Filing# 35233961 E-Filed 12/07/2015 02:50:39 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: CA15-DIVISION: 55

ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFERY M. GRAY,

Defendant.

______________________________!

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board ("School Board") files this

complaint against Defendant Jeffery M. Gray, and alleges:

BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS

1. This is a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and

monetary damages in excess of$15,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

2. Plaintiff School Board is the duly elected school board of St. Johns

County, Florida. The School Board operates the 38 public schools of the St. Johns

County School District ("District").

3. Defendant resides in St. Johns County, Florida.

1

4. On August 26, 2015, Defendant visited the District Maintenance

Department, ostensibly to make a public records request for material safety data sheets.

However, he did not follow the District's public records request procedure and contact

the Community Relations Department ("CRD"), who he knew (and indeed had been

specifically instructed) was designated to process public records requests in accordance

with the Florida Public Records Act ("Act") codified in Florida Statute 119.07(1)(b), and

whose public records specialists would have promptly arranged to produce the requested

records at the Maintenance Department. Instead, without any advance notice, he showed

up at the Maintenance Department's administrative office, refused to identify himself,

and began aggressively questioning and then arguing with Susan Lee, who is a secretary

with no responsibility for or authority over the requested records.

5. When he visited the Maintenance Department on August 26,

Defendant was not interested in obtaining records. Indeed, when CRD staff contacted

him on August 28, he did not take up CRD on its offer to produce the records for him at

the Maintenance Department. Rather, Defendants' interest was in scamming the School

Board, starting with catching an unsuspecting employee off guard and unprepared for his

request. He attempted to rattle and intimidate Ms. Lee by demanding instant, on-the-spot

compliance, refusing to follow her instructions to contact "the district downtown"

(meaning CRD) and arguing with her. Unbeknownst to Ms. Lee, Defendant was trying to

bait her into refusing to produce the records and parley that refusal into a lawsuit for

personal financial gain via a fee splitting scheme with his attorney. Indeed, in order to

develop evidence for the lawsuit he was planning, Defendant surreptitiously videotaped

2

the encounter in violation of Florida Statute 934.03(1 )(a), a third degree felony. He

planned to post the unlawfully obtained videotape on Y ouTube for financial gain in the

form of advertising revenue and contributions he solicits from his followers. He did, in

fact, post the video on Y ouTube. Such publication is also a third degree felony under

Florida Statute 934.03(1)(d).

6. As is more fully alleged beginning at paragraph 9 below,

Defendant did, in fact, file a public records lawsuit against the School Board on October

14, 2015. Recognizing the suit was frivolous and that he and his lawyer were in jeopardy

of being taxed with attorney fees under Florida Statute 57.105, Defendant voluntarily

dismissed the suit with prejudice on December 4.

7. Defendant's lawsuit against the School Board was not his first

unfounded public records lawsuit. Indeed, in Jeffery Marcus Gray v. Lutheran Social

Services of Northeast Florida, Inc., Case No. 2014-CA-4647 in the Circuit Court for

Duval County, Defendant sued Lutheran Social Services of Northeast Florida ("LSS") 1•

Defendant used very similar tactics to attempt to set up his lawsuit against LSS as he did

in his case against the School Board. In its Final Order Denying Relief Under Public

Records Act dated December 1, 2014, the Court scrutinized Defendant's actions and

declared that they were a "scam" and an "unreasonable and a flagrant abuse of the

statute." A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit A.

8. The Court found:

1 LSS is a non-profit, private entity subject to the Act by virtue of having a social services contract with Duval County.

3

1. Gray is a self-described "civil rights activist" who earns part of his livelihood by making public records requests for unwanted documents on unsuspecting private entities which are agents of public agencies, and potentially subject to the requirements of the Act.

