CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 4318605
...The Evaluation Team had no obligation to conduct a meeting. We -therefore, conclude that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment as to Carlson’s Evaluation-Team claims. Carlson’s Negotiation-Team claims present more difficult questions, and we turn to those next. B. Section 286.0113 exempts from public meeting requirements “[a]ny portion of a team meeting at which negotiation strategies are discussed.” § 286.0113(2)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. But the exempted meetings do not forever remain out of public view: “A complete recording shall be made of any portion of an exempt meeting," id. § 286.0113(2)(c)(l), and the recordings become publicly available at “such time as the agency provides notice of an intended decision or [ ] 30 days after opening the bids, proposals, or final replies, whichever occurs earlier,” id. § 286.0113(2)(c)(2)....
...ons” of any particular meeting were covered. And to be sure, this interpretation enjoys some textual support. For one thing, other parts of the subsection refer to the “exempt meeting”—not “the exempt portions of the meeting,” see, e.g., § 286.0113(2)(c)(2), Fla. Stat. (noting recording of “the exempt meeting” is exempt from chapter 119); id. § 286.0113(2)(e)(1) (“No portion of the exempt meeting may be held off the record.”). 4 Plus, the Legislature used a seemingly more restrictive phrase in another part of the same statutory section, exempting “[í ]⅛<¾⅜ portion of a meeting” that would betray information about security systems. Id. § 286.0113(1) (emphasis added)....
...use different words to denote the same concept.” Id. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the fact that in the same statutory section, the Legislature chose two separate phrases: “[t]hat portion of a meeting that would reveal ...” and “[a]ny portion of a meeting at which .... ” § 286.0113(1), (2)(b), But despite colorable arguments supporting the Department’s interpretation, we conclude that the statute’s “any portion” language limits the exemption to portions of meetings—the portions “at which negotiation ....
...on strategy.” But the question is not whether a vote constitutes a “negotiation strategy”; the question is whether, as a matter of law, a vote cannot be within that “portion of a team meeting at which negotiation strategies are discussed,” § 286.0113(2)(b)(2), Fla....
...both Xerox and SMI would have partid- *1270 pated m further negotiations knowing the Negotiation Team’s views of SMI’s proposal. Yet the exemption provides protections “until such time as the agency provides notice of an intended decision.” § 286.0113(2)(c)(2), Fla....
...eam meeting at which negotiation strategies are discussed.” C. .Last, we consider Carlson’s arguments about the failed audio recordings. As already noted, the statute required the Department to make a “complete recording” of exempt portions. § 286.0113(2)(c)(2), Fla....
...The Department made audio recordings of its meetings, and those recordings were “exempt until such time as the agency, provide[d] notice of an intended decision or until 30 days after opening the bids, proposals, or final replies, whichever occur[ed] earlier.” Id. § 286.0113(2)(c)(2)....
...City of Sarasota,
48 So.3d 755, 762 (Fla. 2010); Canney v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Alachua County,
278 So.2d 260, 262 (Fla. 1973). . If the .agency rejects all bids and starts over, the recordings are exempt until the agency completes the subsequent process. Id. §'
286.0113(2)(c)(3)....
...In another provision, though, the Legislature has referred to an "exémpt portion of an exempt meeting,” §'
1004.055(2), Fla. Stat., suggesting that the Legislature’s use of “exempt meeting” does not always refer to a meeting that is entirely exempt. . Incidentally; section
286.0113(2)(b)(l), as originally enacted (then numbered *1268
286.0113(2)(a)) exempted: "A meeting at which a negotiation with a vendor is conducted ....” Ch....
