Franklin files Exceptions to order, with hearing planned
The 12th Judicial Circuit general magistrate who conducted oral arguments in February in a case involving the minutes of the Jan. 16, 2024 Sarasota City Commission meeting has agreed with the city argument that the litigation should be dismissed.
General Magistrate Medisa M. Turner wrote in her Recommended Order, issued on April 9, that Laurel Park resident Kelly Franklin has no “clear legal right to demand the correction of the meeting minutes” and the city has no “clear duty” to amend the minutes, as a “ministerial function,” as Franklin has contended.
Turner explained that Franklin “has failed to demonstrate the existence of case law, statutory authority, constitutional provisions, or other binding precedent that explicitly establishes a citizen’s right to compel the correction of meeting minutes.”
Turner also recommended that the presiding judge dismiss Franklin’s petition with prejudice, meaning Franklin could not refile an amended version of it.
Circuit Judge Dana Moss, who has taken over the case from Circuit Judge Stephen Walker, will have final say on the matter, as General Magistrate Medisa M. Turner indicated in her April 9 Recommended Order.
The Marks Law Firm of Orlando explains that general magistrates “do not have the power to issue Final Orders requiring a party or parties to act [or refrain from acting].”
It adds, “Instead of issuing a Final Order, the General Magistrate submits her report and recommendation to the Circuit Court Judge” assigned to the case.”
In the meantime, Franklin has filed Exceptions to Turner’s decision. In those, Franklin asked Judge Moss to reject the Recommended Order, deny the city’s motion to dismiss the case, and allow Franklin to file an amended petition.
On April 14, Moss issued her own order, directing that a transcript of the oral arguments be provided to the court and calling for the scheduling of a hearing on the Exceptions.
“The hearing must occur no later than 65 days from the date [Franklin] filed the Exceptions,” Moss wrote, noting that that date is June 15.
The transcript already has been filed with the court, The Sarasota News Leader learned.
A summary and a decision
As Turner explained in her Recommended Order, on Nov. 7, 2025, Franklin submitted to the court a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, “seeking to compel the City of Sarasota … to correct an entry in the official minutes of the City Commission meeting held on January 16, 2024.” Turner included in the document the relevant section of the minutes:
“Commissioner [Kyle] Battie presented and left his seat to display a copy of a printed black/white crinkled photograph on the Chamber Monitors from Kelly Franklin’s social media page who referred to him and another constituent as a primate, monkey, ape, and gorilla, and stated that the item was placed on the agenda to receive discussion and input from fellow-Commissioners which was received.”
Franklin has maintained that the minutes are incorrect, as Battie never cited her name during his presentation to his commission colleagues that day. The printout that Battie showed everyone in the Commission Chambers — and those watching online or on TV — did include a Facebook photo of Franklin from one of her personal pages. Franklin has characterized the paper he held up in Chambers as a “mash-up” of a Facebook post that she had created with photos she had taken of gorillas in their natural habitat in Rwanda, along with a photo of Battie and a co-owner of the Corona Cigar Co. in downtown Sarasota during a ribbon-cutting ceremony celebrating the opening of that business in September 2023, when Battie was mayor.
The co-owner, Tanya Borysiewicz, is half African-American, Battie pointed out during the Jan. 16, 2024 presentation.
On Dec. 4, 2025, General Magistrate Turner continued in her Recommended Order, the city filed its motion, asking the court to dismiss Franklin’s petition. The city did assert — “for purposes of this motion,” as Turner noted — that the city accepted “as true that the post in question was a ‘hoax’ not authored by [Franklin]. Notwithstanding this assumed fact,” Turner added, “[the city] contends that the minutes accurately summarize what happened at the city commission meeting and do not necessitate correction. Furthermore,” Turner wrote, “even if the minutes were subject to correction, [the city] argues that [Franklin] has not demonstrated a clear legal entitlement to such correction, nor has she established that the [city] has a definitive legal obligation to amend the minute entry.”
Then Turner explained that, on Dec. 8, 2025, Franklin “filed a response to the motion to dismiss … averring that she possesses evidence demonstrating that the photograph in question does not originate from her social media account. Accordingly, [she] argues, the statement contained in the minute entry is ‘materially and demonstrably inaccurate.’ [Franklin] contends that [the city] cannot concurrently accept this fact as true and maintain that the minute entry is accurate.
Additionally,” Turner wrote, Franklin “asserts that the open records laws articulated in the Florida Constitution and state statutes should be construed to afford a citizen the right to demand correction of a public record. Finally, [Franklin] argues that, pursuant to the city’s adoption of Robert’s Rules of Order, [the city] is required to amend erroneous minutes.”
Yet, Turner pointed out, “[U]nder Robert’s Rules of Order, the action of correcting meeting minutes is a discretionary action that may be taken ‘if’ the error becomes ‘reasonably established.’ ”
In her Recommended Order, citing judicial precedents, Turner also explained, “Mandamus is a common law remedy utilized to enforce an ‘established legal right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputable ministerial duty required by law.’ … Thus, to be entitled to an extraordinary writ of mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) she has a clear legal right to the performance of the particular action sought; (2) the respondents have a clear legal duty of performance; and (3) that no other adequate remedy exists.”
