Sunshine Law questions lead to confusion, attack on former Oviedo city attorney

Editor’s note: This article was briefly published Wednesday night before additional quotes from Mayor Megan Sladek were added and clarification was made. It was republished Thursday morning at 10 a.m. Read an in-depth note on why Oviedo Community News covered this story and how the reporting was done.

Questions about possible Sunshine Law violations from events held by Oviedo Mayor Megan Sladek has led to involvement from a chief assistant state attorney, but also has Sladek questioning the abilities of former Oviedo city attorney David Hall, who initially raised Sunshine Law concerns. But a Sunshine Law expert questions a legal opinion issued by that assistant state attorney that absolved the mayor and a council member of wrongdoing for those events.

The events in question — a Feb. 20 book club meeting at a Panera Bread, a Feb. 25 EatOviedo event at Crazy Cork Wine Bar and a May 15 Coffee with Mayor Megan event at her home, all hosted by Sladek and attended by Council Member Alan Ott — have come under scrutiny over the past four months by Hall, Deputy Mayor Natalie Teuchert and former Council member and mayoral candidate Judith Dolores Smith due to possible violations of Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law, which a Chief Assistant State Attorney found Sladek and Ott did not run afoul of.  

“There is what is allowed, and there is what irks my colleagues,” Sladek, who’s also an attorney, said. “They’re all invited, but the only one who ever shows up is Ott.”

The Sunshine Law, originally passed in 1967, outlines compliance requirements for open government in the state, and applies to proceedings of public boards or commissions at the state and local level. It “applies to any gathering of two or more members of the same board to discuss some matter which will foreseeably come before that board for action,” according to its 2025 manual.

Its basic requirements state that meetings must be open to the public with a “reasonable” notice and that minutes must be taken during them.

However, it could be more nuanced than that.

“The goal there is to create transparency so the public can see what’s going on,” attorney Tony Conticello, a Sunshine Law expert from the Conticello Law Firm in Tallahassee, said. “It is intended, also, because of that transparency, to avoid side decisions and side deals with people so that everything could be put under public scrutiny, so that, also, the public would have an ability to have a say-so in certain things by voicing their opinion at meetings.”

While Sladek’s meetings were posted on the city’s website, and minutes were taken by Ott, enough concern still arose due to the potential implications caused by them that, following a May 20 email about it from Smith, Teuchert gave Hall “direction as an individual this morning to go ahead and contact the state,” she responded in an email.

“How I have been taught over years of ethics training, what the intent of Sunshine Law is is to prevent the situation that just happened from happening,” Teuchert said. “My understanding of Sunshine Law is that everything has to be done in the sunshine, and to do that, we are not allowed to meet with other people who are part of our board and discuss anything city related that we could potentially vote on in the future unless it’s in a publicly noted meeting and with the rest of the board.”

Questions arise

Due to these events taking place at her private residence and inside of restaurants, accessibility and potential cost-to-attend, in addition to the topics discussed at events not advertised as governmental meetings, are potential barriers that Teuchert said could lead to making them violations of the Sunshine Law.

For example, the agenda Sladek sent to Hall for the book club meeting was “discuss “Escaping the Housing Trap book”,” which she said he approved as “sufficient.”

“Noticing [the events] on our website is one thing. It was not noticed of what it [actually] was,” Teuchert said. “It was not noticed that there was going to be a meeting where Council topics were discussed at. It was noticed that they were going to go have coffee or you’re going to discuss a book.”

The law states that events like these need to be held in “reasonable locations,” Conticello said.

Conticello, who has more than two decades of Sunshine Law experience, said locations should provide adequate access to attend, understand what people are saying (such as amplification of voices in a loud setting) and not require a fee to enter or participate, among other accommodations.    

According to the minutes of the three meetings, written by Ott, discussion topics included accessory dwelling units; the relationship between the comprehensive plan, future land-use designations and zoning; water rates; new buildings at Oviedo on the Park; city roads in new developments; irrigation wells; the Alafaya/McKinnon stormwater project; traffic on Lockwood Boulevard; the Arya development; bonds; and the Sunshine Law itself, among other items.

“We don’t talk about specific things; it’s pretty high-level stuff,” Sladek said. “Typically I don’t bring anything up, but if somebody’s like, ‘hey, we were talking about affordable housing, what about over here?’ Then it kind of veers off into that, but it’s never real specific talking about something that we think is coming before Council.

“The only thing that triggers Sunshine and keeping minutes is if it’s something that’s likely to come before City Council,” she said. “If we’re only talking about how a water plant works, or general state-level rules for different ways to fund different affordable housing ideas, it doesn’t even apply. We could talk about that at an unnoticed meeting.”

[See the full minutes of the book club meeting, the EatOviedo event and Coffee with Mayor Megan] 

In March, Hall advised Sladek that he believed she and Ott “violated” the Sunshine Laws at her EatOviedo meeting, according to a May 2 email obtained through a public records request. 

