Capstone Pub699

FCM Information Management
J. Rada Page i of 91

Running head: SUNSHINE INFORMATION REQUEST PROCESS

An Evaluation of the
Information Management Process in the
Facilities and Construction Management Department,
School Board of Broward County, Florida

by

Julie J. Rada

to

Barry University

in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of

Master of Public Administration

This Applied Capstone Project has been
accepted for the faculty of
Barry University by:

_______________________________________

Stephen E. Sussman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Public Administration

J. Rada Page ii of 91

Executive Summary

Sunshine legislation exists to ensure that government agencies operate in an open

environment and provide public access to agency documents. The principle behind such

regulation goes to the heart of republican democracy wherein the people are the government.

Transparency and compliance are keys to fostering informed public participation, as well as to

provide responsible governance that is responsive to public opinion. For this reason information

management is a crucial function in public administration.

An evaluation of the information processes in Facilities and Construction Management at

the School Board of Broward County was undertaken to provide insight into the dynamics

involved in dealing with stakeholder requests. As a prelude to the study, a literature review was

performed to provide an historical perspective on government in the sunshine, and study the

body of research relating to compliance, public opinion, and media influence on administrative

function, as well as relevant case law.The ensuing analysis of the department‘s available

information process data was conducted based on that body of knowledge.

Data was examined and evaluated as it relates to various facets of the information

response processes. The volume of information requests, turnaround time from date of inquiry to

completion, entities involved in fulfillment of those requests, parties generating requests, and

topics of interest were all analyzed. Answers were sought to questions concerning who makes

public records requests, the nature of information is being sought, whether external factors

trigger requests, how change in leadership affects the response process, and, ultimately, the

efficiency of the response process.

J. Rada Page iii of 91

Assessment results indicate that the department‘s information processes are effective, and

that they are in compliance with specified guidelines concerning response completion time.

Stakeholders requesting information represent diverse relationships, and there is significant

correlation between stakeholder status and the subject matter sought. Evidence tends to support

the contentions that both change in leadership and external factors impacted the process during

the period studied.

J. Rada Page iv of 91

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II

ISSUE STATEMENT 1

LITERATURE REVIEW 3
INTRODUCTION 3
PUBLIC OPINION 3
INFORMING THE PUBLIC 5
THE MEDIA 8
TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND COMPLIANCE 13
FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY 15
STATE OF FLORIDA INFORMATION POLICY 19
SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA INFORMATION POLICY 22

METHODOLOGY 23
INFORMATION REQUESTS 23
DOCUMENT REQUESTS 24
THE MEDIA CONNECTION 24

FINDINGS 25
INFORMATION REQUESTS 25
DOCUMENT REQUESTS 31
THE MEDIA CONNECTION 35

RECOMMENDATIONS 37

APPENDIX A 39
PRECEDENT-SETTING FOIA LITIGATION 39

APPENDIX B 41
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE I – DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 41

APPENDIX C 42
SBBC POLICY NUMBER1343.000 42

APPENDIX D 43
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 43

APPENDIX E 45
FCM INFORMATION REQUESTS RAW DATA 45

J. Rada Page v of 91

APPENDIX F 50
FCM INFORMATION REQUESTS CODE BOOK 50

APPENDIX G 51
FCM DOCUMENT REQUESTS RAW DATA 51

APPENDIX H 55
FCM DOCUMENT REQUESTS CODEBOOK 55

APPENDIX I 56
SUPERINTENDENT’S DIRECTIVE 56

APPENDIX J 57
REFERRAL 57

APPENDIX K 58
CHART 1 – MONTHLY VOLUME 58

APPENDIX L 59
CHART 2 – TURNAROUND TIME 59

APPENDIX M 60
CHART 3 – AVERAGE TURNAROUND – LEADERSHIP TRACK 60

APPENDIX N 61
CHART 4 – SINGLE DEPARTMENT PROCESSING 61
CHART 5 – MULTI-DEPARTMENT PROCESSING 61

APPENDIX O 62
CHART 6 – REQUESTING PARTIES 62

APPENDIX P 63
CHART 7 – MONTHLY BREAKDOWN BY STAKEHOLDER 63

APPENDIX Q 64
CHART 8 – REQUEST RECEIPT METHODS 64

APPENDIX R 65
CHART 9 – MONTHLY VOLUME 65

APPENDIX S 66
CHART 10 – TRANSACTION RESOLUTION 66
CHART 11 – FEES COLLECTED 66

J. Rada Page vi of 91

APPENDIX T 67
CHART 10 – REQUESTING PARTIES 67

APPENDIX U 68
CHART 13 – TOPIC 68
CHART 14 – TOPIC (OTHER THAN BID-RELATED) 68

APPENDIX V 69
CHART 15 – VOLUME DISTRIBUTION BY TOPIC 69

APPENDIX W 70
CHART 16 – BID PROCESS/DOCUMENT REQUEST COMPARISON 70

APPENDIX X 71
CHART 17 – TURNAROUND 71

APPENDIX Y 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NEWS ARTICLES JULY 2008 – JUNE 2010 72
Sun-Sentinel 72
The Miami Herald 76

WORKS CITED 82

J. Rada Page 1 of 91

Issue Statement

Information management plays a vital role in public administration. Effective

transmission of information facilitates intra-organizational communication, and is essential for

interactions between the agency and the public, the media, and overhead agencies. Sunshine

legislation mandates open access to public records, and is intended to foster transparency in

governance.

As a public agency the Facilities and Construction Management (FCM) department of the

School Board of Broward County (SBBC) is subject to state and federal Sunshine Laws. It is

responsible for construction and renovation of all SBBC facilities and capital improvements. As

such, FCM personnel interact with a variety of stakeholders in the execution of its business.

An analysis of FCM‘s records pertaining to its information management process could

provide insight into stakeholder identity, areas of concern, and how effective the response

process is. This study will attempt to answer these questions: 1. Who is making public records

requests? 2. What information is being sought? 3. Do external factors trigger requests? 4. Does

change in leadership affect the response process? 5. How efficient is the response process?6. Is

there collaboration among departments in the response completion process?

Operative hypotheses are as follows: 1. FCM receives information requests from a

variety of stakeholders. 2. There is a strong correlation between stakeholder status and

information requested. 3. External factors such as media coverage influence information

requests. 4. Change in leadership impacts the response process. 5. FCM fulfills information

requests within time frames prescribed by SBBC policy, and is in compliance with Sunshine


requirements.6. FCM frequently collaborates with other departments in completing the

information request process.

Evaluation of current processes may reveal areas where policies and procedures can be

improved, or alternatively, provide affirmation as to their efficacy. Additionally, it may prove

useful in achieving a measureable degree of predictability concerning causal relationships

relative to public interest in FCM functions. The intent behind this study is to provide a

beneficial service to the department, and to offer support for process improvements suggested by

staff members.


Literature Review
Introduction

Information management is defined as ―a multi-faceted process involving the collection,

processing, storage, transmission, and use of information‖ (Feinberg, 1986, p. 615). Different

regulations pertain to each facet of the process. In discussing management of federal information

policy Feinberg reveals that ―businesses have become major requesters; submitters of

information are seeking new protections for their data; (and) the costs of providing information

have been significantly higher than Congress anticipated‖ (p. 615). Codification of federal

information policy originated with the enactment of a ―housekeeping‖ statute in 1789, saw major

revisions in the 1940‘s and 1960‘s, and is subject to continuous refinement. All three branches of

government and the private sector have been actively involved in shaping this legislation.

This study relates to the transmission phase of information management. While effective

communication is importantwithin any agency, it is an essential for the public administrator in

dealing with extra-organizational entities(Cohen, Eimicke, & Heikkila, 2008). Among these are

the general public, legislatures, overhead agencies, interest groups, and the media.The primary

focus of this study concerns the distribution of information to interested parties. In particular,

attention will be directed toward an exploration of the importance of public records and

information management in promoting the ideals of accountability, transparency, and informed

public opinion.Additionally, the issue of compliance with state and federal regulation is

examined as it relates to agency interaction with legislatures and overhead agencies.