***

4. Abraham Shakfeh [hereinafter "Shakfeh"] is one of the lawyers that files these suits on behalf of Gray.

***

8. Thirteen of the eighteen cases that Gray has filed this year in Duval County were filed by Shakfeh.

* * *

9. Neither Gray, not any of this associates, made any effort to inform or advise anyone associated with LSS that they were coming to request documents under the Act. The failure to provide advance notice or written notice of any kind to LSS was intentional and designed to catch LSS off-guard to obtain an initial rejection of Gray's unneeded request.

* * *

10. Shakfeh pays Gray when he recovers attorneys' fees in these cases.

* * *

The court concludes that any payment to Gray in the past in other cases is merely a fee-splitting arrangement between Gray and Shakfeh. The use of the term "settlement proceeds" is simply as an effort to mislabel any monetary distribution between them.

* * *

4

11. Based on this agreement, Gray has a financial interest in assuring that his requests for public records are refused. The circumstances surrounding his request in the instant case leave no doubt that his utterances to representative of LSS regarding potential public records were a baiting gesture meant to achieve personal financial gam; not a legitimate request for public records.

* * * 12. Before Gray entered the offices of LSS, he strapped a video camera around his neck and surreptitiously filmed and recorded conversations between himself and representatives of LSS. He purposely refrained from touching the camera with his hands to avoid attention to it. It is apparent from the video that those engaged in conversations with Gray had no idea they were being recorded.

* * *

13. Before entering the office, Gray marked the time of his arrival by videotaping a clock in the automobile driven by Shakfeh's paralegal. Gray acknowledged this was done to present as evidence in subsequent legal proceedings.

* * *

18. The means to request public records under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, utilized by Gray was unreasonable and a flagrant abuse of the statute. Gray in an effort to ambush LSS, purposely failed to provide any contact information, and purposely appeared on a busy work day in hopes of manufacturing an attorneys' fee, to be shared with Gray. It was nothing more than a scam.

* * *

20. The actions of Gray, Chandler, and Covenant prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they obtained exactly what they wanted, namely an initial denial of an unreasonable and bogus request.

5

This was accomplished in a manner purposely designed to prevent LSS from correcting any possible error.

* * * 21. Gray and his associates secretly and unlawfully recorded representatives of LSS ....

* * *

22. Further, the Act was not designed to create a cottage industry for so-called "civil rights activists" or others who seek to abuse the Act for financial gam.

(Ex. A). Emphasis added.

9. After having been admonished by the Duval County Circuit Court,

in December 2014, Defendant relocated his "cottage industry" to St. Johns County. On

numerous occasions during 2015, he has made surprise forays to District schools, offices

and other government offices, ostensibly to make on-the-spot public records requests. 2

10. On October 14, 2015, he and lawyer Shakfeh filed their public

records lawsuit against the School Board, Jeffery Gray v. St. John County School Board,

Case No.: CA15-1121, in the Circuit Court of St. Johns County. A copy of the complaint

is attached as Exhibit B. Just as he had in the LSS case, Defendant alleged that Plaintiffs

response to his August 26 request for the MSDS records violated the Public Records Act

and sought an award of the attorney fees. The School Board responded by filing a

motion to dismiss on the grounds Defendant had not made a proper request and there had

been no improper refusal to produce records. A copy is attached as Exhibit C.

2 Defendant made a request to the Airport Authority on the same day as his visit to the Maintenance Department. He likewise requested MSDS records and filed suit against the Authority when he did not get a textbook response. Jeffery Gray v. St. Augustine- St. Johns County Airport Auth., Case No.CA 15-1077 in the Circuit Court of St. Johns County.

6

11. On October 13, 2015, the School Board served Defendant's

counsel with a Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes,

alleging that Defendant's lawsuit was frivolous because it was not supported by the

material facts or applicable law. Under Florida Statute 57.105, Defendant and his

counsel had 21 days to withdraw their claim or face sanctions, including an award of

reasonable attorney fees against both them.

