PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATIONS

Att.No.

PageNo.

OriginalRequest

Date Received?1. 3 12/98 Records Personnel file Required to sign form, not

allowed to view original records

2. 5 1/29/99 Steven Gluck Departmental personnel file, Sybill Beck

3/2 Bernard 3/10/99

3. 7 3/99 Steve Prevaux Records on Sybille Becks’s request to see her personnel file

Denied they exist No

4. 13 3/99 Lisa Hodges same Requested five times, $110 estimate

12/99

5. 19 3/24/99 James Terhune Departmental personnel file

No

6. 21 4/99 Bruce Lulow Timecards for employee given leave without pay

8/99 grievance, 10/99 Aust, 10/99 Schaffer

10/99

7. 24 5/21/99 Lisa Hodges Timecards for employee filing excessive overtime grievance (Ch. 447)

$55 estimate, $25 charge, $24 of it for excessive labor

No

8. 28 11/99 John Tucker Personnel database 4/20 Marrin, 6/00 Young, 7/00 Ellis, 8/18 Poppell, 8/24 Blackwell, 8/30 Blackwell

No

9. 58 1/28/00 Lisa Hodges Documents on which counseling letter was based

charged $1.95, demanded in advance, finally refunded

Yes

10. 61 1/29/00 Dug Jones All night shift records

Partial 2/29

2/14/00 Dug Jones Utility bills from night shift pilot

9/00

11. 70 4/20/00 Robin Marrin Phone and email directory

6/00 Young, 7/00 Ellis, 8/18 Poppell, 9/6/00 Poppell, 9/20/00 Poppell (9-track tape unusable and noncompliant), 1/31/01 Poppell

CD and tape

12. 74 5/00 Charles Young Night shift survey forms

No

13. 78 9/7/00 Greg Marwede Selection procedures

No

14. 80 8/18/00 David Colburn Records on appointment of night shift committee

8/21 Colburn; 8/24 consultation; 8/30 Colburn, Blackwell

No

15. 84 9/27/00 Dave O’Brien Night shift files Jerry Williamson needs my 9/28

1

permission to see them16. 86 2/01 Sherry Larson Records regarding

Sharon DeSuePartial, 04/01

17. 88 3/30/01 Kim Czaplewski Remainder of DeSue records

No

18. 91 3/30/01 Kim Czaplewski List of employees for contract ratification (Ch. 447)

No

19. 100 6/5/01 Kim Czaplewski Personnel policy regarding performance appraisals

No

20. 106 9/7/01 Larry Ellis OPS records Partial (3 Sept. printouts)

21. 112 10/30/01 Lisa Hodges All records in Personnel and VP’s office re: me and supervisor

Partial, none from Conlon or van der Aa

22. 118 10/31/01 Bob Willits Manual pages listing database files and fields

11/14/01

23. 123 12/13/01 Larry Ellis Programs written by IS to generate CD

No

24. 129 12/13/01 Larry Ellis Records re: Personnel’s efforts to identify which cloacked records are exempt (cited at 10/18 consultation)

No

25. 133 1/25/02 Larry Ellis Mail received by Larry Ellis 12/14-12/27 and replies

No

26. 135 1/30/02 Kris Pagenkopf Cost of position descriptions

Ellis 3/19/02 No

27. 141 1/31/02 Kris Pagenkopf HR policy on faxing of records

Ellis 3/19/02 No

2

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 12:32 AM To: bernard@nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu Subject: Personnel Records

On Tuesday, November 17, I had an appointment to view two personnel files at the Personnel office in the Stadium. The receptionist, Natacha Fisher, asked me to produce identification and sign a form. While she has every right to ask, I have the right to decline, which I did, noting the the Attorney General's Government in the Sunshine Manual specifically states that an agency may not require a person to disclose his or her identity. As a result, she refused to allow me to review the records, and I was required to wait 15 minutes for a supervisor, Susan Farrell, who said that "no one else has ever objected" but eventually agreed to allow me to review the files.

However, the records had been copied but not redacted, and I had to wait an additional 15 minutes for them to be prepared. I was surprised to learn that Personnel's procedure is to copy the entire file, redact Social Security numbers with markers, and discard the copies after the review. This results in unnecessary delays as well as unnecessary expense to the taxpayers. The University automatically imposes a delay of, I believe, 2 days in order to view a file. A better alternative would be to cover the numbers in the original file with removable tape (e.g., Post-It Tape), which could be left in place in case of additional reviews, in fact until such time as the number needs to be seen, or could be reused on multiple files. I am asking that:

(1) Personnel's form be revised to specifically state that signing it is optional and that refusal to do so in no way affects the individual's right to review the file. I don't think staff should be required to remember to state this to each requestor.

(2) Personnel use a faster and more cost-effective method of redacting the records.

Thank you.

From: Pamela Bernard[SMTP:PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu]Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 5:37 PMTo: 'Sharon Bauer'Subject: RE: Personnel Records

Dear Ms. Bauer,

Thank you for your note concerning the suggestions for improving the university's response to public records requests in our personnel area.Although we would not meet our mandate of protecting confidential information if the university produced originals for inspection with removable tape over the confidential portions, I think your other suggestions, such as the revisions to the form, are excellent. I will forward them on for review and consideration. I will follow up at the appropriate time.

Thank you for taking the time to write and offer your thoughts. Please don't hesitate to let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Pam Bernard

3

From: Sharon Bauer Sent: Sunday, November 29, 1998 10:27 PM To: 'Pamela Bernard' Subject: RE: Personnel Records

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I'm having difficulty understanding how putting removable tape over confidential portions of originals fails to meet your mandate of protecting confidential information. It's always in the public's interest to see the original document--in color, including any faint marks not copyable--rather than a photocopy. Also, copying the entire file results in unnecessary delays as well as unnecessary expense. Is there some administrative rule or AG opinion that you're referring to? Thanks.

From: Pamela Bernard[SMTP:PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu]Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 12:57 PMTo: 'Sharon Bauer'Subject: RE: Personnel Records

Dear Ms. Bauer,

In response to your most recent question, it is my view that a "no peek" honor code for confidential portions of a public record would not meet the university's obligations regarding confidentiality. From time to time persons seeking public record examination are not as honorable as are you, and it is not always easy to tell who is and who is not. Copying an entire file is not necessary in all cases; one needs to copy only such documents which include a legally-required redaction. Thus, I view the approach to redacting exempt portions of a document as a good faith effort of a state agency to balance the need to make non-exempt documents available to the public upon request, while at the same time protecting confidential information as required by law.

In my experience, examination of an original is not always important. In fact, attorneys like myself routinely work from copies in complex litigation. Only when issues such as authenticity or legibility are involved do originals usually become important. Although originals are available for public records examination, at times it might be more expedient to provide a copy. This is because portions of the document might have to be redactedand it would be more time-consuming or could damage the original to try to produce the original with a tape-over of the redaction. If viewing the original were important to a person seeking a public records examination,however, the university would do what was reasonable to accommodate that person.

The attorney general has opined that an agency may comply with the public records law by any reasonable method which maintains and does not destroy the exempted portion while allowing inspection of the nonexempt portion. It seems to me that the university's approach to exempt portions of documents meets this standard. Any delays would be minimal and reasonable.

Thanks again for taking the time to write with your concerns.

Pam Bernard

4

ATTACHMENT 2

Subject: Personnel FileDate: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:19:24 -0500From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@ufl.edu>To: glucksl@medicine.ufl.edu

This is in response to your January 29 denial of Sybille Beck's repeatedrequests to review your file on her. The complete text of your replywas, "I checked with personnel. I am not required to show you mypersonal files." It appears that you have been misinformed. In mattersconcerning records, the Office of the General Counsel is a moreauthoritative resource than University Personnel Services and has abrochure that you might find helpful.

The file in question is not a "personal file" but a public record. UnderChapter 119, Florida Statutes, every person who has custody of a publicrecord must permit the record to be inspected and examined by any persondesiring to do so. Attorney General Opinion 75-175 determined that apublic employee is a person within the meaning of Ch. 119, F.S. TheFlorida Supreme Court has defined public records as all materials madeor received by an agency in connection with official business which areused to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. Notes and draftsare included. None of the statutory exemptions (e.g., academicevaluations, investigator photographs) apply to the materials Ms. Beckhas requested. Anyone who asserts that an exemption does apply muststate its statutory citation. While the law does not contain a specifictime limit for compliance, the Florida Supreme Court has said that theonly delay permitted is the reasonable time necessary to retrieve therecord and redact any portions determined to be exempt.

Please comply promptly with Ms. Beck's request to view all recordsmaintained on her in the department office. This would include, but byno means be limited to, any work samples and any correspondence or notesregarding her performance.

Sharon Bauer, StewardAmerican Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

From: Sharon Bauer[SMTP:share@afn.org]Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:51 PMTo: 'Pamela Bernard'Subject: RE: Personnel Records

I would appreciate any possible assistance from you or a member of your staff in gaining public records access for Ms. Beck. Dr. Gluck, a division chief hired recently from a small independent university, has not responded to her latest request.

5

Thank you,

Sharon Bauer

6

ATTACHMENT 3

Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 9:25 PMTo: 'PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu'Cc: 'share@afn.org'Subject: Sybille Beck

On March 2, I wrote to ask for the assistance of your office inobtaining access for Ms. Beck to her departmental personnel file. A week later,neither she nor I had received a response, and I drafted a letter to theAttorney General's office. However, late this morning I received atelephone call from the Health Center personnel office saying that thefile was there and available for review by Ms. Beck. I would like to knowwhich office is responsible for the additional week delay. Can you tell mewhen your office responded to my message and to whom?

Thank you,

Sharon Bauer

From: Steven Prevaux[SMTP:SPrevaux@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu]Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 7:11 PMTo: 'share@afn.org'Cc: Hodges (E-mail)

Your message (copy below) has been referred to me for reply. It is myunderstanding that the University has promptly produced documents forinspection upon request. In addition to this appropriate response youre-mail confirms that you have already been contacted by the University'ssatellite personnel office located in the Health Center making additional records available, in a reasonable time and manner, for immediate inspection by Ms. Beck or her duly authorized agent. Ms. Beck should contact Ms.Lisa Hodges at (352) 392-3786 to schedule this inspection at their mutualconvenience.

cc: Ms. Lisa Hodges

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Steven D. PrevauxAssociate General CounselUniversity of Florida123 Tigert HallGainesville, FL 32611-3125__________________________Phone (352) 392-1358Fax (352) 392-4387Prevaux@ufl.edu

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]7

Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 10:08 PMTo: 'Steven Prevaux'Cc: 'lisa-hodges@ufl.edu'Subject: RE:

Your understanding is incorrect. The University has not promptly producedthe file in question, which has been requested repeatedly since Januaryand was finally made available for inspection yesterday, a full week after acomplaint was filed with your office. We consider this not promptness,not reasonable time, not an appropriate response, but rather an unacceptabledelay.

This is a request for any correspondence, notes, or other public recordsin the offices of the General Counsel or Health Center Personnel pertainingto Ms. Beck's and my requests for her file.

Sharon Bauer, StewardAmerican Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)

From: Steven Prevaux[SMTP:SPrevaux@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu]Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 11:59 PMTo: 'Sharon Bauer'Cc: 'lisa-hodges@ufl.edu'Subject: RE:

The Office of General Counsel does not maintain any public records regarding Ms. Beck. You may wish to read my response (copy below) more carefully.The University has produced documents, in a reasonable time and manner in Accord with the provisions of Section 119.07 et seq. F.S., for inspection uponMs. Beck's request. In fact, Ms. Beck inspected personnel file documents atthe UF Personnel satellite office located in the health center. It isinteresting to hear that you are unaware of that. In any event, theadditional documents requested at the initial production (those that weare still waiting for Ms. Beck to inspect) have been made available and you have been duly advised as Ms. Beck's AFSCME representative. I repeat thatMs. Beck should contact Ms. Lisa Hodges at (352) 392-3786 to schedule thisinspection at their mutual convenience.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Steven D. PrevauxAssociate General CounselUniversity of Florida123 Tigert HallGainesville, FL 32611-3125__________________________Phone (352) 392-1358Fax (352) 392-4387Prevaux@ufl.edu

8

cc: Ms. Lisa Hodges

From: Sharon Bauer[SMTP:share@afn.org]Sent: Friday, March 12, 1999 9:06 PMTo: 'Steven Prevaux <SPrevaux@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu>'Cc: 'PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu'Subject: Records Complaint

According to Ms. Beck, your statement that she "inspected personnel filedocuments at the UF Personnel satellite office located in the health center" is completely false. Apparently you are referring to her visit tothe Stadium to view her central personnel file. That was a different request to a different office at a different time for a different file, and I cannot understand why you are even mentioning it. The fact that a different request was handled promptly has absolutely no relevance to ourcomplaint that Dr. Stephen Gluck had, since Ms. Beck's initial verbal request in November, denied her access to a public record in hiscustody.

When we brought this to the attention of your office, we anticipated thatyou would immediately notify Dr. Gluck that he was in violation of Chapter119 and the Master Contract, and that he would immediately produce the file. Obviously, this did not occur, and you have refused to tell us howyou did respond and to whom, and why the file was not made available untilmore than week later.

In response to my request for your office's records pertaining to this complaint, you claim that there are none. I know this to be false. At aminimum, you have my correspondence. However, according to your most recent message, after correspondence from a union steward complaining of apublic records violation was forwarded to you by Ms. Bernard, you did notsend e-mail or other correspondence to the records custodian or Health Center Personnel; if you called, you did not make notes of your conversation; you did not send e-mail or other correspondence to Ms. Bernard telling her what action you had taken; if you reported to her verbally, she did not take notes; you did not write notes for a file; youdid not write notes on a file copy of the message. Apparently, you did absolutely nothing to document your office's response to that complaint.Frankly, your assertion strains credulity. If it is in fact true, as ataxpayer I find it a very odd way for the Office of the General Counsel todo business. So let me reiterate my request, becauseI would like you to confirm that there is no record of this complaint inyour office.

Sharon Bauer, StewardAmerican Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

From: Steven Prevaux[SMTP:SPrevaux@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu]Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 6:33 PMTo: 'Sharon Bauer'Cc: Pamela Bernard

9

Subject: RE: Records Complaint

Hello. I was out of the office when you e-mailed most recently but Ihave since returned to the office and have reviewed your message below andrespond as follows.

On or about January 26, 1999 Ms. Beck, inspected public records in herpersonnel file located in the main personnel office (stadium) and shereceived copies (approximately 134 pages) from those records as per herrequest.

More recently, on or about March 15, 1999 Ms. Beck inspected theremaining public records requested from the department and those records wereavailable, according to you on March 10th. It is my understanding thatMs. Beck inspected those records in the UF Personnel satellite office locatedin the health center and the University's Personnel staff immediatelyprovided Ms. Beck with copies (approximately 36 pages) of the specific recordstbat she requested during that inspection on March 15.

The University has, in fact, honored it's well-established practice ofpromptly producing public records requested in this matter and in fullaccord with the provisions of Sec. 119.07, F.S. Please understand thatall non-exempt public records regarding Ms. Beck that my office is in possession of (below) have already been produced to you as part of e-mail replymessages and they are included again for your benefit (see below). MayI suggest that you discuss this matter with Ms. Linda Barge-Miles Esq. whoprovides legal representation to AFSCME. I have found her to bereasonable to work with and well-informed about Ch. 119 as well as aware of theduties of AFSCME to coordinate discovery requests directly related to pendinggrievances.

It also is my understanding that you appeared as the AFSCME Representativeof Ms. Beck at the Step One grievance meeting on March 17, 1999 heldpursuant to Article 6 of the BOR/AFSCME Collective Bargaining Agreement.Please be advised the Public Records Act does not require that the University answer miscellaneous questions such as those contained in youre-mail messages. Questions and issues regarding Ms. Beck's case may beproperly resolved via the grievance process that is currently engaged.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Steven D. PrevauxAssociate General CounselUniversity of Florida123 Tigert HallGainesville, FL 32611-3125__________________________Phone (352) 392-1358Fax (352) 392-4387Prevaux@ufl.edu

10

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 6:00 PMTo: PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.eduCc: afscme79@aol.com; share@afn.orgSubject: Public Records Request

On March 2, I contacted your office on behalf of Sybille Beck for assistance in obtaining access to the file her supervisor maintained on her, which had been illegally denied to her for more than 3 months on the erroneous advice of Steven Prevaux of your office, according to Health Center Personnel. When it took over a week after contacting you for the file to finally be made available, I wrote to you again to ascertain the reason why and asked when your office had advised the custodian that he had to produce the file.

Mr. Prevaux responded and refused to provide that information, saying, "Please be advised the Public Records Act does not require that the University answer miscellaneous questions such as those contained inYour e-mail messages." I then requested copies of any correspondence or other records in your office pertaining to this matter. Mr. Prevaux replied, "The Office of General Counsel does not maintain any public records regarding Ms. Beck."

I questioned the veracity of that statement, saying, "I know this to be false. At a minimum, you have my correspondence. However, according to your most recent message, after correspondence from a union steward complaining of a public records violation was forwarded to you by Ms. Bernard, you did not send e-mail or other correspondence to the records custodian or Health Center Personnel; if you called, you did not make notes of your conversation; you did not send e-mail or other correspondence to Ms. Bernard telling her what action you had taken; if you reported to her verbally, she did not take notes; you did not write notes for a file; you did not write notes on a file copy of the message. Apparently, you didabsolutely nothing to document your office's response to that complaint."

Mr. Prevaux then said, "Please understand that all non-exempt public records regarding Ms. Beck that my office is in possession of (below) have already been produced to you as part of e-mail reply messages and they are included again for your benefit (see below)." This would seem to imply that there are indeed other public records besides my e-mail messages but that Mr. Prevaux believes them to be exempt.

Mr. Prevaux apparently is of the opinion that it is morally and legally permissible, when he believes that records are exempt, to simply deny their existence. However, the law requires that anyone who asserts that a record is exempt must state the statutory exemption that applies and, upon request (and I do request), the specific reason that the exemption applies, and must redact any confidential material and provide the remainder. I am surprised that he does not know this. Either he does not know the law or else he has deliberately chosen to disregard it.

Please comply promptly with this third request for any records pertaining to Ms. Beck's requests, beginning last December, to see her her department file.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

From: Pamela Bernard[SMTP:pbernard@aa.ufl.edu]Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 11:39 AMTo: 'Sharon Bauer'Subject: RE: Public Records Request

11

Dear Ms. Bauer,

I have reviewed this matter and find that Mr. Prevaux acted appropriately. If you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to have AFSCME's attorney contact me.

Sincerely,Pamela Bernard

12

ATTACHMENT 4

From: Sharon Bauer[SMTP:sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu]Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 1:06 PMTo: lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.eduCc: kim-c@ufl.edu

As part of the investigation of a grievance filed by Alex Trapp, I am requesting copies of her time cards for this fiscal year and last. The records for last fiscal year were requested last spring as part of the investigation of an earlier grievance, a request that was reiterated to you in the grievance hearing pursuant to Chapter 447. The department head announced at the grievance hearing that it was "too late" for us to request those records, and you did not respond to that remark or acknowledge that request in your grievance decision.

In addition, I e-mailed you a request in March or April for all e-mail and other public records in Health Center Personnel pertaining to Sybille Beck's and my requests to see her departmental personnel file. Although I received confirmation of receipt, you did not respond to that e-mail. Please provide me with those requested records as well.

From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: "Lisa D Hodges" <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Subject: Re: Alex TrappCopies to: kim-c@ufl.eduDate sent: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:50:40 -0400

> Sharon, I've left a couple of messages but haven't been able to reach you > regarding this email. Please call me so we can discuss. > > In reference to Alex Trapp, it seems that you are making a new request to > have her timecards from the past and current year. As, we discussed in > the Step I grievance meeting, Alex can make those requests through her > department at any time and they will work with her in providing what she > needs. I would encourage you to direct Alex back to her department to > specify the exact dates she would like them to pull.

I have told you the exact dates of the records we want: this fiscal year and last. Ms. Trapp says she has requested the records from the department before and been ignored. She now prefers to have the request relayed through her union representative and has that right. I made an appointment with her supervisor, Cynthia Sanders, for last Thursday to discuss the problems Ms. Trapp continues to have. After we had sat here for 10 minutes waiting for Ms. Sanders to keep the 1 p.m. appointment, we received a message from her secretary that she had decided not to meet and that we should contact you. We will no longer attempt to resolve grievances informally with Animal Resources and will initiate all grievances at the Step 1 level. Do I understand that you are refusing to relay this request for evidence to the department?

13

> Also pertaining to Alex's grievance in July 1999, I addressed the issue > of your public record request for timecards. I did not include all of > those time cards in my Step I decision, because I felt the matter was > resolved through our discussions. I also indicated in my Step I decision > that the public records request for the timecards were completed in a > timely manner and that both you and Alex were notified of the > availablility for pickup. Therfore, I felt the request had been > fulfilled. It is my understanding that the documents were never picked > up. If you or Alex did not agree with my decision you could have > contacted me or filed for a Step II review of this matter at that time.

I made no public records request. I relayed a request from Ms. Trapp to the department for her time cards. The department insisted on illegally charging her for 4 1/2 hours of "excessive labor." I then requested the information from you as evidence needed for the grievance investigation. Your report made no mention of either of those requests, just the nonexistent public records request.

> On a separate issue, It was my understanding that Sybille's request was > also fulfilled. I called you by phone to notify you that the files were > here for you and/or Sybille to review. Sybille subsequently called and > made an appointment with me to review those records. She also requested > copies of some of those documents. By the way, I'm not sure if you are > aware, but Sybille's case has been resolved in a settlement with the > university. If you are personally asking to review these files again, > you may do so, but I will need time to prepare the request and redact the > appropriate information, unless you have Sybille's authorization to > release all information.

Please read my message more carefully. I am not referring to Ms. Beck's request to Dr. Gluck to see her file; I am referring to my request to you, made some time after Ms. Beck was finally allowed to see her file, for all of your records pertaining to her and my requests that she see that file, i.e., any e-mails among you, Kim, Dr. Gluck, and Mr. Prevaux, any notes in your files, and any other records pertaining to our requests. I sent that request to you via e-mail months ago and received no response.

> Please give me a call so that we may discuss this further, as it was my > understanding that the departments and UF had complied with both of > these requests.

From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: "Lisa D Hodges" <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Subject: Re: Time cards for TrappCopies to: kim-c@ufl.eduBCC to: share@afn.orgDate sent: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:30:06 -0400

14

On 3 Dec 99, at 12:53, Lisa D Hodges wrote:

> Sharon, your request on behalf of Alex Trapp for time cards from the last > and present fiscal year has been prepared. Either you or Alex may pick > up these copies from my office.

Please send them to Alex or to me. My address is Box 100152 or 1001 NE 21st Ave., 32609.

> Early next week I'll be in and out of the office. Please contact me to > that we can arrange a time for you to review Ms. Beck's records as well.

My request was for copies of the records, not an opportunity to come to your office and review them. How many pages of notes and correspondence, etc., are there relating to her request to see her file--excluding the grievance, which I already have?

Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:25:38 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: lhodges@vpha.ufl.eduSubject: Phone Message

I received a message to call you about my records request. Given pastexperience with your office, I need written documentation and prefer tocommunicate via e-mail. Is there some additional information you needabout the request?

Sharon

From: Lisa D Hodges[SMTP:lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu]Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 3:19 PMTo: Sharon BauerCc: kim-c@ufl.eduSubject: Re: Phone Message

Sharon, The reason for my call was to follow up on your last emailregarding the number of pages contained in Sybille Beck's files. I'msorry if you feel you are experiencing difficulties from this office.I'm not sure what past experiences you are referring to, but let meassure you I'm not trying to make this any more complicated than itneedsto be. As I stated to you last week I was working on your request andwould call you when they were ready for inspection. You did not indicateto me that you were expecting hard copies of these records. In anycase,here are the number of pages as follows:

Official Personnel File 148 pages x .15 cents per copy = $22.20

15

Employee Relations files 272 pages x .15 cents per copy = $40.80

Dr. Glucks's files 316 pages x .15 cents per copy = 47.40

Again, per your clarification, these are only the documents up throughMarch 15, 1999. I will be unable to release any medical informationwithout proper authorization from Ms. Beck. Please let me know which ofthese files you wish to have copies of. As you can see there will be a$.15 charge per copy as indicated. If you would prefer to view these inmy office please contact me so that we may schedule an available time.

Subject: RE: Phone MessageDate: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 08:29:40 -0500From: Sharon Bauer, Sharon BauerTo: 'Lisa D Hodges'CC: 'kim-c@ufl.edu'; 'larry-ellis@ufl.edu'

Lisa,

You are making this much more complicated than it needs to be.

On Mar. 11, I sent you and Steve Prevaux "a request for any correspondence, notes, or otherpublic records in the offices of the General Counsel or Health Center Personnel pertaining toMs. Beck's and my requests for her file." You did not respond.

On Nov. 18, I sent you the following message:

"As part of the investigation of a grievance filed by Alex Trapp, I am requesting copies of hertime cards for this fiscal year and last [which the department refused to provide]..." Inaddition, I e-mailed you a request in March or April for all e-mail and other public records inHealth Center Personnel pertaining to Sybille Beck's and my requests to see her departmentalpersonnel file. Although I received confirmation of receipt, you did not respond to thate-mail. Please provide me with those requested records as well."

On Nov. 22, you replied, "I would encourage you to direct Alex back to her department tospecify the exact dates she would like them to pull." On Nov. 23, I pointed out that "thisfiscal year and last" is exact. You also informed me that Ms. Beck's request had beenfulfilled. I replied that the issue was not our requests that she see her file but rather myrequest to see your records regarding our requests that she see her file, "i.e., any e-mailsamong you, Kim, Dr. Gluck, and Mr. Prevaux, any notes in your files, and any other recordspertaining to our requests."

You then called and said that I would need a release to see Ms. Beck's confidential medicalinformation. Once again, I told you that I did not want to see Ms. Beck's file, that I wantedto see your records pertaining to Ms. Beck's request to see her file. You said that therewould be a delay and that you would call me when they were ready (not "ready for inspection").

On Dec. 3, you wrote and asked me to contact you to arrange a time to review the records. When16

I asked on Nov. 18 for copies of Ms. Trapp's time cards and asked that you "provide me withthose requested records [regarding Ms. Beck's and my requests] as well," this was an indicationthat I wanted copies of both. On Dec. 6, I wrote, "My request was for copies of the records,not an opportunity to come to your office and review them. How many pages of notes andcorrespondence, etc., are there relating to her request to see her file--excluding thegrievance, which I already have?"

