HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-2007 Confidentiality Statement and proposed PolicyPage 1 of 9
Andrea Lorenzo-luaces
From: Kate Latorre [kiatorre@orlandolaw.net]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:42 PM
To: Andrea Lorenzo-luaces
Cc: Joanne Dalka
Subject: RE: Confidentiality Statement and proposed Policy
Andrea:
Please find my response to each of your questions/concerns below in BOLD BLACK FONT FOLLOWING THE
PHRASE "ANSWER/OPINION."
As always, please feel free to contact my office to discuss any of these issues or if you have a speciflc
public records request you're dealing with.
Kate Latorre
From: Andrea Lorenzo-luaces[mailto:aluaces@winterspringsfl.org]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 5:53 PM
To: Kate Latorre
Cc: Joanne Dalka
Subject: Confidentiality Statement and proposed Policy
Kate,
Joanne Dalka and I have reviewed Florida Statutes 119.071 as it relates to the Confidentiality
Application /proposed Policy and we have a few comments related to the Confidentiality Application
and proposed Policy, which we would appreciate your comments on. [We have copied portions of the
related Florida Statutes and each new question(s) is shown in a different color font]:
These issues are of particular concern, especially for the City Clerk's Office as we would be primarily
responsible, as you know.
4) AGENCY PERSONNEL INFORMATION.--
(a)1. The social security numbers of all current and former agency employees which numbers are contained in
agency employment records are exempt from s..1i9-07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. An agency that is the custodian of a social security number specified in subparagraph 1. and that is not the
employing agency shall maintain the exempt status of the social security number only if the employee or the
employing agency of the employee submits a written request for confidentiality to the custodial agency.
However, upon a request by a commercial entity as provided in subparagraph (5)(a)5., the custodial agency
shall release the last four digits of the exempt social security number, except that a social security number
provided in a lien filed with the Department of State shall be released in its entirety. This subparagraph is
subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 119.15 and shall stand repealed on
October 2, 2009, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature.
Comment: I have copied the following excerpt (the same as above, as shown in italicized text) and am
wondering if the following is an accurate statement?
2. An agency (City of Winter Springs) that is the custodian of a social security number specified in
subparagraph 1. (1 used to work for the City of Winter Springs and left) and that is not the employing
3/2/2007
Page 2 of 9
agency (I now work for the "xyz company") shall maintain the exempt status of the social security number
only if the employee or the employing agency of the employee submits a written request for
confidentiality to the custodial agency.
Comment: So, in the case of a "former employee" of the City of Winter Springs, to have my social security
number kept exempt with the City of Winter Springs, even though I no longer am employed by the City of
Winter Springs, I would need to send something in writing to the City of Winter Springs asking that my social
security number be exempted. is this correct? If so, who is this request sent to? Should this be stipulated in a
City Policy?
ANSWER/OPINION: First and foremost, all social security numbers held by an agency are confidential
and exempt from disclosure under section 119.071(5)(a)3., F.S. It seems the Florida Legislature has not
worked out the internal Inconsistency between this requirement and subparagraph (a)2, which you cite
above, with regard to individuals having to ask the City to exempt their social security numbers. No one
should have to ask for their social security number to be exempt -- the City is required to keep all social
security numbers confidential and exempt under subsection (5)(a)3.
Additionally, any request related to having any information redacted from the public records should be
sent to the City Clerk's office, which is responsible for the City's official records. In my opinion, no
official city policy is required. Florida Statutes section 119.011(5) defines "custodian of public records"
as the "municipal officer charged with the responsibility of maintaining the office having public records."
In Winter Springs and in most cities, that is the City Clerk's office.
(4) AGENCY PERSONNEL INFORMATION.
(a)1. The social security numbers of all current and former agency employees which numbers are contained in
agency employment records are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. An agency that is the custodian of a social security number specified in subparagraph 1. and that is not the
employing agency shall maintain the exempt status of the social security number only if the employee or the
employing agency of the employee submits a written request for confidentiality to the custodial agency.
However, upon a request by a commercial entity as provided in subparagraph (5)(a)5., the custodial agency
shall release the last four digits of the exempt social security number, except that a social security number
provided in a lien filed with the Department of State shalt be released in its entirety. This subparagraph is
subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 11.9,1.5 and shall stand repealed on
October 2, 2009, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature.
