HomeMy WebLinkAbout06232010Workshop1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. WORKSHOP ITEM
CITY OF
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORKSHOP
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2010 5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
ALL AGENDA ITEMS MAYBE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA OR ON THE CITY WEBSITE
10.10A A. Paperless Agenda Packets
3 -9 i. Discuss Pros and Cons of Various Methods (Clerk/MIS List)
11 -43 ii. City Attorney Brief Update on Electronic Records Issues E -Mail, Text,
Social Networks (State Electronic Recordkeeping Strategic Plan, City
Internet/E -Mail Policy, City of Venice Documents, AGO)
View and Test Various Methods at Dais w /Assistance of MIS Staff
Laptop, CPU and Netbook
iv. Council Guidance to Staff
5. ADJOURN (All meetings shall adjourn at 10:00 p.m. unless extended for up to one half
hour by a majority vote of City Council)
HEARING ASSISTANCE HEADPHONES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR ALL
GOVERNMENT MEETINGS.
All City Council Meetings are Aired Live on Comcast Channel 25.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER
CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENSE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARS. (F.S.286.0105)
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL
ACCOMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT 589 -5330 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING.
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC INPUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION R -09 -45
Workshops and Special Meetings Public input is limited to the item on the agenda
Time Limit Input on agenda items where public input is permitted on agenda is FIVE MINUTES; however, City
Council may extend or terminate an individual's time by majority vote of Council members present.
Direct Staff R
Packets
Paperless Agenda
City Ma er
City Attorney
�ma
SE TIAN
HUAI OT rrtfrwiv isurm
City of Sebastian
1225 Main Street
Sebastian, Florida 32958
Agenda No: W. D
Department Origin: City Clerk
Date Submitted: 6/16/10
For Agenda of: 6/23/10 Workshop
Exhibits: Scenarios List, State of Florida Electronic Recordkeeping Strategic Plan, City of
Sebastian Internet and E -Mail Policy, City of Venice Documents
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Based on a recent request by a third member of Council to no longer receive paper agenda
packets, City Clerk and MIS staff have been meeting and discussing various inexpensive
methods to provide paperless packets to those members of Council who want them. Upon
requesting feedback from Council, I received five different suggestions. We looked at each of
them and came up with a pros and cons list based on those suggestions (attached).
This workshop will give you an opportunity to consider various methods, hear some advice of
the City Attorney on public records law as it pertains to electronic systems, to test the use of a
full size laptop, a smaller netbook, and a fixed CPU under the dais utilizing the existing
monitors with a dual input switch so you can view the meeting and switch back to the packet,
and then you can decide what is best for you.
We on staff agree that we would like you to use something consistent that we provide to you,
we load it with the appropriate licensed software, and at the end of your term you turn it into us
for downloading of internal public records and clearing for the next person. This is just a
suggestion of course because it gives us a handle on how records are being retained.
The City Attorney will discuss with you the issue of electronic records as it pertains to records
law. This includes receipt of emails and texts which under Florida law are public record and
must be retained based on content. I have provided information regarding a Venice Florida
lawsuit to demonstrate the seriousness of this issue, as well as a copy of their resolution
prohibiting texting and their Information Technology Usage Policy. The City's Internet and E-
Mail Policy which each employee is required to sign, can be updated based on new
information and technology.
We are not in a position during these economic times to purchase full agenda preparation
software, so we believe that using a PDF file is the way to go for now. In February of this year
we received an estimate for Legistar software which works with our Laserfiche scanning and
weblink system, and flows electronically from agenda packet preparation to Internet
publication. The cost was $24,000 and that did not take into consideration the annual
maintenance cost.
Hopefully, at the conclusion of the workshop, Council can give us direction so we can put the
process in place. If required to purchase equipment, I have sufficient funds in the current Clerk
and Legislative budgets to cover costs. This level of cost will not require Council formal
approval. Some members of Council wish to continue receiving paper packets, and we will
continue to provide them.
LT
Paperless Agenda Packets
Mayor Gillmor suggested I -Pad
Vice Mayor Hill wants to use his own personal laptop because he travels with it
Council Member Coy not sure likes her book but might want to try paperless
Council Member Wolff wants a paper packet
Council Member Wright wants a CPU under dais and wants to look at only one screen at
meetings
I -PAD provided by City
Pros
It's new and pretty and user friendly
Cons
Cost is high basic prices start at $499 and go up to $900
Our system may not be able to support it
o MIS would have to implement a new management system to assure that they are
protected from the newest threats (because they are an Apple product does not
make them immune)
o MIS would not necessarily be able to enforce usage policies
Too many unknowns with new product
Battery is not user replaceable the unit will have to be returned to Apple where they
will replace it (all data would have to be backed up before shipping)
The City does not currently have a business relationship with Apple
Our recommendation is not to purchase l- -Pads as City property however if someone
wanted to purchase on one's own to use we would work with that person to assist with
forwarding a compatible PDF packet for their use
L
PERSONAL LAPTOP/ OR HOME COMPUTER
Pros
We can email packet in PDF as long as the person's computer can download large files
Updates can be e- mailed as a new packet
Comments have been enabled to allow anyone to make comments in the file
Person can carry a laptop to the meeting with their notes already in the file
Cons
City is not likely to support a personal laptop or home computer
o If the PDF works on a City -owned computer, then the problem is likely with the
personal system City will not support that system beyond making sure that the
PDF works
Does a home laptop or computer have the capacity to download a large PDF file
o No standard hardware configuration
If someone makes notes on a personal computer they have the ability to delete them
and they cannot do that because those notes would become public record and they
would have to be sent back to the City
o Usage policies cannot be enforced
If they use home computer (that is not a laptop) to review agenda how do they use it
for meetings
The systems are not on the City network
o No assurance that they are up to date with the latest security patches and
malware protection
We feel that if a member chooses to use this option, that is fine but the City cannot
support the computer, and if using a home computer rather than a laptop, how would you
follow during the meeting. If a person uses a personal laptop it could be carried to the
meeting. If a person is receiving text messages or emails during a meeting you must
remember that they are PUBLIC RECORD and must be forwarded to the City Clerks
office.
PAPER PACKET (We continue making paper copies for whoever wants them)
Pros
They keep working regardless if there is power
No batteries to replace
Cons
Cost (paper gets expensive)
If a change is made to the agenda, the new changes need to be sent out to the
councilmembers
o Fuel costs
CPU UNDER DAIS USING ONLY ONE MONITOR
Pros
Nothing to carry to meeting except CD or flash drive if they have made comments on
their own packet although they could email to the computer but then we would have
to set up outlook in each
The systems are on the City network which ensures that they are up to date on patches
and system protection
Usage policies can be enforced
We can provide at least five used CPUs that MIS already has
Cons
As the old CPUs start to fail they will have to be replaced at a cost of approximately
$500 each
As to monitors:
o We would have to refigure the use of the existing monitors by purchasing
adapters for Tess than $100 each this would enable dual input on the existing
monitors and you would switch back and forth between the meeting and the
packet
o Buy new monitors and now you have two monitors for each seat, or
o Buy new dual input monitors and you would switch back and forth between the
meeting and the packet
Person would have to download their packet from home on which they've taken notes
onto a disk or flash drive to put into CPU at meeting
o Bringing PDF from home on flash drive opens the possibility of malware ending
up on the computers and the City network
If there are only five CPUs are P Z going to want to use them they have nine
members
This system would work only if the members had another means to review agenda
packets at home on a home computer
This could work but it will take some configuring and people will have to have a home
computer for their initial review
NETBOOKS OR OTHER SMALL LAPTOP PROVIDED BY THE CITY
MIS recommends going with a Dell branded unit. The City of Sebastian primarily uses Dell
equipment; we already have a working relationship with the company.
Pros
City could provide Netbook for each member at a very low cost (under $300) and Toad it
with Adobe have the person sign it out and sign a policy about public records
Person could review at home make comments and carry netbook to use at meeting
At end of term the netbook would be turned in, all comments downloaded and the unit
would then be cleared and upgraded if necessary for the next user
The system can be added to an existing management infrastructure for the latest
security updates (lower yearly management costs)
Usage policy can be enforced at extremely low cost
Batteries are user replacable
o MIS orders the batteries and installs them
We have sufficient outlets at the dais to plug these in
Cons
Would have to Zook at 2 monitors at dais OR
o We can plug into existing monitors to be shared between the chambers projector
and the netbook (if we have purchased dual input monitors or added adapters
to the existing monitors)
10 inch screen wide enough to view but the length of the screen might not be sufficient
"Would they be out of date within the two years of a person's term."
o In reality, as of 11 June, 2010, only -13 computers in the entire City are "up to
date."
o Of the 176 actively supported computers (as of 11 June, 2010), there are fewer
than 10 that MIS believes would have issues viewing this type of PDF
Since they are more mobile, there is a higher probability of damage /loss
We think this system would work because we would have control of loading the needed
systems, we would have better control of public records retention, the only concerns
would be limited viewing on a netbook screen which could be alleviated by connection to
the existing monitor with a switch to go back and forth between the meeting and the
packet.
