HB 1211: A Sunshine rewrite

The area’s very own Rep. Clay Ford (R-Gulf Breeze) is the sponsor of HB 1211, a sweeping rewrite of the open meetings and public statutes collectively referred to as Florida’s Sunshine Laws. The bill would combine the two currently separate statutes into one and officially designate it as the “Open Government Act,” as well as effecting numerous significant changes to the law.

The bill’s companion in the Senate, SB 1598, is sponsored by State Sen. Paula Dockery (R-Lakeland), and earlier this week was unanimously approved out of the Senate Community Affairs Committee.

Overview

What does the bill do?

• Designates Chapter 119 of Florida Statutes as the “Open Government Act”
• Moves the state’s open meetings law from s. 286.011 F.S. to newly created s. 119.13 within the already established chapter dealing with public records
• Creates an “Open Government Bill of Rights,” which, for the most part, simply reaffirms and restates rights already granted in the statute
• Bars agencies from assessing charges for staff costs when it takes a staff member 30 minutes or less to fulfill a records request.
• Would discontinue agencies’ ability to charge fees for redacting personal information (social security numbers and the like). Agencies would still be required to do so, but could not collect fees.

The good

The consolidation of the two related statutes into a single chapter makes sense. While it could result in initial confusion to those referring to s. 286.011 from court documents or open government resources, it should eventually make it easier for citizens to keep track of Florida’s open government provisions.

As we’ve said, the rights enumerated in the “Open Government Bill of Rights” already exist in the statute, but it may be useful for citizens unfamiliar with the statute to clearly and concisely state them at the beginning of the chapter. HB 1211/SB 1598 would also require governments and agencies to post the Open Government Bill of Rights on their websites and at their headquarters.

The bill’s best potential change is the clear statement that agencies cannot charge a citizen for staff costs if a request takes a staff member 30 minutes or less to fulfill. It also establishes that staff costs should be based on the salary of the lowest-paid employee capable of fulfilling the request. Compare that to the language currently in place:

If the nature or volume of public records requested to be inspected or copied pursuant to this subsection is such as to require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the agency involved, or both, the agency may charge, in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a special service charge, which shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost incurred for such extensive use of information technology resources or the labor cost of the personnel providing the service that is actually incurred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the clerical and supervisory assistance required, or both.

Finally, the bill would clarify penalties for public officials who violate the statute:

The bad

An area of huge concern is the bill’s inclusion of a “right to attend” public meetings. The language would appear to codify the recent assertion of the CMPA, that citizens have the right to attend and observe public meetings, but have no right to speak. That assertion contradicts the spirit of the statute, not to mention tons of case law and Attorney General opinions. We think that speaking to our assembled government officials is a basic right that must be included.

The bill would end agencies’ ability to charge extra fees when they are required to redact personal information from public records. They’ll still have to redact the information, but they’ll have to eat the cost. That’s good for citizens, but it’s not good for governments. Faced with an additional expense, that money will have to come from somewhere. The Florida League of Cities has expressed concern over the provision:

“The redacting issue alone is a huge problem,” said Rebecca O’Hara, assistant general counsel for the Florida League of Cities. “Cities can’t recover the costs of doing this. Then the question becomes, who is paying for it and the answer is the taxpayers are paying for this.”