Public Opinion

Public opinion playsan integral role in fostering an informed public. Its eminence in


politics and governance in the United States originated with the framing of our constitution,

made implicit through the First Amendment. Several works are available on the topic.

James Madison’s Psychology of Public Opinioninforms that recent developments in the

field of public opinion have led to a renewed interest in Madison‘s conception of its role and the

appropriate extentto which it should play a part ingovernmental process (Gabrielson, 2009).

Citing contemporary literature that ranges from limiting the role as a means for selection of good

representatives to a vehicle for highly significant involvement in self-directed governance,

Gabrielson contends that the key questions concern Madison‘s view not only of the public‘s

capacity for making political decisions, but whether public reason can prevail over passion in a

republic. Acomprehensive qualitative analysis of Madison‘s essays and letters is undertaken that

tracks the maturation of his philosophical views toward informed citizenry. The tensions inherent

in our political system are mirrored in his discussions concerning reason versus emotion and

affection relative to establishing an informed decision-making process. According to Gabrielson,

Madison ―relies on both the social passions and reason to settle public opinion, especially when

those passions are supported by the reason of the few and the few appeal to the reason of the

many‖ (p. 441). Ultimately this treatise reflects the belief that Madison considered it the public‘s

responsibility to monitor the actions of its representatives and call for action when appropriate,

as well as his advocacy for debate that allows for passion tempered by logic.

Public administration theorists have held varying views on the role of public opinion in

the discipline‘s practical application. In promoting administration as a practical science and

establishing the framework for its academic application, Woodrow Wilson advocated for

administrators having broad powers and unhampered discretion in order to be efficient(Wilson,

(1887) 2004). He posited that this would afford the means to achieve the highest potential for


open and honest success. As justification, he argued that public opinion would be the

authoritative critic concerning administrative performance, but cautioned that there must be a

proper relation between public opinion and administration.

Wilson‘s managerial approach as adapted by Frederick Taylor, Leonard White, Luther

Gulick, Simmons and Dvorin, and Max Weber dictates that administration must be separate and

apart from politics(Rosenbloom, (1983) 2004). Rosenbloom does not address the subject in

relation to the legal approach to administration, however, as is evident from the media coverage

of litigation involving theDepartment of the Interior and the Minerals Management Service

concerningthe Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster, this method is not immune to the realm of

public opinion. With regard to the political approach Rosenbloom evokes Wallace Sayre‘s

sentiment that ―…the fundamental problem in a democracy is responsibility to popular

control…‖ (p. 447). Public opinion is fundamental to the political approach to public

management. This school of thought stresses representativeness, political responsiveness, and

accountability. Political administrative management spawned the Freedom of Information Act, as

well as other ―sunshine‖ provisions and ―sunset‖ requirements.

Informing the Public

An article appearing in The Public Opinion Quarterly during the Truman era critiques the

federal government‘s recently created agency position, the public information officer

(Fitzpatrick, 1947-1948).Fitzpatrick‘s introductory comments acknowledge the inherent tension

between the public and administrative agencies in the governmental process. ―Nevertheless, it is

generally accepted that whenever the American people are properly informed of governmental

activities, they are more likely to understand what is being done, and why‖ (p. 530).


Fitzpatrick writes that the greatest challenges faced in government information programs

are internal in nature. The most basic of these is how much authority is vested in the public

information officer. Next is the question of where within the hierarchy this position resides,

which is complicated by the involvement of intermediaries between the information officer and

administrators. Division of authority and responsibility within the agency create difficulties in

determining who is authorized to release information. Delays caused by these hurdles can create

adverse public relations resulting in loss of trust in the agency, as well as negative perceptions

concerning administrative performance. Stalled delivery of information is often exacerbated

when the information being sought is provided to the party requesting it by an outside source.

Additional problems involve agency personnel communicating public information without the

advice of the information officer, misuse or misrepresentation of agency information by

administrative personnel, and the bureaucratic tendency toward hesitancy in admitting to error

when it has been discovered.

The effective public administrator recognizes that the interests of the agency must be

balanced with the interests of those who are the beneficiaries of the information they supply, and

appreciatesthat an informed public is an essential component of governance (Cohen, Eimicke, &

Heikkila, 2008). A prudent administrator relies on the public information officer, when available,

as the most effective means for information dissemination.

Effects of external information impinging on public information utilized in the decision-

making process are studied in Social Value of Public Information(Morris & Shin, 2002). Morris

and Shin contend that public information has a dual role - to convey fundamental information,

and to facilitate focused thinking. ―Sunspots‖ and ―noise‖ are referenced as influences that might

result in distortion of public information. When this distortion occurs, the effects are detrimental


to the social planner. Just as public information has significant impact, so does the incursion of

noise in the public psyche. They posit that public information risks the danger of being too

effective in influencing actions; when overreaction occurs, any noise damage is magnified.

Government agencies are faced with numerous interrelated issues in formulating

disclosure policies. Specific concerns include how much information should be disclosed, how

often, and in what form. The challenge is to find a balance between providing timely preliminary

or incomplete information versus delaying response in order to provide more accurate data. This

becomes increasingly more difficult with increased scrutiny or monitoring of agency activities.

An interesting study conducted by Christopher Wlezien demonstrates how the public‘s

spending preferencescorrelate to policy outputs (1995). He developed a thermostatic model

incorporating spending preferences relative to a set of five social programs, as well as defense

policy. Utilizing time series regression analysis, he found that changes in spending preferences

reflect changes in levels of spending preferred, as well as in spending decisions themselves.

Public preference changes are inversely related to spending decisions. When appropriations

increase, preferences are adjusted downward, and vice versa. Public spending preferences tend

toward being more liberal when economic expectations are more optimistic, and more

conservative when they are not. Unless something happens to change them, preferences tend to

remain unchanged. In his conclusion Wlezien writes: ―… most striking is that the public

responds to appropriations, which are policy decisions, not to the more tangible outlays that

result from appropriations‖ (p. 998). The efficacy of his model is dependent upon the public

obtaining the most accurate information available otherwise the public would prove to be a faulty

thermostat.

Knowledge as power is a recurring theme in the democratic process, and knowledge gap


has long been a topic of concern (Jerit, Barabas, & Bolsen, 2006). In their study of the

information environment, Jerit, Barabas and Bolsen narrowed their focus from general

knowledge to surveillance knowledge, i.e. sufficient understanding of issues enabling individuals

to monitor government activity. They sought to determine whether knowledge could be

improved by increased media coverage, and how that increased knowledge impacted the

knowledge gap. Their findings indicated that the greater volume of coverage increased

knowledge across the spectrum. In the case of print news, more plentiful information increased

differences in knowledge level attributed to education. There was not a significant increase in the

knowledge gap with increased television coverage. In terms of relative gains, the least educated

did better. As suggested by Jerit, et al., further study aimed at gap reduction would be beneficial

in exploring means through which to foster the ideal of informed political participation. Inclusion

of alternative information sources could also provide additional insight into individual

monitoring habits.

The Media

Government is highly dependent upon the media as a vehicle for communicating with the

populace. Several studies have been completed concerning the role of media in politics as a

means of informing public opinion, ensuring disclosure and transparency, and its influence in

agenda setting.Interaction between the press, the public, decision makers and policy construct

has provided fertile ground for study in multiple scholarly disciplines. Complexities of these

relationships, as well as variations on theme make the subject timeless.

The preceding sections sufficiently examine the relationship between the media and the

public for the purposes of this study. An understanding of the dynamics between the press and


policymaking is beneficial in terms of its import to the public administrator, as well as the

potentialimpact on the general public.