State of Florida
ELECTRONIC RECORDKEEPING
STRATEGIC PLAN
January 2010 December 2012
DECEMBER 31, 2009
Florida Department of State
State Library and Archives of Florida
850.245.6750
http: /dlis.dos.state.fl.us /RecordsManagers
1
Executive Summary
Most of the information and public records produced by Florida public agencies today are
created by electronic means. These electronic records exist in many forms such as e-
mail, spreadsheets, word processing files, databases, digital photographs, and maps,
which document the activities of government. While electronic processes have improved
the way agencies serve the public, they have also created a large and ever growing
number of electronic records that must be managed and made available if requested.
Section 119.01(2)(a), F.S., provides that "Automation of public records must not erode
the right of access to those records. As each agency increases its use of and dependence
on electronic recordkeeping, each agency must provide reasonable public access to
records electronically maintained and must ensure that exempt or confidential records are
not disclosed except as otherwise permitted by law."
To address recordkeeping concerns and improve electronic records management in
Florida, agencies must be aware of the following requirements and considerations:
Agencies are required to designate a records management liaison officer (RMLO)
to serve as the contact between their records management program and the
Department of State. As a best practice and to increase the chance for success,
this records management responsibility should be placed at a senior level or direct
report of a senior manager. This person should have the authority to enforce
records management policies and procedures. Additionally, management of an
agency's electronic records should be integrated with the agency's overall records
management program. To properly manage their records, agencies must consider
the information that is recorded, regardless of physical format.
Electronic records cannot be managed independent of the media on which they
reside or the systems in which they are stored and maintained. Records managers
and information technology staff must work together to ensure that electronic
records are retained, made available, and disposed of according to laws and
regulations.
Records management requirements must be addressed before new or enhanced
systems are developed and implemented. Retention requirements, restrictions on
public access, and considerations for retaining records with long -term value
should be addressed in the planning stages for new or enhanced systems.
Agency e -mail must be managed by its content and not by its format. An agency
should not have a policy or procedure whereby all e-mail is retained for the same
length of time. E -mail can have a variety of purposes and relate to a variety of
program activities, and messages should be retained as long as records in other
formats that document the same program function or activity.
Not every public record is open for inspection. Although they are still public
records, some are provided by law to be confidential or exempt from public
3
inspection. Therefore, agencies must ensure that confidential or exempt
information is not disclosed when providing access to these electronic records.
When the records are authorized for disposal, care must also be taken to ensure
that the confidential or exempt information cannot be read or reconstructed.
Finally, since all or most agency employees create or receive electronic records,
they should be trained on the meaning, importance, and usage of the agency's
records management policies and procedures. The more employees personally
recognize and derive the value of good records in their own work, the more
incentive they will have to create and manage records effectively.
In order to be successful, an agency's electronic records management program must
involve records managers, information technology staff, senior management, and all staff
who create, receive, or handle electronic records. An enterprise approach must be
employed to fully manage all of an agency's electronic records.
As authorized by statute, the Department of State, through its Records Management
Program, has developed rules and procedures to assist agencies in managing their
electronic records. However, the complexities of maintaining public records in electronic
form means that records managers need new methods and tools for managing agency
records.
The Department of State will continue to develop its relationship with the Agency for
Enterprise Information Technology (AEIT) and the Chief Information Officers Council
(CIO Council) in order to accomplish these strategic goals. Both of these entities have
responsibilities related to the implementation of specific technology. The AEIT is
responsible for developing strategies for the design and implementation of enterprise
information technology; the CIO Council is structured to enhance communication and
collaboration among chief information officers and serves as an educational forum for
enterprise information technology. Building partnerships with these entities, along with
government agencies, will help ensure an enterprise -wide perspective and allow us to
address challenges and best practices across agencies.
Top management needs to be aware of the issues and supportive of the proposed
solutions in order for the goals to be accomplished. This plan does not pretend to have all
the solutions for these issues. Instead it sets up mechanisms and partnerships for finding
solutions. Success depends on agencies' actions as well as on guidance from the
Depai tnient of State and its partners.
Statement of Need
The records of Florida government are increasingly stored in electronic format. It is
estimated that more than 90 percent of the records being created today are electronic.
ARMA International Web site http:/ hwwv .arma.org /erecords /index.cfm)
4
This growing volume of electronic records presents challenges in indexing, accessing,
maintaining, and preserving public records. Effective management of public records in
electronic format is critical, as these records document information that is necessary for
essential government functions and for protecting citizen interests. All electronic records
made or received pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of official
business are public records, and most are subject to inspection by any person at any
reasonable time. In addition, some records have such great significance that they must be
preserved in a historical records repository.
Just as with public records in other formats, electronic public records must be maintained
according to established retention schedules. An electronic records management
practices survey conducted in April 2009 indicated that one -third of Florida's state
agencies are not ensuring that their electronic records remain viable until their authorized
disposition. 2 Some public records, particularly e-mail, are either not being kept long
enough or are being kept too long. Both scenarios create a liability for the agency.
As with records in other formats, electronic public records must also be made accessible
according to Florida's very broad Public Records Law. If requested, agencies must
provide access to their electronic public records and must ensure that records containing
information that is confidential or exempt from public inspection are made accessible in
such a way that the confidential or exempt information is not disclosed. Electronic
records pose unique challenges in providing public access. With the volume of records
and the decentralization of records storage, simply locating all the records required for a
public records request, as well as the redaction of confidential or exempt information, can
be a daunting task.
Since most new records are stored in electronic formats and agencies regularly implement
new information systems, it is increasingly important for agencies to coordinate their
records management programs and their information technology (IT) programs. Records
management programs implement public records requirements and policies, and IT
programs are responsible for maintaining a technological infrastructure capable of
supporting those requirements and policies. In addition, as technology ages, agencies
face challenges related to changing storage mediums and software. However, many
agencies do not require records management and IT staff to work together when
developing and implementing electronic records management practices or when planning
and budgeting for new information systems.
2 The Department of State surveyed 36 state agencies on their electronic records management practices in
April 2009. All 36 agencies responded to the survey and only 66.7 percent or 24 agencies reported that
they do some sort of data migration, copying, or reformatting to ensure that electronic records are retained
in a usable format until their authorized disposal.
3 Section 119.07(1)(a), F.S., states "Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the
record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable
conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records."
5
The rapid advancement of technology has the potential to leave electronic records
inaccessible before their required retention has been met. Agencies may lose the
capability to access archived records that are stored on outdated storage media unless
they convert these records to newer technology.
Records in electronic form must be managed as public records and not simply as data.
More often than not, new automated systems are put into place without considering the
records management requirements of the information stored in the system. How long
must the information be retained? Is there confidential or exempt information that must
be protected? How will public access to the records be provided? How will disposition
be carried out? Agencies need a mechanism to ensure that these issues are addressed
when designing new systems or enhancing existing ones.
E -mail has become such an integral part of the way we do business that it is hard to
imagine working without it. Much of today's business critical information is stored in e-
mail systems and many business decisions are documented only in e- mails. The
management of e -mail is critical not only because of the sheer volume of data
overloading e-mail systems, but because the information in e-mails that are created and
received in the normal course of business is public record and must be retained according
to established retention schedules and made available for inspection and copying in
accordance with the Public Records Law.
With the growth of electronic records and the move away from centralized filing systems,
employees have more responsibilities for managing their own electronic records. It is not
uncommon that those who create and use electronic records on a daily basis are not
properly trained to manage the records. If specific training on the management issues
related to e-mail and other electronic records is not provided, agencies are at greater risk
of not complying with public records laws and rules.
The advent of easily accessible and widespread use of information technology and the
resulting explosion in the volume and type of electronic information it creates require
new responses from Florida government recordkeepers.
