PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATIONS - AFN
PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATIONS
|Att. |Page |Original | | | |Received? |
|No. |No. |Request | | | | |
| | |Date | | | | |
| |3 |12/98 |Records |Personnel file |Required to sign form, not allowed to view | |
| | | | | |original records | |
| |5 |1/29/99 |Steven Gluck |Departmental personnel file, |3/2 Bernard |3/10/99 |
| | | | |Sybill Beck | | |
| |7 |3/99 |Steve Prevaux |Records on Sybille Becks’s |Denied they exist |No |
| | | | |request to see her personnel | | |
| | | | |file | | |
| |13 |3/99 |Lisa Hodges |same |Requested five times, $110 estimate |12/99 |
| |19 |3/24/99 |James Terhune |Departmental personnel file | |No |
| |21 |4/99 |Bruce Lulow |Timecards for employee given |8/99 grievance, 10/99 Aust, 10/99 Schaffer |10/99 |
| | | | |leave without pay | | |
| |24 |5/21/99 |Lisa Hodges |Timecards for employee filing |$55 estimate, $25 charge, $24 of it for |No |
| | | | |excessive overtime grievance |excessive labor | |
| | | | |(Ch. 447) | | |
| |28 |11/99 |John Tucker |Personnel database |4/20 Marrin, 6/00 Young, 7/00 Ellis, 8/18 |No |
| | | | | |Poppell, 8/24 Blackwell, 8/30 Blackwell | |
| |58 |1/28/00 |Lisa Hodges |Documents on which counseling |charged $1.95, demanded in advance, finally |Yes |
| | | | |letter was based |refunded | |
| |61 |1/29/00 |Dug Jones |All night shift records | |Partial 2/29 |
| | |2/14/00 |Dug Jones |Utility bills from night shift| |9/00 |
| | | | |pilot | | |
| |70 |4/20/00 |Robin Marrin |Phone and email directory |6/00 Young, 7/00 Ellis, 8/18 Poppell, 9/6/00 |CD and tape |
| | | | | |Poppell, 9/20/00 Poppell (9-track tape unusable| |
| | | | | |and noncompliant), 1/31/01 Poppell | |
| |74 |5/00 |Charles Young |Night shift survey forms | |No |
| |78 |9/7/00 |Greg Marwede |Selection procedures | |No |
| |80 |8/18/00 |David Colburn |Records on appointment of |8/21 Colburn; 8/24 consultation; 8/30 Colburn, |No |
| | | | |night shift committee |Blackwell | |
| |84 |9/27/00 |Dave O’Brien |Night shift files |Jerry Williamson needs my permission to see |9/28 |
| | | | | |them | |
| |86 |2/01 |Sherry Larson |Records regarding Sharon DeSue| |Partial, 04/01 |
| |88 |3/30/01 |Kim Czaplewski |Remainder of DeSue records | |No |
| |91 |3/30/01 |Kim Czaplewski |List of employees for contract| |No |
| | | | |ratification (Ch. 447) | | |
| |100 |6/5/01 |Kim Czaplewski |Personnel policy regarding | |No |
| | | | |performance appraisals | | |
| |106 |9/7/01 |Larry Ellis |OPS records | |Partial (3 |
| | | | | | |Sept. printouts) |
| |112 |10/30/01 |Lisa Hodges |All records in Personnel and | |Partial, none from|
| | | | |VP’s office re: me and | |Conlon or van der |
| | | | |supervisor | |Aa |
| |118 |10/31/01 |Bob Willits |Manual pages listing database | |11/14/01 |
| | | | |files and fields | | |
| |123 |12/13/01 |Larry Ellis |Programs written by IS to | |No |
| | | | |generate CD | | |
| |129 |12/13/01 |Larry Ellis |Records re: Personnel’s | |No |
| | | | |efforts to identify which | | |
| | | | |cloacked records are exempt | | |
| | | | |(cited at 10/18 consultation) | | |
| |133 |1/25/02 |Larry Ellis |Mail received by Larry Ellis | |No |
| | | | |12/14-12/27 and replies | | |
| |135 |1/30/02 |Kris Pagenkopf |Cost of position descriptions |Ellis 3/19/02 |No |
| |141 |1/31/02 |Kris Pagenkopf |HR policy on faxing of records|Ellis 3/19/02 |No |
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
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 PM
To: '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
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 PM
To: '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 redacted
and 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
ATTACHMENT 2
Subject: Personnel File
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:19:24 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
To: glucksl@medicine.ufl.edu
This is in response to your January 29 denial of Sybille Beck's repeated
requests to review your file on her. The complete text of your reply
was, "I checked with personnel. I am not required to show you my
personal files." It appears that you have been misinformed. In matters
concerning records, the Office of the General Counsel is a more
authoritative resource than University Personnel Services and has a
brochure that you might find helpful.
The file in question is not a "personal file" but a public record. Under
Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, every person who has custody of a public
record must permit the record to be inspected and examined by any person
desiring to do so. Attorney General Opinion 75-175 determined that a
public employee is a person within the meaning of Ch. 119, F.S. The
Florida Supreme Court has defined public records as all materials made
or received by an agency in connection with official business which are
used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. Notes and drafts
are included. None of the statutory exemptions (e.g., academic
evaluations, investigator photographs) apply to the materials Ms. Beck
has requested. Anyone who asserts that an exemption does apply must
state its statutory citation. While the law 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 and redact any portions determined to be exempt.
Please comply promptly with Ms. Beck's request to view all records
maintained on her in the department office. This would include, but by
no means be limited to, any work samples and any correspondence or notes
regarding her performance.
Sharon Bauer, Steward
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
From: Sharon Bauer[SMTP:share@]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:51 PM
To: '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.
Thank you,
Sharon Bauer
ATTACHMENT 3
Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 9:25 PM
To: 'PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu'
Cc: 'share@'
Subject: Sybille Beck
On March 2, I wrote to ask for the assistance of your office in
obtaining 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 the
Attorney General's office. However, late this morning I received a
telephone call from the Health Center personnel office saying that the
file was there and available for review by Ms. Beck. I would like to know
which office is responsible for the additional week delay. Can you tell me
when 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 PM
To: 'share@'
Cc: Hodges (E-mail)
Your message (copy below) has been referred to me for reply. It is my
understanding that the University has promptly produced documents for
inspection upon request. In addition to this appropriate response your
e-mail confirms that you have already been contacted by the University's
satellite 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 mutual
convenience.
cc: Ms. Lisa Hodges
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 [mailto:share@]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 10:08 PM
To: 'Steven Prevaux'
Cc: 'lisa-hodges@ufl.edu'
Subject: RE:
Your understanding is incorrect. The University has not promptly produced
the file in question, which has been requested repeatedly since January
and was finally made available for inspection yesterday, a full week after a
complaint was filed with your office. We consider this not promptness,
not reasonable time, not an appropriate response, but rather an unacceptable
delay.
This is a request for any correspondence, notes, or other public records
in the offices of the General Counsel or Health Center Personnel pertaining
to Ms. Beck's and my requests for her file.
Sharon Bauer, Steward
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
From: Steven Prevaux[SMTP:SPrevaux@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 11:59 PM
To: '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 upon
Ms. Beck's request. In fact, Ms. Beck inspected personnel file documents at
the UF Personnel satellite office located in the health center. It is
interesting to hear that you are unaware of that. In any event, the
additional documents requested at the initial production (those that we
are 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 that
Ms. Beck should contact Ms. Lisa Hodges at (352) 392-3786 to schedule this
inspection at their mutual convenience.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
cc: Ms. Lisa Hodges
From: Sharon Bauer[SMTP:share@]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 1999 9:06 PM
To: 'Steven Prevaux '
Cc: 'PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu'
Subject: Records Complaint
According to Ms. Beck, your statement that she "inspected personnel file
documents at the UF Personnel satellite office located in the health
center" is completely false. Apparently you are referring to her visit to
the 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 our
complaint that Dr. Stephen Gluck had, since Ms. Beck's initial verbal
request in November, denied her access to a public record in his
custody.
When we brought this to the attention of your office, we anticipated that
you would immediately notify Dr. Gluck that he was in violation of Chapter
119 and the Master Contract, and that he would immediately produce the
file. Obviously, this did not occur, and you have refused to tell us how
you did respond and to whom, and why the file was not made available until
more 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 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 did
absolutely nothing to document your office's response to that complaint.
Frankly, your assertion strains credulity. If it is in fact true, as a
taxpayer I find it a very odd way for the Office of the General Counsel to
do business. So let me reiterate my request, because
I would like you to confirm that there is no record of this complaint in
your office.
Sharon Bauer, Steward
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
From: Steven Prevaux[SMTP:SPrevaux@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 6:33 PM
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Cc: Pamela Bernard
Subject: RE: Records Complaint
Hello. I was out of the office when you e-mailed most recently but I
have since returned to the office and have reviewed your message below and
respond as follows.
On or about January 26, 1999 Ms. Beck, inspected public records in her
personnel file located in the main personnel office (stadium) and she
received copies (approximately 134 pages) from those records as per her
request.
More recently, on or about March 15, 1999 Ms. Beck inspected the
remaining public records requested from the department and those records were
available, according to you on March 10th. It is my understanding that
Ms. Beck inspected those records in the UF Personnel satellite office located
in the health center and the University's Personnel staff immediately
provided Ms. Beck with copies (approximately 36 pages) of the specific records
tbat she requested during that inspection on March 15.
The University has, in fact, honored it's well-established practice of
promptly producing public records requested in this matter and in full
accord with the provisions of Sec. 119.07, F.S. 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). May
I suggest that you discuss this matter with Ms. Linda Barge-Miles Esq. who
provides legal representation to AFSCME. I have found her to be
reasonable to work with and well-informed about Ch. 119 as well as aware of the
duties of AFSCME to coordinate discovery requests directly related to pending
grievances.
It also is my understanding that you appeared as the AFSCME Representative
of Ms. Beck at the Step One grievance meeting on March 17, 1999 held
pursuant 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 your
e-mail messages. Questions and issues regarding Ms. Beck's case may be
properly resolved via the grievance process that is currently engaged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 [mailto:share@]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 6:00 PM
To: PBernard@OAAMAIL.aa.ufl.edu
Cc: afscme79@; share@
Subject: 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 in
Your 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 did
absolutely 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 Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
From: Pamela Bernard[SMTP:pbernard@aa.ufl.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 11:39 AM
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Subject: RE: Public Records Request
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
ATTACHMENT 4
From: Sharon Bauer[SMTP:sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 1:06 PM
To: lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu
Cc: 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
To: "Lisa D Hodges"
Subject: Re: Alex Trapp
Copies to: kim-c@ufl.edu
Date 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?
> 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
To: "Lisa D Hodges"
Subject: Re: Time cards for Trapp
Copies to: kim-c@ufl.edu
BCC to: share@
Date sent: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:30:06 -0400
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
To: lhodges@vpha.ufl.edu
Subject: Phone Message
I received a message to call you about my records request. Given past
experience with your office, I need written documentation and prefer to
communicate via e-mail. Is there some additional information you need
about the request?
Sharon
From: Lisa D Hodges[SMTP:lhodges@vpha.health.ufl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 3:19 PM
To: Sharon Bauer
Cc: kim-c@ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Phone Message
Sharon, The reason for my call was to follow up on your last email
regarding the number of pages contained in Sybille Beck's files. I'm
sorry if you feel you are experiencing difficulties from this office.
I'm not sure what past experiences you are referring to, but let me
assure you I'm not trying to make this any more complicated than it
needs
to be. As I stated to you last week I was working on your request and
would call you when they were ready for inspection. You did not indicate
to me that you were expecting hard copies of these records. In any
case,
here are the number of pages as follows:
Official Personnel File 148 pages x .15 cents 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
Again, per your clarification, these are only the documents up through
March 15, 1999. I will be unable to release any medical information
without proper authorization from Ms. Beck. Please let me know which of
these 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 in
my office please contact me so that we may schedule an available time.
Subject:
RE: Phone Message
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 08:29:40 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer, Sharon Bauer
To: '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 other
public records in the offices of the General Counsel or Health Center Personnel pertaining to
Ms. 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 her
time cards for this fiscal year and last [which the department refused to provide]..." 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."
On Nov. 22, you replied, "I would encourage you to direct Alex back to her department to
specify the exact dates she would like them to pull." On Nov. 23, I pointed out that "this
fiscal year and last" is exact. You also informed me that Ms. Beck's request had been
fulfilled. I replied that the issue was not our requests that she see her file but rather my
request to see your records regarding our requests that she see her 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."
