved studer’s plan as part of the requirements along with added amenities for the public which quickly disappeared after the vote.