In The News

Transparency has been a challenge this past year for many local governments. We have written about specific examples of government documents not being provided to the public ahead of time or not allowing public comment on commissioner proposals from the dais. Today, we are writing about what we will call “after-the-fact transparency.” This phenomenon is permeating local governments

The Sarasota County Commission recently voted against funding parental choice school readiness childcare.

Commissioners cut $510,000 from the program, the amount voted through last year, and turned their back on a long-term partnership with the Legislature and governor. And to make matters worse, that cut likely will cause the loss of an additional $292,000 in matching state funds for parental choice in school readiness.

You hear it often from people who want to see Sarasota County and its cities frozen in time, “commissioners need to stop all of this building.” It is a fascinating premise to think a commissioner would have this sort of power, to issue a moratorium on building.
In reality, in Florida, they don’t. In Florida, private property owners have rights that have special protection due to the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Act.

Several prominent local foundations are urging the Sarasota County Commission to revisit more than $1 million in funding cuts to highly ranked programs made in a process they say was plagued by confusion, inconsistency and a lack of transparency.

SARASOTA — Regional foundations are urging Sarasota County commissioners to reconsider recent votes to cut funding. In a letter signed by leaders of four nonprofit foundations, they pinpointed the June 5 vote on county human service funding and suggests a “second look” at funding high-scoring requests to “prevent expensive future crisis care.”

Some heavy decisions have recently been made at many local governments without the open transparency that should be provided to the public. Decisions are being made, and based upon, important documents or considerations without the public getting to see those documents in advance of meetings. This usurps the ability of the public to comment on the information in the documents, or even understand the decision.