(b) Medical information pertaining to a prospective, current, or former officer or employee of an agency
which, if disclosed, would identify that officer or employee is exempt from s. 1.19..10.7(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of
the State Constitution. However, such information may be disclosed if the person to whom the information
pertains or the person's legal representative provides written permission or pursuant to court order.
(c) Any information revealing undercover personnel of any criminal justice agency is exempt from s. 1.12,470 )
and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
(d)1. The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and ph.otogcophs of active or former
law enforcement personnel, including correctional and correctional probation officers, personnel of the
Department of Children and Family Services whose duties Include the investigation of abuse, neglect,
exploitation, fraud, theft, or other criminal activities, personnel of the Department of Health whose duties are
to support the investigation of child abuse or neglect, and personnel of the Department of Revenue or local
governments whose responsibilities include revenue collection and enforcement or child support enforcement;
the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and places of employment
of the spouses and children of such personnel; and the names and locations of schools and day care
facilities attended by the children of such personnel are exempt from s..112...070 ). The home addresses,
telephone numbers, and photographs of firefighters certified in compliance with s. 63.3..3.5; the home
addresses, telephone numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such
firefighters; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of such
3/2/2007
Page 3 of 9
firefighters are exempt from s. 1.1.Q,,017(1). The home addresses and telephone numbers of justices of the
Supreme Court, district court of appeal judges, circuit court judges, and county court judges; the home
addresses, telephone numbers, and places of employment of the spouses and children of justices and judges;
and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of justices and judges
are exempt from s. 1-19.,.07(1). The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and
photographs of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant
statewide prosecutors; the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and
places of employment of the spouses and children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state
attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors; and the names and locations of schools
and day care facilities attended by the children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys,
statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors are exempt from s. 1.1.9,07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of
the State Constitution.
Comment: In reference to the first line of italicized and underlined text, Chief of Police Kerr's photo is on our
Website - under this Statute, aren't I/my staff responsible for ensuring all such records are exempted - even if
I have no idea that they are on the Website. How do I, and/or my staff ensure that we keeping all records
exempted when possible, without us being held liable, and without I and/or my staff checking every website
page all the time, each day, etc.? (other photos, although not with identifying names are also shown on our
Website, on our shared drive, and are accessible by all city staff that have computer access). Could we have a
signed form from Chief Kerr [and others) giving permission so that I and/or my staff are not held liable?
I am sure that there are photos in other publications which also have such photos. Such that I seem to recall a
Tuscawilla Today journal with an article and photo on Chief Kerr. This is probably not an issue, because that is
an independent publication, one that I/my staff is not responsible for - correct?
ANSWER/OPINION: In general, keep in mind that the exemptions set forth In Chapter 119 apply
to Information sought in public records requests. That said, each individual public records request must
be individually evaluated. Chief Kerr's photograph on the City's website Is not a per se public records
violation as I don't think the City's website constitutes an "official public record" of the City. Granted, if
Chief Kerr prefers his picture not be posted on the website, I think the City should honor that, as he Is a
"protected Individual" under chapter 119. However, the exemption of his photograph specifically applies
to public records requested for inspection and copying under section 119.07(1), F.S. Further, should a
website page containing a photograph of a protected employee, or any other record containing a
photograph of Chief Kerr or another protected employee fall within the scope of a particular public
records request, the same is required to be redacted under Chapter 119. 1 don't read this an a
requirement to withhold his picture altogether.
You and your staff are responsible for ensuring that exempt information is not produced in response to
public records requests or placed on the City's laser fiche system. The document containing exempt
Information should still be produced or made available on laser fiche, but the protected Information
should be redacted from the document. Also, the photographs without any Identification don't pose a
problem b/c there is no name or position indicated.
You are correct that the City bears no responsibility to photos or other information contained in private
publications. Only concern yourself and your staff with the City's official public records.
(4) AGENCY PERSONNEL INFORMATION.--
(a)1, The social security numbers of all current and former agency employees which numbers are
contained In agency employment records are exempt from s. 1.19..07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State
Constitution.
2. An agency that is the custodian of a social security number specified in subparagraph 1. and that is not
the employing agency shall maintain the exempt status of the social security number only if the employee
or the employing agency of the employee submits a written request for confidentiality to the custodial
agency. However, upon a request by a commercial entity as provided in subparagraph (5)(a)5., the
custodial agency shall release the last four digits of the exempt social security number, except that a
3/2/2007
Page 4 of 9
social security number provided in a lien filed with the Department of State shall be released in its
entirety. This subparagraph is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s.