You then called and said that I would need a release to see Ms. Beck's confidential medical
information. Once again, I told you that I did not want to see Ms. Beck's file, that I wanted
to see your records pertaining to Ms. Beck's request to see her file. You said that there
would 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. When
I asked on Nov. 18 for copies of Ms. Trapp's time cards and asked that you "provide me with
those requested records [regarding Ms. Beck's and my requests] as well," this was an indication
that 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 and
correspondence, etc., are there relating to her request to see her file--excluding the
grievance, which I already have?"
On Dec. 8, I received the above response from you: "Official Personnel File 148 pages x .15
cents 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 your
clarification, 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 and
not 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 any
records in your office pertaining to Ms. Beck's and my requests that she be allowed to see her
departmental file. I want to know how you arrived at the erroneous conclusion in January that
her departmental file was Dr. Gluck's "personal file" that he did not have to show to her. I
want to know when you were informed that this was incorrect. I want to know when you advised
Dr. Gluck of that fact. I want to know whether any corrective action has been taken. I want
you 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 subsequent
complaint, even tangentially. I want you to search your Employees Relations files for any
notes 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 past
two weeks in understanding what I am requesting, I am copying Larry Ellis on this message in
the hope that he can help.
Under the circumstances, I feel that it is necessary to remind you that, should you believe
that any of the requested records are exempt from the public records statute, you are required
to state the specific exemption that applies and how it applies, and to redact any confidential
portion and provide the remainder.
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:50:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Ellis, Larry"
Subject: RE: Phone Message
Thanks for your prompt reply. You could assist by having the materials
that I've been requesting since March provided to me in accordance with
the law and by encouraging better compliance in the future. I trust that
you were able to understand what it is that I've been requesting.
We'll be contacting you soon to request a consultation meeting, and the
inability to get timely and accurate information from the Health Center
personnel office will be one of the items on our agenda.
Sharon
ATTACHMENT 5
From: Sharon Bauer[SMTP:share@]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 5:36 PM
To: jterhune@jou.ufl.edu
Subject: Ruth Brumbaugh
As the AFSCME employee representative for Ruth Brumbaugh, I am writing to
you in your capacities as both Associate Dean of the College of Journalism
and Acting Chair of the Department of Public Relations. Your appointment as
Acting Chair has provided a respite for Ms. Brumbaugh, who has had
difficulty working for the previous chair, Dr. Gail Baker, and met with Dean
Hynes a few months ago to discuss possible reassignment.
As you may be aware, Dr. Baker's initial appraisal of Ms. Brumbaugh in
October rated her as performing below standards. However, in January Ms.
Brumbaugh was rated "Achieves." Her next annual appraisal is due in January
2000.
We have several concerns regarding these appraisals that we would like to
meet 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's
next appraisal is not due until January. A special appraisal is an
appraisal that has been specifically requested by a supervisor to document
"exceptional or marginal" performance. Therefore, it is not customarily
scheduled two months in advance, since the supervisor cannot know how the
employee will be performing at that time. Furthermore, Dr. Baker is no
longer Ms. Brumbaugh's supervisor, since Dr. Baker holds the position of
Director of Communications and you are Acting Chair. Dr. Baker is a faculty
member whose opinion of Ms. Brumbaugh's performance would be considered as
would that of any other of Ms. Brumbaugh's customers. The decision whether
Ms. Brumbaugh's performance is marginal and warrants a special appraisal is
yours as her supervisor. Ms. Brumbaugh is extremely anxious about the
possibility of another appraisal by Dr. Baker. She says that she has never
received any indication from you that you find her performance less than
satisfactory. We would like to discuss her performance and her next
scheduled appraisal.
I believe that you will agree that the position description is the basis of
any employee evaluation. Ms. Brumbaugh advises me that she has been never
given a position description and had to go to the Stadium in December to get
a copy of the one that you approved in 1993. Following her initial
evaluation in October, she was given for the first time a list of "Daily
Duties and Responsibilities." She was also notified then for the first time
that "[a]ll notes, memos, letters, etc. must be typed." The duties on which
she was evaluated vary greatly from those in the position description and
from those used to evaluate her predecessor. We would like to discuss the
preparation of an up-to-date position description.
The performance improvement plan includes items such as "You must show
considerable improvement in your ability to produce professional-level
reports and documentation using Excel." She was required to take training
in Excel, Access, and SAMAS in order to reach the "Achieves" level. None of
these are listed in the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities section of the
position description, and Ms. Brumbaugh advises me that other departmental
Senior Secretaries in the college are not required to know and use these
programs. We would like to discuss the formulation of measurable goals and
objectives for Ms. Brumbaugh that are appropriate for the classification of
Senior 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. Although
it claims that "[y]ou consistently procrastinate on assignments," not a
single instance of a missed deadline was cited. According to the Master
Contract between AFSCME and the SUS, "The employee shall be provided with
information regarding the basis of the evaluation and shall, upon written
request, be provided with a copy of any documents which were considered in
completing the evaluation." However, since the Public Records Act makes any
file maintained on Ms. Brumbaugh open to examination, we would like to
review not only the documents considered in completing the evaluation but
any 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 to
discuss these concerns. Thank you.
Sharon Bauer (JM '71)
[No response as of 5/9/02]
ATTACHMENT 6
Subject: Charley Mills
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 06:48:53 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer, Sharon Bauer
To: '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.
Sharon Bauer
President, Local 3340
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
> From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 12:31 PM
To: jerrys@admin.ufl.edu
Cc: share@
Subject: (Fwd) Time Cards (fwd)
I wrote to Bruce Lulow about six months ago asking that Charley Mills be
given copies of his time cards and got no response. A copy of that message
was provided to you as part of his grievance. I wrote to Elwood Aust last
week asking the same thing and have gotten no response. Mr. Mills
subsequently received a memo stating how much the university feels he has
been underpaid. After six months, he still does not have the requested
copies of his time cards so that he can determine for himself how much he
has been underpaid.. According to the university's public records web page,
there is generally no charge for such items requested in connection with a
grievance. I am very surprised that members of your staff apparently do not
feel 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 1999
Subject: RE: (Fwd) Time Cards (fwd)
From: Jerry Schaffer
To: Sharon Bauer
Copies of all cards will be made and Mr. Aust will call Mr. Mills when they
are ready to pick up. For as much time as Mr. Aust spent with Mr. Mills
going over this issue and the fact that Mr. Mills cancelled his meeting to
review the timecards with Mr. Aust, I think your comments are slightly
unfair.
Subject: RE: (Fwd) Time Cards (fwd)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:44:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Schaffer, Jerry"
CC: share@
I disagree. I think what's grossly unfair is what's been done to Mr. Mills
and 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 all
that 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 reschedule
it. In any event, he prefers to have his own copies to review and is
entitled to them. Please have them mailed to him at Box 100125 rather than
holding them for pickup. He doesn't want the small amount of time the
university'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 as
great a concern as it would be over here in the Office of the Vice President
for Health Affairs. I was expecting an apology, not an admonishment.
ATTACHMENT 7
From: "Katharyn E Ward" 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 less
than the actual breakdown cost. Please submit either $240 or $318 to
Information 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
To: "Poppell, Ed"
Copies to: afscme79@
Subject: 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 are
through November 1999. There's no utility data for the past nine
months?
2. Night shift survey forms--You say that you've supplied the survey
form
and the completed surveys for the only survey performed. That's not
true.
The only surveys we received were from customers. Building Services
employees were surveyed by the department in March or April about their
shift preferences. We still haven't received those forms despite
several
requests. If management's denying the existence of those forms, we can
get affidavits from employees.
6. Half dozen or more files containing records on the shift change--You
claim that I've already reviewed those files. That's not true. I
reviewed
a few documents that Dug Jones pulled from his files and put in a
separate
folder for that purpose. After seven months, we're still demanding that
all Building Services records pertaining to the shift change be made
available for inspection.
8. Personnel database--After the University responded to our original
request by saying that it would take at least 8 hours of labor to select
certain fields, we said that we didn't want any selection done and that
we
wanted the complete database copied to CD and would do our own
programming. Instead, they've copied partial information to a file and
claimed that it took 11 hours and cost $240. That isn't what we
requested, and we certainly didn't authorize that work. In addition,
they've apparently omitted information that employees requested not be
released but that isn't exempted from Chapter 119, which is a violation
of
the public records law. We requested the entire database, exclusive of
any exempt information. As for your letter to our Jacksonville office
asking that we "take responsibility for any misuse of this information,"
we don't have to take responsibility for accepting public records in
order
for you comply with our request. The university continues to be in
violation of the law.
You also state that you're awaiting payment for the cost of producing
previous records. If you're referring to the $240 for copying the
personnel database to CD, we didn't authorize the work that was done and
have no intention of paying for it, particularly since that data's
now out of date. We'll pay for the entire database when it's copied to
CD, which should take a matter of minutes.
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00400000
Message-ID:
Disposition-Notification-To: Sharon Bauer
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
CC: "Larson, Sherry" ,
"Ellis, Larry" , poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Reservation
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-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.
Sharon
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:31:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: bob-willits@ufl.edu
I understand from Jerry Williamson that the administration's
latest excuse for its failure to comply with the public
records statute is an inability to comprehend what we want
despite dozens of emails over the past two years.
Here's a copy of a message that was sent to you in July of
last year and one that was sent to Ed Poppell in September
2000. There was no response to either.
Once again: we want the entire personnel database. When I
spoke to Mark Beachy last year, he indicated that it was
made up of multiple files but that together they wouldn't
exceed the size of a CD. Don't bother sending us another
useless 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 head
of Employee Relations who doesn't understand what
"bargaining unit" or "union" means, but a slew of
administrators who don't understand what "entire personnel
database file(s)" means and yet never bother to ask despite
their statutory responsibility to provide the information.
Subject:
RE:
Date:
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:07:04 -0400
From:
"Willits, Bob"
To:
"'Sharon Bauer'"
CC:
"Ellis, Larry"
Sharon, I have relayed your detailed information (below) to I.S. and
asked
them to give this their attention and let me know should they have any
questions and otherwise of the timeframe and cost involved. We will
ensure
this moves as quickly as possible and that we put in an acceptable
format.
Bob Willits
Associate Director
University Personnel Services
Phone: (352) 392-1075
FAX: (352) 392-5495
bob-willits@ufl.edu
Subject: Your Request for Data - Confirming Details
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:01:09 -0400
From: "Willits, Bob"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Ellis, Larry"
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.
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 by
you?
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.
4) I.S. has indicated that the information described above can be placed on
a CD or diskette(s). Do you have any preference?
5) I.S. has indicated that the information described above will involve a
charge of $240.
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
- Bob
Bob Willits
Associate Director
University Personnel Services
Phone: (352) 392-1075
FAX: (352) 392-5495
bob-willits@ufl.edu
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:52:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Willits, Bob"
Cc: "Ellis, Larry"
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 documentation
of your contempt for the law. You didn't produce the wrong
information last year because you didn't understand; you
produced the wrong information because you don't want us to
have what we're legally entitled to. You refused to comply
with our request then, and you're refusing to comply with it
now. You have all the information you need, it's been
provided to you again and again, and your pretending not to
understand has to be a delaying tactic because you can't
possibly 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 just
selected fields. Furthermore, you're required by the
Florida Administrative Code to know what information is
exempt from Ch. 119 before you create the database and to
build the ability to redact it into the design of the
database. Your claim that, two years after we began
requesting the data, you still don't know what's exempt is
ridiculous.
> 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, but
the information we requested won't. I've told you many
times, most recently 6 days ago, that we want it on a CD.
A judge, even a reporter, will recognize this for the
stalling 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 your
standard file (selected fields, excluding information
employees prefer you not publish, regardless of whether it's
exempt by statute) for a standard fee, but we know better.
You're not allowed to charge any fee unless the use of
technology resources is excessive. Typing in a command to
copy a file, minus the exempt data, doesn't require
excessive use of technology and certainly doesn't require
the 11 hours of labor, two test runs, etc., that you
provided 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 the
entire database, and if you can't provide proof that any of
it's exempt, you have to provide it. I sat through Pam
Bernard's presentation to the trustees on the public records
law. I think they're going to find it hard to believe that
you don't know as much about the law as they do. Your
failure to comply with the law is a civil offense. Knowingly
withholding the information is a criminal offense.
Subject: RE: Your Request for Data - Confirming Details
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:36:42 -0500
From: "Willits, Bob"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Ellis, Larry" , "Steve Prevaux (E-mail)"
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.
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.
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.