A major cross-disciplinary study concerning media and agenda setting was published in

Public Opinion Quarterly in 1983 (Cook, et al.). Its authors claimed to be the first to ―…

examine how the same media presentation shapes the judgments of both the general public and

policy makers and also how the presentation affects subsequent policy‖ (pp. 16-17). This study

was unique in that it involved a collaboration of the researchers with a team of investigative

reporters. Inasmuch as the researchers were fully appraised as to the content and records that

would be used in a televised investigative report, as well as the date on which it would air, they

were able to conduct both pre- and post-broadcast surveys. An experimental group was asked to

watch the target program, while a control group was asked to view a news magazine program on

a different channel airing at the same time. A test population was randomly selected from the

general public, with those respondents randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the

control group.

One to two hour interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of policy maker

participants prior to the news report, with a post airing telephone survey lasting ten to fifteen

minutes. This sampling population consisted of government elites (53 percent) and special

interest elites (47 percent), all at the state level.Cook, et al. felt it inappropriate to request

individuals of this echelon to watch a television program, and posited that when high-level

policymakers are not personally attuned to the media, they rely on staff to provide them with

relevant information. Thus they are indirectly exposed to its effects. Of those responding, the

group was evenly split between those who were exposed to the presentation and those who were

not. The breakdown in subgroups revealed 63 percent exposure to 37 percent lacking awareness


of the broadcast among government elites, with 37.5 percent of special interest elites reporting

exposure to the program compared to 62.5 percent indicating non-exposure.

In summation the data suggests a strong correlation between watching the target program

and the public perception of issue importance. Post survey results ranked the target issue as

second in priority, up from fourth in the antecedent survey. The finding supports the concept of

the ―agenda-setting function of the media among members of the general public‖ (Cook, et al.,

p.25). Policy elites are not all similarly influenced by news media presentations. In this study the

investigative report altered the perception of government elites, but not that of special interest

elites. Results revealed an alteration in perception of the importance of the issue on the part of

governmental policy makers, their belief that action was necessary, and their perception of how

the public views issue priorities. However, the issue remained last in priority for these

policymakers. Lack of significant change among special interest elites in this study was

attributed to their nature. Special interest groups are already knowledgeable about and advocate

the issues to which they are committed.

Through their evaluation pertaining to the impact of the studied report on policy, Cook et

al. reveal a connection between the media investigators and the U.S. Permanent Subcommittee

on Investigations. This was a mutually beneficial relationship in that the subcommittee sought to

attract public attention to the issue through the media, and the investigative team‘s motivation

was to include the government‘s reaction in their story. The broadcast concluded with an

announcement that Senate hearings were imminent, and the following day a news release setting

the hearing dates was issued. Expert testimony was provided during the hearings by some of the

investigators, who were subsequently lauded for their ―initiative in securing their … findings‖ (p.

31). Cook, et al. concluded that while public perception and the agendas of policy makers were


both affected by media coverage in the case studied, it was the ongoing collaboration of

government staff members with journalists that ultimately led to political action.

Media thrives on scandals and accidents, and the crises caused by them have drawn

attention to regulatory issues that would not have otherwise been placed on the political agenda

(Kemp, 1984).Dissemination of information about an incident is a prerequisite to its becoming a

political issue. Kemp cites the journalistic axiom that ―an event which wasn‘t reported didn‘t

happen‖ (p.403). Public concern about issues cannot be generated unless opinion leaders and the

media broadly disseminate what is observed and known about their occurrence.

In her data analysis Kemp contends, ―accidents and scandals are dramatic events

facilitating mobilization for quick action rather than deliberation and study. … If there is to be

any institutional response, it must come quickly before public attention is turned elsewhere‖ (p.

413). Kemp sought to determine the impact of accidents and scandals on political support for

regulatory agencies in the White House and Congress. Budgetary data for the Securities and

Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Aviation

Administration was utilized to test for the effect of accidents and scandals occurring over a

period of approximately thirty years. For all three agencies accidents and scandals were

important factors in budgeting outcomes and regulatory policy. Party control as well as the

relative status of the three agencies factored into the specific magnitude, direction, and quality of

response from Congress and the presidency.

A look at environmental policy demonstrates how dramatic events have impacted agency

administration. Major incidents that have had an effect on policymaking include Three Mile

Island, Love Canal, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Bhopal disaster, and Chernobyl (Cooper,

2007). A sampling of legislation that arose from these incidents, as well as public concern over


other environmental issues includes: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1975; Toxic

Substances Control Act 1976; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (Superfund) 1980; Alaska National Interest Conservation Act 1980; Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments 1984; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)

1986; Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 1986; Safe Drinking Water Amendments of

1986; Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986; Federal Water Quality

Act 1987; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Amendments 1988; Ocean

Pollution Act 1990; Oil Pollution Prevention Act 1990; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act 1992; Federal Facilities Compliance Act

1992; and California Desert Protection Act 1994. Public information was key to exposing

dangers, real or perceived, that demanded the attention of government. Access to agency records

is crucial as a means to satisfy the public that their interests are being adequately protected.

Scandal and impropriety evoke strong responses from the American public, especially

when government and its officials are involved. Among those with the highest profile are

Watergate, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and human rights violations that occurred

at Abu Ghraib. Violation of public trust is not a new concern, but in recent years intensified

scrutiny of government and bureaucratic agencies in Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties

has had significant impact, and been greatly facilitated through accessibility to public

information. Several officials have been removed from office for their abuses, with some serving

prison time on criminal charges. A surge in concern about the actions of representatives on both

state and local levels has spawned ethics review committees in various agencies and placed

ethics regulation on ballots in recent elections.

The Threshold of Public Attention asks ―what would happen if all the mass media ceased


to function?‖ (Neuman, 1990). It answers that government would be immobilized. This study

focuses on the transition from initial stages of public awareness toward a threshold that moves a

matter from one of private concern to a public, political issue. In addressing the evolution of

agenda-setting theory Neuman incorporates McCombs and Shaw‘s proposition that ―the press

may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but … stunningly

successful in telling its readers what to think about‖ (p. 160). While the media and the public

both respond to real-world cues, the media acts a conduit of information. The potential for

filtering, distortion, and amplification is elemental in agenda-setting theory.

In discussing public response function theory Neuman refers to Downs‘s ―issue-

attention‖ cycle(p. 164). Downs contended that public interest has a systematic life cycle, and

that changes in public perception are more closely related to this five-stage cycle than to changes

in real conditions. Stage one is the pre-problem stage where a problem exists, but public

attention has not been captured. The discovery stage, stage two, reflectsa major increase in

attention and the problem transitions into a political issue. This is the threshold. In stage three a

plateau is reached and enthusiasm for the issue begins to wane. Stage four, the decline - the

public becomes restless, inattentive, and frustrated. In the fifth stage, the post-problem period

relegates the issue to a state of limbo. Neuman reported findings in his study produced consistent

but somewhat weak evidence in support of threshold and saturation effects. Relative

responsiveness to different issue types produced the biggest differences issue by issue.

Transparency, Accountability, and Compliance

Timing, logistics and information sensitivity are all of concern in relation to transparency.

Andrea Prat of the London School of Economics identified circumstances whereby conformism


was a result of an agent‘s knowledge that his or her actions were being observed (2005). Only

fear of failure deters conformism. More to the point of thiseconometric study, the concluding

statements pose that ―an action, or the intention to take an action, should not be revealed before

the consequences of the action are observed‖ (p. 869). The expectation should be that

transparency on decisions and consequences go hand in hand.

