A

ALLEN NORTON S.BLUE

906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 52305 Telephone 850-561-3503 Far-simile 850-561-0532

July 22, 2013

SENT VIA UNITED STA TES MAIL

and FACSIMILE (850) 434-1188

Eric D. Stevenson, Esq.

Sellers, Skievaski & Stevenson, LLP

919 North 12,h Avenue

Pensacola, Florida 32501
Re: Formal Request Pursuant to F.S. $ 119.021 (4Mb)

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

Your correspondence dated July 18, 2013 requesting the Pensacola City Council to demand the return of certain documents pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 119.021(4)(b), was forwarded to me by the City Attorney for response. Before addressing your request, it is important to clarify the facts which have prompted it. On or about March 3, 2013 a City employee authored a complaint alleging inappropriate conduct by John Asmar. This complaint was improperly provided to Ms. Deweese and posted on her blog. At
the time this document was disseminated, however, it was neither confidential nor exempt under

Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, while the dissemination of the document was improper; it was not illegal. Thus, Ms. Deweese was not in illegal possession of the document and Section 119.021 (4)(b) did not apply to her unfortunate publication of it.
On March 12, 2013, the City Attorney retained me to conduct an investigation into the

employee's allegations against Mr. Asmar. Prior to beginning my investigation, however, the employee's attorney withdrew the complaint, and requested that all documents related to the complaint be confidential and exempt under Section 119.07 l(2)(g)(2). Accordingly, the City was
unable to investigate the complaint.

Jacksonville Miami Orlando Tallahassee Tampa

Affiliate of Worklnw Network: The Nationwide Network of Manaiicmert Labor and Employment Law Tirms

http://twitter.com/anblaw

July 22,2013 Page 2

Notwithstanding, assuming Section 119.071(2)(g)(2) applies, the document became confidential and exemptonly after its dissemination and as a result of the employee's request. Under Section 119.071(2)(g)(2), the employee is the "alleged victim"; not Mr. Asmar. Consequently, it does not appear that Mr. Asmar has standing to demand its return. To date, the employee has not requested that the City demand the return of this document. Moreover, I am unaware of any legal

authority that requires the City to demand the return of public records that became confidential and
exempt after they were disclosed.

The City respects and honors its employees and is committed to their protection. The City has made every effort to maintain the employee's confidentiality and has resolved the complaint to the employee's satisfaction. Please know that your continued agitation of this situation not only undermines the allegedvictim's wishes, it perpetuates the allegations againstMr. Asmar. Therefore, the City will not be responding to any further correspondence from you on this
matter.

REL/cjw

357198

AlUN, NORTON&.BLUB, PA
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION