Comments on: CMPA decision likely to be overturned http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/ The voice of progress in the City of Pensacola Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:57:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: jamie http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4122 jamie Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:37:03 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4122 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. 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.

]]> By: James http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4118 James Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:46:33 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4118 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! 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!

]]> By: Derek Cosson http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4115 Derek Cosson Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:42:47 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4115 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. 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.

]]> By: Frank http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4114 Frank Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:37:31 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4114 That was then, this is now. Maybe he found it along with lost of case law. That was then, this is now.

Maybe he found it along with lost of case law.

]]> By: Citizen Kane http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4113 Citizen Kane Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:28:21 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4113 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? 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?

]]> By: Derek Cosson http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4039 Derek Cosson Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:31:05 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4039 Definitely. Definitely.

]]> By: Frank http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4038 Frank Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:37 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4038 Bell didn't rule against Collier. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise. Never happen in this town. I'm betting with you Derek. Bell didn’t rule against Collier.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

Never happen in this town.

I’m betting with you Derek.

]]> By: Joe http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4037 Joe Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:21:49 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4037 You're on, sir! How 'bout a pitcher of beer? You’re on, sir! How ’bout a pitcher of beer?

]]> By: Derek Cosson http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4029 Derek Cosson Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:31:15 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4029 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. 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.

]]> By: Joe http://progressivepensacola.com/2009/04/06/3071/comment-page-1/#comment-4028 Joe Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:27:30 +0000 http://progressivepensacola.com/?p=3071#comment-4028 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 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.

]]>