On Dec. 8, I received the above response from you: "Official Personnel File 148 pages x .15cents per copy = $22.20, Employee Relations files 272 pages x .15 cents per copy = $40.80, Dr.Glucks's files 316 pages x .15 cents per copy = 47.40." You added that "per yourclarification, these are only the documents up through March 15, 1999."

What clarification? Why would you assume that I want only the documents through Mar. 15 andnot any that may have been generated in the nine months since I began requesting these records?Why would you think that I wanted any copies from her official personnel file or from Dr.Gluck's file? I have told you on the five occasions cited above that I am requesting anyrecords in your office pertaining to Ms. Beck's and my requests that she be allowed to see herdepartmental file. I want to know how you arrived at the erroneous conclusion in January thather departmental file was Dr. Gluck's "personal file" that he did not have to show to her. Iwant to know when you were informed that this was incorrect. I want to know when you advisedDr. Gluck of that fact. I want to know whether any corrective action has been taken. I wantyou and your staff to search your e-mail folders for any messages containing the word "records"and to print out any that refer to Ms. Beck's request to see her file and my subsequentcomplaint, even tangentially. I want you to search your Employees Relations files for anynotes or other records that refer to her request or my complaint and to make copies.

I do not see how I can make this any clearer. In light of the *incredible* difficulty that you(and Kim Czaplewski, who has been copied on all of our messages) have been having for the pasttwo weeks in understanding what I am requesting, I am copying Larry Ellis on this message inthe hope that he can help.

Under the circumstances, I feel that it is necessary to remind you that, should you believethat any of the requested records are exempt from the public records statute, you are requiredto state the specific exemption that applies and how it applies, and to redact any confidentialportion and provide the remainder.

Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:50:47 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Phone Message

Thanks for your prompt reply. You could assist by having the materialsthat I've been requesting since March provided to me in accordance withthe law and by encouraging better compliance in the future. I trust thatyou were able to understand what it is that I've been requesting.

We'll be contacting you soon to request a consultation meeting, and theinability to get timely and accurate information from the Health Centerpersonnel office will be one of the items on our agenda.

17

Sharon

18

ATTACHMENT 5

From: Sharon Bauer[SMTP:share@afn.org]Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 5:36 PMTo: jterhune@jou.ufl.eduSubject: Ruth Brumbaugh

As the AFSCME employee representative for Ruth Brumbaugh, I am writing toyou in your capacities as both Associate Dean of the College of Journalismand Acting Chair of the Department of Public Relations. Your appointment asActing Chair has provided a respite for Ms. Brumbaugh, who has haddifficulty working for the previous chair, Dr. Gail Baker, and met with DeanHynes a few months ago to discuss possible reassignment.

As you may be aware, Dr. Baker's initial appraisal of Ms. Brumbaugh inOctober rated her as performing below standards. However, in January Ms.Brumbaugh was rated "Achieves." Her next annual appraisal is due in January2000.

We have several concerns regarding these appraisals that we would like tomeet to discuss with you:

First and foremost is Dr. Baker's statement in Ms. Brumbaugh's "Achieves"appraisal that she would evaluate her again in 60 days. Ms. Brumbaugh'snext appraisal is not due until January. A special appraisal is anappraisal that has been specifically requested by a supervisor to document"exceptional or marginal" performance. Therefore, it is not customarilyscheduled two months in advance, since the supervisor cannot know how theemployee will be performing at that time. Furthermore, Dr. Baker is nolonger Ms. Brumbaugh's supervisor, since Dr. Baker holds the position ofDirector of Communications and you are Acting Chair. Dr. Baker is a facultymember whose opinion of Ms. Brumbaugh's performance would be considered aswould that of any other of Ms. Brumbaugh's customers. The decision whetherMs. Brumbaugh's performance is marginal and warrants a special appraisal isyours as her supervisor. Ms. Brumbaugh is extremely anxious about thepossibility of another appraisal by Dr. Baker. She says that she has neverreceived any indication from you that you find her performance less thansatisfactory. We would like to discuss her performance and her nextscheduled appraisal.

I believe that you will agree that the position description is the basis ofany employee evaluation. Ms. Brumbaugh advises me that she has been nevergiven a position description and had to go to the Stadium in December to geta copy of the one that you approved in 1993. Following her initialevaluation in October, she was given for the first time a list of "DailyDuties and Responsibilities." She was also notified then for the first timethat "[a]ll notes, memos, letters, etc. must be typed." The duties on whichshe was evaluated vary greatly from those in the position description andfrom those used to evaluate her predecessor. We would like to discuss thepreparation of an up-to-date position description.

19

The performance improvement plan includes items such as "You must showconsiderable improvement in your ability to produce professional-levelreports and documentation using Excel." She was required to take trainingin Excel, Access, and SAMAS in order to reach the "Achieves" level. None ofthese are listed in the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities section of theposition description, and Ms. Brumbaugh advises me that other departmentalSenior Secretaries in the college are not required to know and use theseprograms. We would like to discuss the formulation of measurable goals andobjectives for Ms. Brumbaugh that are appropriate for the classification ofSenior Secretary.

Both appraisals lack any detail. Although the January appraisal claims that"continuous errors have been made in the preparation of travel documents,"not a single copy of a travel form containing errors was included. Althoughit claims that "[y]ou consistently procrastinate on assignments," not asingle instance of a missed deadline was cited. According to the MasterContract between AFSCME and the SUS, "The employee shall be provided withinformation regarding the basis of the evaluation and shall, upon writtenrequest, be provided with a copy of any documents which were considered incompleting the evaluation." However, since the Public Records Act makes anyfile maintained on Ms. Brumbaugh open to examination, we would like toreview not only the documents considered in completing the evaluation butany file maintained by you or Dr. Baker on Ms. Brumbaugh.

Please e-mail me or call me at 392-3900 so that we can schedule a meeting todiscuss these concerns. Thank you.

Sharon Bauer (JM '71)

[No response as of 5/9/02]

20

ATTACHMENT 6

Subject: Charley MillsDate: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 06:48:53 -0500From: Sharon Bauer, Sharon BauerTo: 'blulow@ufmail.ufl.edu'

I am writing of behalf of Mr. Charley Mills, who has reported to me that:

1. On Friday, April 23, Mr. Mills' paycheck was approximately $500 short without any prior notice, and previous paychecks have also been hundreds of dollars short without notice. He says that he has requested an explanation but not been given one. On Friday I spoke to Linda Patrick in your department, to whom I was referred by Payroll; she was unable to explain the shortage, or perhaps merely unwilling, since she indicated that she had never heard of AFSCME, the collecting bargaining agent for University staff for about 20 years. The only information she provided was that it was due to "overpayments" on previous payperiods. Prior notification of such deductions is standard in other departments. In fact, the University's Handbook on Business Procedures stipulates that, prior to any deduction of salary overpayments, employees are to be notified of the overpayment, the reason, and their right under the Florida Administrative Code to request a hearing to dispute the amount of the overpayment. Please provide Mr. Mills with the required explanation of these shortages. If the explanation is written, I am requesting a copy. In the future, please notify him prior to making deductions from his pay.

2. Since February, Mr. Mills has requested copies of his time cards on several occasions and has never received them. These are public records which must be promptly provided to any person on request. Failure to provide the records in a timely manner is a violation of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. While the Public Records Act does not contain a specific time limit for compliance, the Florida Supreme Court has said that the only delay permitted is the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the record. Please comply promptly with Mr. Mills' most recent request, made last Friday, for his last four time cards.

3. On Friday, April 23, Mr. Mills was summoned to your office and, in the presence of two campus police officers, accused by you, without any evidence, of being responsible for harassing calls to your home the night before, and due to the manner in which you conducted this meeting, was unable to avail himself of either legal counsel or union representation. I have advised Mr. Mills that (1) this meeting does not appear to be work-related and therefore he would not have to listen to such accusations in the future, and (2) he should ask the purpose of future meetings, specifically whether they involve questioning that might lead to disciplinary action. Should you find it necessary to question Mr. Mills in the future regarding work-related allegations, he requests the union representation to which he is entitled under the Master Contract between AFSCME and the Board of Regents.

21

Sharon BauerPresident, Local 3340American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)

> From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]> Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 12:31 PMTo: jerrys@admin.ufl.eduCc: share@afn.orgSubject: (Fwd) Time Cards (fwd)

I wrote to Bruce Lulow about six months ago asking that Charley Mills begiven copies of his time cards and got no response. A copy of that messagewas provided to you as part of his grievance. I wrote to Elwood Aust lastweek asking the same thing and have gotten no response. Mr. Millssubsequently received a memo stating how much the university feels he hasbeen underpaid. After six months, he still does not have the requestedcopies of his time cards so that he can determine for himself how much hehas been underpaid.. According to the university's public records web page,there is generally no charge for such items requested in connection with agrievance. I am very surprised that members of your staff apparently do notfeel the need to answer e-mail or comply with the public records statute,and I would appreciate your encouraging them to do so. Thank you.

Subject: RE: (Fwd) Time Cards (fwd)Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999Subject: RE: (Fwd) Time Cards (fwd)From: Jerry SchafferTo: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>

Copies of all cards will be made and Mr. Aust will call Mr. Mills when theyare ready to pick up. For as much time as Mr. Aust spent with Mr. Millsgoing over this issue and the fact that Mr. Mills cancelled his meeting toreview the timecards with Mr. Aust, I think your comments are slightlyunfair.

Subject: RE: (Fwd) Time Cards (fwd)Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:44:48 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Schaffer, Jerry" <jerrys@admin.ufl.edu>CC: share@afn.org

I disagree. I think what's grossly unfair is what's been done to Mr. Millsand how many months it's taken for him to get the information he requested. If he'd had it, he could've done the analysis himself and saved Mr. Aust allthat time. When his job prevented him from keeping an appointment with Mr.Aust to finally see his time cards, he says no effort was made to rescheduleit. In any event, he prefers to have his own copies to review and is

22

entitled to them. Please have them mailed to him at Box 100125 rather thanholding them for pickup. He doesn't want the small amount of time theuniversity's offering to reimburse him, as he's convinced he's owed more.

I'm disappointed that the failure to respond to e-mail apparently isn't asgreat a concern as it would be over here in the Office of the Vice Presidentfor Health Affairs. I was expecting an apology, not an admonishment.

23

ATTACHMENT 7

From: "Katharyn E Ward" <KEW@vpha.health.ufl.edu Organization: VPHA, University of Florida To: sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu Date sent: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:27:46 -0600 Subject: public records request

Sharon, Per your public records request yesterday, that should be accomplished by Thursday, May 27, 1999. There will be a charge due to this department being an auxiliary to where we charge federal and non-federal grants. The charge has to be generated and then removed from my total expenses at the end of the year in order to comply with CAS and Circular A21. I estimate the charge to be for the copies - 20 pages at $.05/page and for labor to be 4 hours at $ 13.40/hour. This is only an estimate and an invoice will be generated when completed. If this is not acceptable, please contact me to negiotate what will be acceptable. It is my understanding that you requested 1 year's information. Katharyn E. Ward Assistant Director, Medical/Health Administration Division of Comparative Medicine (352) 392-3770 kew@vpha.health.ufl.edu

From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu> Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 3:49 PM To: bernard@nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu Cc: kew@vpha.health.ufl.edu Subject: (Fwd) public records request

I made this request on behalf of the employee and asked that the copies be given to her. Employees are not customarily charged copying and labor for copies of their own timecards. Labor may only be charged when the request involves "extensive clerical or supervisory assistance." It does not take 4 hours to pull and copy 20 time cards. Do we need to submit this to the AG's office for mediation?

Sharon Bauer

From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu> To: bernard@nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu Subject: Timecards Date sent: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:12:37 -0600

FYI, I've contacted several departments for estimates, including one auxiliary, and been told that (1) auxiliary or not, they wouldn't charge an employee for copies of their timecards, and (2) the estimated time for pulling 20 pages, copying them, and refiling them ranges from 30 min to 1 hr.

Sharon Bauer

From: Steven Prevaux <SPrevaux@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu> To "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu> Copies to: Pamela Bernard <PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu, "'KEW@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <KEW@vpha.health.ufl.edu>,"'Lisa-Hodges@ufl.edu'" <Lisa-Hodges@ufl.edu> Subject: (Fwd) public records request

24

Date sent: Mon, 24 May 1999 12:31:23 -0400

Your recent e-mail inquiry (immediately below) has been referred to me For reply. I checked with Ms. Katharyn Ward and confirmed that her department is in the process of currently responding to your request all time cards regarding Ms. Alex Trapp, a UF employee for the past period of one (1) year. Please bear in mind that the estimate of the costs of production that you have been provided is just a good faith approximation of the costs allowed by law. You will only be billed for the allowable costs of public record production actually incurred by this custodian under Sec. 119.07, Florida Statutes.

As you know, the Public Records Act allows all state agencies to charge $.15/page (rather than $.05). No extra fee will be assessed because the custodian is an auxiliary unit. However, as you correctly pointed out, the custodian is entitled to charge for "extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel" in addition to the actual cost of duplication.

Please also be advised that any information specifically exempted from Ch. 119, Florida Statutes will be redacted (e.g. employee social security number) unless the employee authorizes the release of her non-public record information to you directly.

Steven D. Prevaux Associate General Counsel University of Florida 123 Tigert Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-3125 __________________________ Phone (352) 392-1358 Fax (352) 392-4387 Prevaux@ufl.edu

From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu> Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 3:18 PM To: Pamela Bernard Cc: KEW@vpha.health.ufl.edu; Lisa-Hodges@ufl.edu Subject: Re: (Fwd) public records request

As I have stated three times previously, including in the message to you that Mr. Prevaux quoted, these records were requested by the employee and are to be given to her. If Ms. Trapp is billed for copies of her own time cards when other employees are not, it can only be because her request was forwarded by a union steward. Therefore, we will file an Unfair Labor Practice charge and a public records complaint with the Attorney General's office.

Sharon Bauer

From: Steven Prevaux <SPrevaux@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu> To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu> Copies to: "'KEW@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <KEW@vpha.health.ufl.edu>, "'Lisa-Hodges@ufl.edu'" <Lisa-Hodges@ufl.edu>, Pamela Bernard <PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu> Subject: RE: (Fwd) public records request Date sent: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:56:30 -0400

I have just confirmed that the records you have requested are now available for you to pick up from Ms. Katharyn E. Ward, Assistant Director, Medical/Health Administration Division of Comparative Medicine. It is

25

my understanding that the department had to cull through all of their time card records for the past year to hand-pull and photocopy those records responsive to your request.

Whether or not you made your request on behalf of an employee you must pay the appropriate fee allowed under Sec. 119.07, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the department will invoice you for eleven (11) copies at $.15/page ($1.65) plus the cost actually incurred for extensive clerical labor of four and one-half (4.5) hours. As a courtesy, we are reducing the hourly billing rate of the lowest wage employee available to perform the clerical labor from $13.40/hr (actual) to the minimum wage rate of $5.15/hr, resulting in an extensive clerical labor charge of $23.17. Thus, you (or Ms. Trapp) will only need to submit payment to "The University of Florida" in the total amount of $24.82. Thank you.

cc: Linda Barge-Miles,Esq. (Via Fax) Counsel to AFSCME

Steven D. Prevaux Associate General Counsel University of Florida 123 Tigert Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-3125 __________________________ Phone (352) 392-1358 Fax (352) 392-4387 Prevaux@ufl.edu

From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu> To: PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu Subject: (Fwd) (Fwd) public records request Date sent: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:39:10 -0600

I did not make a public records request for these time cards. The employee requested the time cards. I merely relayed the message to her supervisor. When Ms. Ward from Animal Resources called me back demanding to know why I wanted them, I again stated that I was not making a public records request, that the employee was requesting copies of her own time cards.

According to Jan Eller in the Office of the Vice President for Health Affairs, of which Animal Resources is a subordinate unit, their office does not charge an employee for copies of his or her own time cards. He spoke to Lisa Hodges in Employee Relations, who said that the labor charge was based on the assumption that I was making a public records request. Mr. Eller asked me to contact you in order to clear up this misunderstanding prior to our resorting to further action. I told him that there was no misunderstanding, since I had made this clear in my May 24 message to you (below), and that Mr. Prevaux had specifically stated that Ms. Trapp had to pay the charge for her own time cards.

Unless Ms. Trapp is provided the requested copies of her time cards today without charge, we will take further action.

Sharon Bauer

From: Steven Prevaux <SPrevaux@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu> To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu> Copies to: "'KEW@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <KEW@vpha.health.ufl.edu>, "Lisa Hodges (E-mail)" <Lisa-Hodges@ufl.edu>, "'PJE.VPHA@Mail.Health.UFL.Edu'" <PJE.VPHA@Mail.Health.UFL.Edu>, Pamela Bernard <PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu>

26

Subject: RE: (Fwd) (Fwd) public records request Date sent: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:25:04 -0400

As you know from my e-mail yesterday, the records that you have requested on behalf of an in-unit employee (Ms. Alex L. Trapp) are available for immediate pick-up. All of these records remain available for you and/or Ms. Trapp to pick up directly from Ms. Katharyn E. Ward, Assistant Director Upon payment of the lawful and reasonable amount of $24.82 (11 copies at $.15/page = $1.65 plus cost incurred for extensive clerical labor of 4.5 hours at $5.15/hr = $23.17) as provided in Section 119.07 Florida Statutes. We have provided you with ample and clear notice (please see below) that this amount accurately reflects costs actually incurred in the production of the records requested. The University of Florida values its relationship with AFSCME and we have a history of respecting each other's rights under our collective bargaining agreement and the provisions of Ch. 119. I respectfully encourage you, as the new President of our AFSCME local, to discuss this matter with AFSCME leadership.

cc: Linda Barge-Miles, Esq. (via fax) Counsel to AFSCME Ms. Alex Trapp (via hand delivery)

Steven D. Prevaux Associate General Counsel University of Florida 123 Tigert Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-3125 __________________________ Phone (352) 392-1358 Fax (352) 392-4387 Prevaux@ufl.edu

From: Sharon Bauer[SMTP:sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu]Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 1:06 PMTo: lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.eduCc: kim-c@ufl.edu

As part of the investigation of a grievance filed by Alex Trapp, I am requesting copies of her time cards for this fiscal year and last. The records for last fiscal year were requested last spring as part of the investigation of an earlier grievance, a request that was reiterated to you in the grievance hearing pursuant to Chapter 447. The department head announced at the grievance hearing that it was "too late" for us to request those records, and you did not respond to that remark or acknowledge that request in your grievance decision.

In addition, I e-mailed you a request in March or April for all e-mail and other public records in Health Center Personnel pertaining to Sybille Beck's and my requests to see her departmental personnel file. Although I received confirmation of receipt, you did not respond to that e-mail. Please provide me with those requested records as well.

27

ATTACHMENT 8

CHRONOLOGY

1. In 4/2000 Local President Sharon Bauer contacted Tom Casserly of UF Information Systems (IS) and asked to whom she should speak about obtaining personnel data. This was a follow-up to a telephone request in 11/1999 to John Tucker of University Personnel Services, who said he would have to contact IS but did not call back. Mr. Casserly referred her to Robin Marrin who referred her to Mark Beachy. He reported back to her that he was advised by Kim Czaplewski of Employee Relations to withhold information that is "cloaked," meaning that the employee had requested that the information be kept private, not that the information was exempted by statute. He also said that they don't provide actual salaries, only ranges. Finally, he said that there was a “standard fee” of $240. When Ms. Bauer asked for a breakdown, he said that it would take “at least 8 hours of labor.” She wrote to Ms. Czaplewski on 5/10/2000 pointing out that this violated the statute and that AFSCME wanted “all available data on all current employees.” There was no response.

2. In June 2000, Ms. Bauer wrote to Pres. Charles Young reporting several public records violations, including the following.

“Since last year, we have been requesting the personnel database; we were finally told last month that the university charges a ‘standard fee’ of $240 for any personnel data, in violation of the public records law.”

She was contacted by Personnel Director Larry Ellis and on July 10, 2000, forwarded him a copy of the correspondence with Ms. Marrin, with a transmittal message saying, “When Mark said it would take more than 8 hours to do this I requested that they just copy the whole file, since that would take less time than writing a program that specified certain fields. I understand that the whole file would be too large to mail, so we'd like it copied to CD or, preferably, to a web server for downloading.”

On 7/12/2000 she was copied on a message from Mr. Beachy to Mr. Ellis saying that IS would provide what the union had objected to in April: a file missing cloaked data, regardless of exemption. Also, the file would contain only certain fields rather than the whole file, for the standard fee of $240. On 7/27/2000, Mr. Ellis informed Ms. Bauer that the job had been completed. She replied that she had not agreeD to payment of $240 for a file that did not comply with the request for the entire database minus exempt data, and she again requested a breakdown of the standard fee). On July 27, Mr. Ellis provided a breakdown reflecting 11 hours of labor and $150 of computer usage for three test runs and a final run.

3. On August 30, 2000, at a consultation meeting with the Board of Regents, AFSCME Executive Director Alma Gonzalez-Neimser told Mr. Ellis and Vice-Chancellor Carl Blackwell that the union would sue if the records were not provided. The following day, Associate Vice President Ed Poppell advised Ms. Bauer in a memo that he had “written to your supervisor”. (a member of the union staff who works for the local’s officers rather than vice versa) “asking if AFSCME will take responsibility for any misuse of this information.” Ms. Bauer responded on the day she received it, 9/6, that no one could be required to “take responsibility for any misuse” of public records in order to receive them. She noted that the university had copied partial information to a file, omitting many fields as well as public information that was “cloaked” at the request of the employee, and claimed that it took 11 hours and cost $318. “We requested the entire database, exclusive of any exempt information” There was no response.

4. On 3/30/2001, Ms. Bauer wrote to Ms. Czaplewski regarding the latter’s failure to comply with AFSCME’s Chapter 447 request for a list of employees in the AFSCME bargaining to check off to vote on contract ratification. Ms. Bauer added, “The administration still has not complied with our long-standing requests for the personnel database, the email directory, and all records pertaining to appointment of the night shift committee,

28

despite our repeated requests to the vice president, provost, president, and vice chancellor over the past 18 months.” There was no response.

5. On 10/19/2001, Local 3340 officers and Council 79 staff met with Mr. Ellis and presented a list of 20 public records violations, including the failure to provide the requested personnel data originally requested in 11/1999. Mr. Ellis said that the university had begun contacting employees who requested that their information be cloaked and determining whether it was exempt. Noting that the ability to redact confidential and exempt information is supposed to be built into the software, the local requested that the administration at least provide the information that is not cloaked and said they would take legal action if it was not provided by the end of the following day. The next day, in response to union treasurer Jerry Williamson's inquiry about picking up the data, Mr. Willits asked him to have Ms. Bauer send further clarification of the request. That day, 10/20/2001, Ms. Bauer sent Mr. Willits a copy of a 7/27/2000 memorandum, on which he had been copied, stating that “We requested the entire database, exclusive of any exempt information.” On 10/25/2001, Mr. Willits requested further clarification, asking what the “target population” was (which categories of employees), asking if ASCII text was an acceptable format, asking whether it should be copied to CD or diskette.. He also indicated that cloaked information would not be included because they were “in the midst of seeking clarification of the applicability of 119.07 to those employees who have previously requested that certain information be secured.” Ms. Bauer replied that day that the request had been for all data, not just certain categories of employees, that ASCII was the format mentioned in the public records law, and that not only had she requested a CD in her email six days before but the information requested would not fit on a diskette. On 10/31/2001, he again said they did not know which information was exempt and would only provide selected fields upon “confirmation that you are agreeable to payment.”. Ms. Bauer asked that he confirm that they would be providing all of the files by faxing the manual pages listing files and fields. There was no response.

6. On 11/9/2001, Mr. Ellis informed Ms. Bauer that a CD containing “all available information” had been prepared at a cost of $756.57 ($481.57 for more than 23 hours of labor, plus $275 in computer charges). Ms. Bauer replied that the local had said on 10/31/2001 that it would not pay without a list of the included files and the fields they contained. The list was then faxed on 11/12/2001 but showed that in fact the file did not contain all nonexempt information. Of the 845 data elements in the payroll/personnel system, only 159 had been provided. Fields such as Collective Bargaining Unit had been excluded without explanation.

29

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:13:54 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: rmarrin@ufl.eduSubject: Personnel Data

Robin, I need a file containing the following information for all UFemployees:

First NameLast NameDepartmentClass CodeAnnual SalaryWork Location and PO BoxWork PhoneHome Address, City, State and ZipHome PhoneHire DateClass DateRaceSexEducational Level

Would it be possible to e-mail the file to my GatorLink account(sbauer@ufl.edu) since the freenet has such a small size limit?

Could we set up an account that would allow us to do this ourselves ona regular basis?

Also, could we get a copy of the UF phone directory (i.e., faculty, staff,and student e-mail addresses) in electronic format?

Thanks,

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340392-3900

Subject: Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:19:01 -0400From: "Sharon Bauer" <share@afn.org>To: kim-c@ufl.edu

I understand from Mark Beachy that you've advised him that, in responding to AFSCME's public records request for personnel data, he should withhold information that's "cloaked." He says that cloaked means that the employee has requested that the information be kept private, not that the information is exempted by statute. He also said that they don't provide actual salaries, only ranges. Please send me a copy of your message to him, in electronic format if available, so that I can determine where the

30

apparent misunderstanding has occurred.

As indicated in the following exerpt from the Attorney General's Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, public employees have no right to privacy, and an agency must make public all personnel records in its possession that aren't exempted by statute. Exempted information includes medical information, social security numbers, and home addresses of law enforcement personnel but doesn't include home addresses and phone numbers of non-law enforcement personnel. In fact, the manual specifically lists salary information as subject to disclosure and also cites Browning v. Walton, 351 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977),stating that a city cannot refuse to allow inspection of records containing the names and addresses of city employees who have filled outforms requesting that the city maintain the confidentiality of their personnel files.

We've requested all available data on all current employees. Mark says that there are about 22,000 records on active employees, each with 10 segments of approximately 300 bytes. This would make the entire database about 66MB. That's about a tenth of the capacity of a CD. We've asked that this data be copied to a disk or, preferably, to an area of the network from which we can download it. Section 119.01(2), F.S., states: "The Legislature finds that, given advancements in technology, providing access to public records by remote electronic means is an additional method of access that agencies should strive to provide to the extent feasible"; and, that agencies providing remote access should do so "in the most cost-effective and efficient manner available to the agency . . . ."