An exploratory analysis of sunshine regulations as applied to institutions of higher

education discusses Cleveland‘s contention that mandated openness, when applied to public

colleges and universities, poses a ―trilemma‖ for society (McLendon & Hearn, 2006). Inherent

tension is created among competing societal objectives: ensuring accountability to the public,

protecting individual rights, and allowing institutions sufficient autonomy to achieve their public

missions. The purpose of this study was to gain perspective on stakeholders‘ views regarding the

impact of sunshine regulations on the governance of institutions of higher learning. Sampling

consisted of a two-stage process. Six states were selected for their diversity along social, legal,

and organizational dimensions. Then respondents were selected from among six categories;

members of institutional governing boards, senior campus and system officials, faculty senate

leaders, newspaper personnel versed in the field, state attorneys general and their staff, and state

legislators and agency officials. Analysis revealed no evidence of ―declining openness in higher

education, and no evidence of outright revolt against sunshine laws‖ (p.675). Respondents

expressed commitment of openness in both principle and in practice. Most felt that safeguarding

of individual privacy rights, as well as maintaining institutions capable of achieving their

purpose efficiently and effectively were equally important. Balancing the three creates tension

and poses challenges when implementing sunshine laws in the collegiate environment.

An economic study on media capture and accountability assessed relationships between


features of the media industry, media capture, and political outcomes(Besley & Prat, 2006).

Media capture signifies a collusive relationship between the press and government, ergo it

creates a scenario that is antithetical to the precept of accountability. Analysis results

indicated―media pluralism is of paramount importance‖ and should be considered in merger

reviews by regulatory agencies (p. 732). Besley and Pratt conclude that increased media

competition reduces bias and fosters an environment true to the intent of accountability.

Despite revisions to both federal and state sunshine legislation, differences in opinion

over interpretation of production requirements based on form and format of information continue

to cause friction. Government Records: It’s the Message, Not the Medium, a trade publication

article, reviews three cases involving resistance on the part of both state and federal agencies in

responding to requests for production of records produced electronically and/or through the use

of personal equipment (Swartz, 2008). A cursory review of FOIA audits and research contained

in The National Security Archives at George Washington University reveals a fairly

comprehensive critique of compliance on the federal level.

Federal Information Policy

The United States maintains an open information policy that is based on diverse and

fragmented administrative practice laws (Cooper, 2007). It is a system of interrelated and

overlapping constitutional and statutory elements that sometimes conflict. The language of the

Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations of its articles and amendments are at the heart of

the system. Core statutory elements include the Freedom of Information Act, Right to Privacy

Act, Government in the Sunshine Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, Federal Advisory Committee

Act, and E-Government Act. Additional statutory elements are the Health Insurance Portability


and Accountability Act, the USA Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, Computer Security Act,

the Clinger Cohen Act, Paperwork Elimination Act, and Family Education Rights and Privacy

Act. Various environmental factors affecting information policy involve political pressure,

national security, intergovernmental relations, market forces, technological innovation, and

globalization.

Included among the legislation amassed during in the New Deal Era was the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §551 et seq.(Cooper, 2007). This statute applies

to all federal agencies not otherwise specifically exempted, and provides minimum standards to

which these agencies must adhere. In original form the APA included provisions intended to

promote openness and responsiveness in government, including the administration of

information policy.

Beginning in 1955, U.S. Rep. John Moss (D-CA), a leading consumer advocate,

spearheaded a committee that investigated, promulgated reports and held hearings on

government information policy. At that time Section 3 of the APA governed the means by which

the public could obtain information from federal governmental agencies (The FOIA and

President Lyndon Johnson, n.d). Organizations involved with formulating the policy included the

American Bar Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and ―committees of newspapermen,

editors and broadcasters‖ (The Congressional Record, 1966, p. 13642).

Enacted in 1966, The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, constitutes

the greatest portion of the APA. It establishes that any person, including U.S. citizens, foreign

nationals, organizations, associations, and universities can file a FOIA request. The

Administrative Procedures Act contained less precise verbiage affording agencies responding to

requests reasons to deny those requests based on arbitrary interpretations as to who might be


entitled to receive information requested from them, i.e. how is ―need to know‖ defined.

The decade from instigation through fruition was extremely active. In addition to the

Cold War, major political events during this time include: McCarthyism and Senator Joseph

McCarthy‘s decline in reputation; the third and fourth decades of the nearly 50-year reign of J.

Edgar Hoover, his investigation into subversives and prominent figures he distrusted as well as

his refusal to investigate the mafia; the Viet Nam War; the civil rights movement; and the

assassination of President John F. Kennedy followed by the Warren Commission investigation.

Any one of these coupled with citizenry harboring innate distrust of government provide ample

ammunition to bolster demands that the government respond to citizens‘ desire to know how

their government is operating, what is happening as a result of those actions, and how their lives

are or will be affected.

Judicial review was added to the FOIA over President Gerald Ford‘s veto during the

Watergate Investigation. During President Ronald Reagan‘s tenure Congress took action to put

some branches of the CIA out of the Act‘s reach. President Bill Clinton was successful in

expanding the FOIA to cover electronic media(The Freedom of Information Act Turns 35, nd),

andthe 2002 amendment signed by President George W. Bush limits the ability of foreign agents

to request records from U.S. intelligence agencies (The FOIA and President George W. Bush,

nd).

Much debate has taken place concerning the public‘s right to know versus national

security. President Johnson‘s statement, issued when he signed the Act, addressed this concern.

―This legislation springs from one of our most essential principles: a democracy works best when

the people have all the information that the security of the nation permits. No one should be able

to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public


interest‖ (Press Secretary, 1996). There are exemptions delineating what will not be provided:

national security information; internal personnel rules and practices; substantial internal matters

when disclosure would risk circumvention of a legal requirement; internal matters that are

essentially trivial in nature; information exempt under other laws; confidential business

information; inter or intra agency communication that is subject to deliberative process,

litigation, and other privileges; personal privacy; law enforcement records that implicate one of

six enumerated concerns;financial institutions; and geological information (FOIA Basics, What

are the FOIA expemtions?, nd)

As summarized by the U.S. Attorney General upon enactment of the original version, the

essential principles supporting the Freedom of Information Act are reflected in its policy

goals(Cooper, 2007). First, ―that disclosure be the general rule, not the exception‖ (p. 446).

Second, equal rights of access to all individuals. Third, the burden to justify withholding of a

document is on government, not the individual making the request. Fourth,improperly denied

access to a document triggers the right to sue for injunctive relief. Fifth, there ―should be a

fundamental shift in the attitudes and policies regarding government information of those in

positions of responsibility‖ (p. 446).

Operation of FOIA policy varies from administration to administration, and response

procedures among federal agencies are diverse. Differences in interpretation of the Act‘s

provisions further complicate the process. Also problematic is the need to balance constitutional

rights that sometimes conflict with one another. There is a significant volume of case law

involving administration of the Act. A summary of precedent-setting FOIA litigation is included

in Appendix A.


State of Florida Information Policy

Sunshine regulation varies greatly from state to state. The State of Florida is renowned

for the priority it places on openness in government. Its public records law was enacted in 1909,

and in 1967 legislation was passed to include public access to agency meetings (State of Florida,

2009b). In 1992 a constitutional amendment was passed to guarantee continued openness in

government, extended coverage to the legislature, and included the judiciary. Appendix B

contains pertinent excerpts of Article 1, Section 24, pertaining to the Information Law.When

Florida enacted its original legislation it was the second state to codify information

policy(McLendon & Hearn, 2006). By the end of the ten-year period after Florida initiated

comprehensive reform of its statutes in 1954, twenty-six states had enacted openness in

government laws. Following Watergate, another wave of statutory reform occurred. According to

McLendon and Hearn Florida ranked second highest among the fifty states in Cleveland‘s 1985

openness ordering.

The State of Florida has published a reference guide for compliance with its public

records and open meeting laws(State of Florida, 2009a). The manual contains two parts: Part I

covers the Government in the Sunshine Law, §286.011 FS. Part II pertains to the Public Records

Law, §119.01(11) FS. Written in question and answer format, it is a comprehensive treatment of

the sunshine legislation replete with black letter law annotations including Attorney General

Opinions, pertinent legislation, and relevant case law.

Public records as defined by statute 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‖ (p.46). The broad scope of the definition is intended to be comprehensive enough to

incorporate new forms of technology that may evolve. Unless otherwise exempted by law, all

documents will remain available for public inspection.