12. Recognizing that his lawsuit was unfounded and frivolous,

Defendant dismissed the case with prejudice on December 4, 2015, the last day of the 21-

day period allowed by Florida Statute 57.105. A copy of the Notice of Dismissal is

attached as Exhibit D.

13. Despite dismissing his lawsuit, Defendant continues to harass

District employees with improper public records requests. On December 4, the day he

dismissed his lawsuit, Defendant entered the R. B. Hunt Elementary School campus

unannounced and without checking in at the reception desk. He went to the bus parking

area and questioned District bus drivers about bus inspection reports, and demanded they

provide him copies, despite the fact that Defendant had previously obtained copies of bus

inspection reports on at least two occasions from the Transportation Department and once

through CRD. Again, he ignored the District's instructions to submit his requests

through CRD and improperly demanded records from employees who are not custodians

or designees with authority to respond to records requests.

14. It now appears Defendant is deliberately trying to harass, provoke

and intimidate District school officials, not only by his improper public records requests

7

but also by acting suspiciously around District schools. On December 3, the day after the

San Bernardino shootings, Defendant saw fit to slowly cruise back and forth in his van

along Hickory Creek Trail, past Switzerland Point Middle School and Hickory Creek

Elementary School. He also stopped and took photographs or video of the schools. He

was thereby loitering in the School Safety Zones extending within 500 feet of those

schools, a misdemeanor in violation of Florida Statute 81 0.0975(1 )(b) 1. Law

enforcement was summoned but Defendant had left the area by the time they arrived. A

copy of the Sheriff's Office's suspicious vehicle report is attached as Exhibit E.

15. Defendant engaged in similar conduct at Mill Creek Elementary

School on December 14, 2012, the day after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. A

copy of the Sheriff's Office report is attached as Exhibit F.

16. All conditions precedent to this action have been satisfied.

COUNT ONE -DECLARATORY RELIEF

17. The Background Allegations are realleged and incorporated by

reference.

18. This is a claim for declaratory relief to construe the parties' rights

and obligations under the Florida Public Records Act and Florida Statute 734.01.

19. There is a real and ongoing controversy between the parties over

the validity of the District's public records procedures. Defendant contends that the

District's procedures do not comply with the requirements of law and that they infringe

on his right to access public records. Defendant insists that he is not required to follow

8

District procedures. He also persists in disobeying the specific instruction to submit his

requests through CRD and in surreptitiously videotaping his conversations with District

staff.

20. Defendant's refusal to follow District procedures is antagonistic and

disruptive to the lawful, orderly and safe operation of District schools and offices. There

is a bona fide need for judicial resolution of the outstanding issues between the parties to

prevent (i) further disruption of District operations stemming from Defendant's surprise,

adversarial public records demands at outlying District schools and offices; (ii) further

surprise confrontations with unsuspecting District staff where law enforcement must be

summoned to deal with Defendant; (iii) further vexatious litigation; and (iv) further

instances of Defendant surreptitiously videotaping his encounters with District staff,

which the District contends is criminal.

21. Pursuant to Florida Statute 1001.51(3), the Superintendent of

Schools is the custodian of all District public records. Under Florida Statute 119.07(1 )(b)

and (3)(c), the Superintendent as custodian has the right to designate other District

officers and employees to respond to public records requests and also to adopt reasonable

rules regarding the inspection, copying and photographing of records.

22. Responding properly to public records requests in the K-12 school

environment requires specialized training, expertise and experience. The District

maintains and routinely handles a huge trove of student education records and data that

are confidential under FERP A. Public records requests and potentially responsive

documents must be carefully reviewed and redacted by specially trained and experienced

9

staff to prevent unlawful disclosure of confidential information and inappropriate

disclosure of exempt material. For that reason, and in order to assure proper, efficient

and uniform processing of public records requests throughout all District schools and

offices, the Superintendent has designated the CRD as designee for responding to public

records requests. Its staff members are readily accessible to the public. They are

designated and highly qualified to promptly and properly respond to requests for District

records.