Please understand that the university as a state agency is the responsible
custodian of personnel records entrusted to its care. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Bob Willits
Associate Director
University Personnel Services
Phone: (352) 392-1075
FAX: (352) 392-5495
bob-willits@ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Your Request for Data - Confirming Details
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:37:44 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Willits, Bob"
CC: "Ellis, Larry" ,"Steve Prevaux (E-mail)"
"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 regarding
staff 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 professional
relationship with AFSCME. Of course you "can indeed provide the personnel
database information." You could and should have provided it two years
ago.
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. I no longer
have 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 number
tomorrow.
> 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 had
security flags based on employee privacy preference that bore no relation to
exemption from the statute. You claimed that you did not know what information
was exempt, and that you would provide only information that employees had not
asked be kept private. You are required to know what is exempt when creating the
database. According to the AG's manual, "design and development of the
software, therefore, should ensure that the system has the capability of
redacting confidential or exempt information when a public records request is
made." On October 19 we asked that you at least provide the information you know
to 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
statutory obligation, which is as follows :
"A person who has custody of a public record and who asserts that an
exemption provided in subsection (3) or in a general or special law applies to a
particular 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 has
been asserted and validly applies, and such person shall produce the remainder
of such record for inspection and examination. If the person who has custody of
a public record contends that the record or part of it is exempt from inspection
and examination, he or she shall state the basis of the exemption which he or
she contends is applicable to the record, including the statutory citation to an
exemption created or afforded by statute."
It has taken you two years to redact exempt information although you are
required to build that capability into the design of the database. According to
the 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." According to the statute, "Any public officer who
violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a noncriminal infraction,
punishable by fine not exceeding $500...Any person willfully and knowingly
violating any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor of
the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083" ["a
definite 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 are
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 based
on the labor or computer costs actually incurred by the agency." The labor
involved for this request should be five minutes, and the computer costs should
be under $25. "An agency may not charge fees designed to recoup the original
cost of developing or producing the records," and the cost of redacting
confidential 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 takes
neither extensive technology resources nor extensive clerical assistance to copy
files.
> 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 under
duress.
> 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. A
demonstration of good faith would be to provide the requested information
immediately at a reasonable cost. You have not produced one single piece of
paper in response to the 20 public records violations we attempted to discuss
with you at the October 19 consultation meeting.
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:17:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Willits, Bob"
Subject: Re: Your Request for Data - Confirming Details
The fax number is 332-4648.
Insert LARRY ELLIS CONSULTATION RESPONSE
Subject: Personnel Data CD
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:29:36 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: "'share@'"
CC:"'prevaux@ufl.edu'"
Sharon Bauer
AFSCME President, Local 3340
Information Systems (I.S.) has completed work on your public records request for the personnel
data base, and has all available information on a CD ready for you to pick up. As was discussed
in our consultation meeting of October 18, 2001, and subsequently in Bob Willits' e-mail
of October 31, 2001, to you, any information currently secured as exempted form production
under 119.07, F.S. is being reviewed to ensure that it is properly maintained. Should we find any
information 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 production
costs 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, Director
University Personnel Services
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:36 PM
To: Ellis, Larry
Cc: '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 CD
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:14:22 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "'prevaux@ufl.edu'"
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 - Computer
Applications);
* $59.20 Staff Time - 4 hours @ $14.80 per hour (Bryan Cooke, Computer Programmer -
Analyst); and
* $275.00 Computer Time.
Larry T. Ellis, Director
University Personnel Services
Insert LIST OF FIELDS FROM IS
Insert LIST OF FIELDS FROM MANUAL
Subject: Personnel Records
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:21:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu
CC: poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
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
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
Subject:
RE: Personnel Records
Date:
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:41:05 -0500
From:
"Ellis, Larry"
To:
"'Sharon Bauer'"
CC:
"Poppell, Ed" , "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" ,
"Thomas, Tom"
Attached, please find communications pertaining to the Public Records
Exemption Project.
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.
By copy, I am asking IS for "copies of the programs used to generate the
file(s)."
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.
Larry Ellis
Director, Division of Human Resources
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
> 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
> 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.doc
Memo to TKL Administrators (119.07) 12-12-01.doc
Subject:
Re: FW: Personnel Records
Date:
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:07:41 -0500 (EST)
From:
Sharon Bauer
To:
"Ellis, Larry"
CC:
"Poppell, Ed"
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 information
was requested five weeks ago. You are once again in
violation of Chapter 119.
(2) I would think that the General Counsel's office would be
aware and would have advised you (as I have many times in
the past) that, if you assert that a statutory exemption to
disclosure applies, then you are required to include the
statutory citation to the exemption, delete or excise only
that portion to which it validly applies, and produce the
remainder. Your failure to do so is yet another violation
of the statute. In addition, you are required to state "in
writing and with particularity" the reasons for the
conclusion that the record is exempt, should we request it,
and we do.
(3) "Sensitive" is defined in Chapter 119 as those portions
of programs that are used to collect, process, store, and
retrieve exempt information. The programs in question are
used to retrieve nonexempt information. This exemption does
not apply, and your failure to provide this public
information 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 many
invoices you send us. The information you have made
available is not what we requested, and we did not authorize
its 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 been
made two weeks earlier. You told us on several occasions in
October that you had finally (two years after our original
request) begun the process of identifying which personnel
records were exempt. We requested documentation of those
efforts, and two weeks later you tell us that there is
none--not a single mention of this so-called "project" in
agendas, minutes, notes, correspondence--prior to these two
December 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 by
now you would have already compared the list of 159 included
fields that you faxed to me and the list of 845 data
elements in the payroll/personnel database to see what is
missing. Like bargaining unit, most are clearly "personnel
related." We requested the entire database, and I have no
obligation to tell you why we want all 845 elements in it or
what they are. You, on the other hand, are legally required
to justify your withholding them. Your continued
withholding of this public information is why we are seeking
not 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 even
forward 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 to
authorize production of the CD when asked to do so by Bob
Willits. I said that we would not agree to pay without
confirmation that, unlike the CD you tried to foist off on
us last year, this one would contain what we have been
requesting for two years: the entire personnel database
minus exempt data. The list of fields you faxed to me in
response showed that the CD contains only a fraction of what
we requested. We consider that CD, like your invoices for
it, to be rubbish.
> Larry Ellis
> Director, Division of Human Resources
Sharon Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
Subject:
RE: FW: Personnel Records
Date:
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:51:44 -0500 (EST)
From:
Sharon Bauer
To:
"Ellis, Larry"
CC:
"Poppell, Ed"
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, you
can't withhold the resulting document because licensed
software was used to create it. You have to provide the
requester a copy of the document, not Word. You claim that
your staff spent 23 hours writing programs to copy these
public records to a CD. We're not asking you for SAS,
COBOL, SQL, or whatever other software was used to write and
run the programs. We want the resulting agency-produced
programs, which are neither licensed nor sensitive. You
need to use the licensed software to print out a copy of
those programs. You still haven't complied with the
requirement that you state specifically how this exemption
applies. What licensed software are you claiming that you
can'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 mail
while you're on vacation or have it forwarded to someone
else to be handled in your absence, that it's just ignored
whenever you're out of the office. That's a very odd way to
do business and certainly isn't how it's done in any office
I've ever worked in.
This is a public records request to view (1) all messages
you received during your vacation and (2) all replies to
those messages. In lieu of providing those records for
review, you could just admit that other mail was read and
responded to during that period if that is in fact the case.
Sharon Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
No response as of 5/9/02
ATTACHMENT 9
From: Sharon Bauer
To: kew, cyl, lhodges
Subject: Alex Trapp
BCC to: share@
Date 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"
Organization: VPHA, University of Florida
To: "Sharon Bauer"
Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:02:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Alex Trapp
Copies to: Jerry Kendell Davis ,
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 have
any documents relating to this matter. Therefore, the charges associated
with 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 pick
from 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, please
confirm.
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 2:10 PM
To: kim-c@ufl.edu
Subject: (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 to
require payment in advance for all records requests, even for a $1.95
request from someone who makes them regularly? When attorneys request
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 faxed
to the AFSCME office?
Sharon
From: Czaplewski, Kim[SMTP:kim-c@ufl.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 4:37 PM
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: Alex Trapp
I will talk to Lisa about this and she will get back with you. Thanks for
bringing it to my attention.
Kimberly M. Czaplewski
Assistant Director
University Personnel Services
Phone: 352-392-1072
Fax: 352-392-7991
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 8:59 AM
To: kim-c@ufl.edu
Subject: (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 PM
To: '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 give
you a refund.
Kimberly M. Czaplewski
Assistant Director
University Personnel Services
Phone: 352-392-1072
Fax: 352-392-7991
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 1:28 PM
To: Czaplewski, Kim
Subject: 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 PM
To: '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 would
appreciate it.
Kimberly M. Czaplewski
Assistant Director
University Personnel Services
Phone: 352-392-1072
Fax: 352-392-7991
From: Czaplewski, Kim[SMTP:kim-c@ufl.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 4:05 PM
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Subject: Copy Costs
Sharon,
I apologize for the delay in response. We are in the process of developing
a policy on charging for copies to ensure consistency throughout the
division.
I believe the amount of refund you are requesting is $1.95? If that is the
correct amount, I will investigate the fastest way to refund the money to
you.
If you have any questions, let me know.
Kimberly M. Czaplewski
University Personnel Services
ATTACHMENT 10
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:49 PM
To: dugjones@ufl.edu
Subject: URL
Dug,
Here's the URL for the report by the Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment:
We were very disappointed that you didn't comply with our January 26
request to review your file on the planned switch to night shift at our
meeting yesterday. I wonder, based on your repeated efforts to get us to
specify certain documents so that you could copy those for us, if perhaps
you're just not aware of the responsibilities of a records custodian under
the public records law. A person who has custody of a public record must
permit the record to be inspected and examined by any person desiring to
do so. Requestors are allowed to make broad requests and can't be
required to specify the documents they want to see, since they may not
know what documents exist. If you didn't understand what we wanted based
on my original letter, you're required to promptly notify the requestor
that more information is needed. We want to see all public records that
you have pertaining to the proposed switch of Building Services staff to
night shift, as well as the survey responses from last October's employee
survey and any surveys you've done of other universities. "Public
records" means all papers, letters, notes, e-mails, anything made or
received in the transaction of official business that's not specifically
exempted from the public records law. If you contend that any of the
records are exempt, you're required to state the exemption that applies,
redact that portion, and produce the remainder of that document. The
Florida Supreme Court has said that the only delay permitted under Ch.
119, F.S., "is the limited reasonable time allowed the custodian to
retrieve the record." Therefore, we hope to be able to review these
records in the very near future.
Sharon
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:42:16 -0500
From: "Jones, Dug"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Cc: "O'Brien, David" ,
"Sherry Larson (E-mail)" ,
"'kimc@ufl.edu'"
Subject: RE: URL
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.
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).
I will contact you when my support staff has had the opportunity to locate
and compile the information that have requested.
Sincerely,
Dug Jones
Asst. Dir./PPD
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:21:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Jones, Dug"
Cc: jerrys@admin.ufl.edu
Subject: 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 change
and to review your file on that issue at the meeting. In particular, we
asked to see "the data which led you to conclude that you will be able to
increase coverage to 25,000 sq. ft. per custodian as a result of this
change." When we met on February 14, you produced no records for us to
review. Your stated reason was that the records were not in a "file" but
in multiple files. You did not offer to provide those files. You offered
to provide copies of any documents we could specifically name. We
insisted on seeing the files, and you agreed to produce them at some later
time. To date, you have produced no records for our review. You consider
this 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 at
some other time is irrelevant to our request.
A year ago, Associate General Counsel Steve Prevaux was claiming that an
employee's departmental personnel file was the supervisor's "personal"
file that didn't have to be shown to the employee, a position subsequently
determined to be incorrect. Clearly, possession of a law degree is not
synonymous 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 Friday
at 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
To: "Jones, Dug"
Subject: Re: access to files
Sometime in the early afternoon would be better for me.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Jones, Dug wrote:
I'm out Friday afternoon. How about Tuesday at 9am? or do you need it to be
afternoon independant of which day it is?
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 11:54 AM
To: Jones, Dug
Subject: RE: access to files
I'd prefer to do it on my lunch hour, which is usually from 1-2. Isn't
there 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. I
can 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
To: "Jones, Dug"
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
To: poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Cc: Colburn@aa.ufl.edu
Subject: 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 to
date. Instead, Dug Jones selected from those files four records we'd
already seen and one we'd specifically requested at the February
consultation. He denied the existence of any calculations, studies (other
than an AAU benchmarking study that recommended reducing Building Services’
topheavy administration), meeting minutes, or correspondence (other than a
reply to an earlier AFSCME records request) pertaining to the shift. We
reported this to Pres. Young in May and June. We still want to review all
records to date excluding those already provided.