By definition, the term agency includes: ―any state, county, district, authority, or

municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of

government created or established by law including, for the purposes of this chapter, the

Commission on Ethics, the Public Service Commission, and the Office of Public Counsel, and

any other public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on

behalf of any public agency‖ (p. 48). Additionally, ―Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const., establishes a

constitutional right of access to ‗any public record made orreceived in connection with the

official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or personsacting on their

behalf, except with respect to those records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically

madeconfidential by this Constitution‘" (p. 48). The legislative, executive, and judicial branches

ofgovernment; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and

commission, or entitycreated pursuant to law or by the Constitution, are included in this

definition.

As a means of evaluating when a private entity is acting on behalf of a public agency, the

Florida Supreme Court adopted a "totality of factors" approach. Factors listed by the Supreme

Court include the following: the level of public funding; commingling of funds; whether the

activity was conducted on publicly-owned property; whether services contracted for are an

integral part of the public agency's chosen decision-making process; whether the private entity is

performing a governmental function or a function which the public agency otherwise would

perform; the extent of the public agency's involvement with, regulation of, or control over the


private entity;whether the private entity was created by the public agency;whether the public

agency has a substantial financial interest in the privateentity;for whose benefit the private entity

is functioning.The compliance manual includes extensive discussion pertaining to the

applicability of the law in government‘s utilization of alternative methods of administration such

as contracting for services, public-private enterprises, and various vehicles utilized in the

delegation of duties or authority to conduct business on behalf of government.

Exemptions affecting application of the Records Law are enumerated in §119.071, and

are similar in nature to the exemptions provided under the FOIA. Exemptions are grouped by

agency administration, agency investigations, security, and other personal information.

§119.0711 delineates executive branch agency exemptions. Agency-specific exemptions that fall

under §119.0712 pertain to the Department of Health, and the Department of Highway Safety

and Motor Vehicles. Local government agency and court files are provided exemptions in

§§119.073 and 119.074, respectively.

There is a significant body of case law concerning jurisdictional control when federal and

state law conflict as to prohibited disclosure (p. 126). As a general rule, in the instance of

absolute conflict between the two, federal law prevails by virtue of the Supremacy Clause.

Where a federal agency located within the state purely for the benefit of Florida residents, e.g.

the Housing Authority, state disclosure requirements take precedence over federally prohibited

disclosure, even when federal funding is involved. Thus, agency function dictates the

applicability of regulation. In general the state views compliance with FOIA requirements as a

means for the federal government to monitor its activities on the state level.

Penalties for violation of the Information Law are covered in §119.10. These are

specified according to degree. Unintentional violation by a public officer is a noncriminal


infraction and subject to a fine not to exceed $500. A public official who knowingly violates the

general exemptions provision is subject to suspension and removal or impeachment, and is

subject to punishment for commission of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Any person who

willfully and knowingly violates any of the chapter provisions commits a first-degree

misdemeanor. It is a third-degree felony to violate the provisions for protection of victims of

crimes or accidents.

School Board of Broward County, Florida Information Policy

The information policy of the School Board of Broward County is codified under Policy

Number 1343.000 and is presented, with attendant rules, in Appendix C.―The Broward County

School District is committed to operating ‗In The Sunshine‘(sic) and has established a reputation

as being reporter-friendly. As a way to streamline communication, the District created a one-of-

a-kind process that ensures reporters unprecedented access to all aspects of the nation's fifth

largest school district‖(School Board of Broward County, nd b). In order to support a free flow

of information, the Department of Public Relations and Governmental Affairs has implemented a

process that includes workshops, staff development training, and a support system. Their web

site includes publications that provide guidance for working with the press, and the process to be

followed by staff in providing information to the public.

Clearly, information management is a crucial function within any public agency. As with

any process, a review of existing practices can be helpful in revealing any problem areas, and

ensuringregulatory or policy compliance. In addition to gaining a better understanding of policies

and procedures, it affords an opportunity to improve effectiveness and efficiency.


Methodology

The purpose of this study is to evaluate information management within the SBBC‘s

Facilities and Construction Management department. It is an eclectic analysis of the processes

utilized for transmission of information in complying with SBBC policy as well as state and

federal regulations.Focused interviews were conducted with key personnel to clarify the process

through which the department responds to information and document requests. These interviews

centered on probative questions intended to clarify department policy and procedures for the

inquiry response process. Pre-determined interview questions are provided in Appendix D.

Subsequent to completion of the interviews, access was provided to records from which

to glean the data necessary to complete this study.In the interest of preserving the anonymity

ofpersonnel indicating that preference, for cohesive purposes this paper distinguishes personnel

according to area of responsibility in the transmission process;i.e. either information requests, or

document requests. The former is identified as the access professional, and the latter as the

records specialist.

Information Requests

Relevant data was extracted from a database maintained by the access professional in the

Deputy Superintendent‘s office and provided electronically to facilitate examination of

information requests processed in that environment. The coded raw data is included in Appendix

E, with codebook presented in Appendix F. This sampling included the entire database

comprised of 196 entries during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years. It represents

dissemination of information outside the normal course of department business. Data was


examined and evaluated as it relates to the volume of requests, turnaround time from date of

inquiry to completion, entities involved in fulfillment of those requests, parties generating

requests, and topics of interest.

Document Requests

The records specialist in the document management and reception office provided access

to hard copy recordation of document requests spanning an eighteen-month period from January

2009 through June 2010. Data was obtained from copies of letters, e-mail, facsimile

transmissions, and information contained in Document Request and Release Forms that are

utilized by this office. A spreadsheet of pertinent information was prepared with information

derived from these records to facilitate analysis of document transmissions. Coded raw data is

reflected in Appendix G, with codebook shown in Appendix H. All available records were

included in this sampling, resulting in a data set containing 156 document requests. An

assessment was undertaken to reveal modes of inquiry, requesting parties, topics of interest,

manner of resolution, fees collected, volume of requests, and turnaround time. In as much as

nearly seventy percent of document requests pertained to some facet of bidding functions, those

requests were compared with bid status information as currently reflected in the Demandstar

database posted on the department‘s web site. Timing of phase-specific requests were referenced

against bid status and the dates indicated for advertisement, submission deadline, and tabulation.

The Media Connection

Archives of The Miami Herald and Sun-Sentinel were scanned in an effort to identify

articles containing references to FCM operations. A bibliography was compiled reflecting

publications referencing department personnelfrom July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010.


Findings
Information Requests

Information requests are processed by the access professional in accordance with SBBC

policy and by adherence to a directive issued by the Office of the Superintendent of

Schools(AccessProfessional, interview, September 28, 2010). Procedure dictates that the

department of Public Relations and Governmental Affairs be notified and copied on all

information requests for tracking purposes. The directive appears in Appendix I. Requests are

directed to the Deputy Superintendent of FCM via a referral form, included here in Appendix J,

viathe Superintendent subsequent to obtaining a tracking number. Delivery may be effected

through interdepartmental mail, fax, or e-mail.

Upon receipt of a Referral, the access professional provides a copy to the deputy

superintendent for his review. The deputy superintendent responds to matters that he is

knowledgeable about, or assigns the matter to appropriate staff for completion. After logging the

Referral into a database, the access professional delivers the Referral to the staff member to

whom it is assigned. Response is drafted by the individual assignee and provided to the deputy

superintendent for review. Once approved and finalized, the information is transmitted by the

access professional as directed on the Referral. The matter is then logged out of the system and

the Referral is closed.

This procedure has been in place throughout the access professional‘s eight-year

tenure.Estimated time expenditure in relation to total workload is five percent. Reported average

turnaround from receipt to fulfillment is two weeks. Unusual circumstances may require

extended time involved in both effort and fulfillment. During the period of this study, a response


to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement exacted ninety percent of the access

professional‘s time during the four weeks needed to complete records compilation.