5. Personnel records

a. Personnel records open to inspection unless exempted by law

The general rule with regard to personnel records is the same as for other public records; unless the Legislature has expressly exemptedan agency's personnel records from disclosure or authorized the agency to adopt rules limiting access to such records, personnel recordsare subject to public inspection under s. 119.07(1), F.S. Michel v. Douglas, 464 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1985).

In accordance with this principle, the following are some of the personnel records which have been determined to be subject todisclosure:

Applications for employment--AGOs 77-48 and 71-394;

Communications from third parties--Douglas v. Michel, 410 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), questions answered andapproved, 464 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1985);

Grievance records--Mills v. Doyle, 407 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 31

1981);

Resumes--Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates, Inc., 379 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1980);

Salary information--Lewis v. Schreiber, No. 92-8005(03) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. June 12, 1992), per curiam affirmed, 611 So. 2d531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); AGO 73-30;

Travel vouchers--Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates, Inc., supra; Lewis v. Schreiber, supra.

32

AFSCME Local 33401107 NW 6th Street, Suite B

Gainesville, FL 32609

June 29, 2000

Pres. Charles E. YoungBox 113150University of FloridaGainesville, FL 32611

Dear Pres. Young:

We want to wish Mrs. Young a speedy recovery. The university’s first family is in our thoughts and prayers.

While we appreciate the many demands on your time, we are once again requesting a meeting to discuss the university’s costly plan to move custodial staff to night shift. Our first two letters resulted in replies that, according to UF meeting minutes, were written by Dug Jones of Building Services for Vice Pres. Jerry Schaffer’s signature. They contained the same misinformation that we have heard from Mr. Jones for 18 months and that you have no doubt heard. He has made it necessary for us to distribute the enclosed handout “Top 10 Management Lies About the Night Shift.”

AFSCME members have voted not to meet with VP Schaffer, and I am bound by that decision. We feel that it is vital that we have a brief dialogue with you about this issue. Please afford us an opportunity to clarify any misconceptions that have prevented you from intervening to stop this move. We are sincerely interested in learning which of our arguments against this move you have found unpersuasive and why, so that we can provide you with additional information:

That this was tried 20 years ago and found to be too costly due to electricity and other expenses?

That the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends against night shift because of its well documented health effects?

That women will be in jeopardy alone in isolated buildings?

That this move was undertaken with no customer or staff input, no cost-benefit analysis, absolutely nothing to back up Mr. Jones’ claims of greater customer satisfaction and $250,000 cost savings (after 10% shift differential pay, electricity, absenteeism, and theft)?

We reported to you in our May 1 letter that Mr. Jones had denied us access to his files on this matter, in violation of the public records law, while informing his superiors that he had shared them with us. We believe that this constitutes Falsification of Records or Statements. A month after our January request, he finally responded by denying the existence of any calculations, studies (other than an AAU benchmarking study that

33

recommended reducing Building Services’ top-heavy administration), meeting minutes, email, or other correspondence (other than a reply to an earlier AFSCME records request) pertaining to the night shift. We believe that this constitutes either falsification or malfeasance. We received a response to the May 1 letter six weeks later, after I mentioned to Employee Relations that we had not received the records requested in it. However, the records still have not been received to date, in violation of the public records law. Last fall, we requested utility data for the night shift pilot project and were given records for the year ending three months before the pilot began. Since last year, we have been requesting the personnel database; we were finally told last month that the university charges a “standard fee” of $240 for any personnel data, in violation of the public records law. In April, we requested a copy of the university directory and were told that it was not available, in violation of the public records law.

We would appreciate it if you could spare us 15 minutes of your time prior to the planned August implementation of this move.

We look forward to hearing from you. I can be reached by telephone at 392-3900 and by email at share@afn.org.

Very truly yours,

Sharon BauerPresident

cc: Local 3340 Executive BoardA. Joseph Layon, M.D.

34

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 3:21 PMTo: larry-ellis@ufl.eduSubject: Personnel Data (fwd)

Larry, here's the message I sent to Robin in April. When Mark said it would take more than 8 hours to do this, I requested that they just copy the whole file, since that would take less time than writing a program that specified certain fields. I understand that the whole file would betoo large to mail, so we'd like it copied to CD or, preferably, to a web server for downloading. For home address, we need both street address and mailing address for the reasons I explained on the phone.

Thanks for your help,

Sharon

From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>Subject: RE: Personnel Data (fwd)Date sent: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:25:08 -0400

Thanks Sharon.

I get right on your request. Have a GREAT weekend!

Subject: Personnel Data Request -- S. Bauer, AFSCME Local 3340Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:49:27 -0400From: "Beachy, Mark" <mbeachy@ufl.edu>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>, "'share@afn.org'" <share@afn.org>, "'sbauer@ufl.edu'" <sbauer@ufl.edu>CC: "Thomas, Tom" <twthomas@ufl.edu>, "Velez, Irma" <ivelez@ufl.edu>, "Harris, Jean" <jharris3@ufl.edu>, "Hodge, Nancy" <nhodge@ufl.edu>

Larry,

Good Morning! This note is to confirm our conversation yesterday afternoonregarding the requested file. We will provide the following information inExcel spreadsheet format in last name alphabetic sort (A to Z). For allactive employees (status in Corp = Active) including OPS, Faculty, USPS andA&P and we will look at current assignments for all pay plans, but also lookat Faculty assignments for 9 and 10 month based on May dates. This will getcurrent faculty including those who are not working this summer.

Last NameFirst NameWork Location (Building/Room)Campus Mailing Address (PO Box, City, State, Zip)Work Phone

35

Home Mailing Address (Street, City, State, Zip)Home PhoneHire DateDepartmentClass CodeClass DateRaceSexEducational LevelAnnual Salary

When the program is developed, tested against test data and then run againstproduction and the file is finalized we will notify you via a follow-upemail. As indicated the charge for this job is $240.00 and when payment isreceived at 33 Tigert Hall we will email the results file to Sharon Bauer atthe following email address: sbauer@ufl.edu.

If I have overlooked any detail, please let me know. We will add this toour priority listing and begin working when resources are available,expected turn around should be less than two weeks.

Mark BeachyCoordinator, Computer Applications33 Tigert Hall PO Box 113275352-392-1285 Ext. 424 Suncom 622-1285mbeachy@ufl.edu

From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>Copies to: "Schaffer, Jerry" <jerrys@admin.ufl.edu>,

"Poppell, Ed"<Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>,"Thomas, Tom" <twthomas@ufl.edu>, "Beachy, Mark" <mbeachy@ufl.edu>,"Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>,"Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>

Subject: RE: Personnel Data Date sent: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:09:26 -0400

Good Morning Sharon:

Information Systems (IS) has completed the file you requested. The file has21,818 records. Upon receipt of the $240.00 charge for the information, ISwill email the information to your gatorlink account as requested. Thecheck should be made payable to University of Florida and delivered to theattention of Nancy Hodge in Room 33 Tigert Hall.

Thanks!

Larry

36

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 2:10 PMTo: Ellis, LarryCc: Schaffer, Jerry; Poppell, Ed; Thomas, Tom; Beachy, Mark; Czaplewski, Kim; Willits, BobSubject: RE: Personnel Data

Larry,

Thanks, but I'm very surprised to find that this job was completed without our agreeing to the $240 charge. I've repeatedly asked for a breakdown of the charge, which seems excessive since it can there can only be a charge if the use of technology resources is "extensive" and then can only include actual labor and computer time spent on the task of emailing existing files to us. We didn't ask you to generate anything for us that didn't exist. We asked that you simply provide us copies of the file or files you already have containing personnel data. The process of excluding confidential data from that copy is required by the Florida Administrative Code to be built into the system design and shouldn't involve "extensive" information resources that would justify any charges.

Sharon

37

From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>Copies to: "Schaffer, Jerry" <jerrys@admin.ufl.edu>,

"Poppell, Ed"<Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>,"Thomas, Tom" <twthomas@ufl.edu>, "Beachy, Mark" <mbeachy@ufl.edu>,"Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>,"Hodges, Lisa" <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>

Subject: RE: Personnel Data Date sent: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:25:00 -0400

Good Morning Sharon.

Per your request, the cost breakdown of the project are as follows:

> Rates> Coordinator Unburdened rate $24.00/hour> Programmer/Analyst Unburdened rate $12.00/hour> > Time> Coordinator 3 hrs.> Programmer/Analyst 8 hrs.> > CPU charges> Test Runs $30.00/run> Production Run $60.00/run> > Total -- Test 3@$30.00/run + 7hrs@$12.00 = $174.00> -- Prod 1@$60.00/run + 1hrs@$12.00 = $ 72.00> Admin/Quality Assurance 3hrs@24.00 = $ 72.00 > Project Total = $318.00> Obviously the $240 charge, which was originally shared with you, is lessthan the actual breakdown cost. Please submit either $240 or $318 toInformation Systems as instructed to receive the file.

Larry.

Insert Photocopy of August 31 Ed Poppell Memo

Date sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:15:17 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Copies to: afscme79@aol.comSubject: Records Requests

This is in response to your August 31 memo, which I received today.

1. Utility bills from fall 1998 to date--The records you provided arethrough November 1999. There's no utility data for the past ninemonths?

38

2. Night shift survey forms--You say that you've supplied the surveyformand the completed surveys for the only survey performed. That's nottrue.The only surveys we received were from customers. Building Servicesemployees were surveyed by the department in March or April about theirshift preferences. We still haven't received those forms despiteseveralrequests. If management's denying the existence of those forms, we canget affidavits from employees.

6. Half dozen or more files containing records on the shift change--Youclaim that I've already reviewed those files. That's not true. Irevieweda few documents that Dug Jones pulled from his files and put in aseparatefolder for that purpose. After seven months, we're still demanding thatall Building Services records pertaining to the shift change be madeavailable for inspection.

8. Personnel database--After the University responded to our originalrequest by saying that it would take at least 8 hours of labor to selectcertain fields, we said that we didn't want any selection done and thatwewanted the complete database copied to CD and would do our ownprogramming. Instead, they've copied partial information to a file andclaimed that it took 11 hours and cost $240. That isn't what werequested, and we certainly didn't authorize that work. In addition,they've apparently omitted information that employees requested not bereleased but that isn't exempted from Chapter 119, which is a violationofthe public records law. We requested the entire database, exclusive ofany exempt information. As for your letter to our Jacksonville officeasking that we "take responsibility for any misuse of this information,"we don't have to take responsibility for accepting public records inorderfor you comply with our request. The university continues to be inviolation of the law.

You also state that you're awaiting payment for the cost of producingprevious records. If you're referring to the $240 for copying thepersonnel database to CD, we didn't authorize the work that was done andhave no intention of paying for it, particularly since that data'snow out of date. We'll pay for the entire database when it's copied toCD, which should take a matter of minutes.

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00400000Message-ID: <3AC4FA58.3D8FD7FE@afn.org>Disposition-Notification-To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500

39

From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I)X-Accept-Language: enMIME-Version: 1.0To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>CC: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>,

"Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>, poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: Re: ReservationReferences: <F2AD0E101934D411A6A30020352AC6B242376C@mail.admin.ufl.edu>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-asciiContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kim,

Once again, the request was for all records that Employee Relations has pertaining to this altercation. The continual delaying tactics of referring us back to our union staff or pretending not to understand clear written requests constitute further violations of the public records law. The administration still has not complied with our long-standing requests for the personnel database, the email directory, and all records pertaining to appointment of the night shift committee, despite our repeated requests to the vice president, provost, president, and vice chancellor over the past 18 months. At a consultation last fall, our director advised the vice chancellor that AFSCME would take legal action if these records were not provided.

If, as you indicate, a suspension took place, then are you saying that you took disciplinary action before concluding your investigation?

If you contend that a requested record is exempt from inspection, then you are required by law to cite the specific statutory exemption, and you have not complied with the law. I am entitled to request that you state in writing the particular reasons for your conclusion that the exemption applies, and I am requesting that you do so.

Your response is also untimely, in that I requested these records well over a month ago. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that the only delay permitted "is the limited reasonable time allowed the custodian to retrieve the record and delete those portions of the record the custodian asserts are exempt." According to the AG's Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, "Any delay in production of the records beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances may subject the custodian to liability for failure to produce public records."

Again, I did not ask for Frank Bonham's records. It has been apparent to me for some time that UF administrators operate under the mistaken assumption that they can circumvent the members of the local union by refusing to deal with us and instead only dealing with our staff. Marc Brody and Frank Bonham have no authority over us whatsoever. We do not work for them; they work for us. They are resources that we can call upon when we feel the need. Other than with regard to certain grievance responsibilities that they have been delegated by our state president, they do not speak for our local except when we authorize them to. I have chosen to consult our union's general counsel on legal matters rather than our regional director, Marc.

I have just learned that we need additional records as well. Last year, non bargaining unit employees reportedly were allowed to vote on ratification of the contract because there was no list of eligible employees to check off. Since we have been advised that we need to vote again within the next two weeks, we would like to have a list of employees in the AFSCME bargaining unit as soon as possible, preferably with home addresses and telephone numbers. Also, once we know the times and locations, we will want to send an email announcement to your personnel newsletter list, whichever is easier.

40

Sharon

41

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:31:30 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: bob-willits@ufl.edu

I understand from Jerry Williamson that the administration'slatest excuse for its failure to comply with the publicrecords statute is an inability to comprehend what we wantdespite dozens of emails over the past two years.

Here's a copy of a message that was sent to you in July oflast year and one that was sent to Ed Poppell in September2000. There was no response to either.

Once again: we want the entire personnel database. When Ispoke to Mark Beachy last year, he indicated that it wasmade up of multiple files but that together they wouldn'texceed the size of a CD. Don't bother sending us anotheruseless 9-track tape like Ed Poppell did with the directory.The law requires it to be in a commonly used format.

I find it astounding that the university has not only a headof Employee Relations who doesn't understand what"bargaining unit" or "union" means, but a slew ofadministrators who don't understand what "entire personneldatabase file(s)" means and yet never bother to ask despitetheir statutory responsibility to provide the information.

Subject: RE:Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:07:04 -0400From: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>

Sharon, I have relayed your detailed information (below) to I.S. andaskedthem to give this their attention and let me know should they have anyquestions and otherwise of the timeframe and cost involved. We willensurethis moves as quickly as possible and that we put in an acceptableformat.

Bob WillitsAssociate DirectorUniversity Personnel Services

42

Phone: (352) 392-1075FAX: (352) 392-5495bob-willits@ufl.edu <mailto:bob-willits@ufl.edu>

Subject: Your Request for Data - Confirming DetailsDate: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:01:09 -0400From: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>

Sharon, as follow-up to our meeting last week and subsequent discussion withJerry Williamson as well as your e-mail this week, I have discussed yourrequest for data with Information Systems (I.S.). As you'll recall, aprevious request for this data by you over a year ago resulted in aninvestment by I.S. and University Personnel Services to produce what weunderstood to be sought but which you took issue with and never picked upnor paid for. Therefore, we need to confirm with you the specifics relatedto your request prior to finalizing the work.

1) Is your targeted population all faculty, A&P, USPS, and non-student OPS?If other than this, please let me know.

2) What format is acceptable to you? For example, is ascii text "*" fine byyou?

3) The information will include each employee's name, class title,department, campus phone number, campus address, home phone, and homeaddress. As discussed, we will not include information that is protectedunder 119.07, F.S. We are in the midst of seeking clarification of theapplicability of 119.07 to those employees who have previously requestedthat certain information be secured.

4) I.S. has indicated that the information described above can be placed ona CD or diskette(s). Do you have any preference?

5) I.S. has indicated that the information described above will involve acharge of $240.

Sharon, once you confirm the above details, I.S. will finalize productionand, upon receipt of your payment, provide the information to you. Thank youfor your assistance and feedback on the above details. I'll await your reply- Bob

Bob WillitsAssociate DirectorUniversity Personnel ServicesPhone: (352) 392-1075FAX: (352) 392-5495bob-willits@ufl.edu <mailto:bob-willits@ufl.edu>

43

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:52:13 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>Cc: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Subject: Re: Your Request for Data - Confirming Details

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Willits, Bob wrote:

> Sharon, as follow-up to our meeting last week and subsequent discussion with> Jerry Williamson as well as your e-mail this week, I have discussed your> request for data with Information Systems (I.S.). As you'll recall, a> previous request for this data by you over a year ago resulted in an> investment by I.S. and University Personnel Services to produce what we> understood to be sought but which you took issue with and never picked up> nor paid for. Therefore, we need to confirm with you the specifics related> to your request prior to finalizing the work.

Bob, you're merely providing us with further documentationof your contempt for the law. You didn't produce the wronginformation last year because you didn't understand; youproduced the wrong information because you don't want us tohave what we're legally entitled to. You refused to complywith our request then, and you're refusing to comply with itnow. You have all the information you need, it's beenprovided to you again and again, and your pretending not tounderstand has to be a delaying tactic because you can'tpossibly be that dense.

> 1) Is your targeted population all faculty, A&P, USPS, and non-student OPS?> If other than this, please let me know.

My request was, and has been for the past 18 months,crystal clear. We want the entire database.

> 2) What format is acceptable to you? For example, is ascii text "*" fine by> you?

ASCII text is fine.

> 3) The information will include each employee's name, class title,> department, campus phone number, campus address, home phone, and home> address. As discussed, we will not include information that is protected> under 119.07, F.S. We are in the midst of seeking clarification of the> applicability of 119.07 to those employees who have previously requested> that certain information be secured.

That's unacceptable. We want the entire database, not justselected fields. Furthermore, you're required by theFlorida Administrative Code to know what information isexempt from Ch. 119 before you create the database and tobuild the ability to redact it into the design of the

44

database. Your claim that, two years after we beganrequesting the data, you still don't know what's exempt isridiculous.

> 4) I.S. has indicated that the information described above can be placed on> a CD or diskette(s). Do you have any preference?

The information you described might fit on a diskette, butthe information we requested won't. I've told you manytimes, most recently 6 days ago, that we want it on a CD. A judge, even a reporter, will recognize this for thestalling that it is.

> 5) I.S. has indicated that the information described above will involve a> charge of $240.

That's illegal. Vendors may be stupid enough to buy yourstandard file (selected fields, excluding informationemployees prefer you not publish, regardless of whether it'sexempt by statute) for a standard fee, but we know better.You're not allowed to charge any fee unless the use oftechnology resources is excessive. Typing in a command tocopy a file, minus the exempt data, doesn't requireexcessive use of technology and certainly doesn't requirethe 11 hours of labor, two test runs, etc., that youprovided in response to our request for a breakdown of this"standard fee."

> Sharon, once you confirm the above details, I.S. will finalize production> and, upon receipt of your payment, provide the information to you. Thank you> for your assistance and feedback on the above details. I'll await your reply

Stop stalling, Bob. It's a criminal offense. We want theentire database, and if you can't provide proof that any ofit's exempt, you have to provide it. I sat through PamBernard's presentation to the trustees on the public recordslaw. I think they're going to find it hard to believe thatyou don't know as much about the law as they do. Yourfailure to comply with the law is a civil offense. Knowinglywithholding the information is a criminal offense.

Subject: RE: Your Request for Data - Confirming DetailsDate: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:36:42 -0500From: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>, "Steve Prevaux (E-mail)" <prevaux@ufl.edu>

Sharon, please accept this in response to your e-mail sent from AFSCME onThursday, 10/25/01 (below). While I realize that we may have some points ofissue to work through, I would hope that personal attacks and negative tonecan be avoided in the future as we seek a productive and professional

45

relationship.

We are pleased to make records available to you that are not exempt under119.07, Florida Statutes, and have investigated further details involvingthe information that you seek. We can indeed provide the personnel databaseinformation that includes, among other data, employee name, addresses,telephone numbers, dates of hire, class date, education level, homedepartment, assignment/salary information, etc.

As we previously discussed, any information currently secured asexempted from production under 119.07 is being reviewed to ensure that it isproperly maintained. Should we find any information secured that is noteligible for this exemption, we will produce that data as well.

Please understand that the university as a state agency is the responsiblecustodian of personnel records entrusted to its care. Thus, we cannotprovide information from our database that has been exempted from the publicrecord such as social security numbers of former and current employees given119.07(3)(x) F.S., home address and phone numbers of former or active lawenforcement officers given 119.07(3)(i) F.S., the names and addresses ofretirees given 121.031(5) F.S., and federal tax information given 192.105(1)F.S. The reality is that such exempt information is contained in therecords you demand and we have an obligation to make appropriate redactionsbefore production.

I think you already realize that patient records and medical information arealso exempted from the public record given 119.07(v) F.S., although thereshould not be much, if any, such information codified in the records youseek.

We are advised by I.S. that the time needed to produce this information inASCII text on a CD will be approximately two days. The cost is projected tobe approximately $240, but in keeping with the spirit of 119.07(1)(b), costwill be itemized and may end up being less than the estimated $240 andreflective only of reasonable costs incurred by the University for extensiveuse of information technology resources and the clerical assistance requiredto produce records in response to your request for the entire database.

Upon receiving your confirmation that you are agreeable to payment based onthe above, we will advise I.S. to begin production immediately. You thenwill be contacted when the CD is ready and may pick it up upon submission ofyour check not to exceed $240.

Sharon, we look forward to completing work on your request in good faith andin full compliance of the Florida Statutes. I will await your reply - Bob

Bob WillitsAssociate DirectorUniversity Personnel ServicesPhone: (352) 392-1075FAX: (352) 392-5495

46

bob-willits@ufl.edu <mailto:bob-willits@ufl.edu>

Subject: Re: Your Request for Data - Confirming DetailsDate: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:37:44 -0500From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>CC: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>,"Steve Prevaux (E-mail)" <prevaux@ufl.edu>

"Willits, Bob" wrote:

> Sharon, please accept this in response to your e-mail sent from AFSCME on> Thursday, 10/25/01 (below). While I realize that we may have some points of> issue to work through, I would hope that personal attacks and negative tone> can be avoided in the future as we seek a productive and professional> relationship.

Until the administration conducts itself in a *productive* and professional way,we will find it necessary to continue to make factual observations regardingstaff performance.

> We are pleased to make records available to you that are not exempt under> 119.07, Florida Statutes, and have investigated further details involving> the information that you seek. We can indeed provide the personnel database> information that includes, among other data, employee name, addresses,> telephone numbers, dates of hire, class date, education level, home > department, assignment/salary information, etc.

You are not pleased, and saying that you are is not conducive to a professionalrelationship with AFSCME. Of course you "can indeed provide the personneldatabase information." You could and should have provided it two yearsago.

You have heretofore refused to provide all of the data, only selected fields inyour standard file that you sell for a standard fee. Please confirm that you arereferring to all of the files that comprise the employee database. I no longerhave access to the manual listing those files and the fields they contain.Please have IS fax me a copy of those pages. I will email the fax numbertomorrow.

> As we previously discussed, any information currently secured as> exempted from production under 119.07 is being reviewed to ensure that it is> properly maintained. Should we find any information secured that is not> eligible for this exemption, we will produce that data as well.

That is not what we previously discussed. What we discussed is that you hadsecurity flags based on employee privacy preference that bore no relation toexemption from the statute. You claimed that you did not know what informationwas exempt, and that you would provide only information that employees had notasked be kept private. You are required to know what is exempt when creating thedatabase. According to the AG's manual, "design and development of the

47

software, therefore, should ensure that the system has the capability ofredacting confidential or exempt information when a public records request ismade." On October 19 we asked that you at least provide the information you knowto be public, and you still have not complied.

> Please understand that the university as a state agency is the responsible> custodian of personnel records entrusted to its care.

Please understand that you are continuing to insult my intelligence.

> Thus, we cannot> provide information from our database that has been exempted from the public> record such as social security numbers of former and current employees given> 119.07(3)(x) F.S., home address and phone numbers of former or active law> enforcement officers given 119.07(3)(i) F.S., the names and addresses of> retirees given 121.031(5) F.S., and federal tax information given 192.105(1)> F.S. The reality is that such exempt information is contained in the> records you demand and we have an obligation to make appropriate redactions> before production.

Neither requesting nor demanding has persuaded you to comply with yourstatutory obligation, which is as follows :

"A person who has custody of a public record and who asserts that anexemption provided in subsection (3) or in a general or special law applies to aparticular public record or part of such record shall delete or excise from the record only that portion of the record with respect to which an exemption hasbeen asserted and validly applies, and such person shall produce the remainderof such record for inspection and examination. If the person who has custody ofa public record contends that the record or part of it is exempt from inspectionand examination, he or she shall state the basis of the exemption which he orshe contends is applicable to the record, including the statutory citation to anexemption created or afforded by statute."

It has taken you two years to redact exempt information although you arerequired to build that capability into the design of the database. According tothe manual, "Any delay in production of the records beyond what is reasonableunder the circumstances may subject the custodian to liability for failure toproduce public records." According to the statute, "Any public officer whoviolates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a noncriminal infraction,punishable by fine not exceeding $500...Any person willfully and knowinglyviolating any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor ofthe first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083" ["adefinite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year"].

> I think you already realize that patient records and medical information are> also exempted from the public record given 119.07(v) F.S., although there> should not be much, if any, such information codified in the records you> seek.

Regardless of how much exempt information is contained in the records, you are48

required to build in a way to easily redact it.

> We are advised by I.S. that the time needed to produce this information in> ASCII text on a CD will be approximately two days. The cost is projected to> be approximately $240, but in keeping with the spirit of 119.07(1)(b), cost> will be itemized and may end up being less than the estimated $240 and> reflective only of reasonable costs incurred by the University for extensive> use of information technology resources and the clerical assistance required> to produce records in response to your request for the entire database.

Your "standard fee" of $240 is illegal. "The charge must be reasonable and basedon the labor or computer costs actually incurred by the agency." The laborinvolved for this request should be five minutes, and the computer costs shouldbe under $25. "An agency may not charge fees designed to recoup the originalcost of developing or producing the records," and the cost of redactingconfidential information is a development cost that you cannot pass on to us. We will pay your fee under duress, challenge it, and get a refund since it takesneither extensive technology resources nor extensive clerical assistance to copyfiles.

> Upon receiving your confirmation that you are agreeable to payment based on> the above, we will advise I.S. to begin production immediately. You then> will be contacted when the CD is ready and may pick it up upon submission of> your check not to exceed $240.

When you confirm that you are providing all of the data, then we will pay underduress.

> Sharon, we look forward to completing work on your request in good faith and> in full compliance of the Florida Statutes. I will await your reply- Bob

We also look forwarding to your completing this request at long last. Ademonstration of good faith would be to provide the requested informationimmediately at a reasonable cost. You have not produced one single piece ofpaper in response to the 20 public records violations we attempted to discusswith you at the October 19 consultation meeting.

