S Memo 15-5Posted on Jun 30, 2015 in Informal Opinions - Sunshine Law
S Memo 15-5
June 23, 2015
Mailing of Notice
Requester asked whether the Board of Agriculture (BOA) violated the Sunshine Law by failing to mail to him its notice for its November 27, 2012 meeting (first meeting) and its notice for its November 25, 2014 meeting (second meeting) at the same time when the notices were officially filed.
For the first meeting notice, OIP found that the BOA did not violate the Sunshine Law because it took reasonable and appropriate steps to mail its notice to Requester and has no duty to guarantee that the notice be received by Requester. Although the board technically violated the Sunshine Law regarding the second meeting because the November 20 postmarked date was less than six days before the November 25 meeting, OIP found that the DOA had made a good faith effort by depositing the notice in the mailbox six days in advance and that Requester actually received the notice before the meeting date. OIP warned the BOA to be more vigilant in the future about ensuring that its notice to Requester is timely deposited for mailing so that the envelope containing the notice will be postmarked on the same day that the agenda is filed.