The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-31-2007 Confidential AddressesPage 1 of 3 Andrea Lorenzo-luaces From: Kate Latorre [klatorre@orlandolaw.net] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 5:01 PM To: Joanne Dalka Cc: Michelle Greco; Andrea Lorenzo-luaces Subject: Spam: RE: Confidential Addresses Joanne, I certainly see your concern with disclosing the address of protected employees even if the employee's name is not identified in the information subject to a public records request. Unfortunately, the answer is not crystal clear based on existing case law and other legal sources, and this issue may therefore, have to be left to the City's discretion and be based on exactly what information is available to the City. Technically, you're correct in your thinking that the statute provides the person's address should be kept exempt from disclosure as part of the public record. A plain and literal reading of that language would support redacting the protected person's address no matter what kind of document it may be found in. That said, in some cases, the City may be none the wiser that a particular protected person's address is associated with someone else's utility account. In these instances, I am uncertain as to how the City would be able to consistently and effectively regulate and keep tabs on who lives with whom and how the City can reasonably be expected to do so. As you know, section 119.071(4)(d)1., Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel, including correctional and correctional probation officers ... 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 ._.1.19.07_(1..j. It's important to note that if the legislature had included the phrase "confidential and exempt," instead of just "exempt," then the information could not be revealed under any circumstances; while exempt information can be revealed at the discretion of the agency. Over the years, this particular section of the Public Records Law has been amended numerous times and an examination of the legislative history reveals that the purpose of this particular exemption is to protect the safety of law enforcement personnel and their families. The Florida Attorney General opined in Opinion 90-50 that although the Legislature apparently chose to place the release of this information within the discretion of the agency, in light of the underlying purpose of the enactment, i.e., the safety of law enforcement officers and their families, the exercise of any such discretion by the agency must be exercised in light of that legislative purpose. Accordingly, in determining whether such information should be disclosed, the City should determine whether there is a statutory or substantial policy need for the disclosure. In the absence of a statutory or other legal duty to be accomplished by disclosure, an agency should consider whether the release of such information is consistent with the purpose of the exemption. Now armed with the information that M. Scovel lives with Alan Jones, it may be best to offer up as much protection to Scovel as possible as protected personnel of the City unless there is some statutory or substantial policy need to disclose the information. In this case, I'm not sure one exists and the City can no longer claim it didn't know better. Additionally, not disclosing Alan Jones' address would be in furtherance of protecting M. Scovel and his family. Like this example, there are going to be numerous individual circumstances which will present special cases for the City to consider and decide whether protection of certain information is necessary and authorized by law. In this case, I think it would be best to err on the side of caution and exempt Mr. Jone's utility billing address from public records disclosure, citing the exemption for law enforcement personnel in response to any records requests that need to be redacted. However, I can't say to any degree of certainty if a legal challenge to such a redaction would be upheld . But in my opinion, now that the City is armed with this information, it would be safer to redact it from the public record. 4/30/2008 Page 2 of 3 I hope this information helps. Enjoy your weekend, Kate From: Joanne Dalka [mailto:jdalka@winterspringsfl.org] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 6:07 PM To: Kate Latorre Cc: Michelle Greco; Andrea Lorenzo-luaces Subject: RE: Confidential Addresses Kate, I've read thru Chapter 119 of F.S.S. but I'm not sure how to answer this question. If an employee who is classified as confidential is living at an address but his name is not on the utility account and a public records request is made for the utility records for that address, should those records still be marked confidential? Here is the problem. The account has a confidentiality flag which we can check as on or off. As in the example below, M. Scovel is the confidential employee. However, the account is in the name of Alan Jones. We can mark the record/account as confidential. However, we have no way of notating that it is actually M.Scovel's record that is confidential instead of Alan Jones' record. Do you see the issue here? Chapter 119 states that the home addresses, telephone numbers, ssn's, and photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel are confidential. Therefore, would it matter whose name is on the account? Wouldn't we still be required to keep the address confidential regardless of who is on the account? What would we be permitted to give someone who already has the address of someone classified as confidential if they ask us to provide utility records for that address? Obviously, we're not allowed to furnish them with the address, but they already have that. Other than that, the other information on the record is releasable isn't it? Michelle Greco, our Finance Director, can probably add more information to this email as to what information is actually on the Utility account and what might be released or requested. From: Michelle Greco Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 1:57 PM To: Joanne Dalka; Andrea Lorenzo-luaces Subject: Confidential Addresses Importance: High Hello - I have made 26 employees confidential in the UB module of MUNIS and attached their employee number as discussed. A few items that came up: 1) An employee that has a City address — M. Scovel — but the Utility account is in the name of Alan Jones. I am not sure if it's his roommate. 2) An employee that has a City address — M. Lallathin — but the Utility account is in the name of Daniel Lallathin, his dad I believe. What are our responsibilities for confidentiality if the names are not the same on the account, such as a father or name unknown as above? Thanks. Michelle Greco Finance Director City of'Winter Springs 1126 East SR 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 (407) 327-5960 Fax (407) 327-4753 Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment 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 4/30/2008 Page 3 of 3 return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. 4/30/2008