23. The District's public records procedures are set forth in Exhibit G.

They provide, in pertinent part:

Ex. G.

The Community Relations Department staff is designated as the District custodian's designee to process public records requests. The designated staff members are Christina Langston, Emily Serrano and Danielle Cook. They may be reached by contacting the Community Relations Department at (904) 54 7-7 63 7 or by emailing sjpubrec@stjohns.k12.fl.us.

24. As authorized by statute and District procedures, Defendant has

been specifically instructed to submit public records requests to the CRD as designee. On

June 1, 2015, after Defendant complained to the Superintendent that when he requested

records from Bartram Trail High School and Wards Creek Elementary, he had been

referred to the CRD. By email dated June 1, CRD staff member Danielle M. Cook

responded on the Superintendent's behalf:

I am responding to your email to Dr. Joyner dated June 1.

10

At both Wards Creek and Bartram Trail, you were instructed that public records requests are processed by the district Community Relations Department and directed to contact Community Relations with your request. You are aware of that procedure from your previous requests. The designation of Community Relations (specifically Chief of Community Relations Christina Langston) to process public records requests is authorized by Florida Statutes 119.07(1)(b).

* * *

We trust that in the future you will contact Ms. Langston or any of our department members with any request for district records.

(Emphasis added). A copy of Ms. Cook's June 1 email is attached as Exhibit H.

25. On June 2, 2015, in response to a follow-up email from Defendant,

Ms. Cook reiterated the District's procedure. Defendant asked for clarification about

where requests should be directed:

[Q] Could you please clarify whether or not the public can submit public our records request directly to the schools where the records are actually stored or will we be redirected to Community Relations.

[A] Public records requests can be submitted to any of our schools or offices. The request will be forwarded or referred to the Community Relations Dept. for processing. This is per Florida Statute 119.07 ( 1 )(b) which states, "A custodian of public records or a person having custody of public records may designate another officer or employee of the agency to permit the inspection and copying of public records, but must disclose the identity of the designee to the person requesting to inspect or copy public records." For the St. Johns County School District, the designee is Christina Langston, Chief of Community Relations.

Ms. Cook concluded:

11

In the future, feel free to contact me or Ms. Langston directly with any public records requests and we will see that the requested public records are made available to you promptly.

A copy of Ms. Cook's June 2 email is attached as Exhibit I (emphasis added).

26. Evidently more interested in harassing District employees and

trying to set up the District for lawsuits than in obtaining a prompt, informed response

from the specialists at CRD, Defendant has disregarded CRD's instructions. He

continues to visit outlying District offices unannounced, hoping to catch employees off

guard and unprepared for his demands. Oftentimes, he accosts and demands records

from employees who do not have custody of records or any authority to respond to public

records requests.

27. Defendant contends that the District's public record procedures do

not comply with statutory requirements, in one or more respects:

(a) Defendant contends that it is a violation of the Act to

require him to submit requests to CRD as the custodian's designee.

(b) Although the Act allows a requesting party to inspect and

photograph records at the office where they are kept, Defendant contends that he has the

right to make public records requests in person to employees at that office, regardless of

whether the employees have been designated as custodian of the records or the

custodian's designee. He argues that only an officer or employee at that location can be

designated to process such a request and coordinate the production of the records there.

12

Accordingly, he rejects the Superintendent's designation of CRD to coordinate the

response to requests for records kept at outlying locations because CRD's only office is at

District headquarters in downtown St. Augustine.

(c) It is the District's policy to require all visitors to its schools

to sign in as part of its safety and security procedures. Defendant contends that that

requirement violates his rights under the Act and he refuses to abide by it.

(d) The District's acceptable use policy prohibit visitors from

videotaping in its schools during the school day, with certain immaterial exceptions.

Defendant contends that policy infringes on his rights and he refuses to abide by it.

