Archive for the ‘Keesler v. CMPA’ Category
We regret to report that the First District Court of Appeals has denied an appellant motion for rehearing en banc. The Court also denied a motion asking the Court to certify the question of public input as an issue of “great public importance.”
Messrs. Keesler and Boyd still have the option of appealing to the Florida Supreme Court.
We’re very disappointed the the full appeals court declined to take up the issue. It’s obvious that there is a legitimate question…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Pensacola City Attorney Rusty Wells confirmed tonight that the Community Maritime Park Associates Board of Trustees (CMPA) is subject to the Council’s public input rules, which will require the CMPA to allow public input on each agenda item — a victory for citizens who have long been fighting to be heard at CMPA meetings.
Mr. Wells, speaking at tonight’s City Council meeting, noted that while the CMPA remains an independent nonprofit corporation, recent changes which made the CMPA an “instrumentality” …
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
The Keesler v. CMPA case is moving forward, with appellants Byron Keesler and Leroy Boyd appealing the recent decision of the First District Court of Appeals to affirm the CMPA’s position that members of the public have no right to speak at public government meetings.
Appellants’ attorney Sharon Barnett filed yesterday motions asking for either rehearing en banc or certification of the question the state Supreme Court as one “of great public importance.” A rehearing en banc would allow…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
We regret to report that the First District Court of Appeals has declined to support the public interest, opting instead to affirm the Community Maritime Park Associates’ opinion that Florida’s Sunshine Law gives citizens the right to be present at public meetings, but not to speak.
The Sunshine Law has always been broadly construed in the public interest by Florida’s courts. Plaintiffs Keesler and Boyd have argued that the Sunshine statute, bolstered by case law, guaranteed citizens the right to be more…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
This morning in Tallahassee oral arguments were presented to the First District Court of Appeals in the matter of Keesler v. CMPA.
Plaintiffs Byron Keesler and Leroy Boyd are suing the Community Maritime Park Associates (CMPA) over alleged violations of Florida’s Sunshine law. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the CMPA violated the Sunshine law by not providing a public forum or otherwise allowing members of the public to speak at its meetings for the first two years of existence…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
The First District Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in the Keesler v. CMPA case for February 16.
The case alleges repeated Sunshine violations by the Community Maritime Park Associates (CMPA), the board which manages the Community Maritime Park project. For much of its existence, the CMPA denied members of the public the right to speak at its meetings.
Keesler v. CMPA has potential repercussions…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Florida’s First District Court of Appeals today granted a motion to strike the Community Maritime Park Associates’ answer brief in the ongoing Keesler v. CMPA lawsuit.
The CMPA’s answer brief was prepared by Matthew Bush, a junior attorney at the firm of CMPA attorney Ed Fleming, in response to the appellate brief filed by Sharon Barnett, attorney for Byron Keesler and Leroy Boyd. Messrs. Keesler and Boyd filed suit against the CMPA last year…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
A few items I wanted to highlight today:
Viewpoint: Sunshine ruling was incorrect. Charles Fairchild pens a well-reasoned viewpoint for the News Journal concerning the pending Keesler v. CMPA litigation. He’s right on. Regardless of anyone’s feelings on the Maritime Park, I would hope we can all recognise the significance of this case on Sunshine law. Progressive Pensacola is confident the Keesler ruling will be overturned on appeal — but if it is not, then you as a citizen will have no right to be heard at meetings…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
The Keesler v. CMPA appeal, which was previously bounced back by the 1st District Court of Appeals due to Judge Frank Bell’s incomplete decision, has been cleared to proceed.
In a statement released yesterday, the court said:
“Having considered the appellants’ response to this Court’s order, dated April 15, 2009, and the copy of the final order attached to the response, the show cause order is hereby discharged. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(l). This appeal shall proceed from the “Final Judgment,” filed with the lower tribunal on April 6, 2009.”
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
A few items I wanted to highlight today:
Pensacola News Journal:
“CMPA lawsuit was the result of years of frustration”
Megan Pratt:
“City pensions—a couple of quick fixes”
Larry B. Johnson:
“Pace Boulevard school site”
St. Petersburg Times:
“Little cheer for Florida legislators…”
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
The First District Court of Appeals last week bounced back as premature the plaintiff’s appeal in the matter of Keesler v. CMPA, because the circuit judge, Hon. Frank Bell, had not issued a final judgment. Judge Bell has now done so, and the appeal is moving forward, but the events raise the question of why Judge Bell delayed for so long.