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:17:27 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>Subject: Re: Your Request for Data - Confirming Details

The fax number is 332-4648.

Insert LARRY ELLIS CONSULTATION RESPONSE

Subject: Personnel Data CDDate: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:29:36 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'share@afn.org'" <share@afn.org>

49

CC:"'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>

Sharon BauerAFSCME President, Local 3340

Information Systems (I.S.) has completed work on your public records request for the personneldata base, and has all available information on a CD ready for you to pick up. As was discussedin our consultation meeting of October 18, 2001, and subsequently in Bob Willits' e-mailof October 31, 2001, to you, any information currently secured as exempted form productionunder 119.07, F.S. is being reviewed to ensure that it is properly maintained. Should we find anyinformation that is not eligible for this exemption, we will produce that data as well at no additional cost to you.

As Bob also referenced in that same e-mail to you, an itemized accounting of actual productioncosts was kept for this project. The total staff and computer time required totaled $756.57. However, in the spirit of improved relations with Local 3340, we are willing to assess only $240 on this occasion. Any future projects will need to be billed based on actual production expense.

You may pick up the CD in I.S. (33 Tigert) between 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday (except this coming Monday, a holiday) upon submitting a check for $240 to I.S. payable to the University of Florida.

Cordially,

Larry T. Ellis, DirectorUniversity Personnel Services

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:36 PMTo: Ellis, LarryCc: 'prevaux@ufl.edu'Subject: Re: Personnel Data CD

In my October 31 email to Bob Willits, I said:

"You have heretofore refused to provide all of the data, only selected fields in your standard file that you sell for a standard fee. Please confirm that you are referring to all of the files that comprise the employee database...Please have IS fax me [the list of the files and the fields they contain]...When you confirm that you are providing all of the data, then we will pay under duress."

We will be happy to pick up this CD when you tell us what we are paying $240 for.

Also, please provide us with a breakdown of the $756.57 charge.

Subject: RE: Personnel Data CDDate: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:14:22 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>

50

Ms Bauer:

Per your email request, a "list of the files and the fields they contain" has been faxed (332-4648)to your attention this morning.

"A breakdown of the $756.57 charge" from Information Systems is as follows:* $422.37 Staff Time - 19+ hours @ $22.23 per hour (Tim Schnelle, Coordinator - ComputerApplications);* $59.20 Staff Time - 4 hours @ $14.80 per hour (Bryan Cooke, Computer Programmer -Analyst); and* $275.00 Computer Time.

Larry T. Ellis, DirectorUniversity Personnel Services

Insert LIST OF FIELDS FROM IS

Insert LIST OF FIELDS FROM MANUAL

Subject: Personnel RecordsDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:21:07 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: larry-ellis@ufl.eduCC: poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu

We have examined the list of fields that you faxed to me asthose included on the CD you prepared for us (withoutauthorization) at a purported cost of $756.67 ($422.37 for23+ hours of labor and $275 for computer time). Contrary toyour assertion in your November 9 email that the CD contains"all available information," it contains only 159 of the 845data elements in the payroll/personnel system. Fields suchas Collective Bargaining Unit have been inexplicablyexcluded, in violation of Chapter 119. Please provide uswith copies of the programs used to generate the file(s).

Also, at our October 19 consultation meeting, you informedus that your department had finally (two years after ouroriginal request) begun the process of determining which ofthe cloaked data was exempt. Please provide us with any andall records pertaining to these efforts.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

Subject: RE: Personnel RecordsDate: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:41:05 -0500

51

From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>,"Thomas, Tom" <twthomas@ufl.edu>

Attached, please find communications pertaining to the Public RecordsExemption Project.

Pursuant to your reference on the data elements, other than the one youspecified (collective bargaining unit), Information Systems is not aware ofany missing information that is personnel related. However, if you wouldplease enumerate exactly what those missing data elements are, we will beglad to furnish the information.

By copy, I am asking IS for "copies of the programs used to generate thefile(s)."

Lastly, you characterized the production of records (CD) as unauthorized. Areview of your 11/12/01 and 10/25/01 emails disclosed that the CD format waswhat you demanded. Thus, please also consider this communication as aSecond Invoice for $240. The check should be made payable to the Universityof Florida. Upon receipt of the check, the CD may be picked-up inInformation Systems (33 Tigert) between 8:00am and 5:00pm.

Larry EllisDirector, Division of Human Resources

> -----Original Message-----> From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:21 PM> To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu> Cc: poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu> Subject: Personnel Records> > > We have examined the list of fields that you faxed to me as> those included on the CD you prepared for us (without> authorization) at a purported cost of $756.67 ($422.37 for> 23+ hours of labor and $275 for computer time). Contrary to> your assertion in your November 9 email that the CD contains> "all available information," it contains only 159 of the 845> data elements in the payroll/personnel system. Fields such> as Collective Bargaining Unit have been inexplicably> excluded, in violation of Chapter 119. Please provide us

52

> with copies of the programs used to generate the file(s).> > Also, at our October 19 consultation meeting, you informed> us that your department had finally (two years after our> original request) begun the process of determining which of> the cloaked data was exempt. Please provide us with any and> all records pertaining to these efforts.> > Sharon Bauer> President, AFSCME Local 3340> >

Letter to Employees (119.07) 12-7-01.docMemo to TKL Administrators (119.07) 12-12-01.doc

Subject: Re: FW: Personnel RecordsDate: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:07:41 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>CC: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Ms. Bauer:> > I have received an opinion from the General Counsel's Office regarding your> request for "copies of the programs used to generate the file(s)."> Accordingly, agency-produced data processing software contains sensitive> source code information which is not subject to disclosure, and exempt from> Section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes.

(1) Your response is as usual untimely as this informationwas requested five weeks ago. You are once again inviolation of Chapter 119.

(2) I would think that the General Counsel's office would be53

aware and would have advised you (as I have many times inthe past) that, if you assert that a statutory exemption todisclosure applies, then you are required to include thestatutory citation to the exemption, delete or excise onlythat portion to which it validly applies, and produce theremainder. Your failure to do so is yet another violationof the statute. In addition, you are required to state "inwriting and with particularity" the reasons for theconclusion that the record is exempt, should we request it,and we do.

(3) "Sensitive" is defined in Chapter 119 as those portionsof programs that are used to collect, process, store, andretrieve exempt information. The programs in question areused to retrieve nonexempt information. This exemption doesnot apply, and your failure to provide this publicinformation is yet another violation of the statute.

> To date, the University of Florida has incurred substantial costs to produce> volumes of records that has been repeatedly made available for AFSCME's> inspection and retrieval. Thus, please also consider the communication on> this date as the 3rd invoice for $240.

Please consider this a refusal to pay, no matter how manyinvoices you send us. The information you have madeavailable is not what we requested, and we did not authorizeits production or agree to pay for it.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Attached, please find communications pertaining to the Public Records> Exemption Project.

This response was also untimely, as our request had beenmade two weeks earlier. You told us on several occasions inOctober that you had finally (two years after our originalrequest) begun the process of identifying which personnelrecords were exempt. We requested documentation of thoseefforts, and two weeks later you tell us that there isnone--not a single mention of this so-called "project" inagendas, minutes, notes, correspondence--prior to these twoDecember memos. Incredible.

> Pursuant to your reference on the data elements, other than the one you> specified (collective bargaining unit), Information Systems is not aware of> any missing information that is personnel related. However, if you would> please enumerate exactly what those missing data elements are, we will be> glad to furnish the information.

Given your statutory responsibility, I would think that bynow you would have already compared the list of 159 included

54

fields that you faxed to me and the list of 845 dataelements in the payroll/personnel database to see what ismissing. Like bargaining unit, most are clearly "personnelrelated." We requested the entire database, and I have noobligation to tell you why we want all 845 elements in it orwhat they are. You, on the other hand, are legally requiredto justify your withholding them. Your continuedwithholding of this public information is why we are seekingnot only civil but criminal penalties.

> By copy, I am asking IS for "copies of the programs used to generate the> file(s)."

Again, your response is untimely in that you did not evenforward the request to IS until more than two weeks afterreceiving it.

> Lastly, you characterized the production of records (CD) as unauthorized. A> review of your 11/12/01 and 10/25/01 emails disclosed that the CD format was> what you demanded. Thus, please also consider this communication as a> Second Invoice for $240. The check should be made payable to the University> of Florida. Upon receipt of the check, the CD may be picked-up in> Information Systems (33 Tigert) between 8:00am and 5:00pm.

A review of my 10/31/01 email discloses that I refused toauthorize production of the CD when asked to do so by BobWillits. I said that we would not agree to pay withoutconfirmation that, unlike the CD you tried to foist off onus last year, this one would contain what we have beenrequesting for two years: the entire personnel databaseminus exempt data. The list of fields you faxed to me inresponse showed that the CD contains only a fraction of whatwe requested. We consider that CD, like your invoices forit, to be rubbish.

> Larry Ellis> Director, Division of Human Resources

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

Subject: RE: FW: Personnel RecordsDate: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:51:44 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>CC:

55

"Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Ms. Bauer:> > Section 119.07(3)(o) Florida Statutes states:> Data processing software obtained by an agency under a licensing agreement> which prohibits its disclosure and which software is a trade secret, as> defined in Section 812.081, (Florida Statutes), and agency-produced data> processing software which is sensitive are exempt from the provision of> subsection (1) and Section 24(a), Article l of the State Constitution.> > According to an attorney general opinion (AGO 90-102):> If the software used is licensed to the University, section 119.07(3)(o)> exempts from disclosure and copying data processing software which is> obtained by the University pursuant to a licensing agreement which prohibits> its disclosure and which software is a trade secret.

That's ridiculous. If you type a document in Word, youcan't withhold the resulting document because licensedsoftware was used to create it. You have to provide therequester a copy of the document, not Word. You claim thatyour staff spent 23 hours writing programs to copy thesepublic records to a CD. We're not asking you for SAS,COBOL, SQL, or whatever other software was used to write andrun the programs. We want the resulting agency-producedprograms, which are neither licensed nor sensitive. Youneed to use the licensed software to print out a copy ofthose programs. You still haven't complied with therequirement that you state specifically how this exemptionapplies. What licensed software are you claiming that youcan't provide to us?

> Regarding the communications pertaining to the Public Records Exemption> Project, I was on annual leave December 14th through December 27th. Thus,> your request of December 13th was responded to on December 28th.> > Larry T. Ellis

I find it hard to believe that you don't check your mailwhile you're on vacation or have it forwarded to someoneelse to be handled in your absence, that it's just ignoredwhenever you're out of the office. That's a very odd way todo business and certainly isn't how it's done in any officeI've ever worked in.

This is a public records request to view (1) all messages56

you received during your vacation and (2) all replies tothose messages. In lieu of providing those records forreview, you could just admit that other mail was read andresponded to during that period if that is in fact the case.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

No response as of 5/9/02

57

ATTACHMENT 9

From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: kew, cyl, lhodgesSubject: Alex TrappBCC to: share@afn.orgDate sent: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:48:18 -0400

As part of the investigation of a grievance on behalf of Alex Trapp, I am requesting copies of any and all records that you have pertaining to the incident that happened at her workplace on January 4 with a coworker--including but not limited to any notes of conversations, signed statements, and police reports. Please mail them to my attention at Box 100152. Thank you.

From: "Lisa D Hodges" <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Organization: VPHA, University of FloridaTo: "Sharon Bauer" <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:02:36 -0400Subject: Re: Alex TrappCopies to: Jerry Kendell Davis <JKD@vpha.health.ufl.edu>,

KEW@vpha.health.ufl.edu,cyl@vpha.health.ufl.edu

Priority: normal

Sharon I've checked with Clement Lindsey who indicates that he only has duplicates of all the documents provided to me. Kathy Ward does not haveany documents relating to this matter. Therefore, the charges associatedwith this request will be $1.95 for 13 pages at $.15 a copy. Please provide cash payment to our office or make your check payable to the University of Florida. Your request will be available for immediate pickfrom office upon payment. Although you have requested to have the package sent through campus mail, please know that I can not assure successful delivery and will not be responsible for any problems/delays. If you would still like me to send it through campus mail, pleaseconfirm.

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu]Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 2:10 PMTo: kim-c@ufl.eduSubject: (Fwd) Re: Alex Trapp

Kim,

In all my years of requesting records from half a dozen different state agencies, I've NEVER before had one demand payment in advance or refuse to mail records because they "can not assure successful delivery." Usually, an agency will mail a bill with the records. Is it UF policy torequire payment in advance for all records requests, even for a $1.95 request from someone who makes them regularly? When attorneys request

58

records, are they told that they have to pay in advance and pick the records up in person? How much would it cost to have the 13 pages faxedto the AFSCME office?

Sharon

From: Czaplewski, Kim[SMTP:kim-c@ufl.edu]Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 4:37 PMTo: 'Sharon Bauer'Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: Alex Trapp

I will talk to Lisa about this and she will get back with you. Thanks forbringing it to my attention.

Kimberly M. CzaplewskiAssistant DirectorUniversity Personnel ServicesPhone: 352-392-1072Fax: 352-392-7991

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu]Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 8:59 AMTo: kim-c@ufl.eduSubject: (Fwd) Alex Trapp

Kim, I don't believe an employee has to pay for records from their file in connection with a grievance, and I'm requesting a refund of the $1.95 that I was required to pay for them.

Sharon

From: Czaplewski, Kim[SMTP:kim-c@ufl.edu]Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 2:14 PMTo: 'Sharon Bauer'Subject: RE: (Fwd) Alex Trapp

Actually we charge employees for any copies that we make for them,regardless of the subject matter. Therefore, we will not be able to giveyou a refund.

Kimberly M. CzaplewskiAssistant DirectorUniversity Personnel ServicesPhone: 352-392-1072Fax: 352-392-7991

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu]59

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 1:28 PMTo: Czaplewski, KimSubject: RE: (Fwd) Alex Trapp

Actually, I know that's not true. Therefore, we'll be grieving it.

From: Czaplewski, Kim[SMTP:kim-c@ufl.edu]Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 3:35 PMTo: 'Sharon Bauer'Subject: RE: (Fwd) Alex Trapp

You are certainly free to file a grievance.

If you would like to give me your examples ahead of time to explore, I wouldappreciate it.

Kimberly M. CzaplewskiAssistant DirectorUniversity Personnel ServicesPhone: 352-392-1072Fax: 352-392-7991

From: Czaplewski, Kim[SMTP:kim-c@ufl.edu]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 4:05 PMTo: 'Sharon Bauer'Subject: Copy Costs

Sharon,

I apologize for the delay in response. We are in the process of developinga policy on charging for copies to ensure consistency throughout thedivision.

I believe the amount of refund you are requesting is $1.95? If that is thecorrect amount, I will investigate the fastest way to refund the money toyou.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Kimberly M. CzaplewskiUniversity Personnel Services

60

ATTACHMENT 10

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:49 PMTo: dugjones@ufl.eduSubject: URL

Dug,

Here's the URL for the report by the Congressional Office of TechnologyAssessment: http://www.ota.nap.edu/pdf/data/1991/9108.PDF

We were very disappointed that you didn't comply with our January 26request to review your file on the planned switch to night shift at ourmeeting yesterday. I wonder, based on your repeated efforts to get us tospecify certain documents so that you could copy those for us, if perhapsyou're just not aware of the responsibilities of a records custodian underthe public records law. A person who has custody of a public record mustpermit the record to be inspected and examined by any person desiring todo so. Requestors are allowed to make broad requests and can't berequired to specify the documents they want to see, since they may notknow what documents exist. If you didn't understand what we wanted basedon my original letter, you're required to promptly notify the requestorthat more information is needed. We want to see all public records thatyou have pertaining to the proposed switch of Building Services staff tonight shift, as well as the survey responses from last October's employeesurvey and any surveys you've done of other universities. "Publicrecords" means all papers, letters, notes, e-mails, anything made orreceived in the transaction of official business that's not specificallyexempted from the public records law. If you contend that any of therecords are exempt, you're required to state the exemption that applies,redact that portion, and produce the remainder of that document. TheFlorida Supreme Court has said that the only delay permitted under Ch.119, F.S., "is the limited reasonable time allowed the custodian toretrieve the record." Therefore, we hope to be able to review theserecords in the very near future.

Sharon

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:42:16 -0500From: "Jones, Dug" <dugjones@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Cc: "O'Brien, David" <daveob@ufl.edu>,"Sherry Larson (E-mail)" <slarson@ppd.ufl.edu>,"'kimc@ufl.edu'" <kimc@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: URL

Ms.Bauer,

Your characterization of what occurred yesterday as a refusal or failure to61

comply with a request for information is ridiculous. As I explained veryclearly to you yesterday......I do not currently maintain a single filetitled "night shift". My filing system is a great deal more specific thanthe broad designation that you are anticipating. I have offered to provideyou any and everything that I have associated with the planned shift change.Quite simply the information has to be gathered from a half dozen or morefiles/locations. I have begun compiling the information into one folderwhich I will happily name "night shift" if that better meets yourexpectations.

I have a law degree from the University of Florida and understand quitesatisfactorily my obligations under the relevant statute. In fact, themajority of the information that you have requested has already beenprovided to union personnel. First, two years ago when the first group wasmoved to nights and more recently following the meeting requested by MarioRivera (and Frank Bonham).

I will contact you when my support staff has had the opportunity to locateand compile the information that have requested.

Sincerely,Dug JonesAsst. Dir./PPD

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:21:13 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Jones, Dug" <dugjones@ufl.edu>Cc: jerrys@admin.ufl.eduSubject: RE: URL

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Jones, Dug wrote:

> Ms.Bauer,> > Your characterization of what occurred yesterday as a refusal or failure to> comply with a request for information is ridiculous. As I explained very> clearly to you yesterday......I do not currently maintain a single file> titled "night shift". My filing system is a great deal more specific than> the broad designation that you are anticipating. I have offered to provide> you any and everything that I have associated with the planned shift change.> Quite simply the information has to be gathered from a half dozen or more> files/locations. I have begun compiling the information into one folder> which I will happily name "night shift" if that better meets your> expectations.

In January, we asked to meet with you to discuss the proposed shift changeand to review your file on that issue at the meeting. In particular, weasked to see "the data which led you to conclude that you will be able toincrease coverage to 25,000 sq. ft. per custodian as a result of thischange." When we met on February 14, you produced no records for us to

62

review. Your stated reason was that the records were not in a "file" butin multiple files. You did not offer to provide those files. You offeredto provide copies of any documents we could specifically name. Weinsisted on seeing the files, and you agreed to produce them at some latertime. To date, you have produced no records for our review. You considerthis to be timely compliance with our request. We disagree.

> I have a law degree from the University of Florida and understand quite> satisfactorily my obligations under the relevant statute. In fact, the> majority of the information that you have requested has already been> provided to union personnel. First, two years ago when the first group was> moved to nights and more recently following the meeting requested by Mario> Rivera (and Frank Bonham).

The fact that some of these records were viewed by some other people atsome other time is irrelevant to our request.

A year ago, Associate General Counsel Steve Prevaux was claiming that anemployee's departmental personnel file was the supervisor's "personal"file that didn't have to be shown to the employee, a position subsequentlydetermined to be incorrect. Clearly, possession of a law degree is notsynonymous with possession of knowledge of the relevant statute.

> I will contact you when my support staff has had the opportunity to locate> and compile the information that have requested.

Again, we hope to review these records in the very near future.

> Sincerely,> Dug Jones> Asst. Dir./PPD

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Jones, Dug wrote:

Ms. Bauer,

The information will be available by the end of this week. How about Fridayat 9am in the Building Services administrative office (Bldg 703, room 101)?

Dug Jones

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:56:30 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Jones, Dug" <dugjones@ufl.edu>Subject: Re: access to files

Sometime in the early afternoon would be better for me.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Jones, Dug wrote:

63

I'm out Friday afternoon. How about Tuesday at 9am? or do you need it to beafternoon independant of which day it is?

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 11:54 AMTo: Jones, DugSubject: RE: access to files

I'd prefer to do it on my lunch hour, which is usually from 1-2. Isn'tthere someone else who can do this in your absence?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Jones, Dug wrote:

I'd prefer to do it myself in case you have questions or additional needs. Ican be available between 1 and 2pm on either monday (2/28) or thursday(3/2).

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:01:54 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Jones, Dug" <dugjones@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: access to files

Although I believe this is an additional unnecessary and illegal delay,apparently it will have to be Monday.

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:30:33 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduCc: Colburn@aa.ufl.eduSubject: RE: URL (fwd)

In February, we asked to review these "half dozen or more files"containing records on the shift change. They haven't been produced todate. Instead, Dug Jones selected from those files four records we'dalready seen and one we'd specifically requested at the Februaryconsultation. He denied the existence of any calculations, studies (otherthan an AAU benchmarking study that recommended reducing Building Services’topheavy administration), meeting minutes, or correspondence (other than areply to an earlier AFSCME records request) pertaining to the shift. Wereported this to Pres. Young in May and June. We still want to review allrecords to date excluding those already provided.

Sharon

---------- Forwarded message ----------Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:21:13 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>

64

To: "Jones, Dug" <dugjones@ufl.edu>Cc: jerrys@admin.ufl.eduSubject: RE: URL

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Jones, Dug wrote:

> Ms.Bauer,> > Your characterization of what occurred yesterday as a refusal or failure to> comply with a request for information is ridiculous. As I explained very> clearly to you yesterday......I do not currently maintain a single file> titled "night shift". My filing system is a great deal more specific than> the broad designation that you are anticipating. I have offered to provide> you any and everything that I have associated with the planned shift change.> Quite simply the information has to be gathered from a half dozen or more> files/locations. I have begun compiling the information into one folder> which I will happily name "night shift" if that better meets your> expectations.

In January, we asked to meet with you to discuss the proposed shift changeand to review your file on that issue at the meeting. In particular, weasked to see "the data which led you to conclude that you will be able toincrease coverage to 25,000 sq. ft. per custodian as a result of thischange." When we met on February 14, you produced no records for us toreview. Your stated reason was that the records were not in a "file" butin multiple files. You did not offer to provide those files. You offeredto provide copies of any documents we could specifically name. Weinsisted on seeing the files, and you agreed to produce them at some latertime. To date, you have produced no records for our review. You considerthis to be timely compliance with our request. We disagree.

> I have a law degree from the University of Florida and understand quite> satisfactorily my obligations under the relevant statute. In fact, the> majority of the information that you have requested has already been> provided to union personnel. First, two years ago when the first group was> moved to nights and more recently following the meeting requested by Mario> Rivera (and Frank Bonham).

The fact that some of these records were viewed by some other people atsome other time is irrelevant to our request.

A year ago, Associate General Counsel Steve Prevaux was claiming that anemployee's departmental personnel file was the supervisor's "personal"file that didn't have to be shown to the employee, a position subsequentlydetermined to be incorrect. Clearly, possession of a law degree is notsynonymous with possession of knowledge of the relevant statute.

> I will contact you when my support staff has had the opportunity to locate> and compile the information that have requested.

Again, we hope to review these records in the very near future.65

> Sincerely,> Dug Jones> Asst. Dir./PPD

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:17:58 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: colburn@aa.ufl.eduCc: blackwec@borfl.org, afscme79@aol.comSubject: RE: Custodians (fwd)

On 8/18 and again on 8/21 I asked that you provide me with copies of thememos that had been distributed regarding your committee to study thenight shift. I've received no response to my emails requesting thoserecords. I haven't received any of the many other records that I'verequested in writing at various times since April from you, JerrySchaffer, Ed Poppell, and Pres. Young. I still haven't received theoriginal committee memos, and I understand that another one has come outannouncing the appointment of members. Please email me or fax me copiesof all of the DDD memos on this committee as soon as possible.

Sharon Bauer

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:15:17 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Cc: afscme79@aol.comSubject: Records Requests

This is in response to your August 31 memo, which I received today.

1. Utility bills from fall 1998 to date--The records you provided arethrough November 1999. There's no utility data for the past ninemonths?

2. Night shift survey forms--You say that you've supplied the survey formand the completed surveys for the only survey performed. That's not true.The only surveys we received were from customers. Building Servicesemployees were surveyed by the department in March or April about theirshift preferences. We still haven't received those forms despite severalrequests. If management's denying the existence of those forms, we canget affidavits from employees.

6. Half dozen or more files containing records on the shift change--Youclaim that I've already reviewed those files. That's not true. I revieweda few documents that Dug Jones pulled from his files and put in a separatefolder for that purpose. After seven months, we're still demanding thatall Building Services records pertaining to the shift change be madeavailable for inspection.

8. Personnel database--After the University responded to our original66

request by saying that it would take at least 8 hours of labor to selectcertain fields, we said that we didn't want any selection done and that wewanted the complete database copied to CD and would do our ownprogramming. Instead, they've copied partial information to a file andclaimed that it took 11 hours and cost $240. That isn't what werequested, and we certainly didn't authorize that work. In addition,they've apparently omitted information that employees requested not bereleased but that isn't exempted from Chapter 119, which is a violation ofthe public records law. We requested the entire database, exclusive ofany exempt information. As for your letter to our Jacksonville officeasking that we "take responsibility for any misuse of this information,"we don't have to take responsibility for accepting public records in orderfor you comply with our request. The university continues to be inviolation of the law.

You also state that you're awaiting payment for the cost of producingprevious records. If you're referring to the $240 for copying thepersonnel database to CD, we didn't authorize the work that was done andhave no intention of paying for it, particularly since that data'snow out of date. We'll pay for the entire database when it's copied toCD, which should take a matter of minutes.

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:13:08 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Subject: Public Records

I received a letter from you yesterday stating, "We again offer yourreview of all files regarding the shift change."

In fact, the university has never offered such a review, although we havebeen demanding to see the files since January. Last month, Dug Jonesfalsely claimed at a meeting with BOR representatives that he had alreadyproduced for our review a "six-inch-thick stack" of documents. We want tosee this six-inch stack of documents as soon as possible--as well as anyother documents that have been generated since he showed me aless-than-one-inch stack of documents in March. If the University isgoing to comply with the law at long last, then when and where can wereview these files?

