Sunshine laws are laws that govern public access to various records of the government. As such, they are sometimes referred to as public or open records laws. The laws establish that the government business must be conducted in the public's full view so that the citizenry can be sure that its elected representatives operate within the confines of the law and the limits of their mandate. The sunshine law of Florida has been lauded for a long time as one of the Grade A public records laws in the United States of America (Cooper, 2010) . The purpose of the law goes beyond oversight to encourage public participation. Florida recognizes the significance of the input from its citizenry in improving government operation, which in turn has been associated with improving public confidence (Mckee, 2015) . Accordingly, the State extends the scope of its open records law to all state meetings or conventions of local officials to prevent any attempts to evade open meeting mandates. Notwithstanding the transparency associated with sunshine laws and the benefits accruing from such openness, the disadvantages of such legislation clearly outweigh its benefits.
The sunshine law of Florida decreases the collegiality in decision-making in state agencies. In effect, the decision-making process is made to deviate from the spirit of establishing the various state agencies. With collegial decision making, the best decision is arrived at after a critical analysis of various divergent views and relevant facts (Robertson, 2015) . As such, this circumvents capricious or arbitrary action and decisions stemming from different experiences and perceptions. Openness, especially during public meetings, also results in the loss of candor (Martin & Samels, 2006) . Deliberations by decision-making bodies held in the full glare of the public will not be as honest as those held in special fora meant for leaders only as members would typically want to display a united front to their constituents. With the loss of candor, decision-maker freedom is also lost, and trivial details of the matter under discussion may be misinterpreted or missed altogether as the focus would be shifted to an audience that is relatively unfamiliar with the matter.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Open records laws may also be associated with increased administrative costs. The overheads accrue from the need to satisfy notice requirements, the generation and circulation of agendas, as well as the recording and transcription of proceedings. All these activities require substantial commitments in terms of labor, time, and other resources (Robertson, 2015) . The provision of sunshine laws that requires leaders to issue public notice before addressing any major issue compels administrators to move deliberately slowly to ensure that they execute their mandate lawfully. The leaders thus have to wait for the periods specified in the law to elapse before an issue can be properly addressed. These delays are often associated with hidden costs. The requirement to facilitate public presence at conventions means that electronic equipment and conference facilities have to be reserved leading to further costs. The imposition of these otherwise unnecessary administrative responsibilities on decision-makers implies that personnel hired to execute particular duties would be distracted with implementing things that are less directly in the interest of the public.
Achieving openness necessitates strict adherence to set procedures. It thus favors the use of the systematic rational approaches to policy formulation. For this reason, it has an effect on the decision-making process as leaders have to make rational choices following a thorough cost benefit analysis of available alternatives (Anyebe, 2018). Though advantageous for long-term policies, the rational approach may hamper the capacity of the state to respond promptly to unprecedented challenges that require speedy resolution. However, operating in the open may also push the state to squelch its urge to exercise proper planning and foresight to only deal with current problems further making it less prepared to face future adversities. Decisions made under sunshine laws may also be floored as they would likely not be specifically intended for the objective running of the state. Such decisions could be made as strategic tools for cultivating a relationship between the administration and its constituents. While negative decisions may be evaded, positive decisions may be delayed until they are deemed to have the potential to serve a particular strategic purpose, probably just before elections or evaluations.
Sunshine Laws may also encourage excessive reliance on procedures. Excessive openness may thus result in the loss of the administrator’s sense of control over the process of governing. Leaders could particularly lose their timing sagacity as they are left not knowing the appropriate step to take at what time. Resultantly, administrators retreat into procedures, and substantive discourses are replaced by procedural objections. Novel and potentially useful ideas can thus be dismissed on technical grounds. Overemphasis on procedures could also force rather simple decisions into a vote. Moreover, matters that can be handled with more flexibility are forced into votive restriction instead of being left to the discretion of the administration. Worse still, formal voting protocols come with unending discussions on who has voting rights and thus discussions towards a consensus on critical issues are thwarted.
Openness to the public could also stifle innovation as it limits brain-storming. By opening decision-making processes to the public, there is a high likelihood that conservative solutions will be favored over fresh ideas. As commonly observed by administrators, the sole solution to an issue that cannot be vetoed is the maintenance of the status quo. Unfortunately, this notion is contrary to the increasing awareness that progressive states must have incorporated in them an ability and propensity to innovate. Today, many leaders show no regard for sunshine laws since they have incorporated methods of subverting procedures in their modus operandi. Accordingly, a subtle yet real consequence of transparency is its effect on the legal system of the state. Openness establishes a general environment in which the law itself may be brought into opprobrium. Where the limits of openness to the public are set, some discussions will take place beyond the light and public scrutiny. Private meetings and unrecorded phone conversations are arguably some of the most commonly used methods of beating sunshine laws.
In this era of modern technology, many loopholes have been poked in the public records law in Florida. One such gap surrounds the issue of confidentiality. In State v. City of Clearwater (2003), the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that private documents such as emails should not be considered to be public records merely because they are stored in government-owned computers. More recently, in in Rhea v. District Board of Trustees of Santa Fe College (2013 ), the court explained that the physical formats or records are irrelevant. As such, public records could be in electronic forms such as emails as well as in paper. Technological advances are increasingly forcing Florida courts to determine how contemporary forms of communication such as direct messaging in various social medial platforms can be made to conform with the state’s sunshine law. While the courts grapple with these technicalities, the privacy and confidentiality of state officials may be breached.
Overall, in as much as the advantages of openness may accrue for the right of the public to know, the disadvantages of such legislation outweigh its perceived benefits. The shortfalls of transparency may be perceived with regards to the damages conferred to two aspects of public interest, namely institutional operation and individual privacy. Some of the problems associated with openness include the distortion of the nature of discussions, constraints to the process of decision-making, and substantial administrative costs. Sunshine laws may also pose specific procedural challenges in governance, encourage mediocrity, and create an environment in which the law itself is dishonored. Accordingly, the negative consequences of sunshine laws are seemingly more perceptible than the benefits. For this reason, Florida should reconsider its stance on sunshine laws and come up with a legislation that is essentially an equilibrium of the pros and cons associated with openness.
References
Anyebe, A. (2018). An Overview of Approaches to the Study of Public Policy. International Journal of Political Science , 4 (1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-9452.0401002
Cooper, C. (2010). Sending the Wrong Message: Technology, Sunshine Law, and the Public Record in Florida. Retrieved from Stetson University College of Law website: https://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/39-2-cooper.pdf
Martin, J., & Samels, J. E. (2006). Presidential transition in higher education: managing leadership change . Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mckee, S. C. (2015). Jigsaw puzzle politics in the Sunshine State . Gainesville, Fl University Press of Florida.
Robertson, A. N. (2015). Mary Mcleod Bethune in Florida: bringing social justice to the sunshine state . Charleston, Sc: History Press.
Case Laws
Rhea v. Dist. Of Trustees of Santa Fe Coll. , 109 So. 3d 851 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. City of Clearwater , 863 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2003).
