A FRIEND WINS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS….

THE FOOL KOBERLEIN LOSES AGAIN….

LAKE SHORE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, AND JACKSON P. BERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LAKE SHORE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY’S CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS,
Appellants,
v.
STEWART LILKER,
Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D14-4579
_____________________________/
Opinion filed July 8, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.
William F. Williams, Judge.
Janice L. Merrill of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Orlando, for Appellants.
Robert Earl Case, Jr., and Kris B. Robinson of Robinson, Kennon & Kendron, P.A., Lake City, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants claim the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment upon finding that appellants violated the Public Records Act by
2
placing unreasonable restrictions on appellee’s access to public records in appellants’ custody. Because there were no disputed issues of material fact in this public records litigation, we conclude the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee as a matter of law.
In Florida, access to public records is constitutionally guaranteed and enforced through the Public Records Act. Art. I, § 24(a), Fla. Const.; Ch. 119, Fla. Stat. (2013). See Promenade D’Iberville, LCC v. Sundy, 145 So. 3d 980, 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Santa Fe College, 109 So. 3d 851, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Specifically, the Public Records Act declares that “[i]t is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person.” § 119.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). Thus, “[e]very person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records.” § 119.07(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). The Act “is to be construed liberally in favor of openness, and all exemptions from disclosure are to be construed narrowly and limited to their designated purpose.” Barfield v. Sch. Bd. of Manatee Cnty., 135 So. 3d 560, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Wooling v. Lamar, 764 So. 2d 765, 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
3
In this case, appellants claim the trial court erred in concluding that appellants placed unreasonable restrictions on appellee’s access to public records in appellants’ custody by only referring appellee to a website in response to his public records request. While there is authority supporting appellants’ position that their duty under the Act can be met in this way if the request is solely for electronic access, appellee’s request—which initially was for electronic access—was ultimately for actual paper copies (due to appellee’s alleged difficulties with the website). Access to public records by remote electronic means is merely “an additional means of inspecting or copying public records.” § 119.07(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013) (emphasis added). This additional means of access, however, is insufficient where the person requesting the records specifies the traditional method of access via paper copies.
In addition, appellants claim the trial court erred in finding that they violated the Public Records Act by restricting appellee’s right to inspect and copy public records in appellants’ possession between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., Monday through Friday, with twenty-four-hour notice. The Act authorizes inspection and copying of public records at “any reasonable time.” While the custodian may reasonably restrict inspection to those hours during which his or her office is open to the public, appellants have gone much further by limiting appellee’s access to a single hour on weekday mornings. Clearly, this hampered
4
appellee’s right to inspect the records in appellants’ custody “at any reasonable time.” Moreover, there is no authority allowing appellants to automatically delay production of records for inspection by imposing a twenty-four-hour notice requirement. See Tribune Co. v. Cannella, 458 So. 2d at 1075, 1079 (Fla. 1984) (holding that “an automatic delay, no matter how short, impermissibly interferes with the public’s right, restrained only by the physical problems involved in retrieving the records and protecting them, to examine the records”). Accordingly, we conclude the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee.
AFFIRMED.
RAY, SWANSON, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.

ORDINANCE 14-03 (THE SEWER-WATER ORDINANCE OF RATES AND PENALTIES) 10-14-14

ORDINANCE 14-03  (THE SEWER-WATER ORDINANCE OF RATES AND PENALTIES)

WATER RATES:

Residential Users and Churches:

$ 17.00 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 2,000 gallons

PLUS $2.00 per 1000 gallon or fractional part of metered water.

 

Laundromats:

$55.12 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 2,000 gallons

PLUS $2.50 per 1000 gallon or fractional part of metered water

 

All Other Commercial Users:

$31.10 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 2,000 gallons

PLUS $2.50 per 1000 gallon or fractional part of metered water

IS THE STATE PARK A COMMERCIAL USER?  IF SO, SINCE THEY DID NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YEARS AND INSTEAD THE CITIZENS OF WHITE SPRINGS PAID THEIR FEES, WHY IS THE PARK’S RATES NOT HIGHER?

 

Schools:

$60.08 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 2,000 gallons

PLUS $2.50 per 1000 gallon or fractional part of metered water

 

 

Outside Town Limits: (at Rates 25% greater than Town Residents)

$21.25 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 2,000 gallons

PLUS $2.50 per 1000 gallon or fractional part of metered water

 

 

SEWER RATES:

Residential Users and Churches: 

$19.85 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 1,000 gallons

PLUS $8.41 per 1000 gallons or fractional part thereof of metered water

 

Laundromats:

$19.85 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 1,000 gallons

PLUS $8.41 per 1000 gallons or fractional part thereof of metered water

THE SO-CALLED SEWAGE OF A LAUNDROMAT IS LESS VOLATILE AND IS LESS THAN WATER RUNOFF TREATMENT. which means it should receive a LOWER SEWER RATE.

All Other Commercial Users:

$19.85 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 1,000 gallons

PLUS $8.41 per 1000 gallons or fractional part thereof of metered water

 

Schools:

$19.85 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 1,000 gallons

PLUS $8.41 per 1000 gallons or fractional part thereof of metered water

Outside Town Limits: (at Rates 25% greater than Town Residents)

$25.94 per month MINIMUM CHARGE for the initial 1,000 gallons

PLUS $10.51 per 1000 gallon or fractional part of metered water

 

Rates for Sewer and Water shall be adjusted annually on October 1st, at a minimum, based on the June cost of living index as determined by www.bls.gov/ro3/cpiso.htmClass D size

 

CONNECTION CHARGES:

$750.00   Inside Town Limits – Water

$937.00   Outside Town Limits – Water

 

$1,250.00  Inside Town Limits – Sewer

$ 1,562.00 minimum or the actual costs to the Town which ever is greater-Sewer

 

 

DEPOSIT:

After the effective date of this ordinance  OCTOBER 14, 2014 NO NEW WATER ACCOUNT SHALL BE OPENED OR Municipal water be made available until said person or entity shall first deposit against future billings the sum of $300 if water is to be turned on inside the territorial boundaries of the Town of White Springs/turned on outside the territorial boundaries.

If delinquent by 2 months, the Town shall apply the customer’s deposit to the delinquent bill.  If the customer’s water is turned off for failure to timely pay an outstanding water bill, or for any other lawful reason, the customer shall pay any applicable reconnect fees and A NEW $300.00 DEPOSIT

SINCE THERE IS NO PROVISION OF RETURNING THE $300.00 DEPOSIT, IT SHOULD BE LISTED AS A FEE SINCE ONE WILL NEVER SEE THE MONEY AGAIN AND ONE CAN KISS IT GOODBYE. THIS IS  ESPECIALLY TRUE IF WATER IS CUT OFF AND A NEW DEPOSIT MUST BE USED.  ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE USED BY THE TOWN TO PAY THE WATER BILL, THEREAFTER, THE $300.00 WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLENISHED.

 

$20.00 Transfer fee together with any other applicable fees or charges for reason of transfer to a different location.

 

No one shall be allowed to connect to any water line or sewer line WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE TOWN, and the CONNECTION shall be made under the DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE TOWN.

Connecting Old Plumbing with Town Sewer main and/or water line, the owner or plumber contemplating doing such work shall notify the Town Plumbing Inspector who will inspect said old plumbing and notify the owner  or plumber what alterations will be necessary….anyone making a connection without the approval of the plumbing inspector shall be subject to penalties.  WHO IS THE TOWN PLUMBING INSPECTOR?  IS THERE A DEFINITION of who he or she is?  I THINK NOT!

 

 

PAYMENT OF LATE FEES AND BILLS REQUIRED:

Bills for the monthly charges and fees SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND PAYABLE ON THE 1st day of each month.

If remain unpaid after the 15th day of each month, a late charge of $15.00 shall be imposed and added to said bill

And, the water service to the consumer shall be subject to discontinuance and shall not be reconnected after discontinuance until all past due water bills and sewage disposal fees and late charges are fully paid together with a reconnection fee of $30.00

 

Where Sewage disposal fees are not paid, the Town has the right to cut off the water supply and the owner will have no right to reconnect his own private water supply until the sewage disposal fees have been paid in full.  Connecting without paying subjects one to penalties.

 

Failure to maintain plumbing system – We must keep the pipe leading from the plumbing system to the Town main, clean and maintained otherwise the Town will cut off the water connection until the sewer pipe is cleaned.  I AM NOT CERTAIN WE CAN SEE THE PIPES WHICH ARE UNDER GROUND SO I AM NOT CERTAIN IF THEY ARE REQUIRING ROTO ROOTER SERVICE OR WHAT?  Okay, take your brooms and sweep the grass or pavement above the sewer pipes.

 

APARTMENTS, MULTI- UNIT COMPLEXES – There will be separate connections for each separate unit

 

PRIVATE WELLS – No owner, citizen or entity owning, occupying any lot or parcel of land shall install a private well for potable water use. EXCEPT FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES.

It’s funny, we know of a prior councilman who has dug up a hole seeking water, whether or not he will be using it for irrigation.  What is ridiculous is the fact that the Town worries about a new well being put in but is not worried about the old abandoned wells around town wherein someone, especially a child could fall in.   With all these unoccupied buildings which are not maintained, the owners should also pay the minimum sewer and water bill per month and perhaps they would do something about the wells and the buildings which are ready to fall down but which the council does not wish to follow ordinances which would most likely condemn most of these buildings and properties.  Why follow ordinances if you are in White Springs?  You might hurt a friend?

SERVICE CALLS & TESTING:

$ 20.00 per water repair service call made between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday

$ 75.00 per water repair serviced for after hour service calls.

$50.00 per test Meter testing

$75.00  per test Water testing

If the problem was caused b the Town, no fee will be charged for testing.

COMMERCIAL TANKERS:

$50.00 FLAT fee PLUS $10.00 per 1000 gallons of water to fill COMMERCIAL TANKERS.

 

PENALTIES:

Violators will be subject to a fine not to exceed $500.00 or imprisonment for not to exceed 60 days or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the appropriate Court.

Any failure or refusal by an owner to connect to the Town sewer system after notification to do so, or failure or refusal to pay the charge or rates, shall be construed to be a violation of this ordinance.  WHAT A HOOT!  IT IS SAID ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY BUT THE MINIMUM SEWER RATES if you have a sewer system of your own….but who checks that sewer system?  AND CERTAIN PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH NOT HAVING TO CONNECT WHILE SOME HAVE BEEN ORDERED BY THE TOWN CLERK/MANAGER TO CONNECT.   I GUESS IT IS WHO YOU KNOW THAT ASSISTS ONE IN WHITE SPRINGS.

Karin for the Blog

ORDINANCE 14-03 REQUIREMENTS ONLY

ORDINANCE 14-03 (THE SEWER-WATER ORDINANCE OF REQUIREMENTS)

 

Connections with water works system Where available, the owner of every lot or parcel of land within the Town of White Springs Florida shall connect or cause the plumbing of any building(s) to be connected, with the municipal waste works system. THE WATER LINE GOES BY MANY LOTS. WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, WHY WERE THERE NOT CONNECTIONS AS IT SO STATES AND WHY ARE THE LOTS FREE OF BEING CHARGED THE MINIMUM WATER CHARGE?

 

Connections with Sewer required – The owner of each lot or parcel of land upon which any building, trailer used as a dwelling is now or shall be situated for either residential, commercial or industrial use, shall be connected with the public sewer facility within thirty (30) days following notification by the clerk of the Town…….If an owner has a privately owned sewage facility in actual use at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, no connection shall be required if said owner pays the town the sum of $32.76 per month….now $34.00.   No connecton(s) required where sewer line is more than 200 feet from such lot or parcel of land. UNLIKE THE WATER WORKS SYSTEM CONNECTIONS, THIS CLAUSE GIVES MORE THAN ONE EXCEMPTION…IN THE SENSE THAT IT STATES CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE MADE TO BUILDINGS (not just lots). 

IT ALSO EXEMPTS ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THEIR OWN PRIVATE SEWAGE FACILITY WHICH THEY ARE USING AS WELL AS PARCELS OF LAND 200 FEET FROM THE LINE.     CERTAIN PEOPLE WERE REQUIRED; CERTAIN PEOPLE WERE NOT. 

THERE ARE SEWER LINES IN PLACE AND IF THERE IS A SEWER LINE IN FRONT OF ONE’S HOUSE THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT. NOW ANY REDUCTION IS GIVEN TO THE FIRST TIER…MEANING THOSE EXEMPT FROM THE SEWER CONNECTION. WILLY AND TANJA ARE NOT CONNECTED AND THEY GOT THE “$5.00 REDUCTION LAST YEAR AND THE $2.85 THIS YEAR”.  AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THOSE THAT DID NOT ELECT SEWER CONNECTIONS SHOULD PAY THE FULL MINIMUM AND LET ANY REDUCTION GO TO THOSE THAT ARE CONNECTED. RIGHT NOW THOSE WITH SEWER AND WATER CONNECTIONS ARE THE ONES REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE REST WHO CAN SLIP BY AND OUR TOWN OFFICIALS ALLOW THAT INSTEAD OF BEING FAIR AND USING THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS.

NO WONDER. MS. TEBO HAS ONLY BEEN HERE THREE WEEKS AND ALREADY SHE HAS UNCOVERED WHOLESALE VIOLATIONS OF THE SUNSHINE LAW….

Ms. Tebo said in an e-mail to me that….

“Because the Council Members have been using their personal email accounts for Town correspondence, that means the Town staff does not have access to the Council’s emails through the Town server. I have arranged for the creation of Town Council Member email accounts so that in the future we will have…”

Bill Lawrence mentioned this problem in his Deposition but I was too engrossed in what he was saying that I missed it. “The council members conduct public business using their own computers…” or words to that effect.

The Government in the Sunshine Manual says:

Written correspondence, e-mails, texts, and other electronic communications

The sunshine law requires boards to meet in public; boards may not take action on or engage in private discussions of board business via written correspondence, e-mails, text messages or other electronic communications. See ago 89-39 (members of a public board may not use computers to conduct private discussions among themselves about board business).

I’ve always wanted to know why most of the issues that come up for discussion at Council meetings already seem to have been discussed and approved of when the discussion comes about.

Joe’s Thoughts:

Now we know, I believe. It is simple. Either the council members are using the telephone or e-mails to discuss town business before a meeting or they are not five people but one. I don’t believe that Willy and Walter are best friends.

We’ll see when we get Willy’s e-mails discussing town business and who they are to and what they are about. Lots of work for the known to be liar Pam but so what? If it cleans up the town and ends the corruption then I am for it.

PAM TOMLINSON’S CRIME… AND WHAT FDLE IN INVESTIGATING….

Friday, September 04, 2015

Dana Brady Gibbons
Third Judicial Circuit State’s Attorney Office
100 Court Street
Live Oak, Florida 32064

Dear Mrs. Gibbons,

Upon the requirement of the Chief of Police in White Springs, Florida I am writing you to report a misdemeanor of the first degree by Pam Tomlinson, town clerk, of the Town of White Springs.

“section 119.10(1)(b), F.s., states that a public officer who knowingly violates the provisions of s. 119.07(1), F.s., is subject to suspension and removal or impeachment and commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by possible criminal penalties of one year in prison, or $1,000 fine, or both. See State v. Webb, 786 so. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCa 2001) (s. 119.10[1][b] authorizes a conviction for violating s. 119.07 only if a defendant is found to have committed such violation “knowingly”; statute cannot be interpreted as allowing a conviction based on mere negligence).”

From approximately 1 May 2015 I have sought sixty-five (65), not a typo, times in writing a copy of a set of e-mails that former Helen Miller has, reportedly, on her personal computer server, helenbmiller@windstream.net. It is believed that town attorney Fred Koberlein has a copy of said e-mails on his office computer BUT THOSE ARE NOT THE DOCUMENTS I DESIRE A COPY OF. I have asked in many different ways and many different formats for the set of e-mails on former Mayor Miller’s computer. These are documents, I believe, that show she conducted town business on her own computer out of the sunshine using Mr. Koberlein as “the worker” in the darkness of her desires.

The documents I want are all e-mails on Helen Miller’s computer, not Koberlein’s, that were to or from Koberlein and Miller while she was Mayor of White Springs, a period of five years.

According to Koberlein he has approximately 1.5 Megabytes of E-mails from and too Mayor Helen Miller. Conversion tables on the internet show that that is approximately equal to 500 e-mails from Helen to Koberlein and 500 response emails from Koberlein to Helen. All of these emails were done out of the sunshine and in the darkness. Citizens were billed and paid for these e-mails and activity.
This denial of records can only be willful and intentional as Mrs. Tomlinson keeps trying to get me to “buy” a copy of Mr. Koberlein’s e-mails which I do not want, I want a complete copy of the records illegally stored on Miller’s computer that were from or to Koberlein. There is no way of knowing if the e-mails on the two computers are identical sets without comparing both sets of e-mails. I am not yet ready to “buy” Koberlein’s set of the documents.

I believe that state law requires those documents to be “overseen and protected as custodian” by Mrs. Tomlinson. I further believe that Mrs. Miller should have provided a copy of said e-mails to Mrs. Tomlinson when they were written. I have “bought” from the town $45.00 worth of documents but none of them fit the description of e-mails to or from Helen Miller’s computer to or from Fred Koberlein. We also have paid $250.00 plus dollars for town general business letters and e-mails and none of those documents were from or to Koberlein from Helen Miller’s computer.

Thanks for your attention to this matter of creating “Open Government” in the Third Judicial Circuit.

Joe E. Griffin

Joe E. Griffin
16589 Mill Street
White Springs, Florida 32096
(386) 397 2951

THE SELF INTERESTED DYNAMIC DUO STRIKES AGAIN….

Willy and Tanja strike again to keep money in their own pockets and stiff all of the honest sewer customers. At tonight’s Council meeting one of the items discussed was the Sewer Rates and what level to apply the $2.85 RATE REDUCTION on. Do we apply the reduction to everybody, even those who are not hooked up to the Town Sewer system by choice or do we leave those people with the extra $2.85 that the REAL Sewer customers are to get?

Willy and Tanja voted, actually one (Tanja) moved the motion to apply the rate reduction to even those people who are not hooked up to the sewer lines and Willy seconded the motion. This is a conflict of interest, I believe, because they voted positively to reduce their own sewer bills even though they are not hooked up to the Sewer System at a direct cost to the regular users of the Town Sewer System.

Either the two of them are Dumber than Stumps or they knew exactly what they were voting on. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t put my ETHICS into question for $2.85 a month. Maybe Willy and Tanja have such low moral standards and ethics that $2.85 will buy their vote. It sure looks that way.

You’re right Willy, I AM QUESTIONING YOUR HONOR. YOU SOLD IT OUT TONIGHT FOR $2.85 A MONTH.