Could a Florida village hold a public meeting in a private home under the Sunshine Law?

Plain-English summary

The Village of Highland Park asked whether holding public meetings in a private home violated Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law. The Attorney General's office gave informal guidance rather than a factual or prosecutorial determination.

The letter did not say that every meeting in a private residence was automatically unlawful. It said public access was the key and that the same concerns governing restaurants, small rooms, secured facilities, and other meeting places applied to a home.

A board had to take reasonable steps to accommodate the turnout it could anticipate. A site that held only a few people when a large audience was expected could unreasonably restrict access. The office also advised against locations or practices that discouraged attendance, kept discussion audible only to people at the table, effectively excluded the press or public, discriminated, or failed to provide disability access.

The Attorney General lacked authority to investigate or prosecute a claimed Sunshine Law violation. The letter identified the State Attorney as the official who received and handled such complaints.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Who this opinion addressed in 2008

Municipal boards and clerks

Choosing a private residence did not remove any open-meeting duty. The board had to assess expected attendance, practical entry, audibility, nondiscrimination, and physical accessibility.

Members of the public and press

The opinion treated effective access as more than a technically open door. A location or condition that made people reluctant or unable to enter could undermine the statute's openness requirement.

Local government attorneys

The letter provided factors rather than a final factual ruling. Whether a particular home and meeting arrangement violated the law depended on the circumstances and enforcement authority rested elsewhere.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG say a private home could never host a public meeting?
A: No. The office said it had not directly addressed that setting and applied its existing public-access concerns to any place the village selected.

Q: What if more people were expected than the home could hold?
A: A board had to take reasonable steps to accommodate anticipated attendance. Unreasonably limiting the audience could violate section 286.011, Florida Statutes.

Q: Could a public body impose security screening?
A: The opinion distinguished reasonable measures such as metal detectors from conditions that chilled access, such as demanding identification and holding it during the meeting.

Q: Who investigated alleged Sunshine Law violations?
A: The letter identified the State Attorney, not the Attorney General, as the official responsible for investigation and prosecution.

Background and statutory framework

Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, required covered meetings to be open to the public. Section 286.011(6), Florida Statutes, prohibited meeting facilities that discriminated on listed grounds or operated in a way that unreasonably restricted public access. Section 286.26, Florida Statutes, required disability access.

The opinion cited City of Miami Beach v. Berns for the observation that a secret meeting can occur when officials choose a time and place to avoid being seen or heard. It cited s. 119.10(1)(b), Fla. Stat. when describing enforcement authority.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• section 286.011, Florida Statutes
• Section 286.011(6), Florida Statutes
• section 286.26, Florida Statutes
• s. 119.10(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

Case:

• City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38, 41 (Fla. 1971)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/public-meetings-held-in-private-home
• Official print view: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1824

Original opinion text

Mr. Albert C. Galloway, Jr., Esq.

City Attorney, Village of Highland Park

Post Office Box 3339

Lake Wales, Florida 33859-3339

Dear Mr. Galloway:

On behalf of the Village of Highland Park, you have asked for this office's assistance in determining whether it is a violation of the Government in the Sunshine Law for the Village to hold public meetings in a private home. While this office will be happy to provide you with direction in this matter, we are not fact finders nor have we been granted authority by the Legislature to investigate or prosecute violations of the Government in the Sunshine Law. It is ultimately the State Attorney who receives complaints regarding violations of the Public Records and Sunshine Laws and who investigates and prosecutes those charges.[1] However, this office is happy to provide you with the following informal comments in an effort to assist the Village in complying with the Government in the Sunshine Law.

The Sunshine Law requires that meetings of a public board or commission be "open to the public." In situations where a large turnout of the public is expected for a meeting, public boards and commissions should take reasonable steps to ensure that the facilities where the meeting will be held will accommodate the anticipated turnout. Meetings held at a facility which can accommodate only a small number of the public attending, when a large public turnout can reasonably be expected, may violate the public access requirement of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, by unreasonably restricting access to the meeting. If a huge public turnout is anticipated for a particular issue and the largest available public meeting room cannot accommodate all of those who are expected to attend, the use of video technology (e.g., a television screen outside the meeting room) may be appropriate. In such cases, as with other open meetings, reasonable steps to provide an opportunity for public participation in the proceedings should also be considered.

Public access to meetings of public boards or commissions is the key element of the Sunshine Law and public agencies are advised to avoid holding meetings in places not easily accessible to the public. The Attorney General's Office, therefore, has suggested that public boards or commissions avoid the use of luncheon meetings at restaurants to conduct board or commission business. These meetings may have a "chilling" effect upon the public's willingness or desire to attend. People who would otherwise attend such a meeting may be unwilling or reluctant to enter a public dining room without purchasing a meal and may be financially or personally unwilling to do so.[2]

In addition, discussions at such meetings by members of the board or commission which are audible only to those seated at the table may violate the "openness" requirement of the law.[3] Public boards or commissions are, therefore, advised to avoid holding meetings at places where the public and the press are effectively excluded.[4]

Section 286.011(6), Florida Statutes, prohibits boards or commissions subject to the Sunshine Law from holding their meetings at any facility which discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color, origin, or economic status, or which operates in such a manner as to unreasonably restrict public access to such a facility. Similarly, section 286.26, Florida Statutes, requires that public meetings be made accessible to the physically handicapped.

In light of these concerns, this office has determined that a police pension board should not hold its meetings in a facility where the public has limited access and where there may be a "chilling" effect on the public's willingness to attend by requiring the public to provide identification, to leave such identification while attending the meeting, and to request permission before entering the room where the meeting is held.[5] This is not to say, however, that an agency may not impose certain security measures on members of the public entering a public building, such as requiring the public to go through metal detectors.[6]

I am not aware that this office has directly addressed the matter of a public meeting being held in a private home, but would suggest that the concerns expressed above would apply to any space in which the Village of Highland Park chooses to hold its public meetings.

Sincerely,

Gerry Hammond

Senior Assistant Attorney General

GH/t

_______________

[1] See s. 119.10(1)(b), Fla. Stat., and Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 91-38 (1991).

[2] Inf. Op. to the Hon. Walter “Skip” Campbell, dated February 8, 1999; and Inf. Op. to the Hon. Bill Nelson, dated May 19, 1980.

[3] Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 71-159 (1971).

[4] Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 71-295 (1971). Cf. City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38, 41 (Fla. 1971), in which the Florida Supreme Court observed: "A secret meeting occurs when public officials meet at a time and place to avoid being seen or heard by the public."

[5] Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 96-55 (1996). And see Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 05-13 (2005), concluding that a city may not require persons wishing to attend public meetings to provide identification as a condition of attendance.

[6] Id.