Sharon
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:21:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Jones, Dug"
Cc: jerrys@admin.ufl.edu
Subject: 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 change
and to review your file on that issue at the meeting. In particular, we
asked to see "the data which led you to conclude that you will be able to
increase coverage to 25,000 sq. ft. per custodian as a result of this
change." When we met on February 14, you produced no records for us to
review. Your stated reason was that the records were not in a "file" but
in multiple files. You did not offer to provide those files. You offered
to provide copies of any documents we could specifically name. We
insisted on seeing the files, and you agreed to produce them at some later
time. To date, you have produced no records for our review. You consider
this 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 at
some other time is irrelevant to our request.
A year ago, Associate General Counsel Steve Prevaux was claiming that an
employee's departmental personnel file was the supervisor's "personal"
file that didn't have to be shown to the employee, a position subsequently
determined to be incorrect. Clearly, possession of a law degree is not
synonymous 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
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: colburn@aa.ufl.edu
Cc: blackwec@, afscme79@
Subject: RE: Custodians (fwd)
On 8/18 and again on 8/21 I asked that you provide me with copies of the
memos that had been distributed regarding your committee to study the
night shift. I've received no response to my emails requesting those
records. I haven't received any of the many other records that I've
requested in writing at various times since April from you, Jerry
Schaffer, Ed Poppell, and Pres. Young. I still haven't received the
original committee memos, and I understand that another one has come out
announcing the appointment of members. Please email me or fax me copies
of 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
To: "Poppell, Ed"
Cc: afscme79@
Subject: 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 are
through November 1999. There's no utility data for the past nine
months?
2. Night shift survey forms--You say that you've supplied the survey form
and the completed surveys for the only survey performed. That's not true.
The only surveys we received were from customers. Building Services
employees were surveyed by the department in March or April about their
shift preferences. We still haven't received those forms despite several
requests. If management's denying the existence of those forms, we can
get affidavits from employees.
6. Half dozen or more files containing records on the shift change--You
claim that I've already reviewed those files. That's not true. I reviewed
a few documents that Dug Jones pulled from his files and put in a separate
folder for that purpose. After seven months, we're still demanding that
all Building Services records pertaining to the shift change be made
available for inspection.
8. Personnel database--After the University responded to our original
request by saying that it would take at least 8 hours of labor to select
certain fields, we said that we didn't want any selection done and that we
wanted the complete database copied to CD and would do our own
programming. Instead, they've copied partial information to a file and
claimed that it took 11 hours and cost $240. That isn't what we
requested, and we certainly didn't authorize that work. In addition,
they've apparently omitted information that employees requested not be
released but that isn't exempted from Chapter 119, which is a violation of
the public records law. We requested the entire database, exclusive of
any exempt information. As for your letter to our Jacksonville office
asking that we "take responsibility for any misuse of this information,"
we don't have to take responsibility for accepting public records in order
for you comply with our request. The university continues to be in
violation of the law.
You also state that you're awaiting payment for the cost of producing
previous records. If you're referring to the $240 for copying the
personnel database to CD, we didn't authorize the work that was done and
have no intention of paying for it, particularly since that data's
now out of date. We'll pay for the entire database when it's copied to
CD, which should take a matter of minutes.
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:13:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Poppell, Ed"
Subject: Public Records
I received a letter from you yesterday stating, "We again offer your
review of all files regarding the shift change."
In fact, the university has never offered such a review, although we have
been demanding to see the files since January. Last month, Dug Jones
falsely claimed at a meeting with BOR representatives that he had already
produced for our review a "six-inch-thick stack" of documents. We want to
see this six-inch stack of documents as soon as possible--as well as any
other documents that have been generated since he showed me a
less-than-one-inch stack of documents in March. If the University is
going to comply with the law at long last, then when and where can we
review these files?
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:30:54 -0400
From: "O'Brien, David"
To: "'share@'"
Cc: "Poppell, Ed" , "Walker, Pam"
Subject: FW: Public Records
Ms Bauer. Ed Poppell asked me to contact you with regard to your request to
review the documents we have regarding the Building Services night shift
work. I have in my office the stack of documents Dug reffered to. You are
welcome to come review and make copies of them. Please contact my
Administrative Assistant, Pam Walker at 392-1141 or pwalker@ufl.edu to make
the arrangements. Dave O'Brien
From: jerry [mailto:jerryw@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:49 AM
To: daveob@ufl.edu; poppell@admin.ufl.edu; pwalker@ppd.ufl.edu;
sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu
Subject: documents request
I am sending this mail to confirm our telephone conversation
yesterday in which I requested to see the documents related to the
custodial workers night shift. I am disappointed that you did not notify
me of an appropriate time when I can review this material before I left
work at 5 P.M.
The issue of review of these documents was discussed during the
consultation with the Board of Regents in Tallahassee at which you were
present. You have advised Interim Vice President Poppell that these
documents were available for review by contacting your Administrative
Assistant, Ms. Pam Walker, at 3921141. I was surprised when after making
my request that neither Ms. Walker nor you would would schedule an
appointment for me. Since the only delay that the Florida Public Records
law allows for is the time needed to assemble the documents, I do not
understand why you are now delaying my review of these documents.
I reiterate my request to review all of the records in your
possession relating to the custodial workers night shift. I expect that
you 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 at
jerryw@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2000 15:26:54 -0400
From: "O'Brien, David"
To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" ,"
Subject: Re: FW: documents request
Copies to: "Poppell, Ed" , "Walker, Pam"
Ms Bauer......Mr Williams called yesterday and said you had asked that he
review the files on the Union's behalf. I told him that since I sent that
email to you that I would await a response from you. Please advise. Dave
O'Brien
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" ,"O'Brien,
David"
Subject: Re: FW: documents request
Copies to: "Poppell, Ed" , "Walker, Pam"
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.
[Nothing in the file from before we first viewed it except the four documents cited.]
ATTACHMENT 11
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:13:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: rmarrin@ufl.edu
Subject: Personnel Data
Robin, I need a file containing the following information for all UF
employees:
First Name
Last Name
Department
Class Code
Annual Salary
Work Location and PO Box
Work Phone
Home Address, City, State and Zip
Home Phone
Hire Date
Class Date
Race
Sex
Educational 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 on
a 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 Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
392-3900
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:20:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu
Subject: 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 be
too 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
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:26:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu
Bcc: share@
Subject: Re: Personnel Data (fwd)
Today I went by the AFSCME office and found a printed copy of the UF
Campus Directory that you sent to me via U.S. Mail with a note indicating
that 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 20
request. You'll note that we requested it in electronic format. I
explained to you on the telephone that we wanted the current directory
information that is available to the public on the UF web page.
Like every other UF office employee, I have a copy of the 1999-2000
printed directory on my desk.
Sharon
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:39:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Cc: Colburn@aa.ufl.edu
Subject: 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 of
the printed 1999-2000 directory being mailed to us although I'd told Larry
Ellis 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
To: Poppell@admin.ufl.edu
Cc: afscme79@
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. That
isn't what we requested. We asked for the directory information that's
available on the web, including faculty, staff, and student email
addresses.
To: Sharon Bauer
From: "Poppell, Ed"
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000
RE: Records Request
The Registrars office will be contacted where this information is located
and 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
To: "Poppell, Ed"
Cc: blackwec@, afscme79@
Subject: RE: Records Request
Once again, I am compelled to inform you that the university has failed to
comply with our request, outstanding since last November and reiterated
many times since then at every administrative level, for "the directory
information that's available on the web, including faculty, staff, and
student 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 accompanied
by hundreds of pages of printouts containing student street addresses and
telephone numbers but no email addresses.
Sharon
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
CC: "Larson, Sherry" ,
"Ellis, Larry" , poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Reservation
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.
Sharon
ATTACHMENT 12
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:48:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: dugjones@ufl.edu
Subject: URL
Dug,
Here's the URL for the report by the Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment:
We were very disappointed that you didn't comply with our January 26
request to review your file on the planned switch to night shift at our
meeting yesterday. I wonder, based on your repeated efforts to get us to
specify certain documents so that you could copy those for us, if perhaps
you're just not aware of the responsibilities of a records custodian under
the public records law. A person who has custody of a public record must
permit the record to be inspected and examined by any person desiring to
do so. Requestors are allowed to make broad requests and can't be
required to specify the documents they want to see, since they may not
know what documents exist. If you didn't understand what we wanted based
on my original letter, you're required to promptly notify the requestor
that more information is needed. We want to see all public records that
you have pertaining to the proposed switch of Building Services staff to
night shift, as well as the survey responses from last October's employee
survey and any surveys you've done of other universities. "Public
records" means all papers, letters, notes, e-mails, anything made or
received in the transaction of official business that's not specifically
exempted from the public records law. If you contend that any of the
records are exempt, you're required to state the exemption that applies,
redact that portion, and produce the remainder of that document. The
Florida Supreme Court has said that the only delay permitted under Ch.
119, F.S., "is the limited reasonable time allowed the custodian to
retrieve the record." Therefore, we hope to be able to review these
records in the very near future.
Sharon
AFSCME Local 3340
1107 NW 6th Street, Suite B
Gainesville, FL 32609
June 29, 2000
Pres. Charles E. Young
Box 113150
University of Florida
Gainesville, 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 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@.
Very truly yours,
Sharon Bauer
President
cc: Local 3340 Executive Board
A. Joseph Layon, M.D.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:15:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Poppell, Ed"
Cc: afscme79@
Subject: 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 are
through November 1999. There's no utility data for the past nine
months?
2. Night shift survey forms--You say that you've supplied the survey form
and the completed surveys for the only survey performed. That's not true.
The only surveys we received were from customers. Building Services
employees were surveyed by the department in March or April about their
shift preferences. We still haven't received those forms despite several
requests. If management's denying the existence of those forms, we can
get affidavits from employees.
6. Half dozen or more files containing records on the shift change--You
claim that I've already reviewed those files. That's not true. I reviewed
a few documents that Dug Jones pulled from his files and put in a separate
folder for that purpose. After seven months, we're still demanding that
all Building Services records pertaining to the shift change be made
available for inspection.
8. Personnel database--After the University responded to our original
request by saying that it would take at least 8 hours of labor to select
certain fields, we said that we didn't want any selection done and that we
wanted the complete database copied to CD and would do our own
programming. Instead, they've copied partial information to a file and
claimed that it took 11 hours and cost $240. That isn't what we
requested, and we certainly didn't authorize that work. In addition,
they've apparently omitted information that employees requested not be
released but that isn't exempted from Chapter 119, which is a violation of
the public records law. We requested the entire database, exclusive of
any exempt information. As for your letter to our Jacksonville office
asking that we "take responsibility for any misuse of this information,"
we don't have to take responsibility for accepting public records in order
for you comply with our request. The university continues to be in
violation of the law.
You also state that you're awaiting payment for the cost of producing
previous records. If you're referring to the $240 for copying the
personnel database to CD, we didn't authorize the work that was done and
have no intention of paying for it, particularly since that data's
now out of date. We'll pay for the entire database when it's copied to
CD, which should take a matter of minutes.
ATTACHMENT 13
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000
To: Sharon Bauer
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 a
recruiter(melissa mayer,melissa-mayer@
392-4621) greg marwede the assistant director is also
helping out.by helping out i mean get me into the U of
F critical needs positions in information services.so
i don't run out of space i'll let you contact melissa
to bring you up to date on whats been happening.I am
in Fort Wayne,Indiana and am desiring a job with the
university.I am trying to get in on the Presidents
social security back to work initiative but due to a
gap in my employment the state rule since 1992 says i
can't work there until i complete a full year
somewhere else.I am wondering is that even if I have a
disability as the reason for the gap? If you have any
ideas about how we can get around this situation it
sure would be appreciated.feel free to pull up my app.
from melissa. thank you so much!!!
To: greg-marwede@ufl.edu
From: Sharon Bauer
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 5:35 PM
Subject: Recruitment
Do you have anything in writing on the policy of disqualifying applicants
who've been out of work for some period of time? If so I'd appreciate a
copy. I don't find anything on this in the UF or SUS rules. Thanks.
To: Sharon Bauer
From: greg-marwede@ufl.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: Recruitment
Sharon, we in CEC are charged to build applicant pools that
are composed of
the most appropriate, competitive candidates available. Accordingly,
applicants without recent, relevant experience and/or
education may not be
among those competitive for inclusion in applicant pools.
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 4:51 PM
To: Marwede, Greg
Subject: RE: Recruitment
So, your response to my public records request is that you have no
documents stating this, you have no written guidelines that you apply?
