Comments by MarcoMan

  • Older Comments
  • Page 1 of 1
  • Newer Comments
Written on Expert believes city violated Sunshine Law:

The Attorney General has ruled that ....that the use of a memorandum by a city commissioner to provide information to the commission on a particular subject, with no response from or interaction among the commissioners allowed prior to a public meeting on this subject, would not violate s. 286.011, F.S.

Further, the Attorney General has stated that the e-mail communication of factual background information from one city council member to other council members is a public record and should be maintained by the records custodian for public inspection and copying. However, such communication of information, when it does not result in the exchange of council members' comments or responses on subjects requiring council action, does not constitute a meeting subject to the Government in the Sunshine Law. Just because to councilors email information, if it was after the law has been passed and openly discussed in a public meeting then IT DOES NOT VIOLATE SUNSHINE!

Also, while may be not the best policy, if the council emailed back and forth...OK! Shame on them. However, their decisions were discussed many times in an open forum, called a CITY COUNCIL MEETING!

But the people doing this know this! They just continue to try anything they can to make problems on Marco! Shame on YOU! I am sure there are other communities NORTH that welcome your attention to details, your cracker jack law degrees, your mail order engineering and environmental scientist degrees, and your computer generated civic policy certificates.

It certainly should not surprise anyone that Mr. Bania, who is embedded with these very people continues his onsided reporting, but that seems to be what the Eagle wants!

SHAME ON YOU!

Written on Burning issue:

The Attorney General has ruled that ....that the use of a memorandum by a city commissioner to provide information to the commission on a particular subject, with no response from or interaction among the commissioners allowed prior to a public meeting on this subject, would not violate s. 286.011, F.S.

Further, the Attorney General has stated that the e-mail communication of factual background information from one city council member to other council members is a public record and should be maintained by the records custodian for public inspection and copying. However, such communication of information, when it does not result in the exchange of council members' comments or responses on subjects requiring council action, does not constitute a meeting subject to the Government in the Sunshine Law. Just because to councilors email information, if it was after the law has been passed and openly discussed in a public meeting then IT DOES NOT VIOLATE SUNSHINE!

Also, while may be not the best policy, if the council emailed back and forth...OK! Shame on them. However, their decisions were discussed many times in an open forum, called a CITY COUNCIL MEETING!

But the people doing this know this! They just continue to try anything they can to make problems on Marco! Shame on YOU! I am sure there are other communities NORTH that welcome your attention to details, your cracker jack law degrees, your mail order engineering and environmental scientist degrees, and your computer generated civic policy certificates.

It certainly should not surprise anyone that Mr. Bania, who is embedded with these very people continues his onsided reporting, but that seems to be what the Eagle wants!

SHAME ON YOU!

  • Older Comments
  • Page 1 of 1
  • Newer Comments

Features