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:30:54 -0400From: "O'Brien, David" <daveob@ufl.edu>To: "'share@afn.org'" <share@afn.org>Cc: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "Walker, Pam"<pwalker@ufl.edu>Subject: FW: Public Records

Ms Bauer. Ed Poppell asked me to contact you with regard to your request toreview the documents we have regarding the Building Services night shift

67

work. I have in my office the stack of documents Dug reffered to. You arewelcome to come review and make copies of them. Please contact myAdministrative Assistant, Pam Walker at 392-1141 or pwalker@ufl.edu to makethe arrangements. Dave O'Brien

From: jerry [mailto:jerryw@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU]Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:49 AMTo: daveob@ufl.edu; poppell@admin.ufl.edu; pwalker@ppd.ufl.edu;sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.eduSubject: documents request

I am sending this mail to confirm our telephone conversationyesterday in which I requested to see the documents related to thecustodial workers night shift. I am disappointed that you did not notifyme of an appropriate time when I can review this material before I leftwork at 5 P.M.The issue of review of these documents was discussed during theconsultation with the Board of Regents in Tallahassee at which you werepresent. You have advised Interim Vice President Poppell that thesedocuments were available for review by contacting your AdministrativeAssistant, Ms. Pam Walker, at 3921141. I was surprised when after makingmy request that neither Ms. Walker nor you would would schedule anappointment for me. Since the only delay that the Florida Public Recordslaw allows for is the time needed to assemble the documents, I do notunderstand why you are now delaying my review of these documents.I reiterate my request to review all of the records in yourpossession relating to the custodial workers night shift. I expect thatyou will contact me as soon as possible to inform me of a suitable time.I can be reached at work at 392-1991 ext. 242 or by e-mail atjerryw@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2000 15:26:54 -0400From: "O'Brien, David" <daveob@ufl.edu>To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>,"Subject: Re: FW: documents request Copies to: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "Walker, Pam" <pwalker@ufl.edu>

Ms Bauer......Mr Williams called yesterday and said you had asked that hereview the files on the Union's behalf. I told him that since I sent thatemail to you that I would await a response from you. Please advise. DaveO'Brien

From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>,"O'Brien,David" <daveob@ufl.edu>Subject: Re: FW: documents requestCopies to: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "Walker, Pam" <pwalker@ufl.edu>Date sent: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:31:05 -0400

68

I cannot fathom why you are bothering me with this. Mr. Williamson has the same right to view this record as any other member of the public.

[Nothing in the file from before we first viewed it except the four documents cited.]

69

ATTACHMENT 11

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:13:54 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: rmarrin@ufl.eduSubject: Personnel Data

Robin, I need a file containing the following information for all UFemployees:

First NameLast NameDepartmentClass CodeAnnual SalaryWork Location and PO BoxWork PhoneHome Address, City, State and ZipHome PhoneHire DateClass DateRaceSexEducational Level

Would it be possible to e-mail the file to my GatorLink account(sbauer@ufl.edu) since the freenet has such a small size limit?

Could we set up an account that would allow us to do this ourselves ona regular basis?

Also, could we get a copy of the UF phone directory (i.e., faculty, staff,and student e-mail addresses) in electronic format?

Thanks,

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340392-3900

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:20:45 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: larry-ellis@ufl.eduSubject: Personnel Data (fwd)

Larry, here's the message I sent to Robin in April. When Mark said itwould take more than 8 hours to do this, I requested that they just copythe whole file, since that would take less time than writing a programthat specified certain fields. I understand that the whole file would betoo large to mail, so we'd like it copied to CD or, preferably, to a web

70

server for downloading. For home address, we need both street address andmailing address for the reasons I explained on the phone.

Thanks for your help,

Sharon

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:26:55 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: larry-ellis@ufl.eduBcc: share@afn.orgSubject: Re: Personnel Data (fwd)

Today I went by the AFSCME office and found a printed copy of the UFCampus Directory that you sent to me via U.S. Mail with a note indicatingthat it was in response to our request for the directory.

Below is a copy of my July 7 message forwarding you a copy of my April 20request. You'll note that we requested it in electronic format. Iexplained to you on the telephone that we wanted the current directoryinformation that is available to the public on the UF web page.

Like every other UF office employee, I have a copy of the 1999-2000printed directory on my desk.

Sharon

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:39:50 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduCc: Colburn@aa.ufl.eduSubject: Personnel Data (fwd)

Ed,

Here are two requests. There were also ones to John Tucker last November,Charles Young in June, and David Colburn earlier this week.

The request for the directory "in electronic format" resulted in a copy ofthe printed 1999-2000 directory being mailed to us although I'd told LarryEllis on the phone that we wanted the one on the Web.

Sharon

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:42:48 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: Poppell@admin.ufl.eduCc: afscme79@aol.com

71

Subject: Records Request

I've just examined the text file on the CD you sent. The CD is labeled"Employee Telephone Directory," and it contains only employee data. Thatisn't what we requested. We asked for the directory information that'savailable on the web, including faculty, staff, and student emailaddresses.

To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>From: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 RE: Records Request

The Registrars office will be contacted where this information is locatedand they will be asked to provide the appropriated data that they manage.Ed

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:54:18 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Cc: blackwec@borfl.org, afscme79@aol.comSubject: RE: Records Request

Once again, I am compelled to inform you that the university has failed tocomply with our request, outstanding since last November and reiteratedmany times since then at every administrative level, for "the directoryinformation that's available on the web, including faculty, staff, andstudent email addresses... in electronic format... copied to CD or,preferably, to a web server for downloading."

Today I received a package containing an unusable 9-track tape accompaniedby hundreds of pages of printouts containing student street addresses andtelephone numbers but no email addresses.

Sharon

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>CC: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>,

"Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>, poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: Re: Reservation

Kim,

Once again, the request was for all records that Employee Relations haspertaining to this altercation. The continual delaying tactics of referring usback to our union staff or pretending not to understand clear written requestsconstitute further violations of the public records law. The administration

72

still has not complied with our long-standing requests for the personneldatabase, the email directory, and all records pertaining to appointment of thenight shift committee, despite our repeated requests to the vice president,provost, president, and vice chancellor over the past 18 months. At aconsultation last fall, our director advised the vice chancellor that AFSCMEwould take legal action if these records were not provided.

If, as you indicate, a suspension took place, then are you saying that you tookdisciplinary action before concluding your investigation?

If you contend that a requested record is exempt from inspection, then you arerequired by law to cite the specific statutory exemption, and you have notcomplied with the law. I am entitled to request that you state in writing theparticular reasons for your conclusion that the exemption applies, and I amrequesting that you do so.

Your response is also untimely, in that I requested these records well over amonth ago. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that the only delay permitted"is the limited reasonable time allowed the custodian to retrieve the record anddelete those portions of the record the custodian asserts are exempt." Accordingto the AG's Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, "Any delay in production of therecords beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances may subject thecustodian to liability for failure to produce public records."

Again, I did not ask for Frank Bonham's records. It has been apparent to me forsome time that UF administrators operate under the mistaken assumption that theycan circumvent the members of the local union by refusing to deal with us andinstead only dealing with our staff. Marc Brody and Frank Bonham have noauthority over us whatsoever. We do not work for them; they work for us. Theyare resources that we can call upon when we feel the need. Other than withregard to certain grievance responsibilities that they have been delegated byour state president, they do not speak for our local except when we authorizethem to. I have chosen to consult our union's general counsel on legal mattersrather than our regional director, Marc.

I have just learned that we need additional records as well. Last year, nonbargaining unit employees reportedly were allowed to vote on ratification of thecontract because there was no list of eligible employees to check off. Since wehave been advised that we need to vote again within the next two weeks, we wouldlike to have a list of employees in the AFSCME bargaining unit as soon aspossible, preferably with home addresses and telephone numbers. Also, once weknow the times and locations, we will want to send an email announcement to yourpersonnel newsletter list, whichever is easier.

Sharon

73

ATTACHMENT 12

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:48:30 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: dugjones@ufl.eduSubject: URL

Dug,

Here's the URL for the report by the Congressional Office of TechnologyAssessment: http://www.ota.nap.edu/pdf/data/1991/9108.PDF

We were very disappointed that you didn't comply with our January 26request to review your file on the planned switch to night shift at ourmeeting yesterday. I wonder, based on your repeated efforts to get us tospecify certain documents so that you could copy those for us, if perhapsyou're just not aware of the responsibilities of a records custodian underthe public records law. A person who has custody of a public record mustpermit the record to be inspected and examined by any person desiring todo so. Requestors are allowed to make broad requests and can't berequired to specify the documents they want to see, since they may notknow what documents exist. If you didn't understand what we wanted basedon my original letter, you're required to promptly notify the requestorthat more information is needed. We want to see all public records thatyou have pertaining to the proposed switch of Building Services staff tonight shift, as well as the survey responses from last October's employeesurvey and any surveys you've done of other universities. "Publicrecords" means all papers, letters, notes, e-mails, anything made orreceived in the transaction of official business that's not specificallyexempted from the public records law. If you contend that any of therecords are exempt, you're required to state the exemption that applies,redact that portion, and produce the remainder of that document. TheFlorida Supreme Court has said that the only delay permitted under Ch.119, F.S., "is the limited reasonable time allowed the custodian toretrieve the record." Therefore, we hope to be able to review theserecords in the very near future.

Sharon

74

AFSCME Local 33401107 NW 6th Street, Suite B

Gainesville, FL 32609

June 29, 2000

Pres. Charles E. YoungBox 113150University of FloridaGainesville, FL 32611

Dear Pres. Young:

We want to wish Mrs. Young a speedy recovery. The university’s first family is in our thoughts and prayers.

While we appreciate the many demands on your time, we are once again requesting a meeting to discuss the university’s costly plan to move custodial staff to night shift. Our first two letters resulted in replies that, according to UF meeting minutes, were written by Dug Jones of Building Services for Vice Pres. Jerry Schaffer’s signature. They contained the same misinformation that we have heard from Mr. Jones for 18 months and that you have no doubt heard. He has made it necessary for us to distribute the enclosed handout “Top 10 Management Lies About the Night Shift.”

AFSCME members have voted not to meet with VP Schaffer, and I am bound by that decision. We feel that it is vital that we have a brief dialogue with you about this issue. Please afford us an opportunity to clarify any misconceptions that have prevented you from intervening to stop this move. We are sincerely interested in learning which of our arguments against this move you have found unpersuasive and why, so that we can provide you with additional information:

That this was tried 20 years ago and found to be too costly due to electricity and other expenses?

That the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends against night shift because of its well documented health effects?

That women will be in jeopardy alone in isolated buildings?

That this move was undertaken with no customer or staff input, no cost-benefit analysis, absolutely nothing to back up Mr. Jones’ claims of greater customer satisfaction and $250,000 cost savings (after 10% shift differential pay, electricity, absenteeism, and theft)?

We reported to you in our May 1 letter that Mr. Jones had denied us access to his files on this matter, in violation of the public records law, while informing his superiors that he had shared them with us. We believe that this constitutes Falsification of Records or Statements. A month after our January request, he finally responded by denying the existence of any calculations, studies (other than an AAU benchmarking study that

75

recommended reducing Building Services’ top-heavy administration), meeting minutes, email, or other correspondence (other than a reply to an earlier AFSCME records request) pertaining to the night shift. We believe that this constitutes either falsification or malfeasance. We received a response to the May 1 letter six weeks later, after I mentioned to Employee Relations that we had not received the records requested in it. However, the records still have not been received to date, in violation of the public records law. Last fall, we requested utility data for the night shift pilot project and were given records for the year ending three months before the pilot began. Since last year, we have been requesting the personnel database; we were finally told last month that the university charges a “standard fee” of $240 for any personnel data, in violation of the public records law. In April, we requested a copy of the university directory and were told that it was not available, in violation of the public records law.

We would appreciate it if you could spare us 15 minutes of your time prior to the planned August implementation of this move.

We look forward to hearing from you. I can be reached by telephone at 392-3900 and by email at share@afn.org.

Very truly yours,

Sharon BauerPresident

cc: Local 3340 Executive BoardA. Joseph Layon, M.D.

76

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:15:17 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Cc: afscme79@aol.comSubject: Records Requests

This is in response to your August 31 memo, which I received today.

1. Utility bills from fall 1998 to date--The records you provided arethrough November 1999. There's no utility data for the past ninemonths?

2. Night shift survey forms--You say that you've supplied the survey formand the completed surveys for the only survey performed. That's not true.The only surveys we received were from customers. Building Servicesemployees were surveyed by the department in March or April about theirshift preferences. We still haven't received those forms despite severalrequests. If management's denying the existence of those forms, we canget affidavits from employees.

6. Half dozen or more files containing records on the shift change--Youclaim that I've already reviewed those files. That's not true. I revieweda few documents that Dug Jones pulled from his files and put in a separatefolder for that purpose. After seven months, we're still demanding thatall Building Services records pertaining to the shift change be madeavailable for inspection.

8. Personnel database--After the University responded to our originalrequest by saying that it would take at least 8 hours of labor to selectcertain fields, we said that we didn't want any selection done and that wewanted the complete database copied to CD and would do our ownprogramming. Instead, they've copied partial information to a file andclaimed that it took 11 hours and cost $240. That isn't what werequested, and we certainly didn't authorize that work. In addition,they've apparently omitted information that employees requested not bereleased but that isn't exempted from Chapter 119, which is a violation ofthe public records law. We requested the entire database, exclusive ofany exempt information. As for your letter to our Jacksonville officeasking that we "take responsibility for any misuse of this information,"we don't have to take responsibility for accepting public records in orderfor you comply with our request. The university continues to be inviolation of the law.

You also state that you're awaiting payment for the cost of producingprevious records. If you're referring to the $240 for copying thepersonnel database to CD, we didn't authorize the work that was done andhave no intention of paying for it, particularly since that data'snow out of date. We'll pay for the entire database when it's copied toCD, which should take a matter of minutes.

77

ATTACHMENT 13

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>From: Subject: employment at U of F

Sharon thank you so much for the speedy reply. it may help to let you know that i have arecruiter(melissa mayer,melissa-mayer@ufl.org392-4621) greg marwede the assistant director is also helping out.by helping out i mean get me into the U ofF critical needs positions in information services.soi don't run out of space i'll let you contact melissato bring you up to date on whats been happening.I amin Fort Wayne,Indiana and am desiring a job with theuniversity.I am trying to get in on the Presidentssocial security back to work initiative but due to agap in my employment the state rule since 1992 says ican't work there until i complete a full yearsomewhere else.I am wondering is that even if I have adisability as the reason for the gap? If you have anyideas about how we can get around this situation itsure would be appreciated.feel free to pull up my app.from melissa. thank you so much!!!

To: greg-marwede@ufl.eduFrom: Sharon BauerSent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 5:35 PMSubject: Recruitment

Do you have anything in writing on the policy of disqualifying applicantswho've been out of work for some period of time? If so I'd appreciate acopy. I don't find anything on this in the UF or SUS rules. Thanks.

To: Sharon Bauer From: greg-marwede@ufl.eduDate: Fri, 8 Sep 2000Subject: Re: Recruitment

Sharon, we in CEC are charged to build applicant pools that are composed ofthe most appropriate, competitive candidates available. Accordingly,applicants without recent, relevant experience and/or education may not beamong those competitive for inclusion in applicant pools.

78

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 4:51 PMTo: Marwede, GregSubject: RE: Recruitment

So, your response to my public records request is that you have nodocuments stating this, you have no written guidelines that you apply?

To: Sharon Bauer From: greg-marwede@ufl.eduDate: Wed, 13 Sep 2000Subject: Re: Recruitment

Sharon;

I did not realize that you were making a formal public records request, butrather only a practical, but informal inquiry. My response was consequentlyinformal originally. For a reference to our procedure requiring us toevaluate recent relevant work experience of applicants for referralconsideration, please refer to the following site in Chapter 7, UF Businessprocedures, which address this issue.

http://www.admin.ufl.edu/handbook/default.asp?doc=1.7.1.1

...Developing applicant pools from the results of recruiting efforts based on subjective and objective merit principles that include an evaluation of each applicant's education, training, work history, performance records, general or specific abilities, availability in relation to the university's needs, and equal employment opportunity status.

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:22:20 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Marwede, Greg" <greg-marwede@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Recruitment

I'd like to see, or get copies of (depending on the volume), any and alltraining materials, procedures, memorandum, or anything whatsoever thatyou have on evaluating applicants for inclusion in pools.

[No response as of 5/9/02]

79

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:33 AMTo: colburn@ufl.eduCc: layon@anest1.anest.ufl.edu; cmchestnut@aol.com; SUHLFELD@HKLAW.COMSubject: Custodians

As you know, AFSCME, UFF, the Faculty Senate, and others have requestedthat any further moves of custodians to the graveyard shift be delayeduntil the department conducts the promised study of the original pilotproject that ended a year ago. Building Services had informed us thatthey sought no employee input and no customer input other than a survey(which we feel was poorly designed) to one person in each building, andconducted no cost-benefit analysis before proclaiming the pilot asuccess and planning Phase II. You told me Monday that you don'tbelieve this, that you believe they have something. Please provide uswith a copy. However, Senate Chair Joe Layon can confirm that this iswhat they told us.

The department's response last month was that instead they'd study PhaseII employees in February 2001, six months after the move. I understandthat they're now willing to say two or three months. That's just whatthey told employees in the pilot project.

What's the reason for the rush to implement this? Why not just delaythis move for two or three months and study the people in the pilotproject instead? That's all it takes to make this whole problem goaway. We asked them a year ago to appoint a committee to study it andthey refused. Given the proven effects of night shift on employeehealth, don't these employees at least deserve that?

BTW, in case you haven't seen it yet, tomorrow I'll be putting that AAUbenchmarking study--the one where the number-one recommendation is toreduce Physical Plant's supervisor-to-employee ratio--on our web page,www.afn.org/~share/afscme3340.htm. That's an "economic decision"they're not so eager to make.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

To: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]From: colburn@ufl.eduSubject: Re: Custodians

Hi - I have not ignored your e-mail, although it might appear so. I askedBuilding Services through Administrative Affairs for this information andhave not received anything yet. I have asked again today and will let youknow if I receive something. President Young has returned from California,and I have also passed along your concerns to him. David Colburn

80

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 6:01 PMTo: David ColburnSubject: Re: Custodians

Thank you. You may be interested to know that we're filing a complaint withthe Attorney General's Office about numerous public records violationsthroughout Administrative Affairs over the past year. We wrote to Pres. Youngto complain and got a letter back from the chief violator, Jerry Schaffer. Westill haven't received any of those records that we wrote about. We'reanxious to see whether Building Services produces records for you that theydenied the existence of when we requested them.

I've had scanner problems but intend to not only put the AAU study on our webpage but also mail it to you.

To: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]From: colburn@ufl.eduDate: Tue, 15 Aug 2000Subject: Re: Custodians

Hi - I am sending you today the information you requested. Administrativeaffairs also indicated that you wanted a complete listing of UF employeesand that it has taken them a while to get this to you. The delay was causedby many of our employees, about 50 percent, who do not want their names andinformation about them released. We have to be very careful in such cases toreview everyone's name before we release the information. I hope youunderstand. David Colburn

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:58:21 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: David Colburn <Colburn@aa.ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Custodians

I received a package from you today. I didn't request any of thisinformation, almost all of which I already had. None of the informationI've requested is included.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, David Colburn wrote:

Sharon - I read your comments in the paper this morning and I think it isregrettable that a union leader would encourage folks to call and harrasspeople over the phone. You may disagree with what's being done and why it isbeing done, but harassment is not the way to address the issues. David

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]81

Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 11:27 AMTo: David ColburnSubject: Re: your mail

I think it's regrettable that administrators would show completedisregard for employees' health and safety. I don't see the students'actions as harassment, just as you don't see your actions as harassingdozens of custodians.

The package you sent me didn't include a copy of the memo about thecommittee or board that was being appointed, and now I understand thatanother memo's out. I'm curious why this information was communicated tothe faculty through the Senate and email, but not to the custodiansthrough their elected bargaining agent that's responsible for bringingthis issue to your attention. Also, since the Senate nominated thefaculty representatives, I wondered how the custodial representatives werebeing chosen.

I find it ironic that the package included a blank copy of the survey formthat we sent to custodians in 2/99, which the administration confiscatedas unauthorized use of campus mail but which we nevertheless managed todistribute and get responses to from almost 100% of custodians; but itdidn't include the completed surveys that Building Services had thecustodians fill out earlier this year, which we've made repeated requestsfor since May.

Sharon

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, David Colburn wrote:

Sharon - the logic of your view escapes me. Whatever you think, we did notharass our custodians. And the President has indicated that we will lookthoroughly at the shift assignment and may well abandon it if the committeeso proposes. But to defend the harassment of a fellow in a wheelchair withtwo small children or anyone else for that matter is beyond mycomprehension. Frankly, I am not sure we have anything more to communicateabout. David

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:34:24 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: David Colburn <Colburn@aa.ufl.edu>Subject: RE: your mail

And the logic of your view escapes me. The "fellow in a wheelchair withtwo small children" is a liar and a criminal who's deliberately withheldpublic records while bragging about his law degree. The shift assignmentshould've been looked at thoroughly last year following the pilot projectand before moving dozens more people. If the employees already on nightshift had been surveyed before the next group was moved (as the Senaterecommended), they'd say they're being harassed. The administration'srefusal to discuss it is precisely what's led us to where we are today.

82

Are you going to send me the memos and tell me how the custodians areappointed?

Sharon

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:17:20 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: David Colburn <Colburn@aa.ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Custodians

This is a follow-up to my message last week requesting copies of the memosthat have been distributed regarding the night shift committee. We'd liketo expand that public records request to include any email, notes, memos,reports, or any other records pertaining to this issue, excluding any thathave been provided already (e.g., email to me). Please forward documentsthat are available in electronic format to my email address, and thosethat are available in hard copy to our fax number, 375-8068. Thank you.

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:17:58 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: colburn@aa.ufl.eduCc: blackwec@borfl.org, afscme79@aol.comSubject: RE: Custodians (fwd)

On 8/18 and again on 8/21 I asked that you provide me with copies of thememos that had been distributed regarding your committee to study thenight shift. I've received no response to my emails requesting thoserecords. I haven't received any of the many other records that I'verequested in writing at various times since April from you, JerrySchaffer, Ed Poppell, and Pres. Young. I still haven't received theoriginal committee memos, and I understand that another one has come outannouncing the appointment of members. Please email me or fax me copiesof all of the DDD memos on this committee as soon as possible.

Sharon Bauer

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:17:58 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: colburn@aa.ufl.eduCc: blackwec@borfl.org, afscme79@aol.comSubject: RE: Custodians (fwd)

On 8/18 and again on 8/21 I asked that you provide me with copies of thememos that had been distributed regarding your committee to study thenight shift. I've received no response to my emails requesting thoserecords. I haven't received any of the many other records that I'verequested in writing at various times since April from you, JerrySchaffer, Ed Poppell, and Pres. Young. I still haven't received theoriginal committee memos, and I understand that another one has come outannouncing the appointment of members. Please email me or fax me copies

83

of all of the DDD memos on this committee as soon as possible.

Sharon Bauer

ATTACHMENT 15

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:30:54 -0400From: "O'Brien, David" <daveob@ufl.edu>To: "'share@afn.org'" <share@afn.org>Cc: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "Walker, Pam"<pwalker@ufl.edu>Subject: FW: Public Records

Ms Bauer. Ed Poppell asked me to contact you with regard to your request toreview the documents we have regarding the Building Services night shiftwork. I have in my office the stack of documents Dug reffered to. You arewelcome to come review and make copies of them. Please contact myAdministrative Assistant, Pam Walker at 392-1141 or pwalker@ufl.edu to makethe arrangements. Dave O'Brien

From: jerry [mailto:jerryw@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU]Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:49 AMTo: daveob@ufl.edu; poppell@admin.ufl.edu; pwalker@ppd.ufl.edu;sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.eduSubject: documents request

I am sending this mail to confirm our telephone conversationyesterday in which I requested to see the documents related to thecustodial workers night shift. I am disappointed that you did not notifyme of an appropriate time when I can review this material before I leftwork at 5 P.M.The issue of review of these documents was discussed during theconsultation with the Board of Regents in Tallahassee at which you werepresent. You have advised Interim Vice President Poppell that thesedocuments were available for review by contacting your AdministrativeAssistant, Ms. Pam Walker, at 3921141. I was surprised when after makingmy request that neither Ms. Walker nor you would would schedule anappointment for me. Since the only delay that the Florida Public Recordslaw allows for is the time needed to assemble the documents, I do notunderstand why you are now delaying my review of these documents.I reiterate my request to review all of the records in yourpossession relating to the custodial workers night shift. I expect thatyou will contact me as soon as possible to inform me of a suitable time.I can be reached at work at 392-1991 ext. 242 or by e-mail atjerryw@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2000 15:26:54 -0400From: "O'Brien, David" <daveob@ufl.edu>To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>,"

84

Subject: Re: FW: documents request Copies to: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "Walker, Pam" <pwalker@ufl.edu>

Ms Bauer......Mr Williams called yesterday and said you had asked that hereview the files on the Union's behalf. I told him that since I sent thatemail to you that I would await a response from you. Please advise. DaveO'Brien

From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" <sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu>,"O'Brien,David" <daveob@ufl.edu>Subject: Re: FW: documents requestCopies to: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "Walker, Pam" <pwalker@ufl.edu>Date sent: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:31:05 -0400

I cannot fathom why you are bothering me with this. Mr. Williamson has the same right to view this record as any other member of the public.

85

ATTACHMENT 16

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:39 PMTo: sllarson@ufl.eduSubject: Reservation

Sherry,

We're holding a series of meetings to inform employees about pendinglegislation and would like to hold one at Physical Plant. Would thetraining trailer be available at lunch time (e.g., 11:30-2) one day nextweek?

Also, the last time I spoke to you, I asked for copies of any recordspertaining to the altercation between Sharon DeSue and a coworker lastsummer, I but haven't received anything. You did mention that she was outon maternity leave, but that wouldn't have any affect on the availabilityof those records, would it?

Thanks,

Sharon

Subject: RE: ReservationDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:27:42 -0500From: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>

Sharon,The training trailer (now known as Mainstreet) is available on Monday,Thursday and Friday for the hours of 11:30 - 2.Please let me know which day will work for you so I can get it reserved.I will send the Desue info today.sll

Subject: RE: ReservationDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:16:52 -0500From: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>

Sharon,I just spoke with Kim regarding your records request. She in turn spokewith Mark Brody. Mark states that since the issue is still in theinvestigation stage it is considered a confidential matter. Accordingly, youshould direct your request to Frank Bonham as he is the official AFSCMEholder of those records.Thanks,

86

Sherry

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:57 PMTo: Larson, SherryCc: Czaplewski, Kim; larry-ellis@ufl.eduSubject: RE: Reservation

It was my understanding that the agency had already investigated andissued a disciplinary action letter in this matter last summer, and thatit was being appealed. May I be so presumptuous as to suggest that youseek legal advice from an attorney rather than the AFSCME RegionalDirector? We didn't ask to see AFSCME's records; we asked for the publicrecords. We're not interested in whether Frank Bonham wants other membersto see them or not.

