FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION SPECIALISTS INC v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2022)

We reject both of the appellant's issues on appeal. As to the first, regarding its breach of contract cause of action, the only claim of breach asserted in the operative pleading was a failure to provide the proper notice of termination. The contract between the appellant and the department did not require any magic language, and the department's correspondence notifying the appellant of the termination specifically cited the no-cause/convenience provision on which the department relied. As a matter of law, the notice was timely and served the purpose intended under the cited provision of the contract.

We also reject the second issue, which addressed the appellant's open meeting claim. Article I, section 24, of the Florida Constitution, and section 286.011, Florida Statutes, apply to collegial public bodies of the executive branch of state government when they meet to consider taking official action. Meetings among agency staff to assess and make recommendations regarding contract management do not implicate those provisions. Cf. Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. City of Sarasota, 48 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 2010); Occidental Chem. Co. v. Mayo, 351 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1977); Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n v. Thomas, 364 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The undisputed evidence showed that there was no delegation of policy-making authority to any group of staff members at the department, and the decision to terminate the contract was made by the agency official tasked with doing so. This claim fails as a matter of law, as well.

The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the department.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Makar, Jay, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.