119.15 and shall stand repealed on October 2, 2009, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through
reenactment by the Legislature.
(b) Medical information pertaining to a prospective, current, or former officer or employee of an agency
which, if disclosed, would identify that officer or employee is exempt from s..119..07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I
of the State Constitution. However, such information may be disclosed if the person to whom the
information pertains or the person's legal representative provides written permission or pursuant to court
order.
(c) Any information revealing undercover personnel of any criminal justice agency is exempt from s.
1.19,070) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
(d)1. The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or
former law enforcement personnel, including correctional and correctional probation officers, personnel
of the Department of Children and Family Services whose duties include the investigation of abuse,
neglect, exploitation, fraud, theft, or other criminal activities, personnel of the Department of Health
whose duties are to support the investigation of child abuse or neglect, and personnel of the Department
of Revenue or local governments whose responsibilities include revenue collection and enforcement or
child support enforcement; the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers,
photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such personnel; and the names and
locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of such personnel are exempt from s.
119..07(1). The home addresses, telephone numbers, and photographs of firefighters certified in
compliance with s. 6.33,35; the home addresses, telephone numbers, photographs, and places of
employment of the spouses and children of such firefighters; and the names and locations of schools and
day care facilities attended by the children of such firefighters are exempt from s. 119...07(1). The home
addresses and telephone numbers of justices of the Supreme Court, district court of appeal judges,
circuit court judges, and county court judges; the home addresses, telephone numbers, and places of
employment of the spouses and children of justices and judges; and the names and locations of schools
and day care facilities attended by the children of justices and judges are exempt from s. 112,OZ(1). The
home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of current or former state
attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors; the home
addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the
spouses and children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide
prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors; and the names and locations of schools and day care
facilities attended by the children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys,
statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors are exempt from s..1...19,07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I
of the State Constitution.
Comment: This italicized section does not address "former" judges — so how do we know when to
remove the exemption, when a currently serving Judge retires?
ANSWER/OPINION: This is an administrative issue that needs to be addressed by exploring the
City's options regarding "maintaining" certain exemptions. A few recommendations --when the
exemption only applies to "current" judges, you could add a line to the confidentiality application
for when the judge's term expires, if ever. The City could perform annual "exemption
maintenance updates" where staff checks its confidentiality applications on file against court or
other agency websites for currently seated judges and other protected individuals' status as a
protected individual.
Also, this could be evaluated on a "request by request basis" where the City looks at a particular
public records requests and considers if any protected information is included. If yes, staff may
contact the individual directly who has a confidentiality application on file to confirm the
protected status of the individual. The City will have to evaluate what will work best depending
3/2/2007
Page 5 of 9
on the scope of the public records request or require 'individuals to update their confidentiality
application annually attesting that they remain exempt.
2. The home addresses, telephone numbers, and photographs of current or former human resource,
labor relations, or employee relations directors, assistant directors, managers, or assistant managers
of any local government agency or water management district whose duties include hiring and firing
employees, labor contract negotiation, administration, or other personnel -related duties; the names,
home addresses, telephone numbers, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such
personnel; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of
such personnel are exempt from s. 119.0 (1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
Comment: I would say this applies to our "General Services Director", on the basis of his job duties, not job
title; but not to Mary Wilson who is the "Human Resources Coordinator" based on her job title and job duties.
However, I have "pasted" the following comments from Kevin Smith related to this inquiry, which makes me think
that it will be tough, regarding some jobs, to automatically exempt records based on staffs job titles. So, how
would you suggest my department best ensure that the entitled exemptions are properly made? We don't nor
should, pick and choose?
Comment: Should all job descriptions be reviewed (and by whom) to determine which employees should be
protected?
Email:
Andrea,
Yes, it looks that way to me.
However, I think we may need Anthony's read on this since Mary deals with a lot of Work Comp and other
personnel -related issues that could potentially result in her delivering news/decisions to an employee that the
employee may not agree with (and may become angry). Which, of course, is part of the basis for protecting this
group of positions.
Perhaps I could make the argument that her position is close to an "ass't manager" with "other personnel -related
duties" type position?
Either way, my point is to protect her to the extent legally possible.