‘Immense pain and damage’
In response to a News Leader request for comments on Turner’s action, Franklin wrote in an April 9 email, “This prolonged episode has caused me immense pain and damage on multiple levels.
“But the hardest part is that the City of Sarasota has dragged the name ‘Franklin’ through the mud.
“I share a passion for democracy that I like to think I inherited from my ancestor Ben Franklin, who edited the Declaration of Independence and signed the U.S. Constitution that guarantees ALL OF US due process, the right to petition our government for redress of grievances, and the right to free speech,” Franklin continued, with emphasis.
“Like the printer he was, Benjamin Franklin called his autobiography Erratumbecause he prided himself on owning and learning from his mistakes.
“The City of Sarasota should have done that long ago.,” Franklin added. “But it is never too late to apologize, and it is the beginning of making amends.”
The News Leader also requested a comment from the City of Sarasota after the Recommended Order was issued last week.
Jan Thornburg, general manager of the city’s Communications Department, replied on April 9 that she would work on that, as the News Leader had made it clear that it was not asking for an immediate response. The deadline for the News Leader’s April 10 issue already had passed.
However, in a subsequent email, dated April 14, Thornburg reported that city staff had learned about Franklin’s filing of the motion with Exceptions. Therefore, since the litigation was continuing, Thornburg wrote that the city would “forgo making a statement at this time.”
Franklin’s Exceptions
On Saturday, April 10, Franklin filed her Exceptions to General Magistrate Turner’s Recommended Order, including an acknowledgement that the opinions of the Florida attorney general that she had “cited in her prior pleadings” — as Turner had noted in footnotes — were in error.
Franklin wrote that the error, “rather than demonstrating the absences of supporting authority, reflected a technical mistake in document preparation.” Franklin has been representing herself in the case.
Responding to Turner’s statement that — as Franklin put it — Turner could identify “no statutory or constitutional authority conferring a right to demand correction of meeting minutes” — Franklin cited the following:
- Florida Statute 286.011(2) “requires that minutes ‘reflect the events’ of public meetings,” and a 2004 opinion of the Florida attorney general confirmed “that the term ‘minutes’ [in accord with that section of state law] means ‘a brief summary or series of brief notes or memoranda reflecting the events of public meetings.’ [Franklin’s emphasis].” Franklin added, “A record that contradicts the events of a meeting is not a lawful minute within the meaning of [the cited section of the Florida Statutes].”
- A 2002 opinion of the Florida attorney general, in regard to the state’s Sunshine Law provisions for the approval of minutes of prior meetings, says that “ ‘a vote on the concurrence and revisions of the members should be taken at an open meeting with the minutes and any changes or revisions also discussed during an open meeting at the time the board adopts the minutes.’ ” Again, the emphasis is Franklin’s.
She added, “This opinion establishes a formal procedural mechanism — rooted in the Sunshine Law — for the revision of minutes, implying a corresponding right of citizens to invoke that process when minutes contain material inaccuracies.”
- A 1974 opinion of the Florida attorney general, cited in the 2002 opinion, concluded that “ ‘a draft of minutes of a meeting could be circulated for concurrence and for individual members to make suggested corrections of the minutes [Franklin’s emphasis],’ so long as the vote on revisions occurs at an open meeting.” Franklin asserted that that “long-standing AG guidance confirms that the correction of minutes is not merely permissive — it is a recognized governmental function subject to Sunshine Law requirements.”
She added, “Unlike the erroneously cited opinions, these opinions are directly on point and support the existence of a recognized process — and therefore an enforceable right — for citizens to seek correction of materially inaccurate minutes under Florida’s Sunshine Law framework.”
Yet another Exception in her filing pertains to Turner’s finding that the City of Sarasota has no clear legal duty to correct the minutes.
Franklin wrote that Turner relied on Robert’s Rules of Order Rule 48:15, which indicates that the corrections of minutes are “entirely discretionary,” as Franklin characterized Turner’s opinion. However, Franklin continued, with emphasis, “[T]he discretion at issue … is whether a commission member raises a motion to amend — not whether the commission, once faced with an undisputed error it has already accepted as true, may ignore it.”
Franklin noted earlier in her filing — as Turner had in her Recommended Order— that the city had accepted as true Franklin’s assertion that the alleged Facebook post was a hoax. “Where the error is conceded, no further exercise of discretion is required to determine that the error ‘reasonably exists,’ ” Franklin continued. “The only remaining act — directing staff to amend the entry — is ministerial.”
Franklin also took issue with Turner’s recommendation that the petition be dismissed with prejudice. Franklin wrote that, given her erroneous citations of Florida attorney general opinions — “which contributed to the Magistrate’s conclusion” — Franklin should be allowed to file an amended petition because of Franklin’s inclusion of “valid legal authority” in her Exceptions to support her claim.