|
Putting the Sunshine in Government
|
|
Thursday, 24 June 2010 09:03 |
School Board member Jackie Porter has retained a Gainesville attorney who, on behalf of her as a private citizen, has filed a formal public information request with the School District, asking to look at all original documents related to the leaky Dunnellon High School roofs.
The School District received the lawyer's written request on Monday, prompting board Vice Chairwoman Judi Zanetti to address the issue at Tuesday's board meeting.
Zanetti asked Superintendent of Schools Jim Yancey to make sure staff tallies all the costs associated with the requests. Since the letter came from an attorney, School Board attorney Beverly Morris will have to correspond with Porter's attorney. School District spokesman Kevin Christian said Morris has always handled public information requests that come from attorneys. Her fee is $175 per hour, an amount that will add up very quickly, Zanetti said.
The School District has spent 46 hours at a cost of $2,100 to find every document Porter requested in May. Not pleased with the copies, Porter now wants to see the originals.
“We just all need to know how much this is costing us,” Zanetti said, adding that Porter had access to all the original documents after a June 3 work session. Porter met with Wally Wagoner, the deputy superintendent of school facilities, and the stack of originals were there to view.
“She had access to the originals then,” Christian said, adding that the originals are never given out to individuals and an employee must be present when they are viewed to protect the integrity of the files.
The debate stems from Porter's stated belief that the Dunnellon High leaks, which surfaced not long after the tar roofs were installed in the late 1990s, were the fault of the installers.
The School District discovered in April that the roofs had to be replaced at a cost of $500,000. School District administrators immediately began seeking warranty information, believing the materials, not the installer, were at fault.
In May, a month after she voted to replace the roof, Porter announced that she would not vote to approve the funding. It passed 4-1 and there have been debates ever since.
The School District received a letter, dated June 17, from Gary S. Edinger that states that he is representing Porter as “a private citizen and not in her capacity as a member of the School Board.”
The letter lists six specific requests for documents, including documents requested by the Star-Banner pertaining to the Dunnellon High roofs and all documents related to the roof warranties, as well as test results and copies of all previous bids.
Christian said Porter received all the requested documents weeks ago at a School Board work session. The Star-Banner was given a copy of the same documents that were given to the board as part of backup material.
Christian said the results from tests performed by Honeywell, which is handling the roofing material warranty claims, have not been released. It appears Porter wants to make sure the copies match the originals.
“My client wishes to inspect the original records responsive to this request,” Edinger wrote. “At the time of the inspection, she will indicate which documents she wishes to have copied.”
Edinger further stated that “my client will, of course, pay reasonable copy costs associated with this public records request.”
The attorney noted that Porter should be able to view the documents immediately since they have been gathered to make the copies given to the School Board. Christian, however, said the originals have been filed back in their boxes at locations throughout the county.
June 17 — the day the letter was written — was the day School Board Chairman Sue Mosley said in the Star-Banner that she would not seek a third term because she was weary of what she called “nonsense” — specifically the ongoing Dunnellon High roof imbroglio.
Though Mosley did not name Porter specifically, she cited the six-week saga as prime example of such nonsense, considering staff is working with the manufacturer to get some financial relief.
The issue also comes two weeks after the School Board tapped Marion/Service Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. of Ocala to install shingles on area schools on an as-needed emergency basis.
The board's 4-1 approval of the $200,000 contract came after a 45-minute presentation by School District staff and a board debate in reference to the leaky roofs that Marion/Service installed in 1998 and 1999.
School District officials conceded that documentation back in the late 1990s was poor and that it remains undetermined whether Marion/Service's installation, or Allied Signal's actual roofing material, failed. Allied Signal later became Honeywell.
Read the complete story at www.ocala.com
|
|
|
Putting the Sunshine in Government
|
|
Thursday, 01 April 2010 13:49 |
|
Charles Dickens described March as a month when the sun shines hot and the wind blows cold; when it is summer in the light and winter in the shade. The past month was a lot like that for open government in Florida. During March, the First District Court of Appeal issued a ruling on sunshine that was definitely chilling. The month also brought our state legislators back to Tallahassee for the 2010 legislative session and, with them, a lot of work for the First Amendment Foundation. As of the end of the month, we’re following 117 bills that could impact open government in Florida. A few of these bills would lead to more sunshine but, unfortunately, a lot of the bills would cloud the atmosphere in the state.
