1IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDABYRON H. KEESLER andLEROY BOYD,Plaintiffs,-vs-Case No. 2008 CA 3593 BCOMMUNITY MARITIME PARK ASSOCIATES, INC.Defendant.MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTPlaintiffs BYRON H. KEESLER and LEROY BOYD file this memorandum of law insupport of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and show:I. STANDARD FOR DECISIONSummary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, affidavits, and other materials aswould be admissible in evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any materialfact and that the moving party in entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fla. R. Civ. P

., 1.510( c). The moving party has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all thematerial facts, which under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to judgment as amatter of law.

Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,

105 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3

DCA 1958). Indetermining whether there are issues of fact precluding summary judgment, the facts must betaken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,

Key v. Trattmann

, 959 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1

DCA 2007).When summary judgment is sought before the filing of an answer, the plaintiff must“demonstrate conclusively and to a certainty from the record that the defendant cannot plead or otherwise raise a genuine issue.”

Beach Higher Power Corporation v. Granados

, 717 So. 2d563, 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). This is a steep, but not insurmountable burden.

Miles v. Robinsonex rel. Estate of Kight

, 803 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4

DCA 2002).II. THE MATERIAL FACTS

The material facts of record in this case, shown by the Amended Complaint, and theaffidavits and certified and authenticated records attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for SummaryJudgment, are undisputed. The Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief can beresolved as a matter of law.III. THE APPLICABLE LAWThe applicable law, The Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, (“The Sunshine Law”)consists of Article I, Section 24(b) of the Florida Constitution and Section 286.011, FloridaStatutes. Both provisions provide that meetings of certain public bodies must be “open to the public.” Article I, Section 24(b) of the Florida Constitution provides that:All meetings of . . .any collegial public body of a . . .municipality. . ., at whichofficial acts are to be taken or at which public business of such body is to betransacted or discussed,

shall be open . . . to the public . . . .

(emphasis added).Similarly, Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, provides that:All meetings of any board or commission of any . . .agency or authority of any . . .municipal corporation, . . . at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings

open to the public at all times

. . . . (emphasis added).Florida courts have given The Sunshine Law the broadest possible interpretation, holdingthat The Sunshine Law “having been enacted for the public benefit, should be interpreted mostfavorably to the public.”

Canney v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County

, 278 So. 2d260, 263 (Fla. 1973). Florida courts also mandate that The Sunshine Law should be broadlyconstrued so as to frustrate all evasive devices used to close meetings and decision-making to the public.

Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison

, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974).Further, The Sunshine Law expressly requires that it be enforced to effect its purposes.Section 286.011(2) of The Sunshine Law provides that: “The circuit courts of this state shallhave jurisdiction to issue injunctions

to enforce the purposes of this section

upon the application by any citizen of this state.” (emphasis added).The purposes of The Sunshine Law to be enforced include: the protection of the public’sright to be present and to be heard during all phases of enactments by governmental boards andcommissions,

School Board of Duval County v. Florida Publishing Company,

670 So. 2d 99(Fla. 1

DCA 1996 )and

Rhea v. City of Gainesville

, 574 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1

DCA 1991);allowing for citizen input and ideas, helping bodies be responsive to the wishes of the governed;

and ensuring that our system of government will function as a genuine participatory democracy,

Krause v. Reno

, 366 So. 2d 1244, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and maintaining the faith of the public in governmental agencies,

Board of Instruction of Broward County v. Doran,

224 So. 2d693, 699 (Fla.1969

)

.The court in

Krause

noted that taxpayers deserve an opportunity to express views andhave them considered in the decision-making process. It also noted that:[n]o governmental board is infallible and it is foolish to assume that those who areelected or appointed to office have any superior knowledge concerning anygovernment problem. . . . As more people participate in governmental activities,the decision-making process will be improved.

Id.

at 1248.The “preponderant interest of allowing the public to participate in the conception of a complexmultimillion dollar budget” was held sufficient, for example, to bring an ad hoc internal budgetcommittee within the provisions of The Sunshine Law.

News-Press Publishing Co., Inc. v.Carlson

, 410 So. 2d 546, 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).Florida courts have uniformly rejected attempts to construe the provisions and terms of The Sunshine Law narrowly. Because of the reform nature and protective purposes of TheSunshine Law, Florida courts have broadly construed the terms “meeting,” “official act,” and“board or commission.”The term “meetings” has been broadly construed to apply to any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more members of the same board or commission at which thosemembers discuss some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the board or commission.

Hough v. Stembridge

, 278 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973);

Inf. Atty Gen. Op.

toTerrill C. Pyburn, December 10, 2008. The term “official acts” has been broadly construed tocover all discussions and deliberations on which foreseeable action will be taken by a Sunshinecovered body.

Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co. v. Magaha

, 769 So. 2d 1012, 1021 (Fla.2000);

Rhea v. City of Gainesville, supra.

The term “board and commission” has been held toinclude not only official bodies, but also

ad hoc

volunteer groups and

ad hoc

advisorycommittees that perform an integral role in the decision-making process.

Town of Palm Beach v.Gradison

, supra, and

Wood v. Marston,

442 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1983)

.Like the terms “meetings,” “official acts,” and “board and commission,” used in TheSunshine Law, the term “open to the public” is not defined in either the Florida Constitution or Florida Statutes. Neither provision particularizes in what respects, or to what extent, public