Originally Posted - March 11, 2006

return home

Sunshine Week began Sunday, a week-long observance of open government laws in the United States---freedom of information laws known as FOIL.

“Open government laws break down that wall of government secrecy so that everybody knows what’s going on” says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Well, presumably. That’s the intent of open government laws but government has been going to extreme lengths to stymie the public and press from learning information about governmental operations that the public has a right and need to know.

“A democracy can only function if we have information. You can only have oversight of government if you have information”, Dalglish says.

Sunshine Week, sponsored by the League of Women Voters and a coalition of library and journalism organizations, began last year. It's an effort to celebrate and preserve our right to open government and is observed this year March 12-18.

Though it's a crucial component of our democratic heritage, it is also a fragile one. For every citizen seeking to discover what's going on behind the closed doors of government offices, there's often at least one bureaucrat coming up with reasons to keep things secret.

In Florida, at the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, it seems to be Marianne Pasha, sheriff’s spokesperson, at least in issues dealing with Michael Schiavo.

In New York in Warren County, it’s Larry Cleveland of the Warren County Sheriff’s Department for one.

But there are a lot of people of public agencies nationwide who intentionally seek to thwart the public’s right to know, not just Pasha and Cleveland. But they are representative of the many.

Florida is said to have the most expansive open government laws in the country and unlike, New York, it holds public officers to such a high standard of duty to provide information that the public has a right to know, that the public officer is presumably subject to monetary penalties if they do not conform with the open government laws.

In New York, although there’s a law on the books that makes it a violation for a public officer to intentionally prevent the access to public records, so far no one in the state has ever been charged under it. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/coogwww.html

A comprehensive guide to open public records and open meetings laws for all 50 states, “Tapping Officials’ Secrets”, can be found at http://www.rcfp.org/cgi-local/tapping/index.cgi?function=browse.

The Florida Public Records Law unequivocally states, "it is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any person." Fla. Stat. sec. 119.01(1) (1995). The statute expansively defines "public record" to include all "documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of 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." Fla. Stat. sec. 119.011(1) (1995).

With equal breadth, the law defines "agency" as "any state, county district, authority, or municipal officer, department division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law... and any other public or private agency, partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on behalf of any public agency." Fla. Stat. sec. 119.001(2) (1995).

Although government and other public agencies have sought to restrict disclosure even more since September 11, 2001, some states have actually passed laws to close loopholes in open government laws and to insure that the public has access to public records.

New York passed a major public access bill in 2005, called the greatest strengthening of the state Freedom of Information Law since its inception in 1978. The measure requires governmental agencies to grant or deny a written request within 20 days of its receipt. If the release of the information must be delayed, the public entity must identify a date that the records will be provided. Failure to follow the statutory requirement is deemed a denial of a FOIL request which could lead to action in civil court.

Local, county and state entities have a history of taking months or years in providing copies of documents and public records to the public and press. Many times they simply don’t answer at all, thumbing their nose at the law.

And that brings us to Marianne Pasha and the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Department.

In early February, several new policies that had been enacted by the sheriff’s department were publicized, both dealing with adultery. One of the policies was enacted by Sheriff Jim Coats last fall, prohibiting employees from engaging in adulterous relationships with fellow officers whether married or single.

Then in early February, after Michael Schiavo married his longtime concumbine, chief deputy Dennis Fowler implemented another policy that provided that officers who are caught in adulterous affairs, whether they are married or single, will be placed on suspension for up to three days. Who knows whether the timing of the policy was related to Schiavo or not. The fact remains that the policy was enacted after Michael Schiavo ended his 10-year adulterous relationship by marriage.

The week that the Fowler policy was announced and as the Michael Schiavo-Jodi Centonze marriage made headlines around the world, The North Country Gazette published an article about the new adultery policies which had particular relevance to Michael Schiavo in that he had openly lived in adultery with Centonze for nearly 10 years and at the same time Schiavo was presumably employed as a nurse in the inmate division of the sheriff’s department. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/020806PinellasAdultery.html

Two days later, Marianne Pasha, public information officer for the sheriff’s department, sent an email to the newspaper, taking issue with the article. In referring to the new policy, she stated, “If you would like a copy of our entire policy in order to see this element in context, we would be happy to send it to you”. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/022806SchiavoHoneymoon.html

We immediately accepted Ms. Pasha’s offer, asking to receive a complete copy of Officer Fowler’s new policy and in addition, asked for copies of the time cards and payroll records of Michael Schiavo to ascertain first, if he’s still employed by the Pinellas County Sheriff Department and second, if the taxpayers paid for him to take leave to spend his honeymoon with Jodi along with eight other people in Las Vegas.

Ms Pasha’s response, clearly acknowledging the additional request for public records, was “We will provide those records that are public record under Florida Statute 119.07. For that materials that cannot be e-mailed, please provide a mailing address”.

Once the mailing address was provided, she then stated, “Thank you for your e-mail and mailing address. We will address your public records request and policy questions under Florida’s Open Public Records Law”.