Recommendations of the Commission on Open Government
One of the very important bills of the 2010 legislative session that would improve open government is the result of Governor Charlie Crist’s Commission on Open Government, which was chaired by the Foundation’s President, Barbara Petersen. After touring the state and taking testimony from Floridians about the problems they have getting public records and accessing public meetings, the commission issued a final report making numerous recommendations to rectify problems in current law. Commission member Senator Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, filed Senate Bill 1598 and Representative Clay Ford, R-Pensacola, filed the House companion, HB 1211, which contain many of the Commission’s recommendations. While SB 1598 received 4 committees of reference in the Senate, as of this date, the bill has passed out of two committees and is now in its last substantive committee, Governmental Oversight and Productivity. It is hoped that the bill will be heard in that committee before session ends and get to the Senate floor for a vote.
Unfortunately, HB 1211 has yet to have its first hearing in a committee in the House of Representatives. The bill has been stuck in the Governmental Affairs Policy Committee, which is chaired by Representative Robert Schenck, R-Spring Hill. It isn’t clear why Representative Schenck has not scheduled the bill for a hearing but getting the bill heard in at least one committee of reference in the House is imperative to save the bill. Given that regular committee meetings in the House have concluded, the committee will have to get approval for any additional meetings. That isn’t impossible but it definitely is another obstacle to overcome.
Access Preserved (at least for now…)
In contrast to the snail’s pace at which HB 1211 has moved in the House, a bill that would close access to 911 recordings was fast-tracked, getting a hearing in the Governmental Affairs Policy Committee early in process. PCB GAP 10-03, dubbed “The Tiger Woods Relief Act,” would have dramatically expanded an existing exemption for identifying information by exempting the entire 911 tape and would have extended the scope of the exemption to all public agencies. Adding insult to injury, the bill would have allowed access to a transcript of the 911 tape but not until 60 days after the emergency call. The person requesting the transcript would have been required to pay BOTH the cost of transcription AND the fees allowed under ch. 119, which could have been hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Oh, and did we mention that we discovered that these tapes are only retained under the retention schedule for 30 days so it might not have been possible even to get a transcript?
Preserving access to 911 recordings is very important if the public is to assert any sort of oversight of our emergency services departments. We need to know whether the police responded to an emergency call in a timely manner or if they gave preference to a good neighborhood over a less desirable one. Given the lack of training in Florida for 911 operators, we need to know if they respond properly or inappropriately. One Florida editor estimates that less that public record requests are made for less than 2% of all 911 calls. But, certainly, the fear that they could be made public is the one way our vitally-important emergency management agencies are being held accountable.
Some examples of problems with emergency services uncovered through access to the 911 recording:
- In Miami Beach, police officers yelled epithets at a tourist and falsely accused him of trying to break into cars after the tourist witnessed the officers kicking a handcuffed man at a local park. The officers didn’t realize the tourist was on his cell phone reporting the beating to a 911 dispatcher.
- In Tampa, a 911 dispatcher didn’t follow procedure and as a result, the caller died.
- In Detroit, a 911 dispatcher chastised a small boy for “playing on the phone” while his mother was unconscious. When the police arrived, the mother was dead.
- In Memphis, a 911 dispatcher fell asleep after asking, “What’s your emergency?”
Fortunately, after receiving much media coverage, it appears that PCB GAP 10-03 was derailed during “Sunshine Week,” when the Florida House Speaker withdrew his support for it. Whether the PCB remains permanently derailed remains to be seen. We’ll be watching.
Hurricane Season Comes Early
One of the biggest disappointments so far in 2010 was the March ruling by the First District Court of Appeal in the case Keesler and Boyd v. Community Maritime Park Associates, Inc. The Community Maritime Park Associates, Inc. (CMPA) a not-for-profit corporation charged by the City of Pensacola with overseeing the development of a parcel of public waterfront property, and an entity subject to the sunshine, conducted public meetings but did not permit the public the right to speak at those meetings. Keesler and Boyd sued over the refusal of the CMPA to let citizens speak at these meetings. The lower court found in favor of the CMPA and Keesler and Boyd appealed.