History
Florida's Records Management Program has been in existence since 1969 and is a
cooperative effort between the Division of Library and Information Services and state
and local government agencies throughout Florida. The Division is mandated by section
257.36, F.S. to conduct a records and information program to promote the efficient,
effective, and economical management of public records as defined in Florida's Public
Records Law, section 119.011(12), F.S. As Chapter 119 and numerous court decisions
and Attorney General Opinions make clear, public records include those created or
maintained in electronic form, such as agency e -mail messages, budget spreadsheets, etc.
Thus, these electronic records are subject to the same records retention, access, and
disposition requirements as traditional paper records.
4 Section 267.051, F.S, prior to 1986.
6
The Division's records management program offers information resources, training, and
technical assistance to state and local government agencies to: ensure their compliance
with records retention requirements; reduce costs for records storage; increase efficiency
of records retrieval; identify and protect vital records; implement electronic
recordkeeping requirements and guidelines; and identify records of enduring historical
research value. Every agency is required to appoint a records management liaison officer
(RMLO) to serve as the primary point of contact between the agency and the Division's
records management program.
The Division has promulgated administrative rules to aid agencies in establishing and
maintaining a records management program:
Rule 1B -24, Public Records Scheduling and Disposition establishes standards
and procedures for the scheduling and disposition of public records to promote
economical and efficient management of records and to ensure that records of
archival value under an agency's control are so designated and ultimately
transferred to the State Archives of Florida.
Rule 1B- 26.0021, Records Management Standards and Requirements
Microfilm Standards provides standards for microfilming of public records to
ensure that the film, photographing methods, processing, handling, and storage is
in accordance with methods, procedures, and specifications designed to protect
and preserve such records on microfilm.
Rule 1B- 26.003, Records Management Standards and Requirements
Electronic Recordkeeping provides standards for public records created and/or
maintained on electronic media.
As recommended by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government
Accountability (OPPAGA) Report 99 -05, issued in August 1999, the Department of State
initiated a compliance review process relative to the disposition of public records in
accordance with its records management policies and procedures. The annual Records
Disposition Compliance Summary for the fiscal year ending 2008 showed an overall
compliance rate among respondents of approximately 99.13 percent and a total of
839,321 cubic feet of records destroyed in accordance with Chapters 119 and 257, F.S.,
and Rule 1B -24, Florida Administrative Code. Through these records disposition
practices, the state of Florida saved over $71.3 million in cost avoidance in FY 2008.
In today's records management world:
More and more paper records are being converted to electronic form to
facilitate access and reduce storage costs.
Many electronic records are "born digital" so there is no paper counterpart.
Electronic records systems are being put into place without consideration of
records management requirements necessary to manage the records
throughout their life cycle.
5 Section 257.36(5)(a), F.S., states that it is the duty of each agency to "cooperate with the division in
complying with the provisions of this chapter and designate a records management liaison officer."
7
Mission
Many electronic records are not readily associated with the record series to
which they belong.
Some electronic records are destroyed before their retention is met and others
are kept longer than required.
The volume of electronic records magnifies the problem.
Technological advances leave records inaccessible because of obsolete
software and hardware.
It is difficult to get management's attention until there is a problem gaining
access to records.
More often than not there is no established relationship between records
management and information technology.
The many issues of maintaining public records in electronic form means that records
managers need new tools and ways of managing agency records. New relationships are
needed to ensure that all the required parties are at the table to facilitate a solution. Top
management needs to be aware of the issues and supportive of the proposed solutions in
order for the goals to be accomplished.
The mission of Florida's Electronic Records Management Program is to ensure the
efficient, effective, and economical management of Florida's electronic public records
and information. Proper electronic records management ensures that electronic
information is available when and where it is needed, in an organized and efficient
manner, and in an appropriate environment.
Florida law mandates that the Department of State is the lead agency for records
management and charges the Department with providing guidance and training to state
agencies and local governments. The Records Management Program has the expertise to
assist agencies with traditional records management. Policies and procedures for
management of traditional formats of records are well established. These policies and
procedures must be extended to address the issues associated with electronic records.
In keeping with the Department of State's statutory responsibilities, this plan focuses on
recordkeeping strategies as they relate to electronic records and not on specific
technology solutions. While the Department of State establishes rules, policies, and
guidelines to ensure that public records are retained and accessible for as long as they are
needed, the Department does not dictate the use of specific technologies or architectures
for the storage and maintenance of electronic records. Each agency is responsible for
ensuring that the technologies they employ support records management requirements
established by the Department.
8 c 7 7
0
Vision
The electronic records of Florida government are valuable assets to its citizens; the
availability and integrity of these records must be protected. Florida public agencies will
ensure that electronic public records in their custody are accessible and maintained
according to established retention schedules.
The creation and use of electronic records brings a new dimension to records
management and requires collaboration with the experts in information technology in
order to properly manage these records.
Strategies
In order to be successful, an agency's electronic records management program must
involve records managers, information technology staff, senior management, and all staff
who create, receive, or handle electronic records. An enterprise approach must be
employed to fully manage all of an agency's electronic records. With electronic records
management fully implemented, an enterprise can realize positive benefits, reduced legal
exposure, and real cost savings to the information management of essential business
functions of government.
The Agency for Enterprise Information Technology (AEIT) was created to develop and
implement strategies and policies for the design, delivery, and management of enterprise
information technology. The CIO Council was established by the Legislature to enhance
communication and collaboration among chief information officers. The Department of
State must build relationships and partnerships with these entities, along with government
agencies, to ensure an enterprise -wide perspective, addressing challenges and best
practices across agencies.
The Florida Records Management Program will work with agency leaders, senior
management, information technology staff, and records managers to find solutions for the
issues surrounding the management of electronic records.
Strategic Issues, Goals, and Objectives
Strategic Issue: Records Management Duties and Placement in the Agency
Records management is a key driver in increasing organizational efficiency and offers
significant business benefits. Records management improves the use of staff time by
reducing the time spent looking for information, facilitates sharing of information,
reduces the unnecessary duplication of information, identifies how long records need to
be kept, optimizes the legal admissibility of records, and supports risk management and
business continuity planning. If an agency is to operate properly and efficiently,
according to laws and regulations, proper records management is essential.
9
Placing the records management responsibility at a senior level is a best practice and
increases the chance for success. According to the Generally Accepted Recordkeeping
Principles (GARP) developed by ARMA International, the leading professional
association of the records management profession, "a basic premise to sound
recordkeeping is that within each organization, someone is designated as responsible for
the overall program. This does not have to be a full -time responsibility, but it does need
to be formally designated to someone in a senior -level position who has access to other
senior executives and can ensure program implementation across the organization. The
accountable senior executive will oversee the overall recordkeeping program, although
this executive often will assign or designate other personnel to roles and tasks involved in
different parts of the recordkeeping program." Senior management commitment to
records management and electronic records projects is essential, because strategic
decisions about policy, resource management, and records and information management
need to be made corporately.
The management of electronic records must be integrated with the agency's overall
records and information management. To properly manage their records, agencies must
consider the information that is recorded and what it documents, regardless of physical
format. The appraisal of electronic records should not be carried out in isolation from the
other records agencies produce. Electronic records should be managed along with
traditional record formats so that the public record is maintained according to established
retention schedules.
Strategic Goal
A recordkeeping program, including electronic records, is established and a senior
executive is assigned to oversee the program.
Strategic Objectives
1. The RMLO is a senior -level position or reports to a senior -level position and
has the authority to establish and implement an agency -wide recordkeeping
program.
2. Electronic records management is integrated with the agency's overall
recordkeeping program.
10
Strategic Issue: Coordination and Interaction between RM and IT
Electronic records cannot be managed independent of the media on which they reside or
the systems in which they are stored and maintained. Records managers may know how
long the content of the electronic records has to be kept, but it is information technology
staff who can design the system so that it does, in fact, keep the records for the specified
retention period.
Records managers and information technology staff must work together, each providing
their own expertise, to ensure that electronic records are retained, made available, and
disposed of according to laws and regulations. Working together, they must develop
strategies for proactively managing the electronic records of their agency. Records
management personnel will be required to provide expertise on recordkeeping
requirements and the appraisal process. Information technology personnel will be
required to identify and retain appropriate metadata, provide technical expertise, and
undertake the capture and maintenance of electronic records.
Strategic Goal
Program responsibility for records management program development and
implementation includes records managers and information technology staff.
Strategic Objective
The records management liaison officer and chief information officer or other
designated information technology staff have regular meetings to discuss
systems development and enhancement and related records management
requirements.
Strategic Issue: Data Migration
Electronic records must be accessible until their authorized disposition in accordance
with established retention schedules. If the system used to access electronic records is
upgraded, replaced, or no longer in use, but the records have not yet met their retention,
steps must be taken to ensure that the records can still be accessed.