A review of the information request database reveals one entry covering twenty-one

separate anonymous complaints. Otherwise, each of the remaining 195 entries represent a single

request. Of the 216 information requests processed during the two-year period covered in this

study, 113 were completed during the 2008-2009 fiscal year, and 103 for fiscal year 2009-2010.

Monthly volume ranged from a low of two requests in January 2010, to a high of twenty-seven

requests in July of 2008. Overall completion average was nine requests per month. Volume

trends are shown in Chart 1 in Appendix K.

Turnaround time is graphically presented in Chart 2, Appendix L. Completion time was

calculated in days elapsed from date of inquiry through date of fulfillment. Weekends were

excluded, with no adjustments made for other periods of office closure such as holidays.

Insufficient information was available to ascertain lag time due to Referral processing prior to

receipt by FCM; therefore in some instances the actual processing time while in FCM may be

shorter than the figures reflect. During the two-year period studied eight requests were completed

on the inquiry correspondence date. Performance breakdown is as follows: 45.12 percent were

fulfilled within the first week after receipt; an additional 24.65 percent fell within the second

week; the third week an additional 6.98 percent were completed; and by the end of the fourth

week, total completion rate was 76.75 percent. The longest completion time recorded was 150

days; however, notes included with that entry appear to suggest that the original correspondence

was directed to department staff and subsequently escalated to Referral status. There is

insufficient information available to further clarify timing relative to this outlier. Additionally,

fifth week transmissions are heavily impacted by the twenty-one anonymous complaints


previously noted. Their presence is an anomaly discussed further throughout this analysis.Absent

empirical data refuting the supposition that extended fulfillment periods were due to requests

entailing protracted investigation, completion time falls within the parameters established by

SBBC policy and Sunshine requirement. Thus, hypothesis 5 as it pertains to the information

response process is supported.

A leadership change occurred at FCM mid-way through the second year of the period

studied. Turnaround time was further evaluated to provide enlightenment on how the change

impacted completion schedules, with results shown in Chart 3, Appendix M, wherein the two

individuals are designated DS and ADS. Effective December 31, 2009, DS retired after seven

years of service. ADS was appointed Acting Deputy Superintendent as of January 1, 2010. Chart

3 reflects average number of completion days broken into three stages. Stage one covers requests

processed during 2008 through 2009 under DS. During this span process time averaged 10.4

days prior to adjusting for the outlier anonymous complaints, which drops the average to 7.6

days. July through December 2009 comprises the second stage, also on the watch of DS.

Average process time during this period was eleven days. Stage three encompasses January

through June 2010, during which completion time averaged 18.89 days under ADS. This finding

supports hypothesis 4; leadership change impacts the response process.

External influences affecting the timing vary and insufficient data exists to determine

their exact nature; however, this increase during the second stageover the prior year coincides

with the occurrence of significant negative press coverage. Issues of note include the arrest of a

SBBC board member on ethics related charges that included allegations of improprieties in the

contractor selection process, and a scathing audit report submitted by SBBC‘s internal auditors

initially in ―draft‖ form and prior to inclusion of a response from FCM. Stage three begins under


new leadership with ADS. The 18.89-day average registered on the fulfillment track, when

adjusted for the 150-day response outlier, drops toan average turnaround time of 16.05 days.

Again, there is insufficient data to definitively explain the extended time frame. It is not unlikely

that the issues presented during the preceding six months continued to generate interest, and

perhaps escalated in stage three. Additionally, it is reasonable to presume that ADS required

extended processing time to familiarize himself with the information requested in order to

provide the most accurate responses. This finding provides weak support for hypothesis 3

pertaining to the influence of external factors on the information process.

FCM information requests frequently involve collaboration with other departments

within the division, and other divisions within the district. For the period covered by this study,

88.36 percent of requests were resolved with minimal collaboration, i.e. at most a single

department cooperated in resolution. Among those, 54 percent made no reference to any other

SBBC entity, seventeen percent were either co-opted with or reassigned to Design Services,

twelve percent involved Facilities Management and Property Site Acquisitions, five percent were

referred to the Chief Financial officer, and two percent transferred to document management

with compliance instructions. Single shot participants include an Area Superintendent, the

building department, environmental conservation/utilities management personnel, Employee

Relations, and Human Resources. These relationships are pictured in Chart 4, Appendix N.

Multi-departmental transactions comprise the remaining 13.59 percent of total inquiries and

involved either cooperative processing, or those departments were copied on responses. A

breakdown of departments involved appears in Chart 5 at Appendix N.Collaboration findings

support the expectations stated in hypothesis 6.

Results of the analysis concerning submittals by interested parties provides a snapshot of


the diversity in stakeholders participating in the information process over the two-year period,

and is evidenced in Chart 6 at Appendix O.Overhead agencies accounted for 41.4 percent of the

total, and included local, state and federal levels. City and county agencies filed 52 requests

during the time frame, compared to 35 inquires at the state level, and two federal contacts.

Concerned citizens shared the spot for second most contacts at 35. Combined requests from

professionals numbered 25, with contractors, consultants, and subcontractors included in this

subset. Business contacts tendered 22 inquiries, followed by the outlier anonymous group at 21.

Seventeen requests represented inter-departmental activity. Those of undetermined origin were

classified as other. The variety of stakeholders identified in this analysis supports hypothesis 1. A

breakdown of stakeholder requests on a monthly basis is provided in Chart 7, Appendix P. The

outlier anonymous subset stands out in this graph.Mean turnaround time by group is as follows:

business one day, professionals 2.2 days, state agencies eight days, local agencies 3.5 days,

federal agencies 1.5 days, concerned citizens 27 days, and inter-departmental offices nine days.

Subject matter, i.e. the nature of the request, is the final facet analyzed in the information

process. The business subset included offers of services or supplies, property management

matters such as lease issues and common area maintenance, utilities rates, developer site

offerings and impact fees. Professional stakeholders were concerned with contract reassignment,

Notices to Owner and contract issues, the competitive bid process, contractor appeals, additional

fees in connection with extension of services, permitting issues, environmental review, land

lease, site lease, and law suits. Nine projects were identified in this group: Coconut Creek High

School, Westglades Middle School, Coral Glades auditorium, West Pines Middle School,

Colbert Elementary School, Hawkes Bluff Elementary School, and Flamingo Elementary

School.


Among the overhead agencies, federal inquiries pertained to economic stimulus, and

school closures guidelines. State agency requests involved public hearings and workshops, the

five-year plan, environmental problems, budget input, class size reduction, revised rules, and

community matters. Among budget considerations were educational plant surveys, PECO

(capital funding), Castaldi reports, the Qualified Zone Academy Bond, and special reports.

Environmental queries pertained to site contamination, and notices of violation. Haitian relief

and public land ownership data complete the list of identified subject matter. City and County

inquiries included lease agreements, map amendments, plat recordation, Inter-local agreements,

concurrency issues, budget issues, maintenance and operating costs, annual energy cost

information, and contract termination status reports. Also included were commendation

information, affordable housing, portables, and a few school specific inquiries. SBBC inter-

departmental queries concerned workshops and hearings, status updates, Inter-local agreements,

concurrency, class size reduction, and portables for Haiti.

General Public inquiries related primarily to specific construction projects including

cafeterias, auditoriums, pool construction, the bus facility, bathrooms, and estimated completion

dates. Concerned citizens also submitted questions regarding bike racks, safety issues, portables,

basketball courts, after hours lighting, under utilized school sites, and raised concerns over

budget cuts. One query was received about the district‘s first environmental school, another

sought particulars of contamination notification requirements, and two requests related to non-

indigenous flora. Schools specifically identified in this subset include: three for Plantation High

School, two each for Taravella High School, South Broward High School, and Riverglades

Elementary School, and one for Coral Glades High School, Blanche Ely High School, Driftwood

Middle School, Virginia Schuman Young Elementary School, Hollywood Hills High School,


Silver Lakes Middle School, Broadview Elementary School, and Lake Forest Elementary

School.

