High Springs violated Sunshine laws

Some information rightfully withheld

 Citing the City of High Springs’ unreasonable delay in providing a job applicant’s polygraph results to a resident, a circuit court judge has granted partial summary judgment in a lawsuit against the City.

Judge Victor Hulslander ruled May 15 that the City of High Springs unlawfully withheld Officer Clint Knowles’ polygraph results from resident Robyn Rush for 12 days. The test was administered as a routine character analysis for hiring purposes.

According to the order, after producing the requested polygraph results, High Springs Deputy Clerk Jenny Parham candidly stated that it had “slipped her mind in the midst of performing her other duties.”

“An unjustified delay in complying with a public records request amounts to an unlawful refusal,” Hulslander wrote. “A failure to respond timely to a public records request due to oversight by the Defendant is not a reasonable justification for such a delay.”

Although the City was held responsible for the delay in providing the test results, Hulslander held that the City rightfully redacted the questions and answers from the polygraph test because the questions are sensitive and could give future applicants an unfair advantage if released.

“The integrity of the polygraph examination could be compromised if the examination questions and answers were disclosed,” Hulslander noted in his order. “Moreover, it is not the disclosure of the questions themselves, but of the sequence and pattern of such questions and answers during the polygraph examination which would provide future applicants with advantageous information.”

Rush filed the lawsuit on June 17, 2010 seeking attorney’s fees, court costs and the polygraph results.

The suit is related to the polygraph of Knowles, who was fired from the Sarasota County Sherriff’s Department in 2008 for an alcohol related incident. Knowles filed a lawsuit against the department after his termination, alleging discrimination based on his alcoholism disability.

On April 15, 2010, an Alachua County Sherriff’s Office detective conducted the polygraph, which ended with an inconclusive result. It was then “hand delivered” to the City on April 16, 2010 according to the suit.

Rush requested the polygraph on April 18, 2010 through an e-mail to former city manager James Drumm.

“The City of High Springs does not have a polygraph test result in our custody at this time,” Drumm replied in an e-mail on April 19. “I have been told that Mr. Knowles has taken the polygraph just a few days ago. The City cannot produce documents before they exist.”

On April 27, Rush requested the comments and findings section of Knowles’ polygraph. Deputy City Clerk Jenny Parham e-mailed Rush the third page of a document, which only stated the test was inconclusive.

In the lawsuit, Rush claims the City’s failure to supply her with the first two pages was a violation of Florida’s public records laws.

She informed Parham on May 6 that she had not been given the complete polygraph and asked the City to cite the exemption under Florida law that makes the remaining parts of the polygraph confidential.

The City did not provide Rush with an exemption, but both parties received mediation through Anna Phillips, mediation coordinator with the Attorney General’s Office.

“The Attorney General’s Office is not aware of any statutory provision barring access to otherwise public records, simply because the records are in the form of polygraph charts,” Phillips wrote in an e-mail to both parties May 18, 2010. “However, a circuit court has noted that the exemption from disclosure…for employment examination questions and answers could exempt some information contained in pre-employment polygraph records.”

On the same day that Phillips’ sent that e-mail, Parham e-mailed Rush the missing first two pages of the polygraph report.

For sending Rush the remaining pages, Phillips also noted it appeared High Springs had taken steps to satisfy the public records request to comply with the requirements of the public records law.

The pages contained the polygraph examiner’s narrative of how Knowles reacted to questioning. The majority of the pages are blacked out and have information redacted that should be public record, Rush claimed in the lawsuit.

“I conducted a post-test interview with Knowles regarding the results of the exam, focusing particularly on the question…” polygraph administer Det. Sgt. Tom Witherington wrote before the redaction. “Knowles’ face went flush and he immediately replied…”

Also redacted was Witherington’s suggestion as to why Knowles’ test was inconclusive.

Rush’s attorney, Joseph W. Little, requested an unredacted copy of the report on June 3 and June 10, but the report was never produced, according to the lawsuit.

Little has also represented political activists Charles Grapski and Michael Canney in a lawsuit against the City of Alachua for a violation of public records laws.

Rush said local governments should be held accountable for their actions, whether their actions are intentional or not.

“‘Whoops’ is not gonna cut it,” Rush wrote in an e-mail to Alachua County Today.