Thanks,
Kevin
ANSWER/OPINION: For this exemption, look to the language "whose duties Include hiring and firing
employees, labor contract negotiation, administration, or other personnel -related duties." I don't think
whether Kevin Smith's title falls under one of the exact terms In the exemption Is what matters. For
Instance, If Kevin is a director that Is responsible for hiring and firing, he falls under the exemption. The
same goes for Mary Wilson — is she a director, assistant director, manager or assistant manager whose
duties fall into this exemption category? If yes, she's a protected Individual, if not, she's not a protected
Individual. I don't think It's a bad idea to evaluate which City employees should have their personal
identifying information exempt from the public record, but again, like I've stated previously in this small,
this can be evaluated on a "request by request" basis. Look at a public records request, look to chapter
119 for guidance, and decide what information qualifies as exempt under the applicable law. Our office
can always assist in this evaluation If questions were to arise and the City can take a reasonable time to
put the requested Information together and redact exempt information.
6. The home addresses, telephone numbers, places of employment, and photographs of current or
former guardians ad litem, as defined in s. 39.820, and the names. home addresses, telephone numbers,
and places of employment of the spouses and children of such persons, are exempt,from s. 119.07(1)
and .s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution, if the guardian ad litem provides a written statement that
the guardian ad liteni has made reasonable efforts to protect such iglbrrnation from heing accessible
through other means available to the public. This subparagraph is subject to the Open Government
Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 1.19.1..5 and slialI stand repealed on October 2, 2010, unless
reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature.
Comment: "Guardians ad litem" - is this the only title one would have?
ANSWER/OPINION: Yes, see definition:
(1) "Guardian ad [item" as referred to in any civil or criminal proceeding includes the following: a certified guardian
ad !item program, a duly certified volunteer, a staff attorney, contract attorney, or certified pro bono attorney
3/2/2007
Page 6 of 9
working on behalf of a guardian ad litem or the program; staff members of a program office; a court -appointed
attorney; or a responsible adult who is appointed by the court to represent the best interests of a child In a proceeding
as provided for by law, including, but not limited to, this chapter, who is a party to any judicial proceeding as a
representative of the child, and who serves until discharged by the court.
Comment: Could you please elaborate on the italicized text in this section. Should there be a place on
the Application for Confidentiality near this category for this person to add in the statement shown in the
italicized text`'
ANSWER/OPINION: I don't feel it necessary. We've already included a statement on the confidentiality
application that people claiming an exemption for the guardian ad litem category should submit a written
statement and 1 think an attached sheet is sufficient.
Comment: Does the Open Government Sunset Review Act - in accordance with s. 119.15 affect us? Ifs
so, in what way?
ANSWER/OPINION: This section requires that any new public records exemption be
automatically repealed 5 years after enactment unless reviewed and reenacted by the Florida
Legislature. We keep a close eye on new laws during each Legislative session and should this
affect any public records exemptions, we are sure to notify the City of any applicable change. Let
us worry about it for now.
8. An agency that is the custodian of the personal information specified in subparagraph 1.,
subparagraph 2., subparagraph 3., subparagraph 4., subparagraph 5., subparagraph 6., or
subparagraph 7. and that is not the employer of the officer, employee, justice, judge, or other
person specified in subparagraph L, subparagraph 2., subparagraph 3., subparagraph 4.,
subparagraph 5., subparagraph 6., or subparagraph 7. shall maintain the exempt status of the
personal information only if the officer, employee, justice, judge, other person, or employing
agency of the designated employee submits a written request for maintenance of the exemption to
the custodial agency.
Comment: Using the example of Joanne Dalka, a current employee of the City of Winter Springs:
8. An agency (City of Winter Springs) that is the custodian of the personal information specified in
subparagraph 1., (Joanne Dalka's husband is currently employed as a Seminole County Sheriff
and they do not reside in the City of Winter Springs) subparagraph 2., subparagraph 3.,
subparagraph 4., subparagraph 5., subparagraph 6., or subparagraph 7, and that is not the
employer of the officer (that is correct — Joanne Dalka's husband works for Seminole County,
not the City of Winter Springs), employee, justice, judge, or other person specified in
subparagraph L, subparagraph 2., subparagraph 3., subparagraph 4., subparagraph 5.,
subparagraph 6., or subparagraph 7. (City of Winter Springs) shall maintain the exempt status of
the personal information only if the officer, (Joanne Dalka's husband) employee, justice, judge,
other person, or employing agency of the designated employee submits...a written._request._for
maintenance of the exemption to the custodial agency — or complete the Application for
Confidentiality.
Comment: Is this correct?
That Joanne Dalka herself, as.. a City.._empl_oyee_..cannot_compl.ete...the..Application. for .Confidentiality_,
because this excerpt says her husband needs to do the requesting.