A hearing on both parties’ motions for summary judgment was held in Judge Bell’s courtroom on February 24; on March 2 Judge Bell issued an order granting the CMPA’s motion for summary judgment, essentially indicating a decision for the defendant. However, Judge Bell never actually…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
The First District Court of Appeals has bounced back the plaintiff’s appeal in the Keelser and Boyd v. CMPA suit, not because of any problem with the case, but rather for a technical distinction. Judge Frank Bell granted a motion for summary judgment in the case but never actually issued a final judgment, which is required to appeal. However, the plaintiffs, Messrs. Keesler and Boyd, were time-limited in the sense that they only had thirty days to file an appeal, so went ahead and filed in lieu of the final judgment in hope that the District Court of Appeals would compel Judge Bell to issue one, which Judge Bell has now done, and the appeal should be able to move forward…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Once you really start digging into the case law, it’s readily apparent that in case after case, Florida courts have interpreted Sunshine laws to confer upon members of the public a right to participate, to be heard, in public meetings. Below, we’ve tried to lay out some of the key points, as contained in a memorandum of law filed by the plaintiffs in Keesler and Boyd v. CMPA, as well as several informal legal advisory opinions issued by the Florida Attorney General over the years.
The CMPA, and their attorney, Ed Fleming, ignore this multitude of case law and instead rest their entire argument on Wood v. Marston (1983)…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
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…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
ollowing up on our story yesterday about Judge Bell’s decision for the CMPA in the matter of Keesler and Boyd v. CMPA, we spoke last night to Sharon Barnett, the attorney for the plaintiffs. “No one in the state has ever construed Wood v. Marston like this Court, and this defendant, have,” said Ms. Barnett. “We view Marston in a category all by itself,” referring to the scenario of academic freedom that Wood v. Marston addressed. Ms. Barnett feels that her chances on appeal are good: “Many important Sunshine issues have been decided on appeal.”
Progressive Pensacola notes that it appears to be amateur hour over at Circuit Court…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Judge Frank Bell has ruled for the CMPA in the matter of Keesler and Boyd v. CMPA. Judge Bell stated explicitly in his ruling that “Florida Statute 286.011, as written, does not give the public the right to speak,” and that “the only legal remedy available to the Plaintiffs is through the legislative process.”
As we’ve stated previously, the plaintiffs and their attorney, Ms. Sharon Barnett, are prepared to appeal.
In reaching his decision, Judge Bell seemed to completely disregard the wealth of case law cited by Ms. Barnett in support of her position, instead choosing to rely solely on Wood v. Marston (1983)…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Florida’s Sunshine Law was introduced in 1957 to replace an ineffective 1905 law. The original bill’s sponsor submitted it ten times before it became law in 1967. The key issue in Keesler v. CMPA, Inc. is nothing more complicated than the meaning of the Sunshine Law phrase “open to the public.” Fortunately, the law provided clear guidance that the Courts always broadly construe it in favor of the public interest and look to its purpose. It was a lucky break for the public.
Starting in 1969 the Florida appellate courts began interpreting the Sunshine Law to provide the public with an ever more expansive right…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Recapping the CMPA suit for those of you who are not familiar with the case, or haven’t read our primer:
It’s the position of Misters Keesler and Boyd, the plaintiffs, that Florida Sunshine laws, as interpreted by Florida courts, gives citizens the right to participate and be heard at public meetings, i.e. the right to speak. Accordingly, as the Community Maritime Park Associates (CMPA) did not allow public input at many of its meetings, the plaintiffs argue that the CMPA operated in violation of Sunshine laws and that its actions taken at such meetings should be voided…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Attorneys for both parties in the matter of Keesler and Boyd v. CMPA appeared before Judge Frank Bell this morning. Ed Fleming, on behalf of the CMPA, had filed a motion to dismiss, and both parties had filed motions for summary judgement.
Judge Bell has not yet issued any decisions, but based on the character of the proceeding it seems likely that he will grant the CMPA’s motion to dismiss. If he does so, the plaintiffs, and their attorney, Sharon Barnett, are prepared to appeal, and Progressive Pensacola feels they have quite a good case on which to do so…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
A hearing has been scheduled in the matter of Keesler and Boyd v. CMPA, the suit alleging that the Community Maritime Park Associates operated in violation of Florida Sunshine laws by not allowing public input at meetings.
The hearing will take place at 9:30 AM on February 24 in front of Judge Frank Bell, in a courtroom if one is available, or judge’s chambers if one is not. Judge Bell will consider the CMPA’s motion to dismiss, and motions by both parties for summary judgement.
See also our primer on the suit…
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Byron H. Keesler and Leroy Boyd, Plaintiffs, vs. Community Maritime Park Associates, Inc., Defendant Case No. 2008 CA 3593 B Activists Byron Keesler and Leroy Boyd, together with their attorney Sharon Barnett, have filed a lawsuit against the Community Maritime Park Associates (CMPA), alleging that the CMPA has operated in violation of Florida Sunshine Laws [...]
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Check out these two items from area bloggers: Rick Outzen: “Severe buy-out clause in port lease” Rick highlights important changes in the proposed amendment of Pate Cold Storage’s lease at the Port. The amendment would extend the lease through 2022 — which isn’t that big a deal, because other leases extend that far anyway — [...]
Continue Reading...
Next post
Previous post
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter