The Times sued Pinellas for access to information about a settlement with a fired county employee.
By WILL VAN SANT, Times Staff Writer
Published February 14, 2006
ST. PETERSBURG - Pinellas County is violating Florida's public records law by refusing to disclose a settlement agreement with a fired employee, a circuit judge ruled Monday.
Judge Mark I. Shames gave the county 48 hours to give the settlement to the St. Petersburg Times , which sued the county Feb. 3. The suit seeks access to a deal the county reached last month with former assistant administrator Rick Dodge.
County Commissioner Calvin Harris has told the Times Dodge was getting $300,000 to settle a whistle-blower lawsuit he brought against Pinellas in 2003. Other county leaders have refused to confirm the amount or offer other details.
"The premise of our lawsuit has been that the county shouldn't do business in secret or spend the public's money in secret," said Times Executive Editor and Vice President Neil Brown. "This decision clearly affirms that."
Robert E. Biasotti, an attorney with Carlton Fields, the St. Petersburg firm the county hired to handle the case, said he expects to appeal Shames' decision.
Late Monday, Biasotti and Alison Steele, an attorney for the Times, were considering a deal that could speed up resolution of the case.
Even if the appeal is put on a fast track and the Times prevails, it could be several weeks before the settlement is released.
In defending its refusal to disclose the agreement, the county cites an exemption in the public records law allowing the government to keep documents private if they reveal impressions, strategies and theories about an ongoing case.
The idea is to prevent disclosure of information that might give adversaries a legal edge.
The Times argues that because the settlement has been reviewed by both sides, there is no longer a need for secrecy.
Pinellas officials say the settlement amounts merely to an agreement to agree. Once unspecified conditions are met in coming weeks, they say, the document will be released.
Shames rejected that argument.
"Since the terms of the settlement agreement have been fully disclosed to the opposing litigants and counsel," he wrote in his decision, "the only interested party being kept out of the loop is the public!"
