Florida Statute 286.0115 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XIX
PUBLIC BUSINESS

Chapter 286
PUBLIC BUSINESS: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 286.0115

286.0115 Access to local public officials; quasi-judicial proceedings on local government land use matters.—

(1)(a) A county or municipality may adopt an ordinance or resolution removing the presumption of prejudice from ex parte communications with local public officials by establishing a process to disclose ex parte communications with such officials pursuant to this subsection or by adopting an alternative process for such disclosure. However, this subsection does not require a county or municipality to adopt any ordinance or resolution establishing a disclosure process.

(b) As used in this subsection, the term “local public official” means any elected or appointed public official holding a county or municipal office who recommends or takes quasi-judicial action as a member of a board or commission. The term does not include a member of the board or commission of any state agency or authority.

(c) Any person not otherwise prohibited by statute, charter provision, or ordinance may discuss with any local public official the merits of any matter on which action may be taken by any board or commission on which the local public official is a member. If adopted by county or municipal ordinance or resolution, adherence to the following procedures shall remove the presumption of prejudice arising from ex parte communications with local public officials.

1. The substance of any ex parte communication with a local public official which relates to quasi-judicial action pending before the official is not presumed prejudicial to the action if the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place is disclosed and made a part of the record before final action on the matter.

2. A local public official may read a written communication from any person. However, a written communication that relates to quasi-judicial action pending before a local public official shall not be presumed prejudicial to the action, and such written communication shall be made a part of the record before final action on the matter.

3. Local public officials may conduct investigations and site visits and may receive expert opinions regarding quasi-judicial action pending before them. Such activities shall not be presumed prejudicial to the action if the existence of the investigation, site visit, or expert opinion is made a part of the record before final action on the matter.

4. Disclosure made pursuant to subparagraphs 1., 2., and 3. must be made before or during the public meeting at which a vote is taken on such matters, so that persons who have opinions contrary to those expressed in the ex parte communication are given a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication. This subsection does not subject local public officials to part III of chapter 112 for not complying with this paragraph.

(2)(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), a county or municipality may adopt an ordinance or resolution establishing the procedures and provisions of this subsection for quasi-judicial proceedings on local government land use matters. The ordinance or resolution shall provide procedures and provisions identical to this subsection. However, this subsection does not require a county or municipality to adopt such an ordinance or resolution.

(b) In a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters, a person who appears before the decisionmaking body who is not a party or party-intervenor shall be allowed to testify before the decisionmaking body, subject to control by the decisionmaking body, and may be requested to respond to questions from the decisionmaking body, but need not be sworn as a witness, is not required to be subject to cross-examination, and is not required to be qualified as an expert witness. The decisionmaking body shall assign weight and credibility to such testimony as it deems appropriate. A party or party-intervenor in a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters, upon request by another party or party-intervenor, shall be sworn as a witness, shall be subject to cross-examination by other parties or party-intervenors, and shall be required to be qualified as an expert witness, as appropriate.

(c) In a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters, a person may not be precluded from communicating directly with a member of the decisionmaking body by application of ex parte communication prohibitions. Disclosure of such communications by a member of the decisionmaking body is not required, and such nondisclosure shall not be presumed prejudicial to the decision of the decisionmaking body. All decisions of the decisionmaking body in a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters must be supported by substantial, competent evidence in the record pertinent to the proceeding, irrespective of such communications.

(3) This section does not restrict the authority of any board or commission to establish rules or procedures governing public hearings or contacts with local public officials.

History.—s. 1, ch. 95-352; s. 31, ch. 96-324.

F.S. 286.0115 on Google Scholar

F.S. 286.0115 on Casetext

Amendments to 286.0115

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 286.0115

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 286.0115.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 286.0115

Total Results: 11

Holborough v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-11-28

Citation: 103 So. 3d 221, 2012 WL 5933008, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20448

Snippet: (Fla. 1999); see also Branch v. State, 94 Fla. 286, 115 So. 143, 144 (1927); Brown v. State, 888 So.2d

City of Key West v. Havlicek

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-03-16

Citation: 57 So. 3d 900, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3497

Snippet: this determination is in conflict with section 286.0115(l)(c)(3), Florida Statutes (2010), which provides

City of Hollywood v. Hakanson

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-02-04

Citation: 866 So. 2d 106, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 917, 2004 WL 323297

Snippet: prejudice pursuant to section 286.0115, Florida Statutes. We reverse. Section 286.0115, Florida Statutes, requires

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1999-12-27

Snippet: adopt a policy such as that provided in section 286.0115, Florida Statutes, establishing disclosure procedures

Snipes v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-04-22

Citation: 733 So. 2d 1000, 1999 WL 247242

Snippet: doubt. Id.; see also Branch v. State, 94 Fla. 286, 115 So. 143 (1927) (identifying victim by nickname

Raulerson v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1978-03-16

Citation: 358 So. 2d 826

Snippet: trial was ordered. In Branch v. State, 94 Fla. 286, 115 So. 143 (1928), defendant was charged with assault

McCoy v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-05-25

Citation: 277 So. 2d 845, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6826

Snippet: reversible error. Branch v. State, 1927, 94 Fla. 286, 115 So. 143. McCoy’s second argument is that there

Murphy v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1970-11-06

Citation: 240 So. 2d 854, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5674

Snippet: 2d 202, and Branch v. State, Fla.1928, 94 Fla. 286, 115 So. 143, support the proposition that an information

Bradley v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-02-07

Citation: 206 So. 2d 657, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 6086

Snippet: 1248, 130 So. 912; Branch v. State, 1927, 94 Fla. 286, 115 So. 143; and 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations

Lattimore v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1967-07-25

Citation: 202 So. 2d 3, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4241

Snippet: the same offense. See Branch v. State, 94 Fla. 286, 115 So. 143 (1927). It is urged that the evidence

Twyman v. Roell

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1936-02-20

Citation: 166 So. 215, 123 Fla. 2, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 925

Snippet: 756; Barnett v. Caldwell Furniture Co., 277 Ill. 286, 115 N.E. 389. Uncertainty of the amount or difficulty