During its life cycle, electronic information needs to be constantly migrated to currently
supported hardware and software to sustain its ongoing accessibility. The electronic
records stored in the old system that have not met their retention requirements must be
retained and migrated into the new system or into a format that can be read in an existing
system.
Strategic Goal
Electronic records that have not met retention are migrated when automated systems
are upgraded, replaced, or taken out of use.
Strategic Objectives
1. Develop a process to review retention requirements of records stored in
systems that are slated to be upgraded, replaced, or taken out of use.
11
2. Develop a process of determining how to transfer records to ensure their
continued accessibility.
Strategic Issue: Records Management Requirements for New or Enhanced Systems
Electronic records management issues need to be planned and budgeted with any
initiative that will create public records. Electronic records are best managed if
recordkeeping requirements are identified in the design phase of the system. Retention
requirements must be determined, as well as any restrictions on public access, such as
those for information that is exempt from public inspection. Considerations for retaining
records with long -term value are particularly important.
Strategic Goal
Records management requirements are addressed when new or enhanced systems are
developed.
Strategic Objectives
1. Add a records management component to the agency's Information System
Development Methodology (ISDM) that includes requirements for records
retention and disposition in accordance with established retention schedules.
2. Include a records manager in information technology project development and
implementation to ensure that system functionality accommodates records
management requirements.
Strategic Issue: Management of E -mail
Every agency struggles with the retention of e -mail. Mail servers are overloaded,
presenting challenges for information technology staff. At first glance, e -mail archive
software looks like a good solution because it takes the load off the mail server by
moving messages to the archive. Most e -mail archive software also has powerful
searching features that help with legal discovery of electronic records "e- discovery").
Unfortunately, this software usually lacks the flexibility to retain different categories of
messages for different lengths of time; instead it sets a uniform length of time that all of
the e-mail messages will be retained in the archive, for example three years or seven
years, after which all are destroyed. What this means for the agency is that some
messages that could have been deleted immediately or within a very short time are now
retained with all the other messages of longer value, further clogging the system with
unnecessary information. On the other end of the spectrum, some e -mail messages
require longer retention and will be deleted before their required retention.
There is no single retention period that applies to all of any agency's e- mails. E -mail, as
with records in other formats, can have a variety of purposes and relate to a variety of
program functions and activities. The retention of any particular e-mail message will
generally be the same as the retention for records in any other format that document the
same program function or activity. For instance, e-mails might fall under a
CORRESPONDENCE series, a BUDGET RECORDS series, or one of numerous other
series, depending on the content, nature, and purpose of each e -mail.
12
Individual e-mail messages need to be retained for varying lengths of time according to
associated retention schedules. The indefinite retention of all e -mail contradicts the real
need for proper records management. A decision now to avoid properly classifying
records and to retain everything indefinitely essentially forces the permanent retention of
everything forever. No agency will ever be able to dispose of these records since there
will be no distinction between those that actually do require long -term or permanent
retention, based on the legal, fiscal, administrative, or historical value of their content,
and those that could have been disposed of almost immediately after their creation or
receipt.
Additionally, as with other electronic records, the nature of e -mail and individual user
mailboxes requires that e -mail be first managed by the individual user, who is most aware
of the content, nature, and purpose of his or her e -mail. Employees at all levels have
been managing public records for decades and there is no reason to think they are not
qualified for this responsibility just because the records are in electronic format. All
employees must be trained on the proper management of electronic records including e-
mail.
Strategic Goal
E -mail is managed in accordance with established retention schedules.
Strategic Objectives
1. When looking for e -mail solutions, agencies include a records management
functional requirement.
2. Employees are made aware of their responsibility to manage their e -mail
according to established retention schedules.
Strategic Issue: Protecting Confidential or Exempt Information
Not every record generated by local and state government is open for inspection. Some
public records are provided by law to be confidential or exempt from the public
disclosure requirements of section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes, and section 24(a), Article I
of the State Constitution.
Florida statutes exempt specified records from public disclosure, usually for reasons of
public safety, public health, law enforcement, and/or personal privacy. However, it is
important to remember two key points. First, Florida's Public Records Law emphasizes a
"general state policy on public records" that "...all state, county, and municipal records
are open for personal inspection and copying by any person" (section 119.01(1), F.S.). In
other words, government records are open to public inspection unless specifically
exempted by law. Second, while "exempt" records are exempt from the public disclosure
requirements of section 119.07(1), F.S. and section 24(a), Article I of the State
Constitution, they are still public records and thus not exempt from other legal records
management requirements such as those concerning records retention scheduling and
disposition.
13
Strategic Goal
Electronic records containing confidential or exempt information are maintained,
made accessible, and disposed of in such a way that the information is not disclosed
and, in the case of disposal, cannot practicably be read or reconstructed.
Strategic Objectives
1. Adopt a set of procedures for public records requests including provisions for
redacting confidential or exempt information.
2. Adopt a set of procedures for the disposal of public records including
provisions for ensuring that confidential or exempt information cannot be read
or reconstructed.
Strategic Issue: Electronic Records Management Training
According to ARMA's GARP Principle of Integrity, "All employees are responsible to
comply with the records management program and should be trained on the meaning,
importance, and usage of the corporate policies and procedures." Obviously, it does no
good to have policies and procedures if employees are not aware of them and are not
required to follow them. The more employees personally recognize and derive the value
of good records in their own work, the more incentive they will have to create and
manage records effectively. With the move away from centralized filing systems, each
employee has more responsibilities for managing their own electronic records. Agencies
must provide training and support to help ensure that policies and procedures are
understood and implemented by staff.
Strategic Goal
Electronic records management training is provided for employees and mandatory for
key employees.
Strategic Objective
Identify and train electronic records users so they are aware of their specific
responsibilities for managing electronic records and information resources.
Success Measures
By December 31, 2012:
1. 50 percent of state agencies report that their records management liaison
officer is a senior -level position or reports to a senior -level position and has
the authority to establish and implement an agency -wide recordkeeping
program.
2. 75 percent of state agencies report that their electronic records management is
integrated with the agency's overall recordkeeping program.
3. 60 percent of state agencies report that the records management liaison officer
and chief information officer or other designated information technology staff
14
have regular meetings to discuss systems development and enhancement and
related records management requirements.
4. 70 percent of state agencies report that they have a process to review retention
requirements of records stored in systems that are slated to be upgraded,
replaced, or taken out of use.
5. 70 percent of state agencies report that they have a process of determining
how to transfer records to ensure their continued accessibility.
6. 70 percent of state agencies report that they have a records management
component in the agency's Information System Development Methodology
(ISDM) that includes requirements for records retention and disposition in
accordance with established retention schedules.
7. 60 percent of state agencies report that they include a records manager in their
information technology project development and implementation.
8. 65 percent of state agencies report that when looking for e -mail solutions, they
include a records management functional requirement.
9. 75 percent of state agencies report that their employees are made aware of
their responsibility to manage their e -mail according to established retention
schedules.
10. 95 percent of state agencies report that they have adopted a set of procedures
for public records requests including provisions for redacting confidential or
exempt information.
11. 85 percent of state agencies report that they have adopted a set of procedures
for the disposal of public records including provisions for ensuring
confidential or exempt information cannot be read or reconstructed.
12. 80 percent of state agencies report that they identify and train electronic
records users so they are aware of their specific responsibilities for managing
electronic records and information resources.
The Department of State will survey state agencies during the time period covered by this
plan annually to track progress toward these goals.
15
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
City of Sebastian E -Mail and Internet Use Policy
Effective May 2004
This policy supercedes the E mail Policy and the Internet Usage Policy dated July 25, 2000.
Scope:
This policy applies to all City of Sebastian employees and all other authorized users of the
electronic mail infrastructure made available by the City of Sebastian, including the Internet
and Intranet. This policy applies equally to all levels of management and to the personnel
they supervise.
Purpose:
While the Internet and Electronic Mail are great resources for the City, it is the
responsibility of each employee to use this resource responsibly and respectfully. Users of
the City's network and computer resources have a responsibility not to abuse the network
and to respect the rights of others. This Policy provides guidelines for the appropriate and
inappropriate use of information technology. The purpose of this procedure is to delineate
acceptable uses of e-mail and the Internet/Intranet by employees and other authorized
users of City of Sebastian Network Service.
Procedures:
A. The Internet/Intranet is to be used as a business tool for reasons that are necessary
for the accomplishment of an employee's job assignments.