To: Sharon Bauer
From: greg-marwede@ufl.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: Recruitment
Sharon;
I did not realize that you were making a formal public records request, but
rather only a practical, but informal inquiry. My response was consequently
informal originally. For a reference to our procedure requiring us to
evaluate recent relevant work experience of applicants for referral
consideration, please refer to the following site in Chapter 7, UF Business
procedures, which address this issue.
...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
To: "Marwede, Greg"
Subject: RE: Recruitment
I'd like to see, or get copies of (depending on the volume), any and all
training materials, procedures, memorandum, or anything whatsoever that
you have on evaluating applicants for inclusion in pools.
[No response as of 5/9/02]
ATTACHMENT 14
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:33 AM
To: colburn@ufl.edu
Cc: layon@anest1.anest.ufl.edu; cmchestnut@; SUHLFELD@
Subject: Custodians
As you know, AFSCME, UFF, the Faculty Senate, and others have requested
that any further moves of custodians to the graveyard shift be delayed
until the department conducts the promised study of the original pilot
project that ended a year ago. Building Services had informed us that
they sought no employee input and no customer input other than a survey
(which we feel was poorly designed) to one person in each building, and
conducted no cost-benefit analysis before proclaiming the pilot a
success and planning Phase II. You told me Monday that you don't
believe this, that you believe they have something. Please provide us
with a copy. However, Senate Chair Joe Layon can confirm that this is
what they told us.
The department's response last month was that instead they'd study Phase
II employees in February 2001, six months after the move. I understand
that they're now willing to say two or three months. That's just what
they told employees in the pilot project.
What's the reason for the rush to implement this? Why not just delay
this move for two or three months and study the people in the pilot
project instead? That's all it takes to make this whole problem go
away. We asked them a year ago to appoint a committee to study it and
they refused. Given the proven effects of night shift on employee
health, don't these employees at least deserve that?
BTW, in case you haven't seen it yet, tomorrow I'll be putting that AAU
benchmarking study--the one where the number-one recommendation is to
reduce Physical Plant's supervisor-to-employee ratio--on our web page,
~share/afscme3340.htm. That's an "economic decision"
they're not so eager to make.
Sharon Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
To: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
From: colburn@ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Custodians
Hi - I have not ignored your e-mail, although it might appear so. I asked
Building Services through Administrative Affairs for this information and
have not received anything yet. I have asked again today and will let you
know if I receive something. President Young has returned from California,
and I have also passed along your concerns to him. David Colburn
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 6:01 PM
To: David Colburn
Subject: Re: Custodians
Thank you. You may be interested to know that we're filing a complaint with
the Attorney General's Office about numerous public records violations
throughout Administrative Affairs over the past year. We wrote to Pres. Young
to complain and got a letter back from the chief violator, Jerry Schaffer. We
still haven't received any of those records that we wrote about. We're
anxious to see whether Building Services produces records for you that they
denied the existence of when we requested them.
I've had scanner problems but intend to not only put the AAU study on our web
page but also mail it to you.
To: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
From: colburn@ufl.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Custodians
Hi - I am sending you today the information you requested. Administrative
affairs also indicated that you wanted a complete listing of UF employees
and that it has taken them a while to get this to you. The delay was caused
by many of our employees, about 50 percent, who do not want their names and
information about them released. We have to be very careful in such cases to
review everyone's name before we release the information. I hope you
understand. David Colburn
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:58:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: David Colburn
Subject: RE: Custodians
I received a package from you today. I didn't request any of this
information, almost all of which I already had. None of the information
I'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 is
regrettable that a union leader would encourage folks to call and harrass
people over the phone. You may disagree with what's being done and why it is
being done, but harassment is not the way to address the issues. David
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 11:27 AM
To: David Colburn
Subject: Re: your mail
I think it's regrettable that administrators would show complete
disregard for employees' health and safety. I don't see the students'
actions as harassment, just as you don't see your actions as harassing
dozens of custodians.
The package you sent me didn't include a copy of the memo about the
committee or board that was being appointed, and now I understand that
another memo's out. I'm curious why this information was communicated to
the faculty through the Senate and email, but not to the custodians
through their elected bargaining agent that's responsible for bringing
this issue to your attention. Also, since the Senate nominated the
faculty representatives, I wondered how the custodial representatives were
being chosen.
I find it ironic that the package included a blank copy of the survey form
that we sent to custodians in 2/99, which the administration confiscated
as unauthorized use of campus mail but which we nevertheless managed to
distribute and get responses to from almost 100% of custodians; but it
didn't include the completed surveys that Building Services had the
custodians fill out earlier this year, which we've made repeated requests
for since May.
Sharon
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, David Colburn wrote:
Sharon - the logic of your view escapes me. Whatever you think, we did not
harass our custodians. And the President has indicated that we will look
thoroughly at the shift assignment and may well abandon it if the committee
so proposes. But to defend the harassment of a fellow in a wheelchair with
two small children or anyone else for that matter is beyond my
comprehension. Frankly, I am not sure we have anything more to communicate
about. David
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:34:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: David Colburn
Subject: RE: your mail
And the logic of your view escapes me. The "fellow in a wheelchair with
two small children" is a liar and a criminal who's deliberately withheld
public records while bragging about his law degree. The shift assignment
should've been looked at thoroughly last year following the pilot project
and before moving dozens more people. If the employees already on night
shift had been surveyed before the next group was moved (as the Senate
recommended), they'd say they're being harassed. The administration's
refusal to discuss it is precisely what's led us to where we are today.
Are you going to send me the memos and tell me how the custodians are
appointed?
Sharon
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: David Colburn
Subject: RE: Custodians
This is a follow-up to my message last week requesting copies of the memos
that have been distributed regarding the night shift committee. We'd like
to expand that public records request to include any email, notes, memos,
reports, or any other records pertaining to this issue, excluding any that
have been provided already (e.g., email to me). Please forward documents
that are available in electronic format to my email address, and those
that 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
To: colburn@aa.ufl.edu
Cc: blackwec@, afscme79@
Subject: RE: Custodians (fwd)
On 8/18 and again on 8/21 I asked that you provide me with copies of the
memos that had been distributed regarding your committee to study the
night shift. I've received no response to my emails requesting those
records. I haven't received any of the many other records that I've
requested in writing at various times since April from you, Jerry
Schaffer, Ed Poppell, and Pres. Young. I still haven't received the
original committee memos, and I understand that another one has come out
announcing the appointment of members. Please email me or fax me copies
of 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
To: colburn@aa.ufl.edu
Cc: blackwec@, afscme79@
Subject: RE: Custodians (fwd)
On 8/18 and again on 8/21 I asked that you provide me with copies of the
memos that had been distributed regarding your committee to study the
night shift. I've received no response to my emails requesting those
records. I haven't received any of the many other records that I've
requested in writing at various times since April from you, Jerry
Schaffer, Ed Poppell, and Pres. Young. I still haven't received the
original committee memos, and I understand that another one has come out
announcing the appointment of members. Please email me or fax me copies
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 -0400
From: "O'Brien, David"
To: "'share@'"
Cc: "Poppell, Ed" , "Walker, Pam"
Subject: FW: Public Records
Ms Bauer. Ed Poppell asked me to contact you with regard to your request to
review the documents we have regarding the Building Services night shift
work. I have in my office the stack of documents Dug reffered to. You are
welcome to come review and make copies of them. Please contact my
Administrative Assistant, Pam Walker at 392-1141 or pwalker@ufl.edu to make
the arrangements. Dave O'Brien
From: jerry [mailto:jerryw@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:49 AM
To: daveob@ufl.edu; poppell@admin.ufl.edu; pwalker@ppd.ufl.edu;
sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu
Subject: documents request
I am sending this mail to confirm our telephone conversation
yesterday in which I requested to see the documents related to the
custodial workers night shift. I am disappointed that you did not notify
me of an appropriate time when I can review this material before I left
work at 5 P.M.
The issue of review of these documents was discussed during the
consultation with the Board of Regents in Tallahassee at which you were
present. You have advised Interim Vice President Poppell that these
documents were available for review by contacting your Administrative
Assistant, Ms. Pam Walker, at 3921141. I was surprised when after making
my request that neither Ms. Walker nor you would would schedule an
appointment for me. Since the only delay that the Florida Public Records
law allows for is the time needed to assemble the documents, I do not
understand why you are now delaying my review of these documents.
I reiterate my request to review all of the records in your
possession relating to the custodial workers night shift. I expect that
you 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 at
jerryw@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2000 15:26:54 -0400
From: "O'Brien, David"
To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" ,"
Subject: Re: FW: documents request
Copies to: "Poppell, Ed" , "Walker, Pam"
Ms Bauer......Mr Williams called yesterday and said you had asked that he
review the files on the Union's behalf. I told him that since I sent that
email to you that I would await a response from you. Please advise. Dave
O'Brien
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "'sbauer@vpha.health.ufl.edu'" ,"O'Brien,
David"
Subject: Re: FW: documents request
Copies to: "Poppell, Ed" , "Walker, Pam"
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.
ATTACHMENT 16
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:39 PM
To: sllarson@ufl.edu
Subject: Reservation
Sherry,
We're holding a series of meetings to inform employees about pending
legislation and would like to hold one at Physical Plant. Would the
training trailer be available at lunch time (e.g., 11:30-2) one day next
week?
Also, the last time I spoke to you, I asked for copies of any records
pertaining to the altercation between Sharon DeSue and a coworker last
summer, I but haven't received anything. You did mention that she was out
on maternity leave, but that wouldn't have any affect on the availability
of those records, would it?
Thanks,
Sharon
Subject: RE: Reservation
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:27:42 -0500
From: "Larson, Sherry"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
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: Reservation
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:16:52 -0500
From: "Larson, Sherry"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Czaplewski, Kim"
Sharon,
I just spoke with Kim regarding your records request. She in turn spoke
with Mark Brody. Mark states that since the issue is still in the
investigation stage it is considered a confidential matter. Accordingly, you
should direct your request to Frank Bonham as he is the official AFSCME
holder of those records.
Thanks,
Sherry
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:57 PM
To: Larson, Sherry
Cc: Czaplewski, Kim; larry-ellis@ufl.edu
Subject: RE: Reservation
It was my understanding that the agency had already investigated and
issued a disciplinary action letter in this matter last summer, and that
it was being appealed. May I be so presumptuous as to suggest that you
seek legal advice from an attorney rather than the AFSCME Regional
Director? We didn't ask to see AFSCME's records; we asked for the public
records. We're not interested in whether Frank Bonham wants other members
to see them or not.
Sharon
ATTACHMENT 17
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:39 PM
To: sllarson@ufl.edu
Subject: Reservation
Sherry,
We're holding a series of meetings to inform employees about pending
legislation and would like to hold one at Physical Plant. Would the
training trailer be available at lunch time (e.g., 11:30-2) one day next
week?
Also, the last time I spoke to you, I asked for copies of any records
pertaining to the altercation between Sharon DeSue and a coworker last
summer, I but haven't received anything. You did mention that she was out
on maternity leave, but that wouldn't have any affect on the availability
of those records, would it?
Thanks,
Sharon
Subject: RE: Reservation
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:27:42 -0500
From: "Larson, Sherry"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
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: Reservation
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:16:52 -0500
From: "Larson, Sherry"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Czaplewski, Kim"
Sharon,
I just spoke with Kim regarding your records request. She in turn spoke
with Mark Brody. Mark states that since the issue is still in the
investigation stage it is considered a confidential matter. Accordingly, you
should direct your request to Frank Bonham as he is the official AFSCME
holder of those records.
Thanks,
Sherry
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:57 PM
To: Larson, Sherry
Cc: Czaplewski, Kim; larry-ellis@ufl.edu
Subject: RE: Reservation
It was my understanding that the agency had already investigated and
issued a disciplinary action letter in this matter last summer, and that
it was being appealed. May I be so presumptuous as to suggest that you
seek legal advice from an attorney rather than the AFSCME Regional
Director? We didn't ask to see AFSCME's records; we asked for the public
records. We're not interested in whether Frank Bonham wants other members
to see them or not.
Sharon
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001
From: "Czaplewski, Kim"
To: Sharon Bauer
Subject: Re: Reservation
What exactly would you like to see Sharon? As you know there was a
suspension 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 leave
of absence. This is still confidential as it is an open investigation. This
is the material you would need to get from Frank. Please clarify so we
understand your request.
kc
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
CC: "Larson, Sherry" ,
"Ellis, Larry" , poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Reservation
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.
Sharon
ATTACHMENT 18
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:39 PM
To: sllarson@ufl.edu
Subject: Reservation
Sherry,
We're holding a series of meetings to inform employees about pending
legislation and would like to hold one at Physical Plant. Would the
training trailer be available at lunch time (e.g., 11:30-2) one day next
week?