Comment Should there be something _added, to.., this .form., to include a_.place for Joanne Dalka_as the.
employee to act her husband's written permission?
Comment: Does the word "maintain" change any of this, as that would suggest we already would have
this_oi file, and then it could..be..."maintain ed"?
What would "maintenance" mean in this section?
Comment: Do you have a suggestion as to the best way to do what is requested here?
ANSWER/OPINION: In your example, Joanne Dalka is a protected "other person" under the
exemption for law enforcement b/c she is the spouse. So any information her employer, the City of
3/2/2007
Page 7 of 9
Winter Springs, has regarding her personal identifying information should automatically be kept
confidential and exempt from disclosure. Her husband does not need to make the request on her
behalf. If a City employee is a protected spouse or child, their information should be kept
confidential and the spouse/parent of the employee need not be involved.
The term "maintain" simply means to honor the exemption.
The best way to apply these exemptions to individually evaluate each public records request --
what records are being requested? What kind of information is contained in those records?
Personal identifying information should raise red flags and the City should ensure that no
information regarding protected individuals is released. Social security numbers should never be
released. Building plans for City buildings should never be released. etc. etc. etc.
(5) OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION.--
(a)1. The Legislature acknowledges that the social security number was never intended to be used for business
purposes but was intended to be used solely for the administration of the federal Social Security System. The
Legislature is further aware that over time this unique numeric identifier has been used extensively for identity
verification purposes and other legitimate consensual purposes. The Legislature is also cognizant of the fact
that the social security number can be used as a tool to perpetuate fraud against a person and to acquire
sensitive personal, financial, medical, and familial information, the release of which could cause great
financial or personal harm to an individual. The Legislature intends to monitor the commercial use of social
security numbers held by state agencies in order to maintain a balanced public policy.
2. An agency may not collect an individual's social security number unless authorized by law to do so or unless
the collection of the social security number is otherwise imperative for the performance of that agency's duties
and responsibilities as prescribed by law. Social security numbers collected by an agency must be relevant to
the purpose for which collected and may not be collected until and unless the need for social security
numbers has been clearly documented. An agency that collects social security numbers shall also segregate
that number on a separate page from the rest of the record, or as otherwise appropriate, in order that the
social security number be more easily redacted, if required, pursuant to a public records request. An agency
collecting a Rerson's social security_ number_shad,___upon-..th.at..Rerso..0 s-_reguest.-at-the time of or prior to the
ac.t.ual_.collection of._the._social...securi.ty, number by that agency, provide that personwit.h_.a_stat.ement_..of.....the
purpose or-p.urposes....fo.rwh.i.ch...khe_.soci.al.security..n.u.mber is being -collected and..us.e.d.,. Social security numbers
collected by an agency may not be used by that agency for any purpose other than the purpose stated. Social
security numbers collected by an agency before May 13, 2002, shall be reviewed for compliance with this
subparagraph. If the collection of a social security number before May 13, 2002, is found to be unwarranted,
the agency shall immediately discontinue the collection of social security numbers for that purpose.
Also on a separate note. our Pers�nncl Anplicati9zts. for en�p n�ent do not_have the social security
information "segregated" on another. document. as the above excerpt stales in italicized text. How
qujckI es this need to be. changed by_the City?
Just curious._ .. the. boldcd.,statemei t ahov...e states has_been, cic,arl.y...doctunented" , _where _does._ this.. need.
to be "clearly documented"?
Per..tlie underlined_ statement.below,_do.you, know if there .is a written statement.put_togetlier expla_inMg
the need for_the social_security.ntunber,__that is available to be handed out when.reauested? _It not. who
should nut this together, and I would guess it should be done soon?
ANSWER/OPINION: The statute has been in effect like this since 2005 so the City should update its
records accordingly. How quickly? How quickly can you do it as you're currently in noncompliance? Is
It vital? Probably not, but the change should be made in the case of a challenge.
Whether something is clearly documents will usually depend on whether the need for the social security
number Is required by applicable law or policy. On a case by case basis, the City should be ready to
point to the exact reason why the social security number is needed.
3/2/2007
Page 8 of 9
There likely Isn't a prepared statement put together for situations such as this b/c the need for the social
will be justified for different reasons. For Instance, City will need social security number for new
employees for federal income tax purposes; City will need social security number for utility customers for
credit check etc.