Sharon

87

ATTACHMENT 17

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:39 PMTo: sllarson@ufl.eduSubject: Reservation

Sherry,

We're holding a series of meetings to inform employees about pendinglegislation and would like to hold one at Physical Plant. Would thetraining trailer be available at lunch time (e.g., 11:30-2) one day nextweek?

Also, the last time I spoke to you, I asked for copies of any recordspertaining to the altercation between Sharon DeSue and a coworker lastsummer, I but haven't received anything. You did mention that she was outon maternity leave, but that wouldn't have any affect on the availabilityof those records, would it?

Thanks,

Sharon

Subject: RE: ReservationDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:27:42 -0500From: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>

Sharon,The training trailer (now known as Mainstreet) is available on Monday,Thursday and Friday for the hours of 11:30 - 2.Please let me know which day will work for you so I can get it reserved.I will send the Desue info today.sll

Subject: RE: ReservationDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:16:52 -0500From: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>

Sharon,I just spoke with Kim regarding your records request. She in turn spokewith Mark Brody. Mark states that since the issue is still in theinvestigation stage it is considered a confidential matter. Accordingly, youshould direct your request to Frank Bonham as he is the official AFSCMEholder of those records.Thanks,

88

Sherry

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:57 PMTo: Larson, SherryCc: Czaplewski, Kim; larry-ellis@ufl.eduSubject: RE: Reservation

It was my understanding that the agency had already investigated andissued a disciplinary action letter in this matter last summer, and thatit was being appealed. May I be so presumptuous as to suggest that youseek legal advice from an attorney rather than the AFSCME RegionalDirector? We didn't ask to see AFSCME's records; we asked for the publicrecords. We're not interested in whether Frank Bonham wants other membersto see them or not.

Sharon

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 From: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>Subject: Re: Reservation

What exactly would you like to see Sharon? As you know there was asuspension that took place. Are you asking to see that material? Also,there was a grievance that was filed that is pending due to Sharon's leaveof absence. This is still confidential as it is an open investigation. Thisis the material you would need to get from Frank. Please clarify so weunderstand your request.

kc

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>CC: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>,

"Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>, poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: Re: Reservation

Kim,

Once again, the request was for all records that Employee Relations haspertaining to this altercation. The continual delaying tactics of referring usback to our union staff or pretending not to understand clear written requestsconstitute further violations of the public records law. The administrationstill has not complied with our long-standing requests for the personneldatabase, the email directory, and all records pertaining to appointment of thenight shift committee, despite our repeated requests to the vice president,provost, president, and vice chancellor over the past 18 months. At a

89

consultation last fall, our director advised the vice chancellor that AFSCMEwould take legal action if these records were not provided.

If, as you indicate, a suspension took place, then are you saying that you tookdisciplinary action before concluding your investigation?

If you contend that a requested record is exempt from inspection, then you arerequired by law to cite the specific statutory exemption, and you have notcomplied with the law. I am entitled to request that you state in writing theparticular reasons for your conclusion that the exemption applies, and I amrequesting that you do so.

Your response is also untimely, in that I requested these records well over amonth ago. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that the only delay permitted"is the limited reasonable time allowed the custodian to retrieve the record anddelete those portions of the record the custodian asserts are exempt." Accordingto the AG's Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, "Any delay in production of therecords beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances may subject thecustodian to liability for failure to produce public records."

Again, I did not ask for Frank Bonham's records. It has been apparent to me forsome time that UF administrators operate under the mistaken assumption that theycan circumvent the members of the local union by refusing to deal with us andinstead only dealing with our staff. Marc Brody and Frank Bonham have noauthority over us whatsoever. We do not work for them; they work for us. Theyare resources that we can call upon when we feel the need. Other than withregard to certain grievance responsibilities that they have been delegated byour state president, they do not speak for our local except when we authorizethem to. I have chosen to consult our union's general counsel on legal mattersrather than our regional director, Marc.

I have just learned that we need additional records as well. Last year, nonbargaining unit employees reportedly were allowed to vote on ratification of thecontract because there was no list of eligible employees to check off. Since wehave been advised that we need to vote again within the next two weeks, we wouldlike to have a list of employees in the AFSCME bargaining unit as soon aspossible, preferably with home addresses and telephone numbers. Also, once weknow the times and locations, we will want to send an email announcement to yourpersonnel newsletter list, whichever is easier.

Sharon

90

ATTACHMENT 18

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:39 PMTo: sllarson@ufl.eduSubject: Reservation

Sherry,

We're holding a series of meetings to inform employees about pendinglegislation and would like to hold one at Physical Plant. Would thetraining trailer be available at lunch time (e.g., 11:30-2) one day nextweek?

Also, the last time I spoke to you, I asked for copies of any recordspertaining to the altercation between Sharon DeSue and a coworker lastsummer, I but haven't received anything. You did mention that she was outon maternity leave, but that wouldn't have any affect on the availabilityof those records, would it?

Thanks,

Sharon

Subject: RE: ReservationDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:27:42 -0500From: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>

Sharon,The training trailer (now known as Mainstreet) is available on Monday,Thursday and Friday for the hours of 11:30 - 2.Please let me know which day will work for you so I can get it reserved.I will send the Desue info today.sll

Subject: RE: ReservationDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:16:52 -0500From: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>

Sharon,I just spoke with Kim regarding your records request. She in turn spokewith Mark Brody. Mark states that since the issue is still in theinvestigation stage it is considered a confidential matter. Accordingly, youshould direct your request to Frank Bonham as he is the official AFSCMEholder of those records.Thanks,

91

Sherry

From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@afn.org]Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:57 PMTo: Larson, SherryCc: Czaplewski, Kim; larry-ellis@ufl.eduSubject: RE: Reservation

It was my understanding that the agency had already investigated andissued a disciplinary action letter in this matter last summer, and thatit was being appealed. May I be so presumptuous as to suggest that youseek legal advice from an attorney rather than the AFSCME RegionalDirector? We didn't ask to see AFSCME's records; we asked for the publicrecords. We're not interested in whether Frank Bonham wants other membersto see them or not.

Sharon

What exactly would you like to see Sharon? As you know there was asuspension that took place. Are you asking to see that material? Also,there was a grievance that was filed that is pending due to Sharon's leaveof absence. This is still confidential as it is an open investigation. Thisis the material you would need to get from Frank. Please clarify so weunderstand your request.

kc

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>CC: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>,

"Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>, poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: Re: Reservation

Kim,

Once again, the request was for all records that Employee Relations haspertaining to this altercation. The continual delaying tactics of referring usback to our union staff or pretending not to understand clear written requestsconstitute further violations of the public records law. The administrationstill has not complied with our long-standing requests for the personneldatabase, the email directory, and all records pertaining to appointment of thenight shift committee, despite our repeated requests to the vice president,provost, president, and vice chancellor over the past 18 months. At aconsultation last fall, our director advised the vice chancellor that AFSCMEwould take legal action if these records were not provided.

If, as you indicate, a suspension took place, then are you saying that you tookdisciplinary action before concluding your investigation?

92

If you contend that a requested record is exempt from inspection, then you arerequired by law to cite the specific statutory exemption, and you have notcomplied with the law. I am entitled to request that you state in writing theparticular reasons for your conclusion that the exemption applies, and I amrequesting that you do so.

Your response is also untimely, in that I requested these records well over amonth ago. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that the only delay permitted"is the limited reasonable time allowed the custodian to retrieve the record anddelete those portions of the record the custodian asserts are exempt." Accordingto the AG's Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, "Any delay in production of therecords beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances may subject thecustodian to liability for failure to produce public records."

Again, I did not ask for Frank Bonham's records. It has been apparent to me forsome time that UF administrators operate under the mistaken assumption that theycan circumvent the members of the local union by refusing to deal with us andinstead only dealing with our staff. Marc Brody and Frank Bonham have noauthority over us whatsoever. We do not work for them; they work for us. Theyare resources that we can call upon when we feel the need. Other than withregard to certain grievance responsibilities that they have been delegated byour state president, they do not speak for our local except when we authorizethem to. I have chosen to consult our union's general counsel on legal mattersrather than our regional director, Marc.

I have just learned that we need additional records as well. Last year, nonbargaining unit employees reportedly were allowed to vote on ratification of thecontract because there was no list of eligible employees to check off. Since wehave been advised that we need to vote again within the next two weeks, we wouldlike to have a list of employees in the AFSCME bargaining unit as soon aspossible, preferably with home addresses and telephone numbers. Also, once weknow the times and locations, we will want to send an email announcement to yourpersonnel newsletter list, whichever is easier.

SharonSubject: Union EmailsDate: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:51:49 -0400From: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>To: "'afscme@afn.org'" <afscme@afn.org>CC: "'share@afn.org'" <share@afn.org>

It has come to my attention that many employees have received unionsolicitation emails in the past week.

Please immediately cease and desist from soliciting University of Floridaemployees in our workplace and distributing AFSCME literature, via ouremployer e-mail. This is in violation of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes.

As always, we are willing to work with you. Please call if you would liketo meet with me so we can discuss this matter further.

93

Kimberly M. CzaplewskiUniversity Personnel Services352-392-1072

Subject: Re: Union EmailsDate: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:30:59 -0400From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: kim-c@ufl.eduCC: afscme79@aol.com

Your characterization of our communications as "union solicitation emails" isincorrect. We provided information to our coworkers regarding pendinglegislation. Meanwhile, you are in violation of Chapter 120 and Chapter 447,Florida Statutes, by virtue of your failure to respond to, let alone complywith, our 3/30 request for a list of bargaining unit employees in order toenable us to conduct the ratification vote required under Chapter 447.309(1).

Sharon Bauer, PresidentAFSCME Local 3340

cc: Steve KreisbergLinda Barge-Miles

Subject: RE: Union EmailsDate: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:24:09 -0400From: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: afscme79@aol.com

Sharon,

At the end of the email dated April 5, 2001, there is a paragraph that is asolicitation. I would be glad to share a copy of this email with you ifneeded.

I am unaware of any request that was made on 3/30 asking for a list ofbargaining unit employees. Who did you make this request to?

Kim

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:30:41 -0400From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: kim-c@ufl.eduSubject: [Fwd: Reservation]

---------- Forwarded message ----------Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>

94

CC: "Larson, Sherry" <sllarson@ufl.edu>,"Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>, poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: Re: Reservation

Kim,

Once again, the request was for all records that Employee Relations haspertaining to this altercation. The continual delaying tactics of referring usback to our union staff or pretending not to understand clear written requestsconstitute further violations of the public records law. The administrationstill has not complied with our long-standing requests for the personneldatabase, the email directory, and all records pertaining to appointment of thenight shift committee, despite our repeated requests to the vice president,provost, president, and vice chancellor over the past 18 months. At aconsultation last fall, our director advised the vice chancellor that AFSCMEwould take legal action if these records were not provided.

If, as you indicate, a suspension took place, then are you saying that you tookdisciplinary action before concluding your investigation?

If you contend that a requested record is exempt from inspection, then you arerequired by law to cite the specific statutory exemption, and you have notcomplied with the law. I am entitled to request that you state in writing theparticular reasons for your conclusion that the exemption applies, and I amrequesting that you do so.

Your response is also untimely, in that I requested these records well over amonth ago. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that the only delay permitted"is the limited reasonable time allowed the custodian to retrieve the record anddelete those portions of the record the custodian asserts are exempt." Accordingto the AG's Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, "Any delay in production of therecords beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances may subject thecustodian to liability for failure to produce public records."

Again, I did not ask for Frank Bonham's records. It has been apparent to me forsome time that UF administrators operate under the mistaken assumption that theycan circumvent the members of the local union by refusing to deal with us andinstead only dealing with our staff. Marc Brody and Frank Bonham have noauthority over us whatsoever. We do not work for them; they work for us. Theyare resources that we can call upon when we feel the need. Other than withregard to certain grievance responsibilities that they have been delegated byour state president, they do not speak for our local except when we authorizethem to. I have chosen to consult our union's general counsel on legal mattersrather than our regional director, Marc.

I have just learned that we need additional records as well. Last year, nonbargaining unit employees reportedly were allowed to vote on ratification of thecontract because there was no list of eligible employees to check off. Since wehave been advised that we need to vote again within the next two weeks, we wouldlike to have a list of employees in the AFSCME bargaining unit as soon aspossible, preferably with home addresses and telephone numbers. Also, once we

95

know the times and locations, we will want to send an email announcement to yourpersonnel newsletter list, whichever is easier.

Sharon

Subject: RE: [Fwd: Reservation]Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:36:29 -0400From: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>

Did you receive the information on Sharon you were looking for?

On your other request, to make sure I am clear, you want a list of employeesthat are eligible to be covered by AFSCME? How do you want the list sorted?By last name? When do you need it by?

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:23:23 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>Cc: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>, "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Appraisal

On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Czaplewski, Kim wrote:

> Sharon,>> See my comments intertwined with your email message. kc

> Why was the department issued a special appraisal form?>> ****The department asked to evaluate the employee, thus we issued an> appraisal.>> It's too late for a special appraisal. The reappraisal has to be completed> within 30 days of > the period ending date. The 4/2 appraisal clearly stated that the next> appraisal period would be 30 days, not two months. Since the reappraisal> wasn't done within 30 days of the 5/2 period ending date, she's assumed to> have met the standards as of 6/2. What part of this do you dispute?>> ****A department can call for a special appraisal at any time. Special> appraisals can be no shorter than 60 days and no longer than 6 months. The> department did not have the ability to reevaluate in an official capacity> any sooner than 60 days.

96

Says who? Where is it written that an appraisal period can be no shorterthan 60 days? The contract says an employee can't be removed from his orher class sooner than 60 days from receipt of the improvement plan, butwhere does it say that an appraisal period can be no shorter than 60 days?It's not in FAC. I want a copy.

> I don't understand why your department seems to feel that it doesn't have to> abide by the rules (e.g., "Oh, we've given ourselves an extra 60-day grace> period beyond the 30 days stipulated in the rules").>> ****We have followed the rule per Florida Administrative Code.

Show me. What rule? Not 6C1-3.050, which you've clearly violated--again,after losing a grievance on this within the last six months. It says thatthe period will be specified (which it was, 30 days) and that if theemployee isn't reevaluated within 30 days after that (which she wasn't),she's assumed to meet standards.

> Why don't you just follow the rule and release this poor woman and let her> get out of the> intolerable situation she's in?>> ****It is my understanding the department intends to evaluate the employee> at an "Achieves" level. I have not seen the appraisal as of today.

That evaluation was completely superfluous. According to 6C1-3.050, shehad met standards as of 6/2. Your refusal to release her yesterday andallow her to avail herself of her right to request reassignment violatedboth the rule and Article 9 of the contract.

> I previously asked for the basis of your contention that it didn't default> for six months. If you have something> in writing to back that up, I want a copy as soon as possible.>> ****I asked for you to send me a copy of the memo to which you are> referring. I will comment after I read that document.

If you want a copy, I suggest you contact Mary Ann. Unlike me, she'srequired to give it to you. I'm don't want your comment; I want a copy ofany document you have that backs up this assertion that you won't admitmaking, and you're legally required to provide it as soon as possible.Do you or do you not have any records showing that her appraisal wouldn'tdefault for six months?

I wonder if your superiors are aware of your April refusal to comply withour public records request for a list of bargaining unit employees inorder to conduct the contract ratification vote, and if they're aware thatthis is both a second-degree misdemeanor and an unfair labor practice.

Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:03:39 -0400 (EDT)97

From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>Cc: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>, "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>,poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: RE: Appraisal

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Czaplewski, Kim wrote:

> Sharon,>> The minimum of 60 days is a policy we have within Personnel Services. This> policy was developed years ago to protect the employee. With a 60 day> minimum, the employee is ensured of having the opportunity to meet the> expectations listed in the performance improvement plan. As you know, below> performance appraisals can lead to dismissal.

Once again, I requested a copy of this supposed policy. Do you ordo you not have a copy of it? I requested a copy of any document you havethat says her rating wouldn't default for six months. Do you or do younot have a copy of that? Is the problem that these documents don't existor that you're engaging in your usual delaying tactics?

> Ms. Desai is currently eligible for pools. If you want to discuss this case> or performance appraisals further, please call and set up a meeting so we> can talk face-to-face.>> As far as your other issue, the list of employees you requested, I asked you> for clarification on that list in April and never heard back from you.

On 3/30/01 I informed you (with copies to Larry Ellis and Ed Poppell) thatwe had been notified that we were to conduct a contract ratification votepursuant to Ch. 447 "within the next two weeks." I requested "a list ofemployees in the AFSCME bargaining unit as soon as possible." On 4/10/01 Inotified you of "your failure to respond to, let alone comply with, our3/30 request for a list of bargaining unit employees in order to enable usto conduct the ratification vote required under Chapter 447.309(1)." Youreplied, "I am unaware of any request that was made on 3/30 asking for alist of bargaining unit employees. Who did you make this request to?"When I forwarded a copy of the email message, you neither denied receivingit nor apologized for not responding. Instead, THREE DAYS LATER, on 4/14,you requested clarification: "[T]o make sure I am clear, you want a listof employees that are eligible to be covered by AFSCME? How do you wantthe list sorted? By last name? When do you need it by?" We know thatyou're only pretending to be that dense. Those questions were all answeredin the original request two weeks earlier. You know full well whatemployees are covered by the AFSCME contract and eligible to vote on it,and that your database has a code for it. You know that a list of eligiblevoters would need to be by last name. You know that I said in theoriginal message that we needed the list ASAP in order to conduct a votewithin two weeks, i.e., by 4/14-the date you requested clarification.This foot-dragging is part of a pattern, and it's a crime. Stop it.

98

99

ATTACHMENT 19

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:25:04 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: kim-c@ufl.eduSubject: Appraisal

University of Florida Rule 6C1-3.050 states:

(4) If an employee who has attained permanent status in the class receivesan appraisal or letter that documents failure to meet performancestandards, the rater with the cooperation of the higher level supervisorsshall communicate in writing to the employee necessary improvements toaddress the identified deficiencies.

(a) If at the time of receiving such an appraisal or letter, the employeeis retained, the length of the next appraisal period shall be determinedbut shall not exceed six months. Such appraisal shall be completed within30 days following the appraisal period end date, unless a proposal is madeto terminate the employee as a result of his or her continued failure tomeet performance standards. In such case, a letter documenting theto terminate the employee as a result of his or her continued failure tomeet performance standards. In such case, a letter documenting theemployees unsatisfactory performance, rather than a performance appraisal,shall be sufficient.

1. In the absence of this appraisal or letter, the employee shall beconsidered to have met performance standards for the follow-up period.

--------------------

Vatsala Desai received a Below Appraisal on 4/2 stating that the nextappraisal period would be 30 days. As of 6/2, it is more than 30 daysfollowing the appraisal period end date. Therefore, since she has notreceived an appraisal or letter, she is now considered to have metperformance standards for the follow-up period.

She has received a memorandum from Mary Ann Morgan stating that, accordingto you, she will not default to Achieves for six months. What do youbase that contention on?

Sharon

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:50:03 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: larry-ellis@ufl.eduCc: kim-c@ufl.eduSubject: Appraisal (fwd)

We would appreciate your department's prompt attention to this matter.100

Ms. Desai is anxious to get released as soon as possible. During the 30days since her follow-up appraisal due date, she was prevented fromtransferring to a department that knew her and wanted to hire her. Thereare other opportunities she'd like to take advantage of this week. Theissue of untimely appraisals was addressed in the Bill Thomas grievancelast fall, in which the university had to give him back pay.

Sharon

---------- Forwarded message ----------Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:25:04 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: kim-c@ufl.eduSubject: Appraisal

University of Florida Rule 6C1-3.050 states:

(4) If an employee who has attained permanent status in the class receivesan appraisal or letter that documents failure to meet performancestandards, the rater with the cooperation of the higher level supervisorsshall communicate in writing to the employee necessary improvements toaddress the identified deficiencies.

(a) If at the time of receiving such an appraisal or letter, the employeeis retained, the length of the next appraisal period shall be determinedbut shall not exceed six months. Such appraisal shall be completed within30 days following the appraisal period end date, unless a proposal is madeto terminate the employee as a result of his or her continued failure tomeet performance standards. In such case, a letter documenting theto terminate the employee as a result of his or her continued failure tomeet performance standards. In such case, a letter documenting theemployees unsatisfactory performance, rather than a performance appraisal,shall be sufficient.

1. In the absence of this appraisal or letter, the employee shall beconsidered to have met performance standards for the follow-up period.

--------------------

Vatsala Desai received a Below Appraisal on 4/2 stating that the nextappraisal period would be 30 days. As of 6/2, it is more than 30 daysfollowing the appraisal period end date. Therefore, since she has notreceived an appraisal or letter, she is now considered to have metperformance standards for the follow-up period.

She has received a memorandum from Mary Ann Morgan stating that, accordingto you, she will not default to Achieves for six months. What do youbase that contention on?

Sharon

101

Subject: RE: AppraisalDate: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:48:25 -0400From: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>, "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>

The department has been issued a special appraisal form to complete andissue to Ms. Desai. The department will be issuing an appraisal that willaddress the last two months.

I have not seen the memo you are referring to. Please fax me a copy if youhave one. 392-7991.

Kim

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:41:38 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>Cc: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>, "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Appraisal

Why was the department issued a special appraisal form? It's too late fora special appraisal. The reappraisal has to be completed within 30 days ofthe period ending date. The 4/2 appraisal clearly stated that the nextappraisal period would be 30 days, not two months. Since the reappraisalwasn't done within 30 days of the 5/2 period ending date, she's assumed tohave met the standards as of 6/2. What part of this do you dispute? Idon't understand why your department seems to feel that it doesn't have toabide by the rules (e.g., "Oh, we've given ourselves an extra 60-day graceperiod beyond the 30 days stipulated in the rules"). Why don't you justfollow the rule and release this poor woman and let her get out of theintolerable situation she's in? I previously asked for the basis of yourcontention that it didn't default for six months. If you have somethingin writing to back that up, I want a copy as soon as possible.

Subject: RE: AppraisalDate: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:37:17 -0400From: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>, "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>

Sharon,

See my comments intertwined with your email message. kc

Why was the department issued a special appraisal form?

****The department asked to evaluate the employee, thus we issued anappraisal.

102

It's too late for a special appraisal. The reappraisal has to be completedwithin 30 days ofthe period ending date. The 4/2 appraisal clearly stated that the nextappraisal period would be 30 days, not two months. Since the reappraisalwasn't done within 30 days of the 5/2 period ending date, she's assumed tohave met the standards as of 6/2. What part of this do you dispute?

****A department can call for a special appraisal at any time. Specialappraisals can be no shorter than 60 days and no longer than 6 months. Thedepartment did not have the ability to reevaluate in an official capacityany sooner than 60 days.

I don't understand why your department seems to feel that it doesn't have toabide by the rules (e.g., "Oh, we've given ourselves an extra 60-day graceperiod beyond the 30 days stipulated in the rules").

****We have followed the rule per Florida Administrative Code.

Why don't you just follow the rule and release this poor woman and let herget out of theintolerable situation she's in?

****It is my understanding the department intends to evaluate the employeeat an "Achieves" level. I have not seen the appraisal as of today.

I previously asked for the basis of your contention that it didn't defaultfor six months. If you have somethingin writing to back that up, I want a copy as soon as possible.

****I asked for you to send me a copy of the memo to which you arereferring. I will comment after I read that document.

Kim

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:23:23 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>Cc: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>, "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Appraisal

On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Czaplewski, Kim wrote:

> Sharon,>> See my comments intertwined with your email message. kc

> Why was the department issued a special appraisal form?>> ****The department asked to evaluate the employee, thus we issued an

103

> appraisal.>> It's too late for a special appraisal. The reappraisal has to be completed> within 30 days of > the period ending date. The 4/2 appraisal clearly stated that the next> appraisal period would be 30 days, not two months. Since the reappraisal> wasn't done within 30 days of the 5/2 period ending date, she's assumed to> have met the standards as of 6/2. What part of this do you dispute?>> ****A department can call for a special appraisal at any time. Special> appraisals can be no shorter than 60 days and no longer than 6 months. The> department did not have the ability to reevaluate in an official capacity> any sooner than 60 days.

Says who? Where is it written that an appraisal period can be no shorterthan 60 days? The contract says an employee can't be removed from his orher class sooner than 60 days from receipt of the improvement plan, butwhere does it say that an appraisal period can be no shorter than 60 days?It's not in FAC. I want a copy.

> I don't understand why your department seems to feel that it doesn't have to> abide by the rules (e.g., "Oh, we've given ourselves an extra 60-day grace> period beyond the 30 days stipulated in the rules").>> ****We have followed the rule per Florida Administrative Code.

Show me. What rule? Not 6C1-3.050, which you've clearly violated--again,after losing a grievance on this within the last six months. It says thatthe period will be specified (which it was, 30 days) and that if theemployee isn't reevaluated within 30 days after that (which she wasn't),she's assumed to meet standards.

> Why don't you just follow the rule and release this poor woman and let her> get out of the> intolerable situation she's in?>> ****It is my understanding the department intends to evaluate the employee> at an "Achieves" level. I have not seen the appraisal as of today.

That evaluation was completely superfluous. According to 6C1-3.050, shehad met standards as of 6/2. Your refusal to release her yesterday andallow her to avail herself of her right to request reassignment violatedboth the rule and Article 9 of the contract.

> I previously asked for the basis of your contention that it didn't default> for six months. If you have something> in writing to back that up, I want a copy as soon as possible.>> ****I asked for you to send me a copy of the memo to which you are> referring. I will comment after I read that document.

104

If you want a copy, I suggest you contact Mary Ann. Unlike me, she'srequired to give it to you. I'm don't want your comment; I want a copy ofany document you have that backs up this assertion that you won't admitmaking, and you're legally required to provide it as soon as possible.Do you or do you not have any records showing that her appraisal wouldn'tdefault for six months?

I wonder if your superiors are aware of your April refusal to comply withour public records request for a list of bargaining unit employees inorder to conduct the contract ratification vote, and if they're aware thatthis is both a second-degree misdemeanor and an unfair labor practice.