Also, the last time I spoke to you, I asked for copies of any records
pertaining to the altercation between Sharon DeSue and a coworker last
summer, I but haven't received anything. You did mention that she was out
on maternity leave, but that wouldn't have any affect on the availability
of those records, would it?
Thanks,
Sharon
Subject: RE: Reservation
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:27:42 -0500
From: "Larson, Sherry"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
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: Reservation
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:16:52 -0500
From: "Larson, Sherry"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Czaplewski, Kim"
Sharon,
I just spoke with Kim regarding your records request. She in turn spoke
with Mark Brody. Mark states that since the issue is still in the
investigation stage it is considered a confidential matter. Accordingly, you
should direct your request to Frank Bonham as he is the official AFSCME
holder of those records.
Thanks,
Sherry
From: Sharon Bauer [mailto:share@]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:57 PM
To: Larson, Sherry
Cc: Czaplewski, Kim; larry-ellis@ufl.edu
Subject: RE: Reservation
It was my understanding that the agency had already investigated and
issued a disciplinary action letter in this matter last summer, and that
it was being appealed. May I be so presumptuous as to suggest that you
seek legal advice from an attorney rather than the AFSCME Regional
Director? We didn't ask to see AFSCME's records; we asked for the public
records. We're not interested in whether Frank Bonham wants other members
to see them or not.
Sharon
What exactly would you like to see Sharon? As you know there was a
suspension 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 leave
of absence. This is still confidential as it is an open investigation. This
is the material you would need to get from Frank. Please clarify so we
understand your request.
kc
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
CC: "Larson, Sherry" ,
"Ellis, Larry" , poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Reservation
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.
Sharon
Subject: Union Emails
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:51:49 -0400
From: "Czaplewski, Kim"
To: "'afscme@'"
CC: "'share@'"
It has come to my attention that many employees have received union
solicitation emails in the past week.
Please immediately cease and desist from soliciting University of Florida
employees in our workplace and distributing AFSCME literature, via our
employer 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 like
to meet with me so we can discuss this matter further.
Kimberly M. Czaplewski
University Personnel Services
352-392-1072
Subject: Re: Union Emails
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:30:59 -0400
From: Sharon Bauer
To: kim-c@ufl.edu
CC: afscme79@
Your characterization of our communications as "union solicitation emails" is
incorrect. We provided information to our coworkers regarding pending
legislation. Meanwhile, you are in violation of Chapter 120 and Chapter 447,
Florida Statutes, by virtue of your failure to respond to, let alone comply
with, our 3/30 request for a list of bargaining unit employees in order to
enable us to conduct the ratification vote required under Chapter 447.309(1).
Sharon Bauer, President
AFSCME Local 3340
cc: Steve Kreisberg
Linda Barge-Miles
Subject: RE: Union Emails
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:24:09 -0400
From: "Czaplewski, Kim"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: afscme79@
Sharon,
At the end of the email dated April 5, 2001, there is a paragraph that is a
solicitation. I would be glad to share a copy of this email with you if
needed.
I am unaware of any request that was made on 3/30 asking for a list of
bargaining unit employees. Who did you make this request to?
Kim
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:30:41 -0400
From: Sharon Bauer
To: kim-c@ufl.edu
Subject: [Fwd: Reservation]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:27:53 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
CC: "Larson, Sherry" ,
"Ellis, Larry" , poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Reservation
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.
Sharon
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Reservation]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:36:29 -0400
From: "Czaplewski, Kim"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
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 employees
that 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
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
Cc: "Willits, Bob" , "Ellis, Larry"
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.
Says who? Where is it written that an appraisal period can be no shorter
than 60 days? The contract says an employee can't be removed from his or
her class sooner than 60 days from receipt of the improvement plan, but
where 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 that
the period will be specified (which it was, 30 days) and that if the
employee 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, she
had met standards as of 6/2. Your refusal to release her yesterday and
allow her to avail herself of her right to request reassignment violated
both 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's
required to give it to you. I'm don't want your comment; I want a copy of
any document you have that backs up this assertion that you won't admit
making, 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't
default for six months?
I wonder if your superiors are aware of your April refusal to comply with
our public records request for a list of bargaining unit employees in
order to conduct the contract ratification vote, and if they're aware that
this is both a second-degree misdemeanor and an unfair labor practice.
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:03:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
Cc: "Willits, Bob" , "Ellis, Larry" ,
poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: 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 or
do you not have a copy of it? I requested a copy of any document you have
that says her rating wouldn't default for six months. Do you or do you
not have a copy of that? Is the problem that these documents don't exist
or 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) that
we had been notified that we were to conduct a contract ratification vote
pursuant to Ch. 447 "within the next two weeks." I requested "a list of
employees in the AFSCME bargaining unit as soon as possible." On 4/10/01 I
notified you of "your failure to respond to, let alone comply with, our
3/30 request for a list of bargaining unit employees in order to enable us
to conduct the ratification vote required under Chapter 447.309(1)." You
replied, "I am unaware of any request that was made on 3/30 asking for a
list of bargaining unit employees. Who did you make this request to?"
When I forwarded a copy of the email message, you neither denied receiving
it 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 list
of employees that are eligible to be covered by AFSCME? How do you want
the list sorted? By last name? When do you need it by?" We know that
you're only pretending to be that dense. Those questions were all answered
in the original request two weeks earlier. You know full well what
employees 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 eligible
voters would need to be by last name. You know that I said in the
original message that we needed the list ASAP in order to conduct a vote
within 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 19
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:25:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: kim-c@ufl.edu
Subject: Appraisal
University of Florida Rule 6C1-3.050 states:
(4) If an employee who has attained permanent status in the class receives
an appraisal or letter that documents failure to meet performance
standards, the rater with the cooperation of the higher level supervisors
shall communicate in writing to the employee necessary improvements to
address the identified deficiencies.
(a) If at the time of receiving such an appraisal or letter, the employee
is retained, the length of the next appraisal period shall be determined
but shall not exceed six months. Such appraisal shall be completed within
30 days following the appraisal period end date, unless a proposal is made
to terminate the employee as a result of his or her continued failure to
meet performance standards. In such case, a letter documenting the
to terminate the employee as a result of his or her continued failure to
meet performance standards. In such case, a letter documenting the
employees unsatisfactory performance, rather than a performance appraisal,
shall be sufficient.
1. In the absence of this appraisal or letter, the employee shall be
considered to have met performance standards for the follow-up period.
--------------------
Vatsala Desai received a Below Appraisal on 4/2 stating that the next
appraisal period would be 30 days. As of 6/2, it is more than 30 days
following the appraisal period end date. Therefore, since she has not
received an appraisal or letter, she is now considered to have met
performance standards for the follow-up period.
She has received a memorandum from Mary Ann Morgan stating that, according
to you, she will not default to Achieves for six months. What do you
base that contention on?
Sharon
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:50:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu
Cc: kim-c@ufl.edu
Subject: Appraisal (fwd)
We would appreciate your department's prompt attention to this matter.
Ms. Desai is anxious to get released as soon as possible. During the 30
days since her follow-up appraisal due date, she was prevented from
transferring to a department that knew her and wanted to hire her. There
are other opportunities she'd like to take advantage of this week. The
issue of untimely appraisals was addressed in the Bill Thomas grievance
last 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
To: kim-c@ufl.edu
Subject: Appraisal
University of Florida Rule 6C1-3.050 states:
(4) If an employee who has attained permanent status in the class receives
an appraisal or letter that documents failure to meet performance
standards, the rater with the cooperation of the higher level supervisors
shall communicate in writing to the employee necessary improvements to
address the identified deficiencies.
(a) If at the time of receiving such an appraisal or letter, the employee
is retained, the length of the next appraisal period shall be determined
but shall not exceed six months. Such appraisal shall be completed within
30 days following the appraisal period end date, unless a proposal is made
to terminate the employee as a result of his or her continued failure to
meet performance standards. In such case, a letter documenting the
to terminate the employee as a result of his or her continued failure to
meet performance standards. In such case, a letter documenting the
employees unsatisfactory performance, rather than a performance appraisal,
shall be sufficient.
1. In the absence of this appraisal or letter, the employee shall be
considered to have met performance standards for the follow-up period.
--------------------
Vatsala Desai received a Below Appraisal on 4/2 stating that the next
appraisal period would be 30 days. As of 6/2, it is more than 30 days
following the appraisal period end date. Therefore, since she has not
received an appraisal or letter, she is now considered to have met
performance standards for the follow-up period.
She has received a memorandum from Mary Ann Morgan stating that, according
to you, she will not default to Achieves for six months. What do you
base that contention on?
Sharon
Subject: RE: Appraisal
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:48:25 -0400
From: "Czaplewski, Kim"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Willits, Bob" , "Ellis, Larry"
The department has been issued a special appraisal form to complete and
issue to Ms. Desai. The department will be issuing an appraisal that will
address the last two months.
I have not seen the memo you are referring to. Please fax me a copy if you
have one. 392-7991.
Kim
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:41:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
Cc: "Willits, Bob" , "Ellis, Larry"
Subject: RE: Appraisal
Why was the department issued a special appraisal form? 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? 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"). 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? 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.
Subject: RE: Appraisal
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:37:17 -0400
From: "Czaplewski, Kim"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Willits, Bob" , "Ellis, Larry"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kim
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
Cc: "Willits, Bob" , "Ellis, Larry"
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.
Says who? Where is it written that an appraisal period can be no shorter
than 60 days? The contract says an employee can't be removed from his or
her class sooner than 60 days from receipt of the improvement plan, but
where 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 that
the period will be specified (which it was, 30 days) and that if the
employee 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, she
had met standards as of 6/2. Your refusal to release her yesterday and
allow her to avail herself of her right to request reassignment violated
both 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's
required to give it to you. I'm don't want your comment; I want a copy of
any document you have that backs up this assertion that you won't admit
making, 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't
default for six months?
I wonder if your superiors are aware of your April refusal to comply with
our public records request for a list of bargaining unit employees in
order to conduct the contract ratification vote, and if they're aware that
this is both a second-degree misdemeanor and an unfair labor practice.
Subject: RE: Appraisal
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:57:49 -0400
From: "Czaplewski, Kim"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Willits, Bob" , "Ellis, Larry"
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.
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.
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
To: "Czaplewski, Kim"
Cc: "Willits, Bob" , "Ellis, Larry" ,
poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: 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 or
do you not have a copy of it? I requested a copy of any document you have
that says her rating wouldn't default for six months. Do you or do you
not have a copy of that? Is the problem that these documents don't exist
or 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) that
we had been notified that we were to conduct a contract ratification vote
pursuant to Ch. 447 "within the next two weeks." I requested "a list of
employees in the AFSCME bargaining unit as soon as possible." On 4/10/01 I
notified you of "your failure to respond to, let alone comply with, our
3/30 request for a list of bargaining unit employees in order to enable us
to conduct the ratification vote required under Chapter 447.309(1)." You
replied, "I am unaware of any request that was made on 3/30 asking for a
list of bargaining unit employees. Who did you make this request to?"
When I forwarded a copy of the email message, you neither denied receiving
it 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 list
of employees that are eligible to be covered by AFSCME? How do you want
the list sorted? By last name? When do you need it by?" We know that
you're only pretending to be that dense. Those questions were all answered
in the original request two weeks earlier. You know full well what
employees 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 eligible
voters would need to be by last name. You know that I said in the
original message that we needed the list ASAP in order to conduct a vote
within 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
To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu
Subject: OPS Staff
The Provost told the trustees yesterday that the
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 -0400
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Subject: RE: OPS Staff
Good Morning Sharon:
Pursuant to your request for OPS data, I submit the following information:
COUNT DESCRIPTION
942 Res/Int Non UF Student
3188 Grad Asst Bi-Weekly Pay
753 Fac OPS Bi-Weekly Pay
2596 Temp Hire OPS
206 Resident Counselor
296 College Work Study Pay
1237 Student Assistant
4 Student Gov Official
64 OPS Overtime at 1.5
26 DC OPS BW Post
42 OPS Retro Pay Inc
12 Hrly OPS Visa DC
2 OPS Hourly DC
42 DC OPS Lump Sum
23 DC OPS Lump Sum Pre
I trust that this information addresses your inquiry. Please contact me
should you desire any additional information.
Take care.....Larry
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:28:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Ellis, Larry"
Subject: RE: OPS Staff
I also asked about hours. Do you know how many are
appointed full-time? We want to see the records you have on
this. Is there a file of some reports that your department
generates periodically on OPS?
Thanks,
Sharon
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:49:29 -0400
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Subject: RE: OPS Staff
Finance & Accounting generates the Payroll Analysis and Control information
that is produced through Information Systems. I would suggest that
information on the number of full-time OPS employees, and the number of OPS
students may be secured from F & A.
