Doing Good Things Too

Last week's county commission meeting was interesting. The meeting got off to a rocky start with some procedural issues regarding leasing space for the Inverness Government Center and then it was one big topic after another. Some how, they finished he meeting in time for the 5pm Pine Ridge vote.

And we all know how that one went.

For now, I want to focus on the positives that we are doing here. Its easy to write about the "bad" things and all of that. But its also important to note the good things as well.

Perhaps, the most overlooked thing on the agenda last week was the conservation presentation by North Florida Land Trust. I wrote about this last week.

This was a presentation about conserving more of Citrus County and how this entity is very successful in doing that via voter referendums. I wish we would have talked more about numbers and all of that, but its a starting point. We want to preserve more of Citrus County, this may be the way in getting it done (aside from slowing down developers, which is a legal gray area).

Then we talked about one of my favorite topics... texting on county issued cell phones.

I have been behind this push as I feel it will help with transparency. I have written about it (here) and (here). You see, commissioners (and some staff) are like everyone else in the world with a cell phone. They text on it. Its the modern day communication choice. Nothing wrong with that at all. It is not breaking the law or anything. However, many of those texts are considered public record.

That can be the problem.

You see, when someone does a records request for a subject and if a staff member, commissioner, etc has a text about it, it is public record most likely... just like the emails. However, since the county devices do not allow texting, all this is done on the personal device of the person. The county obviously cannot capture texts on personal devices, so it is up to the individual to provide those as requested. If they fail to do so, they are breaking public records laws.

That is a big responsibility. Now it is up to the individual to decide what is considered public record and what is not. If a commissioner is texting with a developer about a project that has no application and is something that is hypothetical at the moment, is that public record? One could argue it goes to their job as a commissioner and would be public record if it were sent in an email, so why not the same for a text? Others can argue that its just a conversation and nothing that indicates policy or what not.

So which is it and should it be sent to fulfill a records request? Since the county is not in possession of the texts, the individual has to decide if its public record or not. Pretty big risk there, right? If it is public record and they don't supply it, uh-oh.

Or what if they change devices and texts are lost? Some information is public record for 5+ years.. so even after leaving their job they would be required to submit to public records laws for text messages.

See the issues?

If we change the policies in the county to allow texting on county devices, all that would be captured, just as they capture emails. Then there is no risk of anyone accidentally deleting a text. There is no risk of anyone assuming something is not public record when in fact it is. It is all captured. The county then determines what qualifies and what doesn't. The individual has less burden to maintain those records.

So a good change and a good discussion, except that it was mentioned to allow people to opt out. So everyone opts out and we are back to where we are today? Not sure that makes sense, but we have progress.

The next thing I want to mention is that commissioner to staff communications were brought up. It is important to remind everyone how these communications are supposed to work. Everything is supposed to go through Steve Howard. This ensures that he is kept in the loop. Does that mean commissioners get answers a little slower? Sure, but very rarely have I seen an instance where a few hours later is a major issue.

I have found several communications from commissioners directly to staff without going through Howard, or without CC'ing him on the email. How is he supposed to know what is going on when he is not involved in the conversation? Kind of difficult huh?

Also, I have seen where a commissioner starts with a question and that kinda evolves into some type of direction or a suggestion. Is there a staff member out there that will say no to a commissioner? Not likely. So this opens the door for potential direction without board approval (see 491).

So I am all for closing down the communication between commissioners and staff, as the regulations state. Make everything go through Mr Howard and let him manage his staff and provide those directions.

Now for the rest of the day... the wait for the BOCC agenda to drop for the 9/9 meeting.

Have a great day!