1. Files downloaded from the Internet must be thoroughly scanned by anti -viral
software maintained by the MIS Division. This anti -viral software is not to be
disabled by the user.
2. In accordance with departmental policy, executable files /software can only be
downloaded by individuals whose job descriptions include the testing of
software.
3. Accessing, sending, storing, or displaying sensitive materials including, but not
limited to, gambling or other illegal activities, sexually explicit materials, or
materials that include profane, obscene, or discriminatory content is prohibited.
4. Data and files on the Internet must be considered copyrighted material and may
not be distributed or published in any form without the written permission of the
originator.
5. In addition to work related access, employees may briefly visit non sensitive
Internet sites during non -work time, such as break, lunch, or before or after
work hours. Examples of acceptable sites are those dealing with health matters,
weather, news, business topics, community activities, career advancement, and
personal enrichment. It is imperative that common sense be used in viewing
non -work related sites and they must not result in any additional cost to the
Department.
6. Inappropriate use of the Internet will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis and
may lead to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
B. E -mail is to be used for official city business that includes communications with other
state departments, governmental entities and private sector entities. Although the
Department does not prohibit all personal use of e-mail, a common sense approach
should be applied.
1. Acceptable personal use of e-mail is where the communication is brief, does not
interfere with work, does not subject the Department to any additional cost, and
is consistent with the requirements contained in this policy.
2. Prohibited uses of e-mail include:
a. Non -city sponsored solicitations, including, but not limited to such things as
advertising the sale of property or other commercial activities;
b. Sending copies of documents in violation of copyright laws or licensing
agreements;
c. Sending messages prohibited or restricted by government security laws or
regulations or any other communication that may adversely affect the City's
ability to carry out its mission. Messages which may reflect unfavorably on
the City, or which may be perceived as representing the City's official
position on any matter when authority to disseminate such information has
not been expressly granted are also prohibited;
d. Sending confidential or proprietary information or data to persons not
authorized to receive it, either within or outside the City;
e. Sending content that may constitute sexual harassment or be considered
discriminatory, obscene, derogatory or excessively personal, whether
intended to be serious or humorous;
f. Sending communications reflecting or containing chain letters; illegal activity;
harassment; sensitive information including but not limited to gambling, or
materials that include profane, obscene, or inappropriate language, or racial,
ethnic or other discriminatory content;
g. Sending material promoting political positions or actions.
h. Inappropriate use of E -mail will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis and
may lead to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
3. The City of Sebastian does not intend to routinely monitor the contents of e-mail
messages. However, users should expect that electronic mail messages might
be accessed by authorized supervisors or System Administrators with or without
the permission of the employee. No employee should have any expectation of
privacy as to his or her Internet or E -mail usage.
C. All e -mail accounts must be established, terminated or transferred with a Computer
Access Change for promulgated by, and must be submitted to the MIS Division.
Retention and Access Electronic Mail:
A. Users should take note that the information generated on e-mail may be a public
record subject to public inspection and may not be confidential, unless specifically
cited by Florida Statute. Section 119.011 (1), F.S., defines public records as:
All documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes,
photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing
software, or other material, regardless of the physical form,
characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received,
pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the
transaction of official business by any agency.
B. Individual users are responsible for keeping and archiving their own business related
e -mail in public folders set up by MIS for each department. Retention of these files is
subject to Florida State laws. For more detailed information regarding the definition
and retention schedule of public records, refer to Florida Statutes Chapter 119 and
the City of Sebastian Records Management Policies and Procedures Manual.
C. Any requests for access to the contents of e-mail in order to respond to legal process,
such as subpoenas and public records law requests, or for purposes involving
litigation, investigation or claim must be immediately brought to the attention of the
City Clerk's office.
Enforcement:
City Department Heads, or their designee, are responsible for compliance with provisions of this
policy and reporting any suspected non compliance to the Human Resources Department. Absent
direction from the City Council, the System Administrators must obtain consent of the City Clerk or
City Attorney prior to monitoring e-mail or internet activity originating from those charter offices.
have read this policy and agree to comply with all its terms
and conditions. I agree that all network activity conducted while doing City business and being
conducted with City resources is the property of the City of Sebastian. The City reserves the right
to monitor and log all network activity including E -mail, with or without notice and therefore users
should have not expectation of privacy in the use of these resources. I have received a written
copy of the City of Sebastian's E -mail /Internet Use Policy. I fully understand the terms of this
policy and agree to abide by them.
Accepted and Executed this
Employee Signature
day of 2004.
VENICE FLORIDA PUBLIC RECORDS CASE
Important precedents
This case established that communication performed through private emails by public officials
concerning public business was in violation of the Florida Sunshine Law and the Florida Open
Meetings Law.
Background
On May 20, 2008, attorney Andrea Flynn Mogensen sent a letter to Venice City Clerk, Lori
Stelzer, requesting "email communications to and from council members, including non -city
account emails utilized by council members, for the period beginning November 14, 2007, through
the date of receipt of this letter, including all email attachments." 111 A second request was made on
June 12, 2008, and directed to members of the Airport Advisory Board after it was learned from
an email dated May 31, 2008, that an airport advisory board member had "deleted electronic
public records in his custody and control." E'
The suit alleged that 9 current and former city officials violated state open meetings laws by
conducting official city business over their personal emails. The plaintiffs filing suit were activist
Anthony Lorenzo and Citizens for Sunshine, Inc., a non profit devoted to promoting awareness
and compliance with open govemment laws.
Injunction of council's computers
Early in the case, Circuit Judge Robert Bennett issued an injunction authorizing the seizure of the
personal home computers of the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and a council member. The personal
computers were subjected to a forensic examination. During discovery, numerous depositions of
elected and appointed officials were conducted. Subpoenas were also served on citizens accused
of being liaisons, including third party subpoenas directed to internet service providers. From that
discovery, plaintiffs learned that a secret code had been developed to refer to the council
members in case their emails were intercepted. The code used characters from Disney's Snow
White animation film. Because there were 7 members of City Council, each of them were named
after one on the 7 dwarfs. The Mayor's code name was Doc, the Vice -Mayor was named Happy,
Council member Noren was named Sleepy, Council member Simmonds was named Grumpy,
Council member Zavodnyik was named Bashful, Council member Tacy was named Sneezy.
Airport Manager Watts was named Dopey. Council Member Sue Lang was referred to under the
code name Snow White.[1]
Six substantial motions for summary judgment were filed by the defendants. Only one was
granted. Trial was scheduled to begin on February 23, 2009. On the eve of trial, the parties
reached a settlement that required approval of the City Council.
A Special Meeting of the Venice City Council was scheduled for February 28, 2009. A quorum of
four council members was required for the vote. Because three members of the City Council were
defendants in the case, they were not permitted to vote by state ethics laws. City Council member
Vicki Noren, who was not involved in the litigation, refused to attend the scheduled meeting to
protest the terms of the settlement agreement that called for the City, rather than individual
officials, to admit to violations of the Public Records and Government -in- the Sunshine Law. As a
result, there was no quorum to vote on the proposed settlement. [2)
Prepared by: City Clerk's Office
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VENICE,
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY OF VENICE
PERSONNEL PROCEDURES AND RULES, 2009 EDITION, SECTION 1.35,
COMMUNICATION DEVICES; AND PROVIDING AN EF'F'ECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, Sec. 50 -35 of the Code of Ordinances provides that amendment of
the City of Venice Personnel Procedures and Rules, 2009 edition be made and adopted
by resolution.
WHEREAS, city council desires to make an addition to the existing Personnel
Procedures and Rules, 2009 edition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF VENICE, FLORIDA, as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 1.35 of the City of Venice Personnel Procedures and Rules, 2009
edition is hereby revised as follows:
1.35 COMMUNICATION DEVICES
The city recognizes that some employees are assigned communication devices such as
cell phones, blackberrys, beepers, laptops and other devices that extend the employee's
communication with the workplace. All related issues shall be determined by the
department head director based on their operational needs
All city- issued Blackberrys must be connected through the Blackberry Enterprise Server
immediately upon purchase and before use.
All forms of texting on Blackberrys and cell phones are prohibited, with the exception
of transitory messages reasonably necessary during a declared emergency. In the event
of a declared emergency, texting shall be of a transitory nature. Transitory is defined
by the Florida Department of State as "records that are created primarily to
communicate information of short-term value." Examples of transitory messages are
provided in the Records Schedule, which can be obtained from your Records
Coordinator. "Transitory messages are not intended to formalize or perpetuate
knowledge and do not set policy, establish guidelines or procedures, certify a
transaction, or become a receipt."