Subject: RE: AppraisalDate: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:57:49 -0400From: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>, "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>

Sharon,

The minimum of 60 days is a policy we have within Personnel Services. Thispolicy was developed years ago to protect the employee. With a 60 dayminimum, the employee is ensured of having the opportunity to meet theexpectations listed in the performance improvement plan. As you know, belowperformance appraisals can lead to dismissal.

Ms. Desai is currently eligible for pools. If you want to discuss this caseor performance appraisals further, please call and set up a meeting so wecan talk face-to-face.

As far as your other issue, the list of employees you requested, I asked youfor clarification on that list in April and never heard back from you.

If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call.

Kim

Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:03:39 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Czaplewski, Kim" <kim-c@ufl.edu>Cc: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>, "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>,poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: RE: Appraisal

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Czaplewski, Kim wrote:

> Sharon,>> The minimum of 60 days is a policy we have within Personnel Services. This

105

> policy was developed years ago to protect the employee. With a 60 day> minimum, the employee is ensured of having the opportunity to meet the> expectations listed in the performance improvement plan. As you know, below> performance appraisals can lead to dismissal.

Once again, I requested a copy of this supposed policy. Do you ordo you not have a copy of it? I requested a copy of any document you havethat says her rating wouldn't default for six months. Do you or do younot have a copy of that? Is the problem that these documents don't existor that you're engaging in your usual delaying tactics?

> Ms. Desai is currently eligible for pools. If you want to discuss this case> or performance appraisals further, please call and set up a meeting so we> can talk face-to-face.>> As far as your other issue, the list of employees you requested, I asked you> for clarification on that list in April and never heard back from you.

On 3/30/01 I informed you (with copies to Larry Ellis and Ed Poppell) thatwe had been notified that we were to conduct a contract ratification votepursuant to Ch. 447 "within the next two weeks." I requested "a list ofemployees in the AFSCME bargaining unit as soon as possible." On 4/10/01 Inotified you of "your failure to respond to, let alone comply with, our3/30 request for a list of bargaining unit employees in order to enable usto conduct the ratification vote required under Chapter 447.309(1)." Youreplied, "I am unaware of any request that was made on 3/30 asking for alist of bargaining unit employees. Who did you make this request to?"When I forwarded a copy of the email message, you neither denied receivingit nor apologized for not responding. Instead, THREE DAYS LATER, on 4/14,you requested clarification: "[T]o make sure I am clear, you want a listof employees that are eligible to be covered by AFSCME? How do you wantthe list sorted? By last name? When do you need it by?" We know thatyou're only pretending to be that dense. Those questions were all answeredin the original request two weeks earlier. You know full well whatemployees are covered by the AFSCME contract and eligible to vote on it,and that your database has a code for it. You know that a list of eligiblevoters would need to be by last name. You know that I said in theoriginal message that we needed the list ASAP in order to conduct a votewithin two weeks, i.e., by 4/14-the date you requested clarification.This foot-dragging is part of a pattern, and it's a crime. Stop it.

ATTACHMENT 20

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:05:54 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: larry-ellis@ufl.eduSubject: OPS Staff

The Provost told the trustees yesterday that the106

university's personnel include 4,200 faculty, 1,400 A&P,6,300 USPS, and 10,400 "part-time (mostly students)."I'd like to see the data you have available on OPS, e.g.,how many are full-time and how many are students.

Thanks,

Sharon

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 07:23:58 -0400From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Subject: RE: OPS Staff

Good Morning Sharon:

Pursuant to your request for OPS data, I submit the following information:

COUNT DESCRIPTION942 Res/Int Non UF Student3188 Grad Asst Bi-Weekly Pay753 Fac OPS Bi-Weekly Pay2596 Temp Hire OPS206 Resident Counselor 296 College Work Study Pay1237 Student Assistant4 Student Gov Official64 OPS Overtime at 1.526 DC OPS BW Post42 OPS Retro Pay Inc12 Hrly OPS Visa DC2 OPS Hourly DC42 DC OPS Lump Sum23 DC OPS Lump Sum Pre

I trust that this information addresses your inquiry. Please contact meshould you desire any additional information.

Take care.....Larry

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:28:08 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: OPS Staff

I also asked about hours. Do you know how many areappointed full-time? We want to see the records you have onthis. Is there a file of some reports that your departmentgenerates periodically on OPS?

107

Thanks,

Sharon

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:49:29 -0400From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Subject: RE: OPS Staff

Finance & Accounting generates the Payroll Analysis and Control informationthat is produced through Information Systems. I would suggest thatinformation on the number of full-time OPS employees, and the number of OPSstudents may be secured from F & A.

Larry

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:05:54 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Cc: afscme@afn.orgBcc: Mark Piotrowski <markp@edu15.coe.ufl.edu>Subject: RE: OPS Staff

So, in response to my 9/7 and 9/11 requests to view anyrecords your office has on OPS staff, any aggregate records,any reports--which you're legally required to produce in theminimum time necessary to gather them together--yourresponse is that Personnel doesn't have any? That'ssurprising. Unbelievable, even.

Sharon

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:24:10 -0400From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Cc: "'afscme@afn.org'" <afscme@afn.org>Subject: RE: OPS Staff

[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ][ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ][ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Sharon:

Please read more carefully!

The data I timely shared on 9/11/01, is Finance & Accounting (Payroll)information that Information System produces. The Payroll Analysis &Control Report does not have the specific information you are requesting.However, you may request an IS run of the specific information sought. Ifyou wish, I will fax the Payroll Analysis & Control report to your attention

108

(please provide your fax number).

Lastly, in reviewing your 9/7 and 9/11 requests, you never asked "to viewany records...on OPS staff, any aggregate records, and reports..." Youasked for "data...available on OPS, e.g., how many are full-time and howmany are students." (Please review your 9/7 and 9/11 requests below).

Sharon, UPS will be pleased to generate an IS Service Request on yourbehalf. However, to avoid a moving finish line...please clearly specifyyour request(s).

Once again, UPS DOES NOT have this specific information on OPS employees!

Larry

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:46:07 -0400 (EDT)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Cc: afscme@afn.orgSubject: RE: OPS Staff

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Sharon:>> Please read more carefully!

I'm not the one with the reading comprehension problem.

I've been asking for almost a week to see any and all dataPersonnel has on OPS staff. I've put no restrictions on myrequest. You claim that "UPS DOES NOT have this specificinformation on OPS employees!" when I didn't limit myrequest to any specific information. Is it possible thatyou don't know what "e.g." means? It means for example. Itmeans that FTE and and student status were just two examplesof things we were looking for. It doesn't mean those are theonly things we want to see.

On 9/7 I asked to "see the data you have available on OPS."While I think that's sufficiently clear, you now say that Inever asked to view the records containing the data. Seeingthe data means looking at any records you have containingdata on OPS. Emailing us a list of meaningless numbersdoesn't comply with our request. You're not legally requiredto run a report for us. You *are* required to produce anyrecords you possess in hard copy or electronic format forour review.

109

If that wasn't clear enough for you, I said on 9/11, inresponse to your emailed list of numbers, that "we want tosee the records on this," including "reports that yourdepartment generates periodically on OPS." Yet you claimthat in my 9/11 request "you never asked 'to view anyrecords...on OPS staff.'" Are "see" and "view" notsynonymous to you?

If that wasn't clear enough, I said again today that wewanted to "view any records your office has on OPS staff." Iadded that we meant aggregate records or reports because Iknew that otherwise you'd probably produce a bunch ofindividual OPS appointment forms.

But rather than comply with the law, you want to play thePersonnel footdragging game of pretending not to understandwhat we're asking for. Once again, as I have been askingfor the past week, we want to see EVERYTHING YOU HAVE WITHDATA ON OPS.

We want to see every piece of paper and every computer filethat anyone in Personnel has that contains any data on OPS.If someone's sent out a memo containing OPS data, we want tosee that. If someone's received an email containing OPSdata, we want to see that. If someone's downloaded a filecontaining OPS data, we want to see that. If someone'sprinted out OPS data from the payroll system, we want to seethat. Got it? You ask your staff to look in their filecabinet under OPS and do a computer search for OPS andeither data or report. It's really very simple, Larry, butafter a week you apparently haven't made the first movetoward gathering it together.

> The data I timely shared on 9/11/01, is Finance &Accounting (Payroll)> information that Information System produces. The Payroll Analysis &> Control Report does not have the specific information you are requesting.> However, you may request an IS run of the specific information sought. If> you wish, I will fax the Payroll Analysis & Control report to your attention> (please provide your fax number).

When we want information from IS, we'll ask them for it.However, as you're well aware, we've repeatedly requestedthe personnel database over the past year, and theadministration has refused to provide it, in violation ofthe public records law. Even if pay the exorbitant fee, theyrefuse to provide all of the information to which we'relegally entitled.

> Lastly, in reviewing your 9/7 and 9/11 requests, you never asked "to view> any records...on OPS staff, any aggregate records, and reports..." You

110

> asked for "data...available on OPS, e.g., how many are full-time and how> many are students." (Please review your 9/7 and 9/11 requests below).

> Sharon, UPS will be pleased to generate an IS Service Request on your> behalf. However, to avoid a moving finish line...please clearly specify> your request(s).>> Once again, UPS DOES NOT have this specific information on OPS employees!>> Larry

111

Attachment 21

SHARON BAUER1001 Northeast 21st Avenue

Gainesville, Florida 32609(352) 378-9800

October 30, 2001

Ms. Lisa HodgesPersonnel ServicesHealth Science CenterBox 100346Gainesville, FL 32610

Re: Step 1 Grievance Meeting

Dear Ms. Hodges:

This is in response to your October 26 letter regarding my grievance submitted two months ago. The contract requires that the meeting be scheduled within 15 days. As you mention, the Step 1 meeting was rescheduled several times You originally scheduled it on the 15 th day, September 11, and cancelled because of the terrorist attacks. It was not rescheduled until 10 days later, September 21, which Acting Regional Director Richard Thetonia cancelled because Staff Representative Ronald Highsmith was unprepared. I asked Mr. Highsmith to schedule it as soon as possible after my vacation the following week. Inexplicably, it was not rescheduled until October 19, almost a full month later, at 2 p.m. (the time on the letter I received from Mr. Thetonia as well as on the door of the conference room). I waited 20 minutes, no one else arrived, and I left and paged Mr. Highsmith. I later learned that you had rescheduled the meeting for 2:30, that Mr. Highsmith had failed to notify me, and that in my absence you and he agreed to reschedule it yet again.

After 55 days as opposed to the contractual 15 days, I immediately informed Mr. Thetonia that I wanted to waive the hearing and have you make your predictable decision on the basis of the written grievance, and you indicate in your letter that he notified you a week later. As you are well aware, AFSCME contends that your practice of hearing grievances on disciplinary actions you initiate, writing grievance decisions that in no way reflect what occurred at the meeting, and deciding in your own favor, is an unfair labor practice and that all Step 1 meetings at UF are a complete waste of time. In light of the arbitrator's decision in an identical case at Florida State University, in which they, too, charged the union president with Conduct Unbecoming for statements made in an email sent as a union official, we are anxious to get this to an impartial arbitrator as soon as possible.

With regard to the allegations regarding my supervisor, they have been made many times over the past 18 months to not only Drs. Conlon and van der Aa but also Assistant Vice President Gerald Kidney, Vice Provost Jacquelyn Hart, and Ombudsman Tommie Howard. I provided or offered documentation, and Drs. Conlon and van der Aa are able to personally observe Ms. Dailey's work habits, including the frequent, long, unexplained absences that frustrate her customers and staff, and make her the butt of office jokes. I have also asked Dr. van der Aa to provide other staff a means to provide this information anonymously, without fear of the retaliation to which I have been subjected, but he refused. On September 24, I provided Mr. Highsmith with documentation of at least three recent occasions on which she had one of my coworkers scan personal items for her such as a horse pedigree and photographs. It is one thing for an employee to scan a personal item; it is quite another for a manager to keep having her staff do so for her. I asked that Mr. Highsmith forward them to you, but he failed to do so. As I am sure you know, he left AFSCME’s employ abruptly last week. If Ms. Dailey denies it, I will provide you with the documentation.

What is relevant to the grievance is not Ms. Dailey's misconduct but her superiors' failure to investigate or take action, while allowing her to retaliate against me for reporting her illegal activities. At a recent grievance hearing, Dr. van der Aa admitted to Mr. Highsmith that he had not counseled or disciplined Ms. Dailey for knowingly signing false time records for a member of her staff, although this was at least the second substantiated occurrence I had reported.

I would like to make an appointment to review all records in the Health Center Personnel office and the Office of the Vice President for Health Affairs pertaining to me and Ms. Dailey. These would include (but by no means be limited to) the complaints against Dr. Conlon that Ms. Dailey has told her staff that she filed with the vice president's office shortly after Dr. Conlon was hired and again in January 2000; any emails; and any evaluations, counseling memos, or disciplinary actions pertaining to Ms. Dailey.

Since you indicate that you were notified on October 25 of the decision not to wait any longer than 55 days for a meeting, the timeframe stated in the contract will commence on that date rather than, as you contend, the date of your letter.

Sincerely,

Sharon Bauer

112

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:56:43 -0400From: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>Subject: Re:

Sharon, what time would you like schedule to review your file. I alsospoke with Mark Jordan this morning and indicated that it was ready forreview.

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:40:39 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Subject: Re:

As usual, you indicate that you don't understand what Irequested. I didn't ask to review my file. Please read myrequest again.

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:07:29 -0400From: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>Cc: Jan Eller <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>, kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@aol.comSubject: Re:

In your letter you stated "I would like to make an appointment to reviewall records in the Health Center Personnel office and the Office of theVice President for Health Affairs pertaining to me and Ms. Dailey." Wedo no have any files on Ms. Dailey, therefore I indicated that you maycome and review yours. Jan Eller was to contact you on any informationthey may have within the VP's office. If this is not what you arerequesting please clarify.

On another issue, Mark Jordan called around 8:44am this morning asking ifthere was availability for a conference room to conduct your step 2review. Given that these arrangements are not usually made through usand with such short notice we are unable to locate an availableconference room for that time. I also attempted to notify Mark of this,but have not been able to reach him. However, we have found a conferenceroom that will be open around 11:00am, if you are interested. Please letus know immediately so that we may reserve.

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:10:35 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Cc: Jan Eller <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>, kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@aol.comSubject: Re:

113

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Lisa D Hodges wrote:

> In your letter you stated "I would like to make an appointment to review> all records in the Health Center Personnel office and the Office of the> Vice President for Health Affairs pertaining to me and Ms. Dailey." We> do no have any files on Ms. Dailey, therefore I indicated that you may> come and review yours. Jan Eller was to contact you on any information> they may have within the VP's office. If this is not what you are> requesting please clarify.

I did not ask to see any files on Ms. Dailey; I asked to seeany records pertaining to her. After almost three years,you continue to appear not to understand the definition ofpublic records. I would suggest that you read the statute orAttorney General's manual to familiarize yourself with yourstatutory responsibilities. However, following the sentenceyou quote, I believe that I actually listed some examplesfor you. They would include any email. Surely you're notclaiming that you have no email or any records at allpertaining to Ms. Dailey, regardless of whether you maintaina file with her name on it. It seems unlikely that, when Ireported her signing false time records for her friend,there was no correspondence with Employee Relations.

> On another issue, Mark Jordan called around 8:44am this morning asking if> there was availability for a conference room to conduct your step 2> review. Given that these arrangements are not usually made through us> and with such short notice we are unable to locate an available> conference room for that time. I also attempted to notify Mark of this,> but have not been able to reach him. However, we have found a conference> room that will be open around 11:00am, if you are interested. Please let> us know immediately so that we may reserve.

Mark called me this morning and said that the meeting hadbeen cancelled and would be rescheduled because you hadn'treturned his call about scheduling a conference room. Iunderstood him to say that he called you yesterday. Twodays ago, when he originally contacted me and said I neededto drive to the AFSCME office and back for the conferencecall, I asked that he come here and offered to reserve theconference room next to our office. Instead, he insistedthat I go to the AFSCME office and offered to drive methere and back..

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:23:56 -0400From: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>Cc: Jan Eller <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>, kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@aol.comSubject: Re:

114

As I have stated, all records pertaining to your request are availablefor review. Please contact me to arrange a meeting time.

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:49:34 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Cc: Jan Eller <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>, kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@aol.comSubject: Re:

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Lisa D Hodges wrote:

> As I have stated, all records pertaining to your request are available> for review. Please contact me to arrange a meeting time.

No, that is not what you have stated. You have stated thatmy file is ready for review. That is not what I requested.Please comply with my request. For example, each member ofyour staff needs to search their email for messagescontaining my name or Valerie's and make those available aswell.

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 13:37:24 -0400From: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>Cc: Jan Eller <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>, kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@aol.comSubject: Re:

All records, including emails as you have stated with your name orValerie's are available. I never said that these records had not beenincluded -- they are all here. I do not have any records regardingcomplaints against Dr. Conlon filed by Ms. Dailey, or any of Ms. Dailey'scounseling memos, discipline or evaluations.

Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:52:47 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Cc: Jan Eller <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>, kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@aol.comSubject: Re:

We'd like to review the records at 1:30 tomorrow orThursday.

Sharon

Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:09:37 -0400From: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>

115

Cc: Jan Eller <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>, kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@aol.comSubject: Re:

Sharon 1:30 tomorrow or Thursday morning at either 8:00, 9:00, or 10:00would be available. Please let me know which is a convenient time sothat I may schedule.

Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:17:47 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Subject: Re:

Today's not going to be possible. What about 1:30 Friday?

Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:24:40 -0400From: Lisa D Hodges <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>Subject: Re:

That's fine, I'll schedule it for then.

From: "Jan Eller" <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>To: MCONLON@vpha.health.ufl.edu, vanderaa@health.ufl.eduDate: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:55:35 -0400Subject: (Fwd) Re: Records RequestCC: sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu, lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu,tvh@vpha.health.ufl.edu

Mike and Jan,

Attached is a letter that Sharon Bauer sent to Lisa Hodges in the Health Science Center Personnel Office. In her letter to Lisa, Sharon made a public records request and stated her request as follows:

"I would like to make an appointment to review all records in the Health Center Personnel office and the Office of the Vice President for Health Affairs pertaining to me and Ms. Dailey. These would include (but by no means be limited to) the complaints against Dr. Conlon that Ms. Dailey has told her staff that she filed with the vice president's office shortly after Dr. Conlon was hired and again in January 2000; any emails; and any evaluations, counseling memos, or disciplinary actions pertaining to Ms. Dailey."

In order to comply with Sharon's request, I reviewed the records in the VP for Health Affairs' office and have provided those records to Lisa Hodges. Since Sharon clarified her request to me in a follow-up email listed below, please review your records in order to determine what records you have that need to be made available to Sharon for her review. Once you have completed your review, a time will need to be coordinated to allow Sharon to review the material.

Jan

116

------- Forwarded message follows -------Date sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:02:57 -0500From: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@ufl.edu>To: Jan Eller <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Send reply to: Sharon Bauer <sbauer@ufl.edu>Subject: Re: Records Request

When I said the Office of the Vice President for Health Affairs, I was referring to all of its offices, including any records that Mike Conlon or Jan van der Aa would have. Could you please arrange for us to review all of them at the same time?

Sharon

Quoting Jan Eller <PJE@vpha.health.ufl.edu>:

> Sharon,>> In response to your request to review all records of the Office of the> Vice President for Health Affairs pertaining to you and Valerie Dailey, I> have a couple of emails where your name is referenced. My office also> has copies of the annual evaluations that Valerie has received.> However, there are no counseling records or disciplinary actions that> have been issued to Valerie. Also, the Office of the Vice President for> Health Affairs has no record of any complaint filed by Valerie against> Mike Conlon. Please contact me to arrange a convenient time to> review these records.>> Jan

[No response as of 5/9/02]

117

ATTACHMENT 22

Subject: Re: Your Request for Data - Confirming DetailsDate: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:37:44 -0500From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>CC: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>, "Steve Prevaux (E-mail)" <prevaux@ufl.edu>

"Willits, Bob" wrote:

> Sharon, please accept this in response to your e-mail sent from AFSCME on> Thursday, 10/25/01 (below). While I realize that we may have some points of> issue to work through, I would hope that personal attacks and negative tone> can be avoided in the future as we seek a productive and professional> relationship.

Until the administration conducts itself in a *productive* and professional way,we will find it necessary to continue to make factual observations regardingstaff performance.

> We are pleased to make records available to you that are not exempt under> 119.07, Florida Statutes, and have investigated further details involving> the information that you seek. We can indeed provide the personnel database> information that includes, among other data, employee name, addresses,> telephone numbers, dates of hire, class date, education level, home> department, assignment/salary information, etc.

You are not pleased, and saying that you are is not conducive to a professionalrelationship with AFSCME. Of course you "can indeed provide the personneldatabase information." You could and should have provided it two years ago.

You have heretofore refused to provide all of the data, only selected fields inyour standard file that you sell for a standard fee. Please confirm that you arereferring to all of the files that comprise the employee database. I no longerhave access to the manual listing those files and the fields they contain.Please have IS fax me a copy of those pages. I will email the fax numbertomorrow.

> As we previously discussed, any information currently secured as> exempted from production under 119.07 is being reviewed to ensure that it is> properly maintained. Should we find any information secured that is not> eligible for this exemption, we will produce that data as well.

That is not what we previously discussed. What we discussed is that you hadsecurity flags based on employee privacy preference that bore no relation toexemption from the statute. You claimed that you did not know what informationwas exempt, and that you would provide only information that employees had notasked be kept private. You are required to know what is exempt when creating thedatabase. According to the AG's manual, "design and development of thesoftware, therefore, should ensure that the system has the capability ofredacting confidential or exempt information when a public records request is

118

made." On October 19 we asked that you at least provide the information you knowto be public, and you still have not complied.

> Please understand that the university as a state agency is the responsible> custodian of personnel records entrusted to its care.

Please understand that you are continuing to insult my intelligence.

> Thus, we cannot> provide information from our database that has been .exempted from the public> record such as social security numbers of former and current employees given> 119.07(3)(x) F.S., home address and phone numbers of former or active law> enforcement officers given 119.07(3)(i) F.S., the names and addresses of> retirees given 121.031(5) F.S., and federal tax information given 192.105(1)> F.S. The reality is that such exempt information is contained in the> records you demand and we have an obligation to make appropriate redactions> before production.

Neither requesting nor demanding has persuaded you to comply with your statutoryobligation, which is as follows :

"A person who has custody of a public record and who asserts that an exemptionprovided in subsection (3) or in a general or special law applies to aparticular public record or part of such record shall delete or excise from therecord only that portion of the record with respect to which an exemption hasbeen asserted and validly applies, and such person shall produce the remainderof such record for inspection and examination. If the person who has custody ofa public record contends that the record or part of it is exempt from inspectionand examination, he or she shall state the basis of the exemption which he orshe contends is applicable to the record, including the statutory citation to anexemption created or afforded by statute."

It has taken you two years to redact exempt information although you arerequired to build that capability into the design of the database. According tothe manual, "Any delay in production of the records beyond what is reasonableunder the circumstances may subject the custodian to liability for failure toproduce public records." According to the statute, "Any public officer whoviolates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a noncriminal infraction,punishable by fine not exceeding $500...Any person willfully and knowinglyviolating any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor ofthe first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083" ["adefinite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year"].

> I think you already realize that patient records and medical information are> also exempted from the public record given 119.07(v) F.S., although there> should not be much, if any, such information codified in the records you> seek.

Regardless of how much exempt information is contained in the records, you arerequired to build in a way to easily redact it.

119

> We are advised by I.S. that the time needed to produce this information in> ASCII text on a CD will be approximately two days. The cost is projected to> be approximately $240, but in keeping with the spirit of 119.07(1)(b), cost> will be itemized and may end up being less than the estimated $240 and> reflective only of reasonable costs incurred by the University for extensive> use of information technology resources and the clerical assistance required> to produce records in response to your request for the entire database.

Your "standard fee" of $240 is illegal. "The charge must be reasonable and basedon the labor or computer costs actually incurred by the agency." The laborinvolved for this request should be five minutes, and the computer costs shouldbe under $25. "An agency may not charge fees designed to recoup the originalcost of developing or producing the records," and the cost of redactingconfidential information is a development cost that you cannot pass on to us. Wewill pay your fee under duress, challenge it, and get a refund since it takesneither extensive technology resources nor extensive clerical assistance to copyfiles.

> Upon receiving your confirmation that you are agreeable to payment based on> the above, we will advise I.S. to begin production immediately. You then> will be contacted when the CD is ready and may pick it up upon submission of> your check not to exceed $240.

When you confirm that you are providing all of the data, then we will pay underduress.

> Sharon, we look forward to completing work on your request in good faith and> in full compliance of the Florida Statutes. I will await your reply - Bob

We also look forwarding to your completing this request at long last. Ademonstration of good faith would be to provide the requested informationimmediately at a reasonable cost. You have not produced one single piece ofpaper in response to the 20 public records violations we attempted to discusswith you at the October 19 consultation meeting.

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:17:27 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Willits, Bob" <bob-willits@ufl.edu>Subject: Re: Your Request for Data - Confirming Details

The fax number is 332-4648.

Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:29:36 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'share@afn.org'" <share@afn.org>Cc: "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>Subject: Personnel Data CD

Sharon Bauer120

AFSCME President, Local 3340

Information Systems (I.S.) has completed work on your public recordsrequest for the personnel data base, and has all available information ona CD ready for you to pick up. As was discussed in our consultationmeeting of October 18, 2001, and subsequently in Bob Willits' e-mailof October 31, 2001, to you, any information currently secured asexempted form production under 119.07, F.S. is being reviewed to ensurethat it is properly maintained. Should we find any information that isnot eligible for this exemption, we will produce that data as well at noadditional cost to you.

As Bob also referenced in that same e-mail to you, an itemized accountingof actual production costs was kept for this project. The total staff andcomputer time required totaled $756.57. However, in the spirit of improved relations with Local 3340, we are willing to assess only $240 onthis occasion. Any future projects will need to be billed based onactual production expense.

You may pick up the CD in I.S. (33 Tigert) between 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m.,Monday through Friday (except this coming Monday, a holiday) uponsubmitting a check for $240 to I.S. payable to the University of Florida.

Cordially,

Larry T. Ellis, DirectorUniversity Personnel Services

Subject: Re: Personnel Data CDDate: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:35:45 -0500From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>CC: "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>

"Ellis, Larry" wrote:

In my October 31 email to Bob Willits, I said:

"You have heretofore refused to provide all of the data, only selected fields in your standard file that you sell for a standard fee. Please confirm that you are referring to all of the files that comprise the employee database...Please have IS fax me [the list of the files and the fields they contain]...When you confirm that you are providing all of the data, then we will pay under duress."

