I did not receive one of my two daily COVID-19 SITREPs yesterday afternoon.
I discussed this during my weekly conference call with senior county staff late yesterday afternoon.
Is the 1630 SITREP a public document? There was some confusion about whether the daily document is or is not a public document.
Up until now I had been operating under the assumption that it was---as it was being sent daily and not marked as a document "not for public release." I have shared this document with others, on my blog, and with military leaders that participate in the Chamber's Military Affairs Committee (MAC).
Because documents not for public dissemination are marked as such when they are sent to the board, this is how it is done normally. And when I receive documents marked as such, I never release them.
But I thought the 1630 SITREP had really useful information that the public would want to see and know--a daily illustration of how the county is mustering all resources to address the COVID-19 outbreak locally.
But now something has obviously changed, and it may have started with the inclusion of information about infections at a local assisted living facility in the SITREP from 4-7-20......
Regardless, I asked our attorney what the specific statutory exemption is which now makes this document unreleasable to the public. And I got this response:
"Jeff, the 1630 SITREP is an EOC planning document and I do
think it’s exempt under 119.071(3). However, the 1400 SITREP is not
exempt and is a releasable public record. I think Brad was going to put a
mark on the 1630 SITREP to indicate not to release it. It sounds as
though this will also help other agencies continue to contribute necessary
information to include on the document."
Meanwhile, I have been given login credentials which will allow for my continued access to this document; I believe my counterparts on the board have been given this access as well.
The public will still be able to receive the other SITREP--which is put out daily earlier each afternoon.
2 comments:
How would this "plan" exemption apply to a current SITREP?
3) SECURITY AND FIRESAFETY.—
(a)1. As used in this paragraph, the term “security or firesafety system plan” includes all:
a. Records, information, photographs, audio and visual presentations, schematic diagrams, surveys, recommendations, or consultations or portions thereof relating directly to the physical security or firesafety of the facility or revealing security or firesafety systems;
b. Threat assessments conducted by any agency or any private entity;
c. Threat response plans;
d. Emergency evacuation plans;
e. Sheltering arrangements; or
f. Manuals for security or firesafety personnel, emergency equipment, or security or firesafety training.
2. A security or firesafety system plan or portion thereof for:
a. Any property owned by or leased to the state or any of its political subdivisions; or
b. Any privately owned or leased property
held by an agency is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. This exemption is remedial in nature, and it is the intent of the Legislature that this exemption apply to security or firesafety system plans held by an agency before, on, or after the effective date of this paragraph. This paragraph is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 119.15 and shall stand repealed on October 2, 2023, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature.
Hold on Commissioner Bergosh, are you saying that Alison Rogers stood on her head to come up with a non-transparency legal opinion for Janice Gilley??
This is UNPRECEDENTED! Never have we seen such, er, well...never mind.
Said it before and I'll say it again, I have no idea why the BOCC is still taking advice from an attorney who is so conflicted out she can't even represent you. But then, you've got a County Administrator who is acting in direct defiance of the direction the board, including the Chair, who gave clear, emphatic instruction on improving communication with the public pronto.
It's clear Ms. Gilley is supremely confident she can do whatever she pleases with no repercussion. It's equally obvious to the public that she has complete autonomy and unilateral control, with no policy impact from the BOCC whatsoever.
What else should we expect? Tiger by the tail, in my opinion. And it will only get worse.
Oh, BTW, the County will be losing three more paramedics in the next 2 weeks. Of their own volition.
-Melissa Pino
Post a Comment