The board or commission must provide reasonable notice of all such meetings. We find our decision in Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), to be instructive, where this court examined the Sunshine Act in connection with an action for declaratory relief against the county by a county employee who alleged that her termination violated the Sunshine Act. In Dascott, the appellant was employed as a senior secretary in the Senior Services Division of the Palm Beach County Department of Community Services.

The board or commission must provide reasonable notice of all such meetings. We find our decision in Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), to be instructive, where this court examined the Sunshine Act in connection with an action for declaratory relief against the county by a county employee who alleged that her termination violated the Sunshine Act. In Dascott, the appellant was employed as a senior secretary in the Senior Services Division of the Palm Beach County Department of Community Services.

This is not a situation where Bullock and the individuals he consulted made joint decisions. Cf. Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Instead, these individuals were simply providing advice and information, which does not make the negotiations team a board or commission subject to the Sun-shine Law.

As was the case in Bennett, Jordan, Knox, and Molina, the senior officials provided only a recommendation to the Sheriff but they did not deliberate with him nor did they have decision-making authority. Therefore, we conclude that the use of the memoranda did not violate the Sunshine Law. Cf. Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So.2d 8, 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that pre-termination panel was a "board" pursuant to the Sunshine Law because it exercised decision-making authority). Further, because the memoranda were related to an IA investigation, they were confidential. Section 112.533(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), discusses IA investigations and states as follows:

We affirm because back pay is not one of the remedies available under the Sunshine Act. This appeal follows our decision in Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in which we held the pre-termination hearing panel and the grievance committee which upheld Ms. Dascott's termination violated sections 286.011(2), (4) of the Sunshine Act. In our previous decision, we reversed the summary judgment order in favor of the County with directions on remand to conduct further proceedings in accordance with the opinion, "including a determination of remedies available to [Dascott] for both violations of the Sunshine Act."

See Times Publishing Company v. Williams, 222 So. 2d 470, 473 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969) (entire decision-making process affected by the Sunshine Law). See Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 92-65 (1992) (meeting of housing authority commission to conduct an employee termination hearing must be open to the public); 76-102 (1976) (meeting of municipal housing authority commissioners to discuss grievances and other personnel matters subject to s. 286.011, Fla. Stat.); 77-132 (1977) (personnel council composed of citizens appointed by members of county commission to hear appeals from county employees who have been disciplined not authorized to deliberate in secret); and 80-27 (1980) (civil service board created by special act to administer a civil service system for deputy sheriffs and employees of the Office of the Sheriff is subject to s. 286.011, Fla. Stat.). And see Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (deliberations of pre-termination panel composed of the department head, personnel director, and equal opportunity director should have been held in the Sunshine). 222 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969).

KLEIN, J. In Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), this court held that there was a violation of Florida's Sunshine Act, section 286.011(1), Florida Statutes (2003), when a panel deliberating the termination of a county employee met in private. Now two county employees who went through the same process filed this action seeking remedies for violations of the Sunshine Act. They seek to make this a class action to include other county employees who were either terminated or disciplined under the same procedure.

442 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1983). And see Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in which the court held that a pre-termination conference panel composed of staff was subject to the Sunshine Law. 691 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997).