Opinion ID: 1687725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Statement

Text: Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Associates, Inc., an independent consulting firm composed of psychologists trained in evaluating management personnel, was employed by the Jacksonville Electric Authority, commonly referred to as JEA, to conduct a nationwide search for potential applicants for the position of its managing director. The consultant was to recommend one or more persons qualified for the position. Those recommended, together with others who might apply without the prior recommendation of the consultant, were to be publicly screened by JEA before final selection. JEA's general counsel advised the consultant that only its written report would be a public record and that written notes prepared by the consultant for its own use would not be subject to disclosure. The consultant contacted numerous individuals in managerial positions in electric utilities across the nation. Those individuals interviewed were uniformly assured that the interview was confidential. At the same time, JEA conducted a public search for applicants. During its confidential search, the consultant, for its own use, made written notes of information and impressions obtained from the interviews conducted, and it also received resumes and letters from persons possibly interested in applying for the position. These and other papers, accumulated during the course of its search, identified the prospects and recorded their addresses, current positions in the utility field, biographical data, and comments by the prospects on their personalities, personal strengths and weaknesses, aspirations, work and living habits, and families. None of these papers were available to anyone not employed by the consultant. Most of the handwritten notes were destroyed, and most of the written submissions by those interviewed were returned as the search drew to a close. Prior to the consultant's report to JEA, Schellenberg, a local television executive, asked to examine the consultant's papers relating to its search. His request was refused. Thereupon, Schellenberg and the attorney general applied for a writ of mandamus, alleging that these papers were public records under chapter 119 and, thus, were open to public inspection. Copies of those papers that had not already been destroyed by the consultant were impounded and sealed by the circuit court. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found the papers to be public records and issued a writ of mandamus. The consultant appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, where it briefed and orally argued only the nonconstitutional issues of whether it was acting on behalf of JEA in the search, whether its handwritten notes constituted public records, and whether the writ should have issued, in light of its promise of confidentiality to the persons interviewed. Upon examining the papers, the district court became concerned that the persons interviewed, not then before the court, might have a constitutional right of privacy. Deciding that the consultant could not effectively assert the rights of these persons, the district court entered an order summarizing the contents of the papers, omitting names and other identifying information, and inviting the identifiable prospects to intervene under pseudonyms. The order appointed counsel to represent those intervenors who desired to be represented. Additional briefs and oral arguments were received on the privacy claims of the intervenors. In reaching its decision, the district court said that the 1975 amendment of section 119.011(2) makes it clear that a business entity is acting on behalf of a public agency if the services contracted for are an integral part of the agency's chosen process for making a decision on the question at hand. It held that the consultant was acting on behalf of JEA and was therefore an agency to which the Public Records Law applied. The district court found that the papers made and received by the consultant, despite their form, were public records because they were made and received in connection with the transaction of official business which the JEA employed the consultant to perform. The district court also found that the intervenors have a constitutionally protected right of personhood, which includes the right of disclosural privacy as to the personal information given by them to the consultant under an assurance of confidentiality. Concluding that public disclosure of the consultant's papers would deprive the intervenors of fundamental privacy rights secured by the United States and Florida Constitutions, the district court reversed the circuit court's issuance of the writ of mandamus.