Page 1 of 2, Res. No. 2010 -01
Any use of a communication device (whether issued by the city or personally
owned) by a city official to conduct city business must be compliant with Florida
Statutes Chapter 119 and the city's Information Technology Usage Policy.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING .-OF THE VENICE
CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE 12TH DAY OF JANU Y 2 t 10.
A'1'1EST
(SEAL)
Lori telzer, MMC, ty Clerk
Ed Martin, Mayor
1, LORI STELZER, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Venice, Florida, a municipal
corporation in Sarasota County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full
and complete, true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the City Council
of said city at a meeting thereof duly convened and held on the 12th day of January
2010, a quorum being present.
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 12th day of January 2010.
Lori telzer l ity Clerk
Page 2 of 2, Res. No. 2010 -01
The City of Venice considers information technology (IT) resources to be city resources. It shall
be the policy of the city to maintain these resources in a consistent, predictable, and reliable
manner to serve the city as business communications tools. All users of these IT resources are
expected to conduct themselves in a responsible, efficient, professional, ethical manner and in
accordance with city policies, as well as federal, state and local laws.
1. Purpose.
City of Venice
Information Technology Usage Policy
The purpose of this policy is to define the appropriate use of the City of Venice computer and
network resources. They apply to access to the internet, the city network and the use of computer
resources at any location, from any device. The city authorizes the use of computing and network
resources by city employees in connection with the transaction of official business of the city.
All use must be consistent with the intent and requirements of all city policies and must be
carried out in an ethical, legal, and responsible manner.
Users of city IT resources should have no expectation of privacy while using city -owned or
city leased equipment. Information passing through or stored on city equipment can and will be
monitored.
The city purchases and licenses the use of various computer software for business purposes
and does not own the copyright to this software or its related documentation. Unless authorized
by the software developer, the city does not have the right to reproduce such software for use
beyond the licenses purchased by the city.
Employees may only use software on local area networks or on multiple machines according
to the software license agreement. The city prohibits the illegal duplication of software and its
related documentation.
2. Establishing and Maintaining the Internet
The Information Systems Department (IS) will arrange for city -wide connection to the
internet. The IS staff will maintain and administer the link to the internet and the internet client
software. They will also monitor the connection, traffic levels, illegitimate access attempts, and
response times to optimize performance and notify management of problems requiring attention.
The City of Venice will not provide computer assistance with your home computer.
3. Internet/Intranet Usage
City employees requesting internet access must do so via an internet agreement form. The
request must be signed by the department director of that employee. An account will be
established and activated when the form has been completed and received by the Information
Systems Department. The employee can request internet training which the Information Systems
Page 1 of 6
Department can provide at the training room located in the IS office. At the end of the training,
users may be required to demonstrate their proficiency.
4. Prohibitions
a. Electronic communication resources are limited. Employees should conserve these resources
and must not deliberately perform actions that waste resources or monopolize them to the
exclusion of other employees. This includes subscribing to list servers or web sites not directly
related to job responsibilities, spending extensive time on the Internet, downloading nonwork
files and streaming audio and/or video.
b. Staff must presuppose that all materials on the internet are copyrighted and/or patented
unless specific notices state otherwise. Downloading and storing copyright material on city
equipment is prohibited.
c. The use of technology resources for conducting personal business, consulting, commercial
activities, religious causes, solicitations, political activity, or any activities not directly in
connection with the transaction of official business of the city are prohibited.
d. Internet usage will conform to all city policies and work rules, intentionally visiting "adult"
or sexually- oriented web sites, sites associated with hate crimes, violence or others that create
discomfort or harassment in the workplace and have no legitimate business value are prohibited.
e. Access or attempting access to the computer -based records or services that an official or
employee does not have explicit authorization to utilize is prohibited.
f. The use of technology resources for illegal or illicit activities is a violation of this policy.
g. A violation of any software license agreement is prohibited.
h. Downloading and/or installing software is prohibited, unless specifically authorized in
writing by the Information Systems Director. Any downloaded software must only be used under
the terms of its license. Furthermore, any material installed on computers must be scanned for
viruses or other destructive code.
i. City employees or any other persons may not install hardware or software that was not
purchased by the city on city -owned computers.
j. The city has designed internet access in such a way as to try to assure the safety and security
of the city's network. Any attempt to circumvent, disable, destroy or defeat any city security
feature is a violation of this policy. Any employee other than Information Systems employees,
disabling anti virus, security, or remote access applications on any PC will be subject to a
minimum of suspension and up to and including termination.
Page 2 of 6
5. Passwords
Regardless of the circumstances, individual passwords must never be shared or revealed to
anyone besides the authorized user. To this end passwords must not be documented or stored in a
manner which can be accessed by others. Sharing your password with others may create a
liability to you if anything detrimental happens under your sign on with access to the city
network.
Information Systems has implemented a secure password initiative in which they will
generate a password change periodically.
6. Electronic Mail (E -mail)
E -mail is the electronic transfer of information, typically in the form of electronic messages,
memoranda, and attached documents, from a sending party to one or more receiving parties by
means of an intermediate telecommunications system. When creating email messages, refrain
from using caps, bold, underline as this as been interpreted by the courts as being "reckless use
E -mail which is created or received by a city employee, council member, or members of
advisory boards, committees and task forces (hereinafter referred to as "Users in connection
with the transaction of official business of the city may be considered a public record and is
subject to inspection and/or copying in accordance with Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and is
subject to applicable state retention laws and regulations, unless expressly exempted by law.
Users must use city e-mail accounts in connection with the transaction of official business of the
city. Users are prohibited from using personal e-mail accounts in connection with the transaction
of official business of the city. Any e-mail received by a user in their personal e-mail account in
connection with the transaction of official business of the city shall be forwarded to their city e-
mail account.
The Florida Statutes contain numerous specific exemptions to the access and inspection
requirements of the Public Records Law. Users are responsible for ensuring that electronic public
records which are exempt from access or inspection by statute are properly safeguarded. No
exempt or confidential information will be transmitted by e-mail. The originator is responsible
for advising the custodian that an e -mail may have confidential or exempt information (for e-
mails prior to this policy being adopted.)
The city provides electronic mail services to Users. These systems are designed to facilitate
communication with other employees and the public when such communication is part of a Users
job. All electronic communication systems and all communications and stored information
transmitted, received or contained in the city's information systems are the property of the city.
Users have no right of personal privacy in any material created, stored in, received, or sent
over the city's e-mail system. The city reserves and may exercise the right, at any time and
without prior notice or permission, to intercept, monitor, access, search, retrieve, record, copy,
inspect, review, block, delete and/or disclose any material created, stored in, received, or sent
Page 3 of 6
over the city's e-mail system for the purpose of protecting the system from unauthorized or
improper use or criminal activity.
E -mail is for the use of Users in the performance of their jobs. However, it is recognized that
occasional communications between Users within the city e-mail system for personal reasons
under circumstances that do not take away from or interfere with their duties or the duties of
those Users with whom they communicate, is not prohibited except the e-mail system shall not
be used for any unauthorized purpose including but not limited to:
(1)
(3)
(5)
Sending solicitations including, but not limited to, the sale of goods or services or
other commercial activities not in connection with the transaction of official
business of the city.
(2) Sending copies of documents in violation of copyright laws or licensing
agreements.
Sending information or material prohibited or restricted by government security
laws or regulations.
(4) Sending information or material which may reflect unfavorably on the city or
adversely affect the city's ability to carry out its mission.
Sending information or material which may be perceived as representing the
city's official position on any matter when authority to disseminate such
information has not been expressly granted. When an employee sends a personal
e -mail, especially if the content of the e-mail could be interpreted as an official
agency statement, the employee should use the following disclaimer at the end of
the message: "This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of (employee name)
and does not represent official City of Venice policy."
(6) Sending confidential or proprietary information or data to persons not authorized
to receive such information, either within or outside the city.
Sending messages or requesting information or material that is fraudulent,
harassing, obscene, offensive, discriminatory, lewd, sexually suggestive, sexually
explicit, pornographic, intimidating, defamatory, derogatory, violent or which
contains profanity or vulgarity, regardless of intent. Among those which are
considered offensive include, but are not limited to, messages containing jokes,
slurs, epithets, pictures, caricatures, or other material demonstrating animosity,
hatred, disdain or contempt for a person or group of people because of race, color,
age, national origin, gender, religious or political beliefs, marital status, disability,
sexual orientation or any other classification protected by law.
Sending messages or requesting information reflecting or containing chain letters
or any illegal activity including, but not limited to gambling.