Inquiries submitted anonymously could not be evaluated for subject matter. Submission

of bulk information requests via single Referral was atypical in this study, and no details were

available in the database that would facilitate further analysis. Questions concerning these

transactions remain unanswered due to time constraints, as well as limitations relating to file

accessibility.However, the findings concerning request subject matteroffer significant support for

hypothesis 2. There is a strong correlation between stakeholder status and information requested.

Document Requests

Requests for documents, like information requests, are processed in the manner

prescribed by SBBC policy and procedures (RecordsSpecialist, interview, November 10, 2010).

Current practice dates back approximately two years when procedures were revamped by Public

Relations and Governmental Affairs. Prior to that SBBC‘s legal department dictated the process.

Major changes included an improved tracking system, and providing cost estimates prior to

undertaking response action. Requests are generated by facsimile, e-mail, mail, and walk-in

traffic as pictorially represented in Chart 8, Appendix Q. No action is undertaken without first

obtaining a tracking number from Governmental Affairs. The records specialist adheres to a hard

and fast first in, first out rule for handling requests. Exceptions are made only for time sensitive

matters, or by directive from upper management. Optiscan has been in place for approximately

ten years, and has enabled self-service document retrieval by department staff as needed,

resulting in a reduction of interaction between department staff and personnel in the documents

management office. Visits from the audit department, however, have increased significantly


since July 2009. Auditors come by on a monthly basis to review documents. Prior visits occurred

two to three times per year.

In discussing possible areas for improvement, the records specialist indicated frustration

in knowing that there are documents that are not being captured. This is a logistical problem

occasioned by the physical plant layout at FCM. The facility is located in an old elementary

school comprised of ten freestanding structures, each with its own facsimile machine. The

records specialist has advocated for having a single facsimile machine for the department at its

new facility when it relocates during the first quarter of next year. A suggestion was also made to

incorporate an online interactive, or e-mail linked public records request on the FCM web site.

Division management is ostensibly considering both suggestions.

As reflected in Appendix R, Chart 9, a review of the data logged for document requests

during the eighteen-month period studied revealed that inquiries peaked at 31 in March of 2009,

and trended downward to a low of one in April 2010. Overall average equates to 8.67

transactions per month. Over eighty-seven percent of responses were provided either by direct

contact between the records specialist‘s office, or by giving instructions for retrieval of

information from the FCM web site.Remaining requests were: referred to a project manager,

4.49 percent; outsourced for copy service, 2.56 percent; and 5.13 percent designated as dropped

reflects documents no longer needed by the party making the request. Chart 10, Appendix S

charts these responses. Also in Appendix S is Chart 11, which tracks fees collected. No cost

analysis was conducted, but a look at amounts collected is useful in estimating the size of the

response as it relates to paper usage. Based on reported fees at $.15 per page, sizeable projects

include four in the 50 to 130-page range, four between 130 and 200 pages, four with page counts

ranging from 200 to 330 pages, three comprised of 330 to 530 pages, and one at more than 530


pages. About four and a half percent of document requests were outsourced, but no indication

was given concerning either the cost or the number of pages involved.

Parties submitting document requests during the eighteen-month period evaluated were

categorized into the following subsets: architects, attorneys, consultants, contractors, media,

subcontractors, and other. Contractors submitted the bulk of requests at 81 percent of total

inquiries. As revealed in Chart 12, Appendix T, they were followed by attorneys ranked at eight

percent, subcontractors with four percent, consultants showing three percent, architects

comprising two percent, and both media and other subsets registering at one percent. Though less

diverse than stakeholders involved in the information process, this finding provides further

support for hypothesis 1.

Comparison of graphic renderings reveals a strong correlation between requesting parties

and subject matter. Appendix U, Chart 13 depicts the overall breakdown by subject, and Chart14

reflectsthe breakdown of queries concerning document inquiries unrelated to the bid process. Bid

ads, bid process, pre-bid, and post bid requests account for over seventy percent of total

document requests. After segregating these transactions from the total, project specific

information, drawings and specifications, and payment inquiries topped requests at twenty

percent each. Contract documents ranked mid-range at a13.33 percentshare. Appointments for

review only purposes, i.e. no copies delivered, comprised 8.89 percent of total, as did requests

for QSEC documents and miscellaneous information.This data on document subject matter offers

additional strong support for hypothesis 2. Overall monthly volume distribution is as reflected in

Chart 15, Appendix V.

Inasmuch as bid-related documents dominated the fulfillment process during this

eighteen-month period, this subset was further evaluated by comparing requests with information


currently contained in the Demandstar database posted on the FCM website. Dates provided in

that database pertaining to advertisement, submittal deadline, and score tabulation were tracked

against pre-bid and post bid request data. In this instance, pre-bid incorporated the bid ads and

bid process request categories. The results are displayed in Chart 16, Appendix W. At first blush

it appears that there is an anomaly in that post bid document requests preceded bid process

completion. It is possible that there was some misinterpretation concerning data retrieved from

hard copy records; however, review of inquiry responses provides another probable indication.

Of the nearly twenty percentof requests fulfilled through referral to the FCM website, the

majority related to post bid matters including requests for score sheets, awarded contracts, bid

tabulations, and similar items. Many were submitted prior to award of contract and included

notification concerning the timing involved in the bid process.

Evaluation results pertaining to response time for this office should be reasonably

accurate. Each request, with few exceptions, referenced date of inquiry, date of receipt by FCM,

and fulfillment date. Nearly sixty percent of responses are completed the same day as the inquiry

was received. Within two days, total deliveries constituted eighty percent of total received. Chart

17, Appendix X graphs fulfillment trends. Longer response times on the balance of transactions

can be attributed to the size of the request, i.e. total number of documents involved in a single

request, delays occasioned by awaiting approval of cost estimates, and time elapsed in

attempting to fulfill dropped requests, e.g. the party no longer neededor wantedthe documents

requested.This data indicates excellent response time. As the data relating to production of

documents is more reliable than the results obtained concerning the information process, this

finding offers more convincing support of hypothesis 5 that FCM is in compliance with SBBC

policy and Sunshine laws.


The Media Connection

As originally conceptualized, it was contemplated that this study would include

evaluation of media impact on FCM‘s information management process. Little was uncovered in

the way of media information requests in the data available for review. Only two requests

directly attributable to media usage were found. One was a request from a student journalist

concerning construction projects. The other came from a Sun-Sentinel reporter seeking

documents pertaining to an ADA contract administration issue. An article questioning the

propriety of the contract award was published nine days after the documents were delivered.

Media representatives make direct contact with the Deputy Superintendent‘s office. Only

requests for documents flow through the Referral process. FCM follows media contact protocol

as posted on the Public Relations and Government Affairs website. Additionally, journalists are

able to obtain information via other sources such as the minutes for school board meetings and

workshops, as well as from the offices of the superintendent and board members.

A review ofThe Miami Herald and Sun-Sentinel archives for the period July 1, 2008

through June 30, 2010, produced a significant volume of articles. Excluding letters to the

editor,those containing mention of the DS and ADS that related in some manner to SBBC

operations involving FCM are chronicled ina bibliography of those articleswhich appears in

Appendix Y. Relatively little coverage occurred during the first year of this study; eight articles

were returned the query response. There was an850 percent increase in articles published from

June 1st through December 31, 2009. Coverage decreased from January 1st through June 30,

2010, to approximately 41 percent of the volume for the preceding six-month period.

The absence of any empirical data relating to media contact in the information requests


logs or document requests records, compounded by the time constraints of this project precludes

further evaluationat this time. Attempting to make any correlation between the media and the

department‘s information management process would constitute an undertaking that exceeds the

scope of this study.Accordingly, although partially supported by findings on the information

process, additional analysis is required to properly test hypothesis 3 concerning the impact of

external factors and media coverage.