In the opinion, the district court reviewed language in two Florida Supreme Court cases that dealt with public participation in public meetings. In Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1969), the Florida Supreme Court stated that
The right of the public to be present and to be heard during all phases of enactments by boards and commissions is a source of strength in our country…
After the Doran case, however, the Florida Supreme Court again discussed the rights of members of the public to participate in public meetings in the case Wood v. Marston, 442 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1983). In that case, the court reviewed the applicability of the sunshine law to a committee delegated by a university president to solicit and screen applicants for the deanship of a college. The Florida Supreme Court determined that the committee’s meetings were improperly closed but went on to state that “nothing in this decision gives the public the right to be more than spectators. The public has no authority to participate in or to interfere with the decision-making process.”
The district court noted that the appellants had failed to point to any case construing the phrase “open to the public” to grant the public the right to speak, and in light of the Marston case, which it noted was dicta, stated that “we are not inclined to broadly construe the phrase as granting such right here.”
The First DCA ruling in the Maritime case is obviously very chilling. As the Florida Supreme Court noted in the Doran case
Regardless of their good intentions, these specified boards and commission, through devious ways, should not be allowed to deprive the public of this inalienable right to be present and to be heard at all deliberations wherein decisions affecting the public are being made.
According to Sharon Barnett, attorney for Keesler and Boyd, a number of post-decision motions were filed with the court on March 25th and that are awaiting action. Given the significance of the holding, the Foundation will definitely continue to follow this very important case. |
|
Putting the Sunshine in Government
|
|
Written by First Amendment Foundation
|
|
Friday, 05 March 2010 10:30 |
Sunshine in government is a constitutional right in Florida. That isn’t to say Floridians don’t need to be vigilant about protecting that right. Sometimes, people who attempt to attend public meetings or get copies of public records discover roadblocks to the exercise of these fundamental rights. Fortunately for all of us, there are people who pursue every avenue available to them to ensure that their constitutional rights – and ours – are upheld.
We are also fortunate that there are many elected officials and government employees who understand the importance of transparency in government and who take their open government responsibilities very seriously.
Starting this year, the First Amendment Foundation is introducing a new feature on our website to celebrate those cases in which our constitutional right to open government is preserved and enhanced. Putting the Sunshine in Government will highlight the activities of both citizens and government officials and employees in ensuring that our government remains open and accessible to all.
- Transparency Florida:
- Senate President Jeff Atwater and the Florida Legislature have recently announced the launch of Transparency Florida (http://www.transparencyflorida.gov), a website designed to provide the public with access to state government spending information. While the site is a work in progress, the Legislature intends to add more information to the site so that it will provide a current picture of the operating budget, as well as daily expenditures by state agencies. Currently, you can find the state operating budget and associated expenditure records for FY 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are posted on the site. Increased transparency of government spending is something that will benefit all Floridians.
- Legislative Records and Meetings:
- One of the first exciting developments of the 2010 legislative is SB 440 by Senator Gelber (D), Miami Beach and its companion, HB 241 by Rep. Fitzgerald (D), Sarasota. If approved by the Legislature, and by the voters, the proposed bill will open the legislative process up to more sunshine by amending the constitutional provision relating to access to legislative records and meetings. Although the measure would require approval by the public in the 2010 general election, history shows us that the vast majority of voters support more sunshine in government. Here are links to the bills as currently drafted:
If you have any questions about either bill, please feel free to contact us.
- Citizens Making a Difference:
- Recently, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the right of two citizens, James Grapski and Michael Canney, to obtain a copy of city commission minutes of the city commission. In a nutshell: On April 11, 2006, the City of Alachua conducted an, and after the polls closed, the Commission met to canvass the election; a city employee prepared minutes of the proceeding. Prior to a Commission meeting scheduled for May 15, Grapski and Canney requested the minutes of the April canvass meeting, but their request was denied, and they were told the minutes would be available only after approved by the Commission at the May 15 meeting. A second request was made on the morning of the meeting, and it, too, was denied. Grapski and Canney weren’t able to obtain copies of the minutes after the Commission meeting, and the two filed suit against the city, claiming a violation of Florida’s open government laws.