(e) Florida Statute 934.03(1)(a) prohibits Defendant from

videotaping a conversation without the consent all parties. A violation is a third degree

felony. Defendant refuses to obey the law and repeatedly has surreptitiously videotaped

District employees at its schools and offices.

(f) Florida Statute 934.03(1)(d) makes it a third degree felony

to further disclose or publish an unlawfully acquired videotape of a conversation.

Defendant also refuses to obey that law and repeatedly has posted unlawfully recorded

videotapes ofhis conversations with District employees on YouTube.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board respectfully

requests the Court to grant relief declaring:

A. The Superintendent's designation of the CRD to respond to public

records requests does not violate the Public Records Act.

13

B. It is not a violation of the Act for the District to require Defendant

to submit public records requests to CRD as the custodian's designee, including requests

to inspect and photograph copies at the location where they are kept.

C. The District's policy of requiring of all school visitors to sign in is

not a violation of the Act but rather is a facially valid exercise of its responsibility and

authority to provide for the safety and security of District students and staff.

D. Defendant's practice of videotaping conversations with District

staff without their consent (outside of School Board meetings and other public meetings)

is unlawful.

E. It is unlawful to further disclose a surreptitiously recorded and

unlawfully acquired videotape of conversations with District employees on the internet.

F. The District's public records procedures do not otherwise violate

the Public Records Act.

The School Board respectfully requests the Court to award such other relief as may be

just and proper, including reasonable attorney fees and costs.

COUNT TWO- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the Background

Allegations and the allegations of paragraphs 19 - 2 7.

14

29. This is a claim for injunctive relief.

30. On at least s1x occasiOns during 2015, Defendant has made

surprise visits at the District schools and offices for the ostensible purpose of making

public records requests. As found by the Duval County Circuit Court and as alleged

above, Defendant was not interested in actually obtaining the records, but rather was

trying to induce unprepared District employees to make a procedural error in responding

to his request. He did so for personal financial gain, standing not only to profit from a

potential public records lawsuit, but also from posting surreptitiously obtained videos of

District employees on his Y ouTube site, where he solicits contributions from his

followers and from which he receives advertising revenues.

31. During these encounters, Defendant has frightened, intimidated,

baited and provoked District employees, particularly female employees who feel

menaced and threatened by him. Defendant has disrupted the orderly school and office

environment, refused to follow instructions, and provoked staff into calling law

enforcement and issuing him trespass warnings at various facilities.

32. Defendant's unlawful posting of surreptitiously obtained videos

of conversations with District staff has subjected the employees to threatening, vulgar

and defamatory telephone calls, emails and internet postings from Defendant's internet

followers. Defendant's activities have frightened and intimidated District staff; disrupted

the school environment; interfered with District operations; and have required the

interdiction of law enforcement.

15

33. On the days after the San Bernardino and Sandy Hook shootings,

Defendant loitered in the 500-foot School Safety Zones at the Mill Creek, Hickory Creek

and Switzerland Point schools in violation of Florida Statute 810.0975. Coming at times

of heightened school safety consciousness and concern, Defendant knew or should of

known his actions would be suspicious and threatening, and would disturb and disrupt the

school environment.

34. The School Board seeks injunctive relief to prevent Defendant

from continuing to engage in a course of conduct which is intended to harass, intimidate,

frighten, and provoke District staff and disrupt District operations.

35. The School Board acknowledges and respects Defendant's right to

inspect, copy and photograph the District's public records. However, there is no need for

Defendant's guerilla tactics to obtain records. The District is ready, willing and able, to

honor and facilitate Defendant's right of access to such records by processing his requests

through CRD, whose staff knows Defendant and is more than capable of responding

properly to his requests.

36. Defendant's unlawful and disruptive tactics and the resulting harm

to the District and its employees are continuing. As shown by Defendant's actions on

December 3 and 4, he continues to harass District employees and attempts to provoke

confrontