FBI

Some Submarines that disappear under the waves should never re-surface where they're easily spotted.....

The FBI stands for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the United States Justice Department.

They are the nation's premiere law enforcement agency.

So, imagine my surprise when I saw an individual on the beach in Perdido Key in District 1-- not too long ago-- with a "tank-top" style shirt and a hat that displayed the "FBI" letters.

"What's this all about?" I wondered to myself.  so as I strolled by on my way to a favorite fishing spot near public access #3--I got a closer look at this individual.  Not FBI. Not even close.

Imagine it, a guy in his sixties with stringy, bleach blonde hair (think of an unattractive, out-of shape Jeff Bridges' character in the Big Lebowski) and with so much back hair it could be parted with a brush, big old beer belly and wearing a tank top and hat that had big FBI letters but that actually, in smaller print below, had an inapprpriate, fake moniker 

Creepy, weird, and most of all, INAPPROPRIATE.  That was the sense I was struck with.  How inappropriate.  

It's kind of like how some people do inappropriate things with confidential, privileged information.  

Inappropriate.  

The difference is--the fake FBI t-shirt guy isn't doing anything wrong with his inappropriate garb.  People in positions of trust who do inappropriate things with confidential information which they possess, however, enjoy no protection under the 1st Amendment.

That's the difference. 

At my recent town hall in Beulah last week, an audience question came to me that reminded me of the creepy guy on the beach and things that are inappropriate.  The question was--paraphrased--"why don't you tell the citizens which companies you are looking to attract when you are doing economic development deals?"(you can see the question and answer at 1:23 of this video)

It's inappropriate--that's why.

We lost a significant economic development deal because people who knew better did wrong and released confidential information.  That was an ethical breach by a former employee's office.  It should never have happened because we are in positions of trust and we are guided by laws and rules and ordinances when we work with confidential information dealing with economic development--that's why we don't release it and we handle it carefully.

People that should have known better and should have learned a lesson from project Fisher didn't.

But the lessons learned remain.  

Don't do inappropriate things with unlawfully obtained, unlawfully maintained, and/or unlawfully disseminated information.  Bad ju-ju--INAPPROPRIATE.

maybe criminal?

I Want the Information Released! I'm Requesting a Special Meeting to Address This

We should be releasing the MAXIMUM amount of information and interpreting the public records law liberally in this instance---not shutting down reports and making them exempt!

As I now field a variety of calls and messages from concerned relatives of folks in local nursing homes, the lack of transparency is becoming untenable.  Folks are concerned.

For the SITREP to suddenly be deemed "unreleasable" is wrong I believe.

I want it released as it was being released before.  The citizens, especially during these times of uncertainty and panic, deserve complete transparency.  To suddenly say a document is "classified" is wrong.  This will sow angst, anger, mistrust, and fear needlessly.

I work for the citizens, the citizens elected me--not an unelected government bureaucrat. 

A bureaucrat  suddenly "decided" this information from our county's SITREP should not be releasable.

I'm going to request this information be once again made public daily.  And the five of us, the elected commissioners, not an unelected bureaucrat, will decide this.

I'm requesting a special meeting, a virtual meeting, of the board of county commissioners, to set this right.  Hopefully we can do it over ZOOM and stream it on the County's Facebook page and do it quickly--possibly early next week.  Otherwise, we will be waiting until our next meeting scheduled for May 7th---almost a month away!

The public records law is supposed to be interpreted liberally--leaning toward maximum transparency.  In this instance, the county's attorney is conservatively interpreting this law.  Too conservatively in my opinion.  It is wrong, so far as I am concerned.

Threat Assessment??!!??  Really?  This virus is a common enemy to all (even our real enemies overseas)--It's not as if we are at war and the enemy is studying our hospital capacity information!  We're all fighting this together----and information is critical in this fight.  And the citizens deserve this information!

Here is the problem with politics in America right now----at all levels.  You have the three co-equal branches, then you have the 4th estate, the press (partisans, everyone knows this) and the most powerful, the fifth branch--the administrative state.  Bureaucrats.  They outlast those of us that run for and win positions, and they push and pull important decisions they way THEY want them to go.  And again, it happens at all levels, and yes, even locally.

But in this new reality we face, this Pandemic that is literally re-shaping the future of our country before our eyes--we as elected representatives of the people must step up and make the decisions about transparency------not unelected, unaccountable administrative employees.

One SITREP will be Public, the Other One is Exempt from Release Going Forward....

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.

This is yesterday's version of the public SITREP.