“My reason for the advice was to allow her to make sure she and Mr. Ott avoided repeating the actions and thus be subject to a citizen claiming a Sunshine Law violation” Hall wrote. “Instead, she bluntly told me I was wrong as did Mr. Ott subsequently.”

Potential consequences

Violations of the Sunshine Law could lead to some or all of the following penalties, according to a summary of the law:

• Decisions taken at meetings may be voidable
• Removal from office by the state or governor
• A knowing violation is punishable as a second-degree misdemeanor, which includes imprisonment up to 60 days and/or fines up to $500
• Unintentional violations may be punishable by a fine of up to $500
• Attorneys’ fees can be awarded

If a board is found to potentially be in violation of Sunshine Law, they may have to have a cure meeting on the subject in question, “where they basically have to go over the entire discussion or issue again as though it was never discussed [previously],” Conticello said. The cure meeting is in place to give a governmental entity a way forward to continue doing its business, but it does not mean an individual found to be in violation cannot still face further penalties.

“There is a very easy way to avoid all Sunshine Law issues, and that is to never speak to any other elected official outside of a meeting where we’re having a Council meeting or work session,” Ott said. “The people are not best served when you draw a fence that far outside the law, and in this case, I think the residents are better served when we can have these kind of meetings with residents and talk to them about issues of the city.”

Ott and Sladek have been friends since before Ott was elected to Council in 2024 and he said that, due to the Sunshine Law, they avoid discussing city matters when together in private, and drew a line in what they could or could not discuss with them both on Council.

“Eight months ago, it would have been like, [let’s talk about a city-related topic], and now it doesn’t even come up,” he said.

A decision handed down

Following Smith submitting her concerns to Chief Assistant State Attorney Stacey Straub Salmons in May, Salmons issued her findings on June 17. 

She wrote that Sladek and Ott “are complying with Florida’s Sunshine Law, given the manner in which these social events and others are being noticed and conducted,” and found that “given the full review of the facts before me, that there has been no Sunshine Law violation committed by Mayor Sladek, Councilmember Ott, or any other individual as it relates to these events.”

As part of the investigation, Sladek said Salmons only asked her if the meetings were posted on the city’s website, which Sladek confirmed.

After receiving Salmons’ ruling, Teuchert emailed Salmons asking for clarification on her decision. 

“Based on the information provided, is it accurate that a meeting between two council members can be held in a private residence or a restaurant under the label of a book club or coffee meetup and that city-related matters that have not been voted on yet can be discussed — as long as the gathering is posted on the city website and meeting minutes are taken?” she asked. “Can you confirm that there is no requirement to notify the broader public or the rest of the council in advance that city business will be discussed and that ADA accessibility or public availability of the venue (such as whether non-paying individuals can enter a restaurant) is not required, as long as the meeting is framed as a casual gathering? I just want to make sure I clearly understand the boundaries and requirements under state law since the [counsel] I had received informed me that this was not allowed.”

Salmons responded, saying that she could not offer legal advice, and that Teuchert should seek advice of legal counsel.

The letter by Salmons, however, may not have fully addressed the direct questions about the types of events being put on, Conticello said.

“The State Attorney’s analysis is incomplete and wrong,” Conticello wrote in an email to OCN. “Of course, Sunshine Law applied, but it focused on citing factually different [Attorney General] opinions and concluded posting any old notice fixed everything. Not true. That is where the analysis begins, not ends. I believe the notice itself was defective. It said the meetings were NOT official meetings, but the minutes prove public business was discussed.”

OCN has requested an interview with Salmons, but her office had not responded to the request at time of publication. 

“We specifically asked what if we do this thing [at a March ethics training]? We publicly notice a meeting, we go to a restaurant that’s ADA compliant, we have a meal and everybody’s invited and we talk about stuff and we keep minutes,” Sladek said. “[The head of the training is] like, ‘OK.’ [People at the training] are looking over at each other like ‘What? We can’t believe it. What they’ve been doing is allowed, and this ethics training class lawyer [said] it’s allowed?”

The three meetings are not the first time Sladek has been questioned about her actions regarding the Sunshine Law. A June 2024 City Council meeting became contentious when a number of Sladek’s social media posts were questioned, and Teuchert questioned the claim that how Sladek utilizes her Facebook page “does not break” Sunshine Law in a Jan. 7 email to City Manager Bryan Cobb, City Clerk Elianne Rivera and Hall. 

While Sladek said she doesn’t feel attacked over the multiple Sunshine Law violation allegations, she does think she is “misunderstood” when it comes to her interpretations of the law.

“It’s very understandable for the colleagues who have not personally read the Sunshine Law, and I guess they completely didn’t pay attention when they did their required four hours ethics training, which we have to do every year,” she said.