(b) Bank account numbers and debit, charge, and credit card numbers held by an agency are exempt from
s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. This exemption applies to bank account numbers
and debit, charge, and credit card numbers held by an agency before, on, or after the effective date of
this exemption. This paragraph is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with
s. 119.15 and shall stand repealed on October 2, 2007, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through
reenactment by the Legislature.
4(c) Any information that would identify or help to locate a child who participates in government -
sponsored recreation programs or camps or the parents or guardians of such child, including, but not
limited to, the name, home address, telephone number, social security number, or photograph of the
child; the names and locations of schools attended by such child; and the names, home addresses, and
social security numbers of parents or guardians of such child is exempt from s. IA-9&7(1) and s. 24(a),
Art. I of the State Constitution. Information made exempt pursuant to this paragraph may be disclosed by
court order upon a showing of good cause. This exemption applies to records held before, on, or after the
effective date of this exemption.
Comment: How would you suggest the italicized text is best protected by this office and the Parks ft
Recreation Department (this is the only Department that I think would have such information) or any other
Department that may have such records?
Comment: How can I and/or my staff protect such records, and not be held liable, if these records are
routinely held by another department?
Comment: In the meantime, we are going to find out from other Departments, if they keep such records;
how are they kept (for safekeeping); how long are they kept; and how are they disposed of, when
applicable retentions have expired?
ANSWER/OPINION: To address all of the above questions relevant to this section, any public
records request made upon the City should come to the City's Clerk's office. If records are
required from other City departments, you office distributes it. Your office analyzes the
information that is provided from those departments and determines what should be exempt on a
case by case basis. It is imperative that no City department pass out City records unless an official
public records request is made in order that the exemptions can be applied pursuant to law and
consistently.
Comment: A Commissioner asked for address records of all Department Heads and a list was sent —
Joanne Dalka (an exempt employee under Florida Statutes 119.071 (4) (a)l.) was included on that list
and it was emailed to the Commissioner. Also included on that list was Kevin Smith, our General
Services Director. Normally this would be a minor issue, however, what if the Commissioner was asked
for a copy of all of his emails and he happened to forward them without speaking to me or someone on
my staff, or someone else who had this email gave out such emails, not knowing these individuals were
exempted.
How can I and/or my staff, protect such records, and not be held liable, if these records are sent out by
another department not knowing the law?
ANSWER/OPINION: City Commissioners and City Staff should be educated on the fact that any request
for the City's public records be made through the City Clerk's office. If a request for public records
Include within its scope emails of City Commissioners, the City Commissioners should send the emails
to your office and your office evaluates the Information for applicable exemptions and should redact
the exempt information.
Other comments:
3/2/2007
Page 9 of 9
Should/can we ask for proof that someone is exempt, or do we take them at their word? For instance,
how do we know if someone is truly a Judge or a State Attorney?
If a City fireman who is exempt, and was married when he filled out the Confidentiality form, then later
divorces (or other situations) prior to the form being updated, say on a six month or year basis - how do
we "unexempt" their spouse, if we are not advised as to their change in status? Am I, and/or my staff
liable?
How would we keep such records? When would such records be normally disposed of?
On non -lifelong exemptions (Judges), do we always have to keep the records?
ANSWER/OPINION: While some information can be double -checked, you're mostly going to have to take
people's word for it. You're having them attest to the exemption being true by having the confidentiality
application notarized. I don't know what else you'd be expected to do.
You can only work with the information you have in your files. In the situation where the fireman gets a
divorce, the only way you can stay updated is to update your files periodically by asking that forms be
updated every year or two. This is an administrative issue and you need to evaluate the best way to
handle It for the City.
I recommend keeping the confidentiality applications until they are no longer relevant. This is where an
annual review of the current confidentiality applications on file can be helpful. If a certain person Is no
longer a firefighter, they no longer receive an exemption so their application is no longer relevant. I
recommend disposing of those kinds of applications after a year of the application being active —I'm using
the disposition guidelines for public records request in making this recommendation, as there isn't really
an applicable disposition guideline at this time. For lifelong protected individuals, the application should
be kept Indefinitely.
We hope that you can understand our concerns. Please advise when we can discuss these questions.
Thank you,
Awn red
Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces, CMC City Clerk
City oFWinter Springs
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Telephone; (407) 327-5955
Facsimile: (407) 327-4753
email: aluacesCwinterspringsA.orq
Florida Association of City Clerks Central East District Director
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attaclunent to it, contains information intended only for the
use of the individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that reading it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you.
3/2/2007