After losing at the trial court, Grapski and Canney appealed, and the First District Court of Appeal found that the city’s “. . . unjustified refusal denied any realistic access for the only purpose appellants sought to achieve - review of the minutes before the Commission meeting,.” and noted that a holding otherwise would allow an agency to delay meaningful access to public records, only to disclose them later after the utility of those records had faded. See, Grapski v. City of Alachua, 1D09-509 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1-21-2010).
And in Walton County Suzanne Harris made two public record requests with Walton County for copies of county officials’ e-mails regarding a particular issue. Because the requests involved access to a large number of records, the county, rather than provide copies of the requested records, offered Harris the opportunity to use its intranet system and a county computer to retrieve the records she wanted. Harris filed suit to enforce her right of access to the public records she had requested.
Prior to trial, the County Commission voted to settle the lawsuit and to provide Ms. Harris with copies of the records requested, even though the county has not admitted any wrong doing. While Harris has yet to receive the requested records, the parties have 30 days after entry of the Final Judgment to meet to determine the most effective way to produce the requested records. Significantly, under the terms of the settlement, the county is required to conduct annual training in public record requirements. Additionally, under the settlement agreement, the County Commission and the individual commissioners are required to use only their official e-mail accounts when transacting official business. While use of private e-mail addresses does not appear to have been an issue in the Walton County case, it has been an issue that the Foundation has been following for some time. Use of private e-mail addresses by public officials and employees to conduct public business is bad practice. Use of personal e-mail addresses makes it more difficult for Floridians to follow actions of their state and local governments. It does not make it impossible, however, as such e-mails are still public records.
Finally, the Settlement Agreement provides that Walton County will pay Ms. Harris’ legal fees and court costs of $148,000. While it is unfortunate that these costs ultimately will be born by the taxpayers of Walton County, hopefully, such costs will not have to be paid for future public record requests. |
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 01 April 2010 14:01 |
|
Putting the Sunshine in Government
|
|
Thursday, 04 March 2010 09:32 |
Proposal, a major reform filed by Dockery and Ford, would streamline laws.
After years of almost annual legislative attempts to close parts of Florida's open government laws, public records advocates have something to cheer about in a bill filed by state Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, and Rep. Clay Ford, R-Gulf Breeze.
"This is the biggest reform ever of Florida's open government laws," said Barbara Peterson of the First Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting public access to government records and decision-making.
Florida's open access laws were among the first in the nation and remain among the most wide-ranging. Meetings of elected officials must be open to the public and the public has the right to examine public records.
Many of the proposed changes and the overall streamlining of the laws came from the nine-member Commission On Open Government, of which Dockery was a member.
The changes would streamline open government and public records laws and place them into a single, uniform act. Peterson said the two separate elements - meetings and records - were often confusing, with different penalties and regulations.
"For example, intentional violation of the open government law is a second-degree felony while intentional violation of the public records law is a first-degree felony," Peterson said.
Conviction of both types of violations under the consolidated act now would be first-degree felonies.
"If we just combined the two elements into one law that alone would be a great improvement," Peterson said.
But the proposed law - Senate Bill 1598 and House Bill 1211 - has a little added punch to it as well.
"If you make a public records request of a government agency that takes less than 30 minutes to fill, you can only be charged for the copying," she said. "This often has been a problem in the past. If the records request runs longer than a half hour the agency can charge you only for the time of the lowest-paid employee able to provide those documents."
Among other changes is that agencies cannot charge for removing personal information from public e-mails.
Dockery said last week that the bill would strengthen Florida's lead in granting access to government records.
She has had personal experience with public records laws when she requested boxes of records from the Florida Department of Transportation involving behind-the-scenes negotiations for an Orlando commuter rail system.
Peterson said the reform bill is one of several open government bills filed this year, including the controversial proposed constitutional amendment that would allow public access to legislative meetings and caucuses, including meetings in which the state budget is put together.
Senate Bill 1452, which was recommended by the open government commission, would allow an individual to seek an opinion from the Florida attorney general when denied access to public records.
Read the complete story at theledger.com
|
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 04 March 2010 15:41 |
|
|