Page 4 of 6
(9) Sending or requesting information or material that promotes a religious or
political view, cause, position or action.
(10) Sending or requesting personal outside email that is not in connection with the
transaction of official business of the city to include, but not limited to, personal
activities, automated email from non -city business entities, shopping, auction,
personal pictures, etc... No personal email shall be sent from employees on the
city email system. Any incoming personal email captured by network filters will
be deleted.
(11) Normally employees are not responsible for unsolicited offensive e- mails.
The use of e-mail is a privilege, not a right. As such, the privilege may be revoked at any time
and for any reason. Abuse of the privilege may result in appropriate disciplinary action.
Electronic records (such as e-mail and computer stored documents) may be public records
dependent upon Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, subject to access by the general public as well as
the press in the same manner as physical documents. An electronic communication in connection
with the transaction of official business of the city may not be deleted or destroyed except in
compliance with the records retention schedule in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Unless it falls
within one of the specific exemptions described in the public records statute, the e-mail message
must be produced for any person upon request.
All e -mail and other public records in the city's custody are maintained for the required
retention period(s). Weekly automatic backups are done under the city's disaster recovery plan.
Sorting e-mail into appropriate personal folders is a helpful way to manage these records and
to ensure that they will be easier to locate if you need to refer back to them. E -mails will remain
in individual "live" accounts for one year in order to maintain functionality and efficiency. Trash
will be emptied automatically every 14 days.
Archived e-mails will be available for viewing or printing after the one year "live" mailbox limit.
Once e—mail has met its retention in accordance with Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, it will be
removed.
7. Policy Violations
All Users should report any discovered unauthorized access attempts or other improper usage
of City of Venice computers, networks, or other information processing equipment. If you
observe, or have reported to you, a security or abuse problem, with any city computer or network
facilities, including violations of this policy, you should notify the information systems director
or the city's ethics compliance officer as appropriate.
Employees who violate these policies cost the city money, waste scarce resources, tarnish the
image of the City of Venice, and may violate the law. Persons in violation of this policy are
subject to the full range of sanctions, including the loss of computer or network access privileges
Page 5 of 6
c3--D
without notification, and disciplinary action pursuant to the City of Venice's Procedures and
Rules, up to and including discharge. In the event an employee is suspected of violating federal,
state or local laws, all relevant materials will be made available to the appropriate law
enforcement department for investigation and possible criminal prosecution.
Page 6 of 6
Aavisory Legai opinion xecoras, municipal Iace000K page
SKID to content
L
1TT ANEY G ENE I FLORIDA
8i// McCo //um
3O Advisory Legal Opinion AGO 2009 -19
lertivissearchre
HOME
AG Bill McCollum
Office Information
Programs and Units
Employment
Open Govemment
Crime and Fraud
Consumer Protection
Citizen Safety
Victims' Services
AG Opinions
JEnter email address
Keeper bmit latest
news and consumer
information:
Newsletter
RSS feed
udio Msg
Twitter
Fraud Hotline
1 -866- 966 -7226
Contact Us
Number: AGO 2009 -19
Date: April 23, 2009
Subject: Records, municipal facebook page
Mr. Samuel S. Goren
Coral Springs City Attorney
9551 West Sample Road
Coral Springs, Florida 33065
RE: MUNICIPALITIES- RECORDS- GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE LAW- INTERNET public
record implications for city's Facebook page. s. 119.011(12), Fla. Stat.; Art.
I, s. 23, Fla. Const.
Dear Mr. Goren:
On behalf of the Coral Springs City Commission, you ask the following
questions:
1. If the city chooses to maintain a Facebook page, would all contents of the
city's page, including information about the city's "friends" and their
pictures, and the friend's respective Facebook pages, be subject to the Public
Records Law, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes?
2. If Question One is answered in the affirmative, is the city obligated to
follow a public records retention schedule as set forth in the State of
Florida General Records Schedule GSI for State and Local Government Agencies?
3. If Question One is answered in the affirmative, is Florida's Right of
Privacy, as guaranteed in Article I, section 23, Florida Constitution,
implicated by the inclusion of information about the city's "friends" and the
respective link to the friends' Facebook pages linked to the city's page?
4. Would communications on the city's Facebook page regarding city business be
subject to Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, section 286.011, Florida
Statutes?
In sum:
rage 1 01 U
Today is May 20. 2010
a Print Version
1. Since the city is authorized to exercise powers for a municipal purpose,
the creation of a Facebook page must be for a municipal, not private purpose.
The placement of material on the city's page would presumably be in
furtherance of such purpose and in connection with the transaction of official
business and thus subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.
In any given instance, however, the determination would have to be made based
upon the definition of "public record" contained in section 119.11, Florida
Statutes. Similarly, whether the Facebook page of the friends would also be
subject to the Public Records Law, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, would depend
on whether the page and information contained therein was made or received in
connection of the transaction of official business by or on behalf of a public
agency.
2. The city is under an obligation to follow the public records retention
schedules established by law.
3. While Article I, section 23, Florida Constitution, may be implicated in
determining what information may be collected by the city, the constitutional
provision expressly states that "[t]his section shall not be construed to
limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided
by law." Thus, to the extent that information on the city's Facebook page
constitutes a public record within the meaning of Chapter 119, Florida
http: /www.myfloridalegal.com/ ago. nsf Opinions /25F 1 4F90483F3901852575A2004E46CB 5/20/2010
Advisory Legal Opinion Records, municipal facebook page Page 2 of 6
Statutes, Article I, section 23, Florida Constitution, is not implicated.
4. Communications on the city's Facebook page regarding city business by city
commissioners may be subject to Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law,
section 286.011, Florida Statutes. Thus, members of a city board or commission
must not engage on the city's Facebook page in an exchange or discussion of
matters that foreseeably will come before the board or commission for official
action.
You state that Facebook is a social networking website maintained by
privately -owned Facebook, Inc., which allows users to create profiles that
include personal interests and pictures. According to your letter, Facebook
allows users to build networks of "friends" which allows such friends, once
they have been added to the user's profile, to appear on the user's profile.
Facebook also contains interactive features, including instant messaging and a
"Wall" which allows friends to post messages and attachments which may be
viewed by anyone who may view the user's profile.
As you have not provided this office with a specific fact situation, my
comments must be general in nature.
Question One
Section 166.021(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth the authority of
municipalities, stating:
"As provided in s. 2(b), Art. VIII of the State Constitution, municipalities
shall have the governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable them
to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render
municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes, except
when expressly prohibited by law." (e.s.)
The Florida Supreme Court has stated that this constitutional provision
"expressly grants to every municipality in this state authority to conduct
municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal
services. "[1] The only limitation on the power of municipalities under this
constitutional section is that such power must be exercised for a valid
municipal purpose.[2] The determination of what constitutes a valid municipal
purpose for the expenditure of public funds is one that must be made by the
city commission and cannot be delegated to this office.[3] In making this
determination, the commission must make appropriate legislative findings.
Accordingly, the city would appear to have the authority to establish a
Facebook page under its home rule powers provided the establishment of such a
page is for a valid municipal purpose and the city commission has made the
appropriate legislative findings. You have not advised this office as to the
nature of the information that will be contained on the city's page. Section
119.011(12), Florida Statutes, however, defines "Public records" for purposes
of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, to include
"all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound
recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the
physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received
pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official
business by any agency."
The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted this definition to encompass all
materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business
which are used to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge.[4] It is
the nature of the record created rather than the means by which it is created
which determines whether it is a public record.[5] The placement of
information on the city's Facebook page would appear to communicate knowledge.
Thus, the determination in any given instance as to whether information
constitutes a public record will depend on whether such information was made
or received in connection with the transaction of official business by the
city.
As noted above, you have not advised this office as to what will be placed on
the Facebook page. Inasmuch as the page must be established for a municipal
purpose and in the absence of specific information as to the material placed
on the city's Facebook page, this office presumes that the information
contained on the page would be made or received in connection with the
h ttp: /www.myfloridalegal.com/ ago. nsf Opinions/ 25F14F90483F3901852575A2004E46CB 5/20/2010
fiavisory Legal opinion xecoras, mutucipai race000x page rage s or o
official business of the city. I recognize that the Florida Supreme Court
ruled that private e -mail stored in government computers does not
automatically become a public record by virtue of that storage:
"Just as an agency cannot circumvent the Public Records Act by allowing a
private entity to maintain physical custody of documents that fall within the
definition of 'public records,'. private documents cannot be deemed public
records solely by virtue of their placement on an agency -owned computer. "[6]
Therefore, there may be material placed on the city's Facebook page that is
personal and does not relate to the transaction of official business. However,
as noted above, the creation of a Facebook page must be for a municipal, not
private, purpose. Accordingly, the placement of material on the city's page
would presumably be in furtherance of such purpose and in connection with the
transaction of official business and thus subject to the provisions of Chapter
119, Florida Statutes. In any given instance, however, the determination would
have to be made based upon the definition of "public record" contained in
section 119.011, Florida Statutes, as defined by the courts.