Larry
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:05:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Ellis, Larry"
Cc: afscme@
Bcc: Mark Piotrowski
Subject: RE: OPS Staff
So, in response to my 9/7 and 9/11 requests to view any
records your office has on OPS staff, any aggregate records,
any reports--which you're legally required to produce in the
minimum time necessary to gather them together--your
response is that Personnel doesn't have any? That's
surprising. Unbelievable, even.
Sharon
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:24:10 -0400
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Cc: "'afscme@'"
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. If
you wish, I will fax the Payroll Analysis & Control report to your attention
(please provide your fax number).
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
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
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:46:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Ellis, Larry"
Cc: afscme@
Subject: 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 data
Personnel has on OPS staff. I've put no restrictions on my
request. You claim that "UPS DOES NOT have this specific
information on OPS employees!" when I didn't limit my
request to any specific information. Is it possible that
you don't know what "e.g." means? It means for example. It
means that FTE and and student status were just two examples
of things we were looking for. It doesn't mean those are the
only 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 I
never asked to view the records containing the data. Seeing
the data means looking at any records you have containing
data on OPS. Emailing us a list of meaningless numbers
doesn't comply with our request. You're not legally required
to run a report for us. You *are* required to produce any
records you possess in hard copy or electronic format for
our review.
If that wasn't clear enough for you, I said on 9/11, in
response to your emailed list of numbers, that "we want to
see the records on this," including "reports that your
department generates periodically on OPS." Yet you claim
that in my 9/11 request "you never asked 'to view any
records...on OPS staff.'" Are "see" and "view" not
synonymous to you?
If that wasn't clear enough, I said again today that we
wanted to "view any records your office has on OPS staff." I
added that we meant aggregate records or reports because I
knew that otherwise you'd probably produce a bunch of
individual OPS appointment forms.
But rather than comply with the law, you want to play the
Personnel footdragging game of pretending not to understand
what we're asking for. Once again, as I have been asking
for the past week, we want to see EVERYTHING YOU HAVE WITH
DATA ON OPS.
We want to see every piece of paper and every computer file
that anyone in Personnel has that contains any data on OPS.
If someone's sent out a memo containing OPS data, we want to
see that. If someone's received an email containing OPS
data, we want to see that. If someone's downloaded a file
containing OPS data, we want to see that. If someone's
printed out OPS data from the payroll system, we want to see
that. Got it? You ask your staff to look in their file
cabinet under OPS and do a computer search for OPS and
either data or report. It's really very simple, Larry, but
after a week you apparently haven't made the first move
toward 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 requested
the personnel database over the past year, and the
administration has refused to provide it, in violation of
the public records law. Even if pay the exorbitant fee, they
refuse to provide all of the information to which we're
legally 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
> 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
Attachment 21
SHARON BAUER
1001 Northeast 21st Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32609
(352) 378-9800
October 30, 2001
Ms. Lisa Hodges
Personnel Services
Health Science Center
Box 100346
Gainesville, 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 15th 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
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:56:43 -0400
From: Lisa D Hodges
To: Sharon Bauer
Subject: Re:
Sharon, what time would you like schedule to review your file. I also
spoke with Mark Jordan this morning and indicated that it was ready for
review.
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:40:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: Lisa D Hodges
Subject: Re:
As usual, you indicate that you don't understand what I
requested. I didn't ask to review my file. Please read my
request again.
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:07:29 -0400
From: Lisa D Hodges
To: Sharon Bauer
Cc: Jan Eller , kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@
Subject: Re:
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.
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.
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:10:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: Lisa D Hodges
Cc: Jan Eller , kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@
Subject: Re:
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 see
any records pertaining to her. After almost three years,
you continue to appear not to understand the definition of
public records. I would suggest that you read the statute or
Attorney General's manual to familiarize yourself with your
statutory responsibilities. However, following the sentence
you quote, I believe that I actually listed some examples
for you. They would include any email. Surely you're not
claiming that you have no email or any records at all
pertaining to Ms. Dailey, regardless of whether you maintain
a file with her name on it. It seems unlikely that, when I
reported 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 had
been cancelled and would be rescheduled because you hadn't
returned his call about scheduling a conference room. I
understood him to say that he called you yesterday. Two
days ago, when he originally contacted me and said I needed
to drive to the AFSCME office and back for the conference
call, I asked that he come here and offered to reserve the
conference room next to our office. Instead, he insisted
that I go to the AFSCME office and offered to drive me
there and back..
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:23:56 -0400
From: Lisa D Hodges
To: Sharon Bauer
Cc: Jan Eller , kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@
Subject: Re:
As I have stated, all records pertaining to your request are available
for review. Please contact me to arrange a meeting time.
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:49:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: Lisa D Hodges
Cc: Jan Eller , kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@
Subject: 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 that
my file is ready for review. That is not what I requested.
Please comply with my request. For example, each member of
your staff needs to search their email for messages
containing my name or Valerie's and make those available as
well.
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 13:37:24 -0400
From: Lisa D Hodges
To: Sharon Bauer
Cc: Jan Eller , kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@
Subject: Re:
All records, including emails as you have stated with your name or
Valerie's are available. I never said that these records had not been
included -- they are all here. I do not have any records regarding
complaints against Dr. Conlon filed by Ms. Dailey, or any of Ms. Dailey's
counseling memos, discipline or evaluations.
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:52:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: Lisa D Hodges
Cc: Jan Eller , kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@
Subject: Re:
We'd like to review the records at 1:30 tomorrow or
Thursday.
Sharon
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:09:37 -0400
From: Lisa D Hodges
To: Sharon Bauer
Cc: Jan Eller , kim-c@ufl.edu, RRichardRT@
Subject: Re:
Sharon 1:30 tomorrow or Thursday morning at either 8:00, 9:00, or 10:00
would be available. Please let me know which is a convenient time so
that I may schedule.
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:17:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: Lisa D Hodges
Subject: Re:
Today's not going to be possible. What about 1:30 Friday?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:24:40 -0400
From: Lisa D Hodges
To: Sharon Bauer
Subject: Re:
That's fine, I'll schedule it for then.
From: "Jan Eller"
To: MCONLON@vpha.health.ufl.edu, vanderaa@health.ufl.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:55:35 -0400
Subject: (Fwd) Re: Records Request
CC: 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
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:02:57 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
To: Jan Eller
Send reply to: Sharon Bauer
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 :
> 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]
ATTACHMENT 22
Subject: Re: Your Request for Data - Confirming Details
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:37:44 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Willits, Bob"
CC: "Ellis, Larry" , "Steve Prevaux (E-mail)"
"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 regarding
staff 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 professional
relationship with AFSCME. Of course you "can indeed provide the personnel
database information." You could and should have provided it two years ago.
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. I no longer
have 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 number
tomorrow.
> 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 had
security flags based on employee privacy preference that bore no relation to
exemption from the statute. You claimed that you did not know what information
was exempt, and that you would provide only information that employees had not
asked be kept private. You are required to know what is exempt when creating the
database. According to the AG's manual, "design and development of the
software, therefore, should ensure that the system has the capability of
redacting confidential or exempt information when a public records request is
made." On October 19 we asked that you at least provide the information you know
to 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 statutory
obligation, which is as follows :
"A person who has custody of a public record and who asserts that an exemption
provided in subsection (3) or in a general or special law applies to a
particular 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 has
been asserted and validly applies, and such person shall produce the remainder
of such record for inspection and examination. If the person who has custody of
a public record contends that the record or part of it is exempt from inspection
and examination, he or she shall state the basis of the exemption which he or
she contends is applicable to the record, including the statutory citation to an
exemption created or afforded by statute."
It has taken you two years to redact exempt information although you are
required to build that capability into the design of the database. According to
the 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." According to the statute, "Any public officer who
violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a noncriminal infraction,
punishable by fine not exceeding $500...Any person willfully and knowingly
violating any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor of
the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083" ["a
definite 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 are
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 based
on the labor or computer costs actually incurred by the agency." The labor
involved for this request should be five minutes, and the computer costs should
be under $25. "An agency may not charge fees designed to recoup the original
cost of developing or producing the records," and the cost of redacting
confidential 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 takes
neither extensive technology resources nor extensive clerical assistance to copy
files.
> 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 under
duress.
> 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. A
demonstration of good faith would be to provide the requested information
immediately at a reasonable cost. You have not produced one single piece of
paper in response to the 20 public records violations we attempted to discuss
with you at the October 19 consultation meeting.
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:17:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Willits, Bob"
Subject: Re: Your Request for Data - Confirming Details
The fax number is 332-4648.
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:29:36 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: "'share@'"
Cc: "'prevaux@ufl.edu'"
Subject: Personnel Data CD
Sharon Bauer
AFSCME President, Local 3340
Information Systems (I.S.) has completed work on your public records
request for the personnel data base, and has all available information on
a CD ready for you to pick up. As was discussed in our consultation
meeting of October 18, 2001, and subsequently in Bob Willits' e-mail
of October 31, 2001, to you, any information currently secured as
exempted form production under 119.07, F.S. is being reviewed to ensure
that it is properly maintained. Should we find any information 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 production costs 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, Director
University Personnel Services
Subject: Re: Personnel Data CD
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:35:45 -0500
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Ellis, Larry"
CC: "'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.
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:14:22 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Cc: "'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 as
follows:
* $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, Computer
Programmer - Analyst); and
* $275.00 Computer Time.
Larry T. Ellis, Director
University Personnel Services
ATTACHMENT 23
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:21:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
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
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
Subject: RE: Personnel Records
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:41:05 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Poppell, Ed" , "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" ,
"Thomas, Tom"
Attached, please find communications pertaining to the Public Records
Exemption Project.
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.
By copy, I am asking IS for "copies of the programs used to generate the
file(s)."
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.
Larry Ellis
Director, Division of Human Resources
Letter to Employees (119.07) 12-7-01.doc
Memo to TKL Administrators (119.07) 12-12-01.doc
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:22:08 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Cc: "Poppell, Ed" ,
"'prevaux@ufl.edu'" , "Thomas, Tom"
Subject: FW: Personnel Records
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.
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.
Larry T. Ellis
Director, Division of Human Resources
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:07:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Ellis, Larry"
Cc: "Poppell, Ed"
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 information
was requested five weeks ago. You are once again in
violation of Chapter 119.
(2) I would think that the General Counsel's office would be
aware and would have advised you (as I have many times in
the past) that, if you assert that a statutory exemption to
disclosure applies, then you are required to include the
statutory citation to the exemption, delete or excise only
that portion to which it validly applies, and produce the
remainder. Your failure to do so is yet another violation
of the statute. In addition, you are required to state "in
writing and with particularity" the reasons for the
conclusion that the record is exempt, should we request it,
and we do.
(3) "Sensitive" is defined in Chapter 119 as those portions
of programs that are used to collect, process, store, and
retrieve exempt information. The programs in question are
used to retrieve nonexempt information. This exemption does
not apply, and your failure to provide this public
information 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 many
invoices you send us. The information you have made
available is not what we requested, and we did not authorize
its 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 been
made two weeks earlier. You told us on several occasions in
October that you had finally (two years after our original
request) begun the process of identifying which personnel
records were exempt. We requested documentation of those
efforts, and two weeks later you tell us that there is
none--not a single mention of this so-called "project" in
agendas, minutes, notes, correspondence--prior to these two
December 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 by
now you would have already compared the list of 159 included
fields that you faxed to me and the list of 845 data
elements in the payroll/personnel database to see what is
missing. Like bargaining unit, most are clearly "personnel
related." We requested the entire database, and I have no
obligation to tell you why we want all 845 elements in it or
what they are. You, on the other hand, are legally required
to justify your withholding them. Your continued
withholding of this public information is why we are seeking
not 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 even
forward 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 to
authorize production of the CD when asked to do so by Bob
Willits. I said that we would not agree to pay without
confirmation that, unlike the CD you tried to foist off on
us last year, this one would contain what we have been
requesting for two years: the entire personnel database
minus exempt data. The list of fields you faxed to me in
response showed that the CD contains only a fraction of what
we requested. We consider that CD, like your invoices for
it, to be rubbish.
> Larry Ellis
> Director, Division of Human Resources
Sharon Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:59:02 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Cc: "Poppell, Ed" ,
"'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 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.
