Updated Nov. 23, 2020 – BRADENTON – Thursday’s Manatee County Commission discussion about potentially terminating County Administrator Cheri Coryea has triggered a public records request from Florida Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield.
On Friday afternoon, Barfield, a paralegal, submitted individual written public records requests to county commissioners Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse, James Satcher and Kevin Van Ostenbridge. County Attorney Mickey Palmer was copied on each of the requests Barfield submitted on behalf of Sarasota-based Denovo Law Services.
The records requests seek the public records in the individual possession of Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge. A subsequent request seeks records from former Commissioner Steve Jonsson.
On Nov. 3, Baugh was re-elected as the county’s District 5 commissioner. Kruse was elected as the at-large District 7 commissioner. Satcher was elected as the District 1 commissioner. Van Ostenbridge was elected as the District 3 commissioner, a district that encompasses Anna Maria Island, Cortez and west Bradenton.
The four commissioners were sworn into office on Tuesday, Nov. 17. Two days later, Van Ostenbridge initiated, with no advance public notice, a preliminary discussion seeking the termination of Coryea without cause.
At the conclusion of Thursday’s discussion, the newly-reconfigured county commission voted 4-3 in favor of putting Coryea on notice that her potential termination would be discussed at a special county commission meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 6. Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge supported that action. Commissioners Reggie Bellamy, Misty Servia and Carol Whitmore opposed that action.
During Thursday’s discussion, Bellamy said the efforts to oust Coryea appeared to be “premeditated.” Whitmore said the efforts appeared to be “orchestrated.” Servia called the Van Ostenbridge-led efforts “reckless” and “dangerous.”
Records requests
According to the public records requests: “This is a request for records pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, otherwise known as the Public Records Act of the Florida Constitution. We understand that a citizen is not required to make a written request to obtain public records under the act, but we want to be clear what we are seeking from you.”
The records requests pertain to the following records made, sent or received in connection with the transaction of official business, or the rendition of services on behalf of each of the four request recipients:
- All emails sent or received from Nov. 3, 2020 to Nov. 20, 2020.
- All text messages sent or received from November 3 to November 20.
- All messages sent or received via any digital app or social media platform from Nov. 3 to Nov. 20.
- A detailed phone log of all calls made or received between the period Nov. 3 and Nov. 20.
According to the records requests, the term “record” or “public records” also includes responsive records in both digital and hard copy formats, including email, text, SMS, MMS, .doc and voicemail.
According to the requests, “This request for records further includes any responsive records sent or received by any individual or entity via any private, nongovernmental account, as well as those records maintained, stored or archived in the cloud, on a shared drive, on the Internet, via social media accounts or any other electronic device such as a cell phone, tablet, flash drive, that is capable of sending, receiving or storing digital information.”
The records requests are also directed to any individual or entity – including any other public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation or business entity – acting on their behalf of any of the records request recipients.
“If you contend that any record, or portion thereof, is exempt from inspection, please state in writing the basis for the exemption and include the applicable statutory exemption,” the records requests note.
The records requests state the requested records shall not be disposed of for a period of 30 days after the written records requests were submitted on Friday.
Citing Florida Statutes, the records requests state: “If a civil action is instituted within the 30-day period to enforce the provisions of this section with respect to the requested record, the custodian of public records may not dispose of the record except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction after notice to all affected parties.
“The absence of a civil action instituted does not relieve the custodian of public records of the duty to maintain the record as a public record if the record is in fact a public record subject to public inspection and copying and does not otherwise excuse or exonerate the custodian of public records from any unauthorized or unlawful disposition of such record.
“We are requesting that you notify each and every individual and entity in possession of records responsive to this request, and that all such records be preserved on an immediate basis.
“Please produce all records responsive to this request as provided by 119.12(1)(b), Fla. Statute,” the public records requests say in conclusion.
According to Barfield, the three new commissioners – Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge – became subject to the Public Records Act and the Florida Sunshine Law at the conclusion of the Nov. 3 elections.
According to Barfield, the four commissioners have until early December to fulfill the public records requests.
Recent Sunshine case
While assisting the attorneys representing the city of Bradenton Beach, Barfield recently played a significant role in the city prevailing in a Sunshine Law lawsuit that resulted in two of the six defendants paying the city $350,000 on Friday.
The $350,00 payment was partial reimbursement for the attorney fees the city incurred as a result of a civil lawsuit the city filed against six former city advisory board members in 2017.
An extensive number of emails and other records and documents Barfield obtained from the defendants and others in that case factored into the judge’s 2019 ruling that Sunshine Law violations occurred.
Related coverage