You also inquire whether the Facebook page of the friends would also be
subject to the Public Records Law, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. You do not
indicate who these "friends" of the city may be. In the absence of more
information, this office cannot categorically conclude that the Facebook pages
of such "friends" would be subject to Chapter 119; rather such a determination
would depend on whether the information contained on such pages was made or
received in connection of the transaction of official business by or on behalf
of a public agency such as the city. In light of the above, the city, should
it establish a Facebook page, may wish to post a warning regarding the
application and implications of the Public Records Law.[7]
Question Two
Section 119.021(2)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the Division of Library and
Information Services (division) of the Department of State to adopt rules
establishing retention schedules and a disposal process for public records.
Each agency must comply with these rules.[8] The division shall establish a
time period for the retention or disposal of each series of records.[9]
Section 257.36(6), Florida Statutes, provides that a "public record may be
destroyed or otherwise disposed of only in accordance with retention schedules
established by the division." This office in Attorney General Opinion 96 -34,
recognizing that the definition of "public records" is comprehensive and
encompasses all such material regardless of its physical form or
characteristics, stated that electronic public records such as e -mail messages
are subject to the statutory limitations on destruction of public records.
More recently, this office stated in Attorney General 08 -07 that the public
records on a website maintained by a city council member that related to the
transaction of city business would appear to be subject to the city's policies
and retention schedule regarding city records.
The General Records Schedule GS1 -SL for State and Local Government Agencies
states that "[a]ll Florida public agencies are eligible to use the GS1 -SL,
which provides retention periods for the most common administrative records
such as routine correspondence and personnel, payroll, financial, and legal
records. "[10] Thus, to the extent that the information on the city's Facebook
page constitutes a public record, the city is under an obligation to follow
the public records retention schedules established by law.
Questions relating to the applicability of a retention schedule or retention
of a specific record, however, should be referred to the Division of Library
and Information Services in the Department of State.
Question Three
Article I, section 23, Florida Constitution, provides:
"Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental
intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein.
This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to
public records and meetings as provided by law."
http:/ /www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/ Opinions /25F 14 F90483F3901852575A2004E46CB 5/20/2010
iavisory Legal vpimon xecoras, municipal iace000x page rage 4 of
Therefore, while the Florida Constitution recognizes a right of privacy for
Florida citizens in Article I, section 23, Florida Constitution, it also
states that "[t]his section shall not be construed to limit the public's right
of access to public records and meetings as provided by law." The Florida
courts have determined that no federal or state right of privacy prevents
access to public records.[11] It is the Legislature that has balanced the
private versus public rights by creating the various exemptions from public
disclosure.[12] Thus, in Florida, "neither a custodian of records nor a person
who is the subject of a record can claim a constitutional right of privacy as
a bar to requested inspection of a public record which is in the hands of a
government agency. "[13]
While Article I, section 23, Florida Constitution, may be implicated in
determining what information may be collected by the city,[14] to the extent
that information on the city's Facebook page constitutes a public record
within the meaning of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, Article I, section 23,
Florida Constitution, is not implicated. As noted supra, the city may wish to
post a notice on its Facebook page regarding the Public Records Law.
Question Four
Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, the Government in the Sunshine Law, has
three basic requirements:
(1) meetings of public boards or commissions must be open to the public;
(2) reasonable notice of such meetings must be given; and
(3) minutes of the meetings must be taken and promptly recorded.
The law applies to any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more
members of the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which
foreseeable action will be taken by the public board or commission.[15] The
law extends to the discussions and deliberations as well as the formal action
taken by a public board or commission, with no requirement that a quorum be
present for a meeting of members of a public board or commission to be subject
to section 286.011, Florida Statutes.
While the Sunshine Law generally applies to meetings of "two or more" members
of the same board or commission,[16] the Florida Supreme Court has stated that
the Sunshine Law is to be construed "so as to frustrate all evasive
devices. "[17] Thus, the courts and this office have found that there are
instances where the physical presence of two or more members is not necessary
in order to find the Sunshine Law applicable. Thus, this office has stated
that members of a public board may not use computers to conduct a private
discussion among themselves about board business.[18]
In Attorney General Opinion 08 -07, this office concluded that the use of a
website blog or message board to solicit comment from other members of the
board or commission by their response on matters that would come before the
board would trigger the requirements of the Sunshine Law. As stated therein:
"While there is no statutory prohibition against a city council member posting
comments on a privately maintained electronic bulletin board or blog,
members of the board or commission must not engage in an exchange or
discussion of matters that foreseeably will come before the board or
commission for official action. The use of such an electronic means of posting
one's comments and the inherent availability of other participants or
contributors to act as liaisons would create an environment that could easily
become a forum for members of a board or commission to discuss official issues
which should most appropriately be conducted at a public meeting in compliance
with the Government in the Sunshine Law. It would be incumbent upon the
commission members to avoid any action that could be construed as an attempt
to evade the requirements of the law."
Such concerns would appear to be equally applicable to the issue at hand.
While there would not appear to be a prohibition against a board or commission
member posting comments on the city's Facebook page,[19] members of the board
or commission must not engage in an exchange or discussion of matters that
foreseeably will come before the board or commission for official action.
Accordingly, communications on the city's Facebook page regarding city
business may be subject to Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, section
http /www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf /Opinions /25F 14F90483F3901852575A2004E46CB 5/20/2010
Advisory Legal Opinion Records, municipal facebook page Page 6 of 6
customer's complaint).
[13] Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683, 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991),
review denied, 589 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1991), appeal after remand, 619 So. 2d 983
(Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
[14] Cf. Thomas v. Smith, 882 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), in which the
appellant taxpayers had filed a timely application for ad valorem tax
exemption, but refused to make the required disclosure of their social
security numbers. Their application was denied based on their refusal to make
the required disclosure. Appellants argued that the required disclosure of
their social security number in order to claim the exemption violated, among
others, Art. I, s. 23, Fla. Const. The district court concluded that the lower
court erred in concluding that the taxpayers had no legitimate expectation of
privacy in their social security numbers; rather the court should first have
determined whether the taxpayers had a legitimate expectation of privacy in
their social security numbers without regard to other considerations such as
the necessity to submit an application in order to obtain the benefit of the
homestead tax exemption. The district court therefore remanded the case for
further proceedings on this claim.
[15] See, e.g., Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). And
see City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971); Board of Public
Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1969); and
Wolfson v. State, 344 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
[16] Hough v. Stembridge, supra. And see City of Sunrise v. News and Sun
Sentinel Company, 542 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Deerfield Beach
Publishing, Inc. v. Robb, 530 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (requisite to
application of the Sunshine Law is a meeting between two or more public
officials); and Mitchell v. School Board of Leon County, 335 So. 2d 354 (Fla.
1st DCA 1976).
[17] See, e.g., Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473, 477 (Fla.
1974); Blackford v. School Board of Orange County, 375 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1979).
[18] Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 89 -39 (1989). Compare 01 -20 (2001) (a one -way e -mail
communication from one city council member to another, when it does not result
in the exchange of council members' comments or responses on subjects
requiring council action, does not constitute a meeting subject to the
Sunshine Law; however, such e -mail communications are public records and must
be maintained by the records custodian for public inspection and copying).
[19] Cf. Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 07 -35 (2007), concluding that members of a
commission may exchange documents that they wish other members of the
commission to consider on matters coming before the commission for official
action, provided there is no response from, or interaction related to such
documents among, the commissioners prior to the public meeting. It was noted,
however, that if the commissioners intended to exchange individual position
papers on the same subject, this office would express the same concerns as
discussed in Attorney General Opinion 01 -21. In that opinion, this office was
asked whether the preparation and distribution of individual position
statements on the same subject by several city council members to all other
council members would constitute an interaction or exchange by the council
that would be subject to the requirements of the Government in the Sunshine
Law. This office determined that such a practice would violate the Sunshine
Law to the extent that any such communication is a response to another council
member's statement.
http: /www.myfloridalegal.com/ ago. nsf Opinions /25F 14 F90483F3901852575A2004E46CB 5/20/201