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
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:51:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Ellis, Larry"
Cc: "Poppell, Ed"
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, you
can't withhold the resulting document because licensed
software was used to create it. You have to provide the
requester a copy of the document, not Word. You claim that
your staff spent 23 hours writing programs to copy these
public records to a CD. We're not asking you for SAS,
COBOL, SQL, or whatever other software was used to write and
run the programs. We want the resulting agency-produced
programs, which are neither licensed nor sensitive. You
need to use the licensed software to print out a copy of
those programs. You still haven't complied with the
requirement that you state specifically how this exemption
applies. What licensed software are you claiming that you
can'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 mail
while you're on vacation or have it forwarded to someone
else to be handled in your absence, that it's just ignored
whenever you're out of the office. That's a very odd way to
do business and certainly isn't how it's done in any office
I've ever worked in.
This is a public records request to view (1) all messages
you received during your vacation and (2) all replies to
those messages. In lieu of providing those records for
review, you could just admit that other mail was read and
responded to during that period if that is in fact the case.
Sharon Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
ATTACHMENT 24
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:21:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
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
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
Subject: RE: Personnel Records
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:41:05 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: "'Sharon Bauer'"
CC: "Poppell, Ed" , "'prevaux@ufl.edu'" ,
"Thomas, Tom"
Attached, please find communications pertaining to the Public Records
Exemption Project.
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.
By copy, I am asking IS for "copies of the programs used to generate the
file(s)."
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.
Larry Ellis
Director, Division of Human Resources
Attachments:
Letter to Employees (119.07) 12-7-01.doc
Memo to TKL Administrators (119.07) 12-12-01.doc
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:07:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Ellis, Larry"
Cc: "Poppell, Ed"
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 information
was requested five weeks ago. You are once again in
violation of Chapter 119.
(2) I would think that the General Counsel's office would be
aware and would have advised you (as I have many times in
the past) that, if you assert that a statutory exemption to
disclosure applies, then you are required to include the
statutory citation to the exemption, delete or excise only
that portion to which it validly applies, and produce the
remainder. Your failure to do so is yet another violation
of the statute. In addition, you are required to state "in
writing and with particularity" the reasons for the
conclusion that the record is exempt, should we request it,
and we do.
(3) "Sensitive" is defined in Chapter 119 as those portions
of programs that are used to collect, process, store, and
retrieve exempt information. The programs in question are
used to retrieve nonexempt information. This exemption does
not apply, and your failure to provide this public
information 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 many
invoices you send us. The information you have made
available is not what we requested, and we did not authorize
its 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 been
made two weeks earlier. You told us on several occasions in
October that you had finally (two years after our original
request) begun the process of identifying which personnel
records were exempt. We requested documentation of those
efforts, and two weeks later you tell us that there is
none--not a single mention of this so-called "project" in
agendas, minutes, notes, correspondence--prior to these two
December 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 by
now you would have already compared the list of 159 included
fields that you faxed to me and the list of 845 data
elements in the payroll/personnel database to see what is
missing. Like bargaining unit, most are clearly "personnel
related." We requested the entire database, and I have no
obligation to tell you why we want all 845 elements in it or
what they are. You, on the other hand, are legally required
to justify your withholding them. Your continued
withholding of this public information is why we are seeking
not 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 even
forward 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 to
authorize production of the CD when asked to do so by Bob
Willits. I said that we would not agree to pay without
confirmation that, unlike the CD you tried to foist off on
us last year, this one would contain what we have been
requesting for two years: the entire personnel database
minus exempt data. The list of fields you faxed to me in
response showed that the CD contains only a fraction of what
we requested. We consider that CD, like your invoices for
it, to be rubbish.
> Larry Ellis
> Director, Division of Human Resources
Sharon Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
ATTACHMENT 24
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:51:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Ellis, Larry"
Cc: "Poppell, Ed"
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, you
can't withhold the resulting document because licensed
software was used to create it. You have to provide the
requester a copy of the document, not Word. You claim that
your staff spent 23 hours writing programs to copy these
public records to a CD. We're not asking you for SAS,
COBOL, SQL, or whatever other software was used to write and
run the programs. We want the resulting agency-produced
programs, which are neither licensed nor sensitive. You
need to use the licensed software to print out a copy of
those programs. You still haven't complied with the
requirement that you state specifically how this exemption
applies. What licensed software are you claiming that you
can'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 mail
while you're on vacation or have it forwarded to someone
else to be handled in your absence, that it's just ignored
whenever you're out of the office. That's a very odd way to
do business and certainly isn't how it's done in any office
I've ever worked in.
This is a public records request to view (1) all messages
you received during your vacation and (2) all replies to
those messages. In lieu of providing those records for
review, you could just admit that other mail was read and
responded to during that period if that is in fact the case.
Sharon Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
[No response as of 5/9/02]
ATTACHMENT 26
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:43:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: personnel@ufl.edu
Subject: Position Descriptions
Pursuant to Chapter 119, F.S., I'd like copies of the job
descriptions of the following positions. Please fax them to
my attention at 375-8068. If you have any questions, you
can reach me at 392-3855. Thanks,
Sharon Bauer
932890
636320 Secretary
835710 Program Assist
870040 Office Asst.
811180 Program Asst.
636630 Program Assist
629310 Office Assistant
879140 Office Asst.
992240 Program Assist?
811260 Clerical Supervisor
975890 Office Assistant
805620 Program Assistant
825510 Secretary
626740 Office Asst.
636020 Secretary
863690 Program Assist.
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:32:01 -0500
From: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
To: "'share@'"
Subject: Request for Position Descriptions
We can supply the requested documents as photocopies. The number of pages
requested (57) will tie up our fax machine for too long a period.
In compliance with General Counsel's advice
the costs incurred (photocopying
and 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 at
no charge.
Cost breakdown:
Staff time: 45 minutes @ $9.87/hr = $7.40 (pulling files, extracting
documents, photocopying)
One-sided pages: 1@$.15/page = .15
Two-sided pages: 23@$.20/page = 4.60 (a savings from 46
pages@$.15/page)
Total: $12.15
If not in cash, make check payable to "University of Florida." Payment must
be made prior to delivery.
For your convenience, you can make payment and take subsequent delivery at
the Health Center Employee Relations office in H-8, JHMHC.
Please advise.
--------------------------------------------
Kris Pagenkopf
Human Resources Coordinator
Division of Human Resources
University of Florida
POB 115001
Gainesville, FL 32611-5001
Phone 352-392-1213, SC 622-1213
Fax 352-392-3203, SC 622-3203
E-mail: kris-pagenkopf@ufl.edu
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:10:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
Subject: Re: Request for Position Descriptions
The link below doesn't seem to work. I get a Page Not
Found error and am redirected to webadmin.ufl.edu. I'd
be very interested in seeing the FAQ.
Since you can only charge labor if the volume of records
involved requires "extensive clerical or supervisory
assistance," how many position descriptions can you pull
(which of course you've already done in order to count the
pages) without it being considered extensive--1, 2, 3? And
how many pages are you able to fax?
Sharon
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:36:50 -0500
From: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions
With respect to the link, you may want to try
and click on "Legal FAQs"
With respect to the method and manner in which we can supply the requested
documents, please see our original response. We are prepared to make
delivery upon receipt of the charges to cover the cost of supplying these
documents.
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:56:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions
As I told you previously, the general counsel website
isn't available. Apparently it's blocked to people
outside of your department. It must not be confidential
if you keep referring me to is, so I'm requesting a copy of
it. Please fax it to 375-8068.
I don't understand why you're refusing to answer my
questions about cost. If I revise my request to only
include the first 15 position descriptions, what will the
cost 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 -0500
From: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Cc: "Hodges, Lisa"
Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions
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).
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
photocopying at single- and double-sided rates specified below.
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:56:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
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 Employee
Relations 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
> 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 -0500
From: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Cc: "Hodges, Lisa"
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 through
the our Health Center Employee Relations office (H-8).
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:06:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions
After consulting with my attorney, I am requesting, instead
of a copy of the printed FAQ, a copy of the electronic HTML
file. Please email it to me at this address.
Also, according to the Attorney General's public records
manual, "In order to comply with the statutory directive
that an agency provide copies of public records upon payment
of the statutory fee, an agency must respond to requests for
information as to copying costs." Therefore, I am
reiterating my previous request for the costs of providing
the first 1, 2, 3..., etc., through 15 documents of the 16
listed.
I also want a copy, in electronic format if available, of
any 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 -0500
From: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions
Per your request, attached are copies (MSWord) of the FAQs, and the HTML
file.
With regards to costs, they are based upon:
Photocopying: $.15 for single-sided copying; $.20 for double-sided copying
Staff time
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:14:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu, poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions (fwd)
This is to document that we have made you aware of the
following additional violations of the public records law.
Over six weeks ago, I requested copies of 16 position
descriptions and was told by Kris Pagenkopf that there would
be a charge of $7.40 for extensive clerical assistance. I
asked how many position descriptions could be requested
without requiring extensive clerical assistance, and he did
not provide that information. I then asked for the cost of
providing the first one, the first two, etc., up to the
first 15 position descriptions, and he has not provided that
information.
I had asked that the records be faxed to me, and he refused,
saying that the number of pages requested would tie up their
fax machine for too long. I repeatedly asked how many pages
could be faxed, and he did not respond. I asked him to fax
me a copy of the General Counsel web pag that he had
referred me to but that, due to a programming error, was not
available that day. He refused to fax that single sheet,
saying that I could pick it up in person at the Health
Center Personnel Office. I then requested a copy of any
policies or other records pertaining to the faxing of
requested records, and he has not responded to date.
Sharon Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
Subject: Request for Position Descriptions (fwd)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:31:54 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: "'share@'"
CC: "Poppell, Ed" , "'prevaux@ufl.edu'"
Good Afternoon Sharon:
Attached, please find information provided you by Kris Pagenkopf on 1/31/02
and 2/1/02. They appear to be prompt and accurate responses to specific
requests. However, should you have other specific requests for information,
please contact my office.
Thanks....Larry
ATTACHMENT 27
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:06:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions
After consulting with my attorney, I am requesting, instead
of a copy of the printed FAQ, a copy of the electronic HTML
file. Please email it to me at this address.
Also, according to the Attorney General's public records
manual, "In order to comply with the statutory directive
that an agency provide copies of public records upon payment
of the statutory fee, an agency must respond to requests for
information as to copying costs." Therefore, I am
reiterating my previous request for the costs of providing
the first 1, 2, 3..., etc., through 15 documents of the 16
listed.
I also want a copy, in electronic format if available, of
any 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 -0500
From: "Pagenkopf, Kris"
To: 'Sharon Bauer'
Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions
Per your request, attached are copies (MSWord) of the FAQs, and the HTML
file.
With regards to costs, they are based upon:
Photocopying: $.15 for single-sided copying; $.20 for double-sided copying
Staff time
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:14:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Sharon Bauer
To: larry-ellis@ufl.edu, poppell@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: RE: Request for Position Descriptions (fwd)
This is to document that we have made you aware of the
following additional violations of the public records law.
Over six weeks ago, I requested copies of 16 position
descriptions and was told by Kris Pagenkopf that there would
be a charge of $7.40 for extensive clerical assistance. I
asked how many position descriptions could be requested
without requiring extensive clerical assistance, and he did
not provide that information. I then asked for the cost of
providing the first one, the first two, etc., up to the
first 15 position descriptions, and he has not provided that
information.
I had asked that the records be faxed to me, and he refused,
saying that the number of pages requested would tie up their
fax machine for too long. I repeatedly asked how many pages
could be faxed, and he did not respond. I asked him to fax
me a copy of the General Counsel web pag that he had
referred me to but that, due to a programming error, was not
available that day. He refused to fax that single sheet,
saying that I could pick it up in person at the Health
Center Personnel Office. I then requested a copy of any
policies or other records pertaining to the faxing of
requested records, and he has not responded to date.
Sharon Bauer
President, AFSCME Local 3340
Subject: Request for Position Descriptions (fwd)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:31:54 -0500
From: "Ellis, Larry"
To: "'share@'"
CC: "Poppell, Ed" , "'prevaux@ufl.edu'"
Good Afternoon Sharon:
Attached, please find information provided you by Kris Pagenkopf on 1/31/02
and 2/1/02. They appear to be prompt and accurate responses to specific
requests. However, should you have other specific requests for information,
please contact my office.
Thanks....Larry
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- public records violations afn
- acknowledgements home mental health commission of canada
- post secondary education
- report of the international experts seminar on
- job poster template afn
- reviewer checklist and comments worksheet
- research projects fnesc
- peer reviewed original articles published july 1 2001
- supplemntal guidance afn evac trans master
- jųtsʼų̄ ʼndasatsʼedaye this is how we work
Related searches
- greensboro public records guilford county
- lackawanna county public records search
- public records for property
- public records search free
- no cost public records search
- free government public records search
- public records directory opt out
- public records las vegas nevada
- public records guilford county nc
- public records for property ownership
- free public records property deeds
- free public records for property ownership