That was Feb. 10---30 days ago. A reasonable amount of time has now passed and Ms. Pasha has failed to provide a copy of the policy that she offered, and has additionally failed to provide the requested information concerning payroll records, clearly public information as she has already previously provided information concerning payroll records and time sheets of employees previously.

Apparently she doesn’t like our requests.

Florida Statute 119 states that “providing access to public records is a duty of each agency”. And we believe that because Ms. Pasha is the spokesperson for a law enforcement agency, she should be held to an even higher standard and duty to comply with the law. Spokespeople for the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office aren’t above the law, neither is Michael Schiavo although so far, he has yet to be held accountable for violating guardianship laws, the filing of an alleged false employment application with the sheriff’s department and other alleged fraudulent statements and alleged false testimony given under oath.

In that Ms. Pasha is quoting Section 119 of Florida Statutes, she must also be familiar with Section 119.10(1)(a) which states that any public officer who violates any provision of this chapter commits a non-criminal infraction, punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 and (b) which states that a public officer who knowingly violates the provisions of 119.07, as she referenced, is subject to suspension and removal or impeachment and, in addition, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree and there are other provisions for penalty.

A willing and knowing infraction of Chapter 119 is punishable as a first degree misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine up to $1,000. Fla. Stat. secs. 119.10(2), 775.082(4)(a), 775.083(1)(d) (1995).

Is this just a paper tiger? The public has right to see a copy of the Fowler policy and has a right to know if taxpayers paid for Michael Schiavo’s time-off to take his new wife and his entourage to Las Vegas. How many people did you take on your honeymoon?

Florida Law says that while there’s no set time limit for agency response to a request for public records, the only delay permitted is limited to a reasonable time to allow the custodian of the records to retrieve the records and delete those portions exempt from disclosure. She’s had 30 days, plenty of time and there’s ruling case law on the issue as well as opinions issued by the Florida Attorney General’s office.

If Ms. Pasha is irritated that the public wants to know information pertaining to Michael Schiavo and how tax dollars are being used to support him, the Florida Courts have held that the use to which a person intends to put the documents once copies are received similarly is irrelevant in determining whether a person has a right of access under Chapter 119. In her e-mail of Feb. 10, she was obviously irritated with past coverage of the Schiavo case by The North Country Gazette and The Empire Journal, stating “ I have grown to understand that you and your publication have a strong position on the entire Schiavo story. It is a story which generated much debate and emotional reaction both here and around the country But to infer that an addition to our Code of Conduct policy and Mr. Schiavo's recent marriage are connected is just plain wrong”.

So why then won’t she provide a copy of the policy in question?

The law provides that “it is the policy of this state that all state, county and municipal records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any person, person to include even newspapers. The Attorney General’s office has opined that there is no distinction between citizens and non-citizens as far as access to public records is concerned.

So, Ms. Pasha, 30 days is up and it appears that you have violated Florida Statute 119. Just because you’re employed by the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Department doesn’t mean that you’re exempt from the law and that you can thumb your nose at it.

And there’s Warren County Sheriff Larry Cleveland in New York State. He’s long violated the state’s Freedom of Information Law, refusing to provide ANY public information to The North Country Gazette because he doesn’t like the nature of the information that we request or how we intend to use it.

There’s a civil court action pending by The North Country Gazette and its publisher against Mr. Cleveland. He and his former attorney, Queensbury town justice Robert McNally, managed to thwart it from 2003 until last year when the NCG forced it from McNally’s court to another court. He refuses to give the newspaper news releases that other news media receive, he refuses to respond to a NCG FOIL request and for sure refuses to provide any public information. He long claimed that it was because the newspaper and its publisher hadn’t paid for previous FOIL requests. However, he couldn’t prove he had ever provided any information which hadn’t been paid for because no copies were ever provided until payment was made in advance.

Cleveland then provided a list of charges which he claimed hadn’t been paid although no copies had been provided. In several cases in which he claimed payment hadn’t been received, when the publisher produced cash receipts that had been issued by the county treasurer’s office for payment, Cleveland claimed the 25 cent receipts, pre-numbered and signed by the treasurer’s office, had been forged but offered no proof for his ludicrous false accusation. In several cases in requests involving Cleveland’s “best friend” John Shine, he claimed no payment had been received but the publisher produced letters signed by Cleveland himself which said that the record requested didn’t exist. So, if it doesn’t exist, how could the publisher owe for a copy of it?

Mr. Fastidious messed up again.

Although disputed, several years ago the publisher paid the amount Cleveland claimed was due, making payment by certified mail with copy to the county attorney. Receipt of payment was acknowledged, payment was kept but Cleveland has still refused to provide the copies now paid for nor will he respond to FOIL requests or provide news releases that other media outlets receive.

That matter is now in court as in essence, the sheriff has engaged in a theft of services. Payment for the service was made but he has failed to provide it.

Cleveland and Pasha, as public servants in a law enforcement capacity, are not above the law. The public has a right to know how their government operates and how tax dollars are being spent.

Secret government is dangerous----especially in Pinellas and Warren Counties.

This week is Sunshine Week and let the sunshine in, open government records. 3-11-06