Recommendations

Based on the results of this evaluation FCM‘s information request process and document

request process appear to be functioning efficiently. Should there be an interest in improving or

enhancing these processes, this report contains sufficient data that can be used to identify

possible areas for improvement.

Addressing the Records Specialist‘s concerns regarding documents not being captured,

the suggestion that the department have a single facsimile source is highly recommended, and

can be easily implemented upon relocation to new facilities. In the interim, a potential

mechanism to help facilitate document capture might be to post a notice by each of the facsimile

machines spread across the campus reminding personnel of the need to ensure proper handling of

documents. This message could be reinforced by a repeat appearance of quality control concerns

on staff meeting agendas.

The suggestion, also offered by the Records Specialist, that a web-based document

request system be implemented also has merit and bears further consideration. Electronic

processing of document requests would enhance control and monitoring. An update of the

Contracts portion of the web site shouldalso be considered to enhance effectiveness, with

completion to coincide with implementation of any web-based interactive system. Revamping

the site to provide information on the bidding and contract award process in a more user-friendly

format for the benefit of stakeholders is recommended. As an aside, the Departments & Directors

list posted on SBBC‘s web site needs to be updated concerning Facilities personnel.

The Records Specialist advised that the Document Request and Receipt form is obsolete

and in the process of being revised. Along the lines of document revision, consideration should


be given to creating a form web-referral response on department letterhead that can be

transmitted electronically by e-mail, or sent by facsimile. The practice employed in distributing

instructions on how to access bid tabulations, for example, was to affix typewritten instructions

to a copy of the original request which was then sent back by facsimile to the party who placed

the inquiry. A form on official letterhead has a more professional appearance.

There is one final recommendation. The information professional and documents

specialist have extensive knowledge and experience with FCM‘s information process. In the

eventuality that either should retire or otherwise vacate their position, consideration should be

given to succession planning with regard to these vital functions.


APPENDIX A
Precedent-Setting FOIA Litigation

EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973) – agencies must release segregable information from partially

exempt document.

Vaugn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) – Vaughn index of withheld documents must be

prepared and justification for withholding provided.

National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) – establishes

tests for whether information provided to the government can be withheld as

―confidential‖.

NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.IU, 421 U.S. 132 (1975) – elaboration on deliberative process.

Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976) –

procedures for agencies in handling backlogs of FOIA requests, and circumstances under

which an agency can obtain an Open America stay. (Open America stay subsequently

restricted by the 1996 Amendment)

Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 1976) – approval of agency response of ―neither

confirm nor deny‖ under national security exemption.

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980) – the Office of

the President is not an agency for purposes of FOIA.

Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980) – agency must first either create or obtain a record

before it becomes an ―agency record‖.

U.S. Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) – affords broad interpretation to

personnel, medical, and similar files.


APPENDIX A-2

Precedent Setting FOIA Litigation-2

FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615 (1982) – information originally compiled for law enforcement

purpose and the recompiled into a non-law enforcement records can still be protected.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1 (1988) – FOIA exemption should not be invoked to

protect the requester from him/herself.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) –

guidance on privacy interests, on defining ‖public interest‖, and balancing interests.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (1989) – record must be under the agency‘s

control at the time of the FOIA request.

Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992) – new test for protecting

information that has been ―voluntarily‖ provided.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) – agency must show specific

circumstances to have an expectation of confidentiality.

Armstrong v. Executive Office of he President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) – both electronic

and printed versions of e-mail message may be federal records. Agencies may be sued for

not meeting obligations to manage e-mail records. Provision for court review of

President‘s guidelines for managing presidential records.

(Nisbet, 2000)


APPENDIX B
Florida Constitution: Article I – Declaration of Rights

SECTION 24. Access to public records and meetings. —

(a) Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in
connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or
persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or
specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department
created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board,
and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution.

I This section shall be self-executing. The legislature, however, may provide by general law
passed by a two-thirds vote of each house for the exemption of records from the requirements of
subsection … , provided that such law shall state with specificity the public necessity justifying
the exemption and shall be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the
law. The legislature shall enact laws governing the enforcement of this section, including the
maintenance, control, destruction, disposal, and disposition of records made public by this
section, except that each house of the legislature may adopt rules governing the enforcement of
this section in relation to records of the legislative branch. Laws enacted pursuant to this
subsection shall contain only exemptions from the requirements of subsections (a) or (b) and
provisions governing the enforcement of this section, and shall relate to one subject.

(d) All laws that are in effect on July 1, 1993 that limit public access to records or meetings
shall remain in force, and such laws apply to records of the legislative and judicial branches,
until they are repealed. Rules of court that are in effect on the date of adoption of this section that
limit access to records shall remain in effect until they are repealed.

History.—Added, C.S. for C.S. for H.J.R.‘s 1727, 863, 2035, 1992; adopted 1992; Am. S.J.R.
1284, 2002; adopted 2002 (State of Florida).


APPENDIX C
SBBC Policy Number1343.000

“1 3 4 3
INSPECTION & EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS
EVERY PERSON WHO HAS CUSTODY OF A PUBLIC RECORD SHALL PERMIT. THE
RECORD TO BE INSPECTED ANDEXAMINED BY ANY PERSON DESIRING TO DO SO,
AT ANY REASONABLE TIME, UNDER REASONABLE CONDITIONSAND UNDER
SUPERVISION BY THE CUSTODIAN (DESIGNEE) OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. THE
RULES LISTED BELOWSHALL COVER THE CHARGES FOR THIS SERVICE.

AUTHORITY: F. S. 230.22 (1) (2)
F. S. 119.07
Policy Adopted: 1 0 / 1 6 / 9 0 AMENDED RULES APPROVED: 6 / 2 / 9 2

RULES

1 . For duplicated copies of not more than 14‖ x 8 1/2‖ in size, a fee of fifteen (15) cents per one-
sided copy shall becharged. For all other copies, the actual cost of the copy shall be charged. For
purposes of this rule, ―actual cost‖shall mean the cost of materials and supplies used to duplicate
the record, but not the labor cost or overhead cost.

2 . The Board shall charge an additional five (5) cents (total of twenty {20} cents) for each two-
sided duplicated copy.

3 . The Board authorizes the Superintendent to charge an additional reasonable charge for the
labor and overheadassociated with the duplication of oversized documents, such as maps,
photographs, blueprints, computer reports and labels, etc.

4 . If the nature or volume of public records requested to be inspected, examined, or copied is
such as to requireextensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or
supervisory assistance by districtpersonnel, the Superintendent (designee) may charge in addition
to the actual cost of the duplication, the laborcost of the personnel providing the service. For
purposes of this rule, ―extensive‖ means that it will take morethan fifteen (15) minutes to locate,
review for confidential information, copy and refile the requested material.

5. 4. The Board may charge up to one dollar ($1.00) per copy for a certified copy of a public
record.

AUTHORITY: F. S. 230.22 (1) (2)
F. S. 119.07
RULES ADOPTED: 10/16/90 AMENDED RULES ADOPTED: 6/2/92‖ (School Board of
Broward County, nd a).


APPENDIX D
Interview Questions

This purpose of this interview is to obtain and clarify information pertaining to FCM‘s

procedures relative to responding to information requests. I am conducting an analytical study

for academic purposes; however, it is intended that the project have potential benefit to the

department.

Before we begin, do I have permission to use your name in my report, or would you prefer to

remain anonymous?

Yes _______No _______

Please answer the following questions as completely as possible.

1. Does FCM currently have written procedures for responding to requests for information?

a. If so, is it possible for me to obtain a copy?

b. If not, I would like to ask you to help me to define the current process by providing

details concerning the procedure followed in responding to information requests.

i. How does the department receive information requests?

ii. What is done with a request for information after it is received?

iii. How is a response to information request delivered?

iv. What is the turnaround time from initial receipt of information request to

completion and delivery of response?

v. Is there anything else that will help to provide a clear understanding of the

process?

2. How long has the current procedure been in effect?

Capstone Pub699

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Featured

Featured (20)

Capstone Pub699