We will be happy to pick up this CD when you tell us what we are paying $240 for.

Also, please provide us with a breakdown of the $756.57 charge.

121

Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:14:22 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Cc: "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Personnel Data CD

Ms Bauer:

Per your email request, a "list of the files and the fields they contain"has been faxed (332-4648) to your attention this morning.

"A breakdown of the $756.57 charge" from Information Systems is asfollows:* $422.37 Staff Time - 19+ hours @ $22.23 per hour (Tim Schnelle,Coordinator - Computer Applications);* $59.20 Staff Time - 4 hours @ $14.80 per hour (Bryan Cooke, ComputerProgrammer - Analyst); and* $275.00 Computer Time.

Larry T. Ellis, DirectorUniversity Personnel Services

122

ATTACHMENT 23

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:21:07 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: larry-ellis@ufl.eduCc: poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: Personnel Records

We have examined the list of fields that you faxed to me asthose included on the CD you prepared for us (withoutauthorization) at a purported cost of $756.67 ($422.37 for23+ hours of labor and $275 for computer time). Contrary toyour assertion in your November 9 email that the CD contains"all available information," it contains only 159 of the 845data elements in the payroll/personnel system. Fields suchas Collective Bargaining Unit have been inexplicablyexcluded, in violation of Chapter 119. Please provide uswith copies of the programs used to generate the file(s).

Also, at our October 19 consultation meeting, you informedus that your department had finally (two years after ouroriginal request) begun the process of determining which ofthe cloaked data was exempt. Please provide us with any andall records pertaining to these efforts.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

Subject: RE: Personnel RecordsDate: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:41:05 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>,"Thomas, Tom" <twthomas@ufl.edu>

Attached, please find communications pertaining to the Public RecordsExemption Project.

Pursuant to your reference on the data elements, other than the one youspecified (collective bargaining unit), Information Systems is not aware ofany missing information that is personnel related. However, if you wouldplease enumerate exactly what those missing data elements are, we will beglad to furnish the information.

By copy, I am asking IS for "copies of the programs used to generate thefile(s)."

Lastly, you characterized the production of records (CD) as unauthorized. Areview of your 11/12/01 and 10/25/01 emails disclosed that the CD format waswhat you demanded. Thus, please also consider this communication as a

123

Second Invoice for $240. The check should be made payable to the Universityof Florida. Upon receipt of the check, the CD may be picked-up inInformation Systems (33 Tigert) between 8:00am and 5:00pm.

Larry EllisDirector, Division of Human Resources

Letter to Employees (119.07) 12-7-01.docMemo to TKL Administrators (119.07) 12-12-01.doc

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:22:08 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Cc: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>,"'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>, "Thomas, Tom" <twthomas@ufl.edu>Subject: FW: Personnel Records

Ms. Bauer:

I have received an opinion from the General Counsel's Office regarding yourrequest for "copies of the programs used to generate the file(s)."Accordingly, agency-produced data processing software contains sensitivesource code information which is not subject to disclosure, and exempt fromSection 119.07(1), Florida Statutes.

To date, the University of Florida has incurred substantial costs to producevolumes of records that has been repeatedly made available for AFSCME'sinspection and retrieval. Thus, please also consider the communication onthis date as the 3rd invoice for $240.

Larry T. EllisDirector, Division of Human Resources

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:07:41 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Cc: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Subject: Re: FW: Personnel Records

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Ms. Bauer:>> I have received an opinion from the General Counsel's Office regarding your> request for "copies of the programs used to generate the file(s)."> Accordingly, agency-produced data processing software contains sensitive> source code information which is not subject to disclosure, and exempt from> Section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes.

124

(1) Your response is as usual untimely as this informationwas requested five weeks ago. You are once again inviolation of Chapter 119.

(2) I would think that the General Counsel's office would beaware and would have advised you (as I have many times inthe past) that, if you assert that a statutory exemption todisclosure applies, then you are required to include thestatutory citation to the exemption, delete or excise onlythat portion to which it validly applies, and produce theremainder. Your failure to do so is yet another violationof the statute. In addition, you are required to state "inwriting and with particularity" the reasons for theconclusion that the record is exempt, should we request it,and we do.

(3) "Sensitive" is defined in Chapter 119 as those portionsof programs that are used to collect, process, store, andretrieve exempt information. The programs in question areused to retrieve nonexempt information. This exemption doesnot apply, and your failure to provide this publicinformation is yet another violation of the statute.

> To date, the University of Florida has incurred substantial costs to produce> volumes of records that has been repeatedly made available for AFSCME's> inspection and retrieval. Thus, please also consider the communication on> this date as the 3rd invoice for $240.

Please consider this a refusal to pay, no matter how manyinvoices you send us. The information you have madeavailable is not what we requested, and we did not authorizeits production or agree to pay for it.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Attached, please find communications pertaining to the Public Records> Exemption Project.

This response was also untimely, as our request had beenmade two weeks earlier. You told us on several occasions inOctober that you had finally (two years after our originalrequest) begun the process of identifying which personnelrecords were exempt. We requested documentation of thoseefforts, and two weeks later you tell us that there isnone--not a single mention of this so-called "project" inagendas, minutes, notes, correspondence--prior to these twoDecember memos. Incredible.

> Pursuant to your reference on the data elements, other than the one you> specified (collective bargaining unit), Information Systems is not aware of> any missing information that is personnel related. However, if you would

125

> please enumerate exactly what those missing data elements are, we will be> glad to furnish the information.

Given your statutory responsibility, I would think that bynow you would have already compared the list of 159 includedfields that you faxed to me and the list of 845 dataelements in the payroll/personnel database to see what ismissing. Like bargaining unit, most are clearly "personnelrelated." We requested the entire database, and I have noobligation to tell you why we want all 845 elements in it orwhat they are. You, on the other hand, are legally requiredto justify your withholding them. Your continuedwithholding of this public information is why we are seekingnot only civil but criminal penalties.

> By copy, I am asking IS for "copies of the programs used to generate the> file(s)."

Again, your response is untimely in that you did not evenforward the request to IS until more than two weeks after receiving it.

> Lastly, you characterized the production of records (CD) as unauthorized. A> review of your 11/12/01 and 10/25/01 emails disclosed that the CD format was> what you demanded. Thus, please also consider this communication as a> Second Invoice for $240. The check should be made payable to the University> of Florida. Upon receipt of the check, the CD may be picked-up in> Information Systems (33 Tigert) between 8:00am and 5:00pm.

A review of my 10/31/01 email discloses that I refused toauthorize production of the CD when asked to do so by BobWillits. I said that we would not agree to pay withoutconfirmation that, unlike the CD you tried to foist off onus last year, this one would contain what we have beenrequesting for two years: the entire personnel databaseminus exempt data. The list of fields you faxed to me inresponse showed that the CD contains only a fraction of whatwe requested. We consider that CD, like your invoices forit, to be rubbish.

> Larry Ellis> Director, Division of Human Resources

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:59:02 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Cc: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>,

126

"'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: FW: Personnel Records

Ms. Bauer:

Section 119.07(3)(o) Florida Statutes states:Data processing software obtained by an agency under a licensing agreementwhich prohibits its disclosure and which software is a trade secret, asdefined in Section 812.081, (Florida Statutes), and agency-produced dataprocessing software which is sensitive are exempt from the provision ofsubsection (1) and Section 24(a), Article l of the State Constitution.

According to an attorney general opinion (AGO 90-102):If the software used is licensed to the University, section 119.07(3)(o)exempts from disclosure and copying data processing software which isobtained by the University pursuant to a licensing agreement which prohibitsits disclosure and which software is a trade secret.

Regarding the communications pertaining to the Public Records ExemptionProject, I was on annual leave December 14th through December 27th. Thus,your request of December 13th was responded to on December 28th.

Larry T. Ellis

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:51:44 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Cc: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Subject: RE: FW: Personnel Records

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Ms. Bauer:>> Section 119.07(3)(o) Florida Statutes states:> Data processing software obtained by an agency under a licensing agreement> which prohibits its disclosure and which software is a trade secret, as> defined in Section 812.081, (Florida Statutes), and agency-produced data> processing software which is sensitive are exempt from the provision of> subsection (1) and Section 24(a), Article l of the State Constitution.>> According to an attorney general opinion (AGO 90-102):> If the software used is licensed to the University, section 119.07(3)(o)> exempts from disclosure and copying data processing software which is> obtained by the University pursuant to a licensing agreement which prohibits> its disclosure and which software is a trade secret.

That's ridiculous. If you type a document in Word, youcan't withhold the resulting document because licensedsoftware was used to create it. You have to provide the

127

requester a copy of the document, not Word. You claim thatyour staff spent 23 hours writing programs to copy thesepublic records to a CD. We're not asking you for SAS,COBOL, SQL, or whatever other software was used to write andrun the programs. We want the resulting agency-producedprograms, which are neither licensed nor sensitive. Youneed to use the licensed software to print out a copy ofthose programs. You still haven't complied with therequirement that you state specifically how this exemptionapplies. What licensed software are you claiming that youcan't provide to us?

> Regarding the communications pertaining to the Public Records Exemption> Project, I was on annual leave December 14th through December 27th. Thus,> your request of December 13th was responded to on December 28th.>> Larry T. Ellis

I find it hard to believe that you don't check your mailwhile you're on vacation or have it forwarded to someoneelse to be handled in your absence, that it's just ignoredwhenever you're out of the office. That's a very odd way todo business and certainly isn't how it's done in any officeI've ever worked in.

This is a public records request to view (1) all messagesyou received during your vacation and (2) all replies tothose messages. In lieu of providing those records forreview, you could just admit that other mail was read andresponded to during that period if that is in fact the case.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

128

ATTACHMENT 24

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:21:07 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: larry-ellis@ufl.eduCc: poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: Personnel Records

We have examined the list of fields that you faxed to me asthose included on the CD you prepared for us (withoutauthorization) at a purported cost of $756.67 ($422.37 for23+ hours of labor and $275 for computer time). Contrary toyour assertion in your November 9 email that the CD contains"all available information," it contains only 159 of the 845data elements in the payroll/personnel system. Fields suchas Collective Bargaining Unit have been inexplicablyexcluded, in violation of Chapter 119. Please provide uswith copies of the programs used to generate the file(s).

Also, at our October 19 consultation meeting, you informedus that your department had finally (two years after ouroriginal request) begun the process of determining which ofthe cloaked data was exempt. Please provide us with any andall records pertaining to these efforts.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

Subject: RE: Personnel RecordsDate: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:41:05 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'Sharon Bauer'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>,"Thomas, Tom" <twthomas@ufl.edu>

Attached, please find communications pertaining to the Public RecordsExemption Project.

Pursuant to your reference on the data elements, other than the one youspecified (collective bargaining unit), Information Systems is not aware ofany missing information that is personnel related. However, if you wouldplease enumerate exactly what those missing data elements are, we will beglad to furnish the information.

By copy, I am asking IS for "copies of the programs used to generate thefile(s)."

Lastly, you characterized the production of records (CD) as unauthorized. Areview of your 11/12/01 and 10/25/01 emails disclosed that the CD format waswhat you demanded. Thus, please also consider this communication as a

129

Second Invoice for $240. The check should be made payable to the Universityof Florida. Upon receipt of the check, the CD may be picked-up inInformation Systems (33 Tigert) between 8:00am and 5:00pm.

Larry EllisDirector, Division of Human Resources

Attachments:Letter to Employees (119.07) 12-7-01.docMemo to TKL Administrators (119.07) 12-12-01.doc

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:07:41 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Cc: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Subject: Re: FW: Personnel Records

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Ms. Bauer:>> I have received an opinion from the General Counsel's Office regarding your> request for "copies of the programs used to generate the file(s)."> Accordingly, agency-produced data processing software contains sensitive> source code information which is not subject to disclosure, and exempt from> Section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes.

(1) Your response is as usual untimely as this informationwas requested five weeks ago. You are once again inviolation of Chapter 119.

(2) I would think that the General Counsel's office would beaware and would have advised you (as I have many times inthe past) that, if you assert that a statutory exemption todisclosure applies, then you are required to include thestatutory citation to the exemption, delete or excise onlythat portion to which it validly applies, and produce theremainder. Your failure to do so is yet another violationof the statute. In addition, you are required to state "inwriting and with particularity" the reasons for theconclusion that the record is exempt, should we request it,and we do.

(3) "Sensitive" is defined in Chapter 119 as those portionsof programs that are used to collect, process, store, andretrieve exempt information. The programs in question areused to retrieve nonexempt information. This exemption doesnot apply, and your failure to provide this publicinformation is yet another violation of the statute.

> To date, the University of Florida has incurred substantial costs to produce130

> volumes of records that has been repeatedly made available for AFSCME's> inspection and retrieval. Thus, please also consider the communication on> this date as the 3rd invoice for $240.

Please consider this a refusal to pay, no matter how manyinvoices you send us. The information you have madeavailable is not what we requested, and we did not authorizeits production or agree to pay for it.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Attached, please find communications pertaining to the Public Records> Exemption Project.

This response was also untimely, as our request had beenmade two weeks earlier. You told us on several occasions inOctober that you had finally (two years after our originalrequest) begun the process of identifying which personnelrecords were exempt. We requested documentation of thoseefforts, and two weeks later you tell us that there isnone--not a single mention of this so-called "project" inagendas, minutes, notes, correspondence--prior to these twoDecember memos. Incredible.

> Pursuant to your reference on the data elements, other than the one you> specified (collective bargaining unit), Information Systems is not aware of> any missing information that is personnel related. However, if you would> please enumerate exactly what those missing data elements are, we will be> glad to furnish the information.

Given your statutory responsibility, I would think that bynow you would have already compared the list of 159 includedfields that you faxed to me and the list of 845 dataelements in the payroll/personnel database to see what ismissing. Like bargaining unit, most are clearly "personnelrelated." We requested the entire database, and I have noobligation to tell you why we want all 845 elements in it orwhat they are. You, on the other hand, are legally requiredto justify your withholding them. Your continuedwithholding of this public information is why we are seekingnot only civil but criminal penalties.

> By copy, I am asking IS for "copies of the programs used to generate the> file(s)."

Again, your response is untimely in that you did not evenforward the request to IS until more than two weeks after receiving it.

> Lastly, you characterized the production of records (CD) as unauthorized. A> review of your 11/12/01 and 10/25/01 emails disclosed that the CD format was

131

> what you demanded. Thus, please also consider this communication as a> Second Invoice for $240. The check should be made payable to the University> of Florida. Upon receipt of the check, the CD may be picked-up in> Information Systems (33 Tigert) between 8:00am and 5:00pm.

A review of my 10/31/01 email discloses that I refused toauthorize production of the CD when asked to do so by BobWillits. I said that we would not agree to pay withoutconfirmation that, unlike the CD you tried to foist off onus last year, this one would contain what we have beenrequesting for two years: the entire personnel databaseminus exempt data. The list of fields you faxed to me inresponse showed that the CD contains only a fraction of whatwe requested. We consider that CD, like your invoices forit, to be rubbish.

> Larry Ellis> Director, Division of Human Resources

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

132

ATTACHMENT 24

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:51:44 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>Cc: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>Subject: RE: FW: Personnel Records

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Ellis, Larry wrote:

> Ms. Bauer:>> Section 119.07(3)(o) Florida Statutes states:> Data processing software obtained by an agency under a licensing agreement> which prohibits its disclosure and which software is a trade secret, as> defined in Section 812.081, (Florida Statutes), and agency-produced data> processing software which is sensitive are exempt from the provision of> subsection (1) and Section 24(a), Article l of the State Constitution.>> According to an attorney general opinion (AGO 90-102):> If the software used is licensed to the University, section 119.07(3)(o)> exempts from disclosure and copying data processing software which is> obtained by the University pursuant to a licensing agreement which prohibits> its disclosure and which software is a trade secret.

That's ridiculous. If you type a document in Word, youcan't withhold the resulting document because licensedsoftware was used to create it. You have to provide therequester a copy of the document, not Word. You claim thatyour staff spent 23 hours writing programs to copy thesepublic records to a CD. We're not asking you for SAS,COBOL, SQL, or whatever other software was used to write andrun the programs. We want the resulting agency-producedprograms, which are neither licensed nor sensitive. Youneed to use the licensed software to print out a copy ofthose programs. You still haven't complied with therequirement that you state specifically how this exemptionapplies. What licensed software are you claiming that youcan't provide to us?

> Regarding the communications pertaining to the Public Records Exemption> Project, I was on annual leave December 14th through December 27th. Thus,> your request of December 13th was responded to on December 28th.>> Larry T. Ellis

I find it hard to believe that you don't check your mailwhile you're on vacation or have it forwarded to someoneelse to be handled in your absence, that it's just ignoredwhenever you're out of the office. That's a very odd way todo business and certainly isn't how it's done in any office

133

I've ever worked in.

This is a public records request to view (1) all messagesyou received during your vacation and (2) all replies tothose messages. In lieu of providing those records forreview, you could just admit that other mail was read andresponded to during that period if that is in fact the case.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

[No response as of 5/9/02]

134

ATTACHMENT 26

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:43:56 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: personnel@ufl.eduSubject: Position Descriptions

Pursuant to Chapter 119, F.S., I'd like copies of the jobdescriptions of the following positions. Please fax them tomy attention at 375-8068. If you have any questions, youcan reach me at 392-3855. Thanks,

Sharon Bauer

932890636320 Secretary835710 Program Assist870040 Office Asst.811180 Program Asst.636630 Program Assist629310 Office Assistant 879140 Office Asst.992240 Program Assist?811260 Clerical Supervisor975890 Office Assistant805620 Program Assistant825510 Secretary626740 Office Asst.636020 Secretary863690 Program Assist.

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:32:01 -0500From: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>To: "'share@afn.org'" <share@afn.org>Subject: Request for Position Descriptions

We can supply the requested documents as photocopies. The number of pagesrequested (57) will tie up our fax machine for too long a period.

In compliance with General Counsel's advicehttp://www.generalcounsel.ufl.edu/faq.htm the costs incurred (photocopyingand staff time) total $12.15, payment for which we will need in advance.This is already discounted by our policy of providing the first 10 pages atno charge.

Cost breakdown:Staff time: 45 minutes @ $9.87/hr = $7.40 (pulling files, extractingdocuments, photocopying)One-sided pages: 1@$.15/page = .15Two-sided pages: 23@$.20/page = 4.60 (a savings from 46pages@$.15/page)

135

Total: $12.15

If not in cash, make check payable to "University of Florida." Payment mustbe made prior to delivery.

For your convenience, you can make payment and take subsequent delivery atthe Health Center Employee Relations office in H-8, JHMHC.

Please advise.

--------------------------------------------Kris PagenkopfHuman Resources CoordinatorDivision of Human ResourcesUniversity of FloridaPOB 115001Gainesville, FL 32611-5001Phone 352-392-1213, SC 622-1213Fax 352-392-3203, SC 622-3203E-mail: kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu <mailto:kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:10:59 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>Subject: Re: Request for Position Descriptions

The link below doesn't seem to work. I get a Page NotFound error and am redirected to www.webadmin.ufl.edu. I'dbe very interested in seeing the FAQ.

Since you can only charge labor if the volume of recordsinvolved requires "extensive clerical or supervisoryassistance," how many position descriptions can you pull(which of course you've already done in order to count thepages) without it being considered extensive--1, 2, 3? Andhow many pages are you able to fax?

Sharon

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:36:50 -0500From: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions

With respect to the link, you may want to tryhttp://www.generalcounsel.ufl.edu and click on "Legal FAQs"

With respect to the method and manner in which we can supply the requesteddocuments, please see our original response. We are prepared to make

136

delivery upon receipt of the charges to cover the cost of supplying thesedocuments.

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:56:19 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions

As I told you previously, the general counsel websiteisn't available. Apparently it's blocked to peopleoutside of your department. It must not be confidentialif you keep referring me to is, so I'm requesting a copy ofit. Please fax it to 375-8068.

I don't understand why you're refusing to answer myquestions about cost. If I revise my request to onlyinclude the first 15 position descriptions, what will thecost be? 14? 13? 12? 11? 10? 9? 8? 7? 6? 5? 4? 3? 2? 1?Which of those requests could be faxed?

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:38:22 -0500From: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Cc: "Hodges, Lisa" <lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions

We have confirmed with General Counsel's office that their site is notrestricted. However, we will provide a copy of that page for pick-upthrough our Health Center Employee Relations office (H-8).

As per amending your original request we will be happy to provide copies atthe stated public records service charges that account for staff time andphotocopying at single- and double-sided rates specified below.

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:56:52 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Pagenkopf, Kris wrote:

> We have confirmed with General Counsel's office that their site is not> restricted. However, we will provide a copy of that page for pick-up> through our Health Center Employee Relations office (H-8).

I'm not going to pick it up at the Health Center EmployeeRelations Office. I asked that you fax it to 375-8068.

> As per amending your original request we will be happy to provide copies at> the stated public records service charges that account for staff time and

137

> photocopying at single- and double-sided rates specified below.

Disregard my original request for the 16 position descriptions. This is a request for the following 8.Please provide me with an estimate of the cost.

> > > 932890> > > 636320 Secretary> > > 835710 Program Assist> > > 870040 Office Asst.> > > 811180 Program Asst.> > > 636630 Program Assist> > > 629310 Office Assistant> > > 879140 Office Asst.

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:31:08 -0500From: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Cc: "Hodges, Lisa" <lhodges@admin.ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions

Per your revised request, the cost is $4.89 with first 10 pages free.Again, upon receipt of payment, we can provide the requested copies throughthe our Health Center Employee Relations office (H-8).

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:06:43 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions

After consulting with my attorney, I am requesting, insteadof a copy of the printed FAQ, a copy of the electronic HTMLfile. Please email it to me at this address.

Also, according to the Attorney General's public recordsmanual, "In order to comply with the statutory directivethat an agency provide copies of public records upon paymentof the statutory fee, an agency must respond to requests forinformation as to copying costs." Therefore, I amreiterating my previous request for the costs of providingthe first 1, 2, 3..., etc., through 15 documents of the 16listed.

I also want a copy, in electronic format if available, ofany records in HR pertaining to faxing requested records.Please provide me with the cost of those records.

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:00:15 -0500From: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>

138

Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions

Per your request, attached are copies (MSWord) of the FAQs, and the HTMLfile.

With regards to costs, they are based upon:Photocopying: $.15 for single-sided copying; $.20 for double-sided copyingStaff time

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:14:16 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu, poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions (fwd)

This is to document that we have made you aware of thefollowing additional violations of the public records law.

Over six weeks ago, I requested copies of 16 positiondescriptions and was told by Kris Pagenkopf that there wouldbe a charge of $7.40 for extensive clerical assistance. Iasked how many position descriptions could be requestedwithout requiring extensive clerical assistance, and he didnot provide that information. I then asked for the cost ofproviding the first one, the first two, etc., up to thefirst 15 position descriptions, and he has not provided thatinformation.

I had asked that the records be faxed to me, and he refused, saying that the number of pages requested would tie up theirfax machine for too long. I repeatedly asked how many pagescould be faxed, and he did not respond. I asked him to faxme a copy of the General Counsel web pag that he hadreferred me to but that, due to a programming error, was notavailable that day. He refused to fax that single sheet,saying that I could pick it up in person at the HealthCenter Personnel Office. I then requested a copy of anypolicies or other records pertaining to the faxing ofrequested records, and he has not responded to date.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

Subject: Request for Position Descriptions (fwd)Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:31:54 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'share@afn.org'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>

Good Afternoon Sharon:139

Attached, please find information provided you by Kris Pagenkopf on 1/31/02and 2/1/02. They appear to be prompt and accurate responses to specificrequests. However, should you have other specific requests for information,please contact my office.

Thanks....Larry

140

ATTACHMENT 27

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:06:43 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions

After consulting with my attorney, I am requesting, insteadof a copy of the printed FAQ, a copy of the electronic HTMLfile. Please email it to me at this address.

Also, according to the Attorney General's public recordsmanual, "In order to comply with the statutory directivethat an agency provide copies of public records upon paymentof the statutory fee, an agency must respond to requests forinformation as to copying costs." Therefore, I amreiterating my previous request for the costs of providingthe first 1, 2, 3..., etc., through 15 documents of the 16listed.

I also want a copy, in electronic format if available, ofany records in HR pertaining to faxing requested records.Please provide me with the cost of those records.

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:00:15 -0500From: "Pagenkopf, Kris" <kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu>To: 'Sharon Bauer' <share@afn.org>Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions

Per your request, attached are copies (MSWord) of the FAQs, and the HTMLfile.

With regards to costs, they are based upon:Photocopying: $.15 for single-sided copying; $.20 for double-sided copyingStaff time

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:14:16 -0500 (EST)From: Sharon Bauer <share@afn.org>To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu, poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.eduSubject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions (fwd)

This is to document that we have made you aware of thefollowing additional violations of the public records law.

Over six weeks ago, I requested copies of 16 positiondescriptions and was told by Kris Pagenkopf that there wouldbe a charge of $7.40 for extensive clerical assistance. Iasked how many position descriptions could be requestedwithout requiring extensive clerical assistance, and he did

141

not provide that information. I then asked for the cost ofproviding the first one, the first two, etc., up to thefirst 15 position descriptions, and he has not provided thatinformation.

I had asked that the records be faxed to me, and he refused, saying that the number of pages requested would tie up theirfax machine for too long. I repeatedly asked how many pagescould be faxed, and he did not respond. I asked him to faxme a copy of the General Counsel web pag that he hadreferred me to but that, due to a programming error, was notavailable that day. He refused to fax that single sheet,saying that I could pick it up in person at the HealthCenter Personnel Office. I then requested a copy of anypolicies or other records pertaining to the faxing ofrequested records, and he has not responded to date.

Sharon BauerPresident, AFSCME Local 3340

Subject: Request for Position Descriptions (fwd)Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:31:54 -0500From: "Ellis, Larry" <larry-ellis@ufl.edu>To: "'share@afn.org'" <share@afn.org>CC: "Poppell, Ed" <Poppell@admin.ufl.edu>, "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" <prevaux@ufl.edu>

Good Afternoon Sharon:

Attached, please find information provided you by Kris Pagenkopf on 1/31/02and 2/1/02. They appear to be prompt and accurate responses to specificrequests. However, should you have other specific requests for information,please contact my office.

Thanks....Larry

142

143