“How they don’t know these things when they do that four-hour training is beyond me, but for whatever reason, they could not accept what the people said at those classes because our city attorney said something different,” Sladek said. “It’s not an unreasonable thing to believe a city attorney when that person is telling you what you want to hear and not what the law says.”

The issues of potential violations were raised mainly to avoid any city decisions from being voided, Teuchert said. 

“That’s why it’s so important to get clarification on this, because I don’t want us to be operating in a way where the things we vote on can be challenged down the road and put the city in a bad spot,” she said.

Sladek did say that after speaking to the new city attorneys, she will consider moving the locations of future events to more open or accessible areas, make it more clear that if they are held at businesses that purchases are not necessary and possibly add a disclaimer to the event invitations that explains city topics may come up and be discussed.

Attention on former city attorney

The city changed attorneys in May, now using Vose Law Firm due to the previous firm, Stenstrom, which has represented Oviedo since at least the 1980s, discontinuing its practice at the end of May. Sladek said she asked Vose if she could “turn myself in” over the Sunshine Law violations because “I need somebody to vindicate me,” but was “talked off the cliff” of doing so by the new firm’s attorneys.

“I’m just pretty confident I can read the statue; I know how to not violate it,” Sladek said. “We have, for many years until very recently, had a completely incompetent city attorney. 

“I have not heeded one little bit of what our old city attorney has said for as long as I have been in office; he’s not a competent person on any subject at all,” Sladek said.

Sladek said her concerns about Hall date back years, culminating with the recent $4 million settlement the city made after being sued by a charter school developer.

“When people asked me when I was running [for mayor] in 2019, ‘What is your No. 1 goal,’ it was to get a different city attorney if elected,” she said. “There were not enough votes [on Council] ever to do that.”

Sladek, who is currently running unopposed for re-election this November, said she regrets that, while it was her stated top priority, she “wasn’t able to protect our city from [Stenstrom and Hall] until they quit.”

“I didn’t pull it off, no doubt about it,” she said.

Sladek’s strong feelings about the Stenstrom law firm, however, can be traced back decades. 

In 2002, the city of Oviedo sued a 23-year-old Sladek, accusing a group Sladek helped to form of “intercepting e-mails intended for City Council members,” according to an Orlando Sentinel article written at the time. The lawsuit was eventually dropped.

“I was falsely accused of intercepting e-mails, as the city conceded the falseness in the statement,” Sladek said in an email to OCN.

Sladek’s feelings toward Hall boiled over in a May 19 City Council meeting over the discussions about the Sunshine Law, when she exploded by saying she is “inclined to sue [Hall] for slander, continuing to say that we’re violating Sunshine Law out loud at a public meeting.” While she said she is not currently pursuing legal action, she said she is monitoring Hall’s situation going forward.

“If he attempts to practice law again, I will feel obligated to make sure that he cannot cause any future harm,” she said. “If he doesn’t actually practice law for now, and if he really has retired, he can retire in peace. But if he cannot bring himself to never practice law again, I think that is a problem. He has behaved very poorly.”

During the May 19 meeting, when Sladek seemingly celebrated the fact that Hall and Stenstrom would not be the city’s legal counsel for “much longer,” Hall responded immediately by saying, “Mayor, I resent that.”

In the May 2 email to Teuchert, Hall wrote that he and fellow Stenstrom and city attorney Bill Colbert felt their firm was removed from their position earlier than expected due to actions of Sladek and “agreed that it was potentially motivated by vindictiveness” over Hall’s March advisement to Sladek about potential violations.

Oviedo City Manager Bryan Cobb disagreed with Hall’s assessment and did “not interpret this section as a ‘firing’ of Stenstrom [Law Firm],” but rather establishing a transition period between Stenstrom and Vose. He wrote that Sladek’s only request to him was to “place the agreement on the agenda as expediently as possible.”

Hall apologized to Sladek for the accusation at the May 5 City Council meeting.

“I owe Mayor Sladek an apology,” Hall said. “I incorrectly accused her of inserting herself in the process of revising the city attorney agreement. In subsequent conversation with Mr. Vose and Mr. Cobb, we got it straightened out and I realized I was wrong.

”I was raised that when you’re wrong, you admit it, and I own up to it, and also, if you’ve wronged a person, you seek [them] out and you apologize,” he said.

OCN left multiple voicemails and sent multiple emails to Hall for comment, but none had been returned at time of publication.

“It has called my integrity into question, and that really bugs me,” she said. “I don’t break the law, and I don’t violate the charter, and that’s a ridiculous thing to suggest. This is very personal because this is an integrity issue.”

If someone feels a public board has violated the Sunshine Law, Conticello said they should put the governmental entity and city or county attorney on notice that there was a violation and bring it up at a public meeting. They can also file an official letter to the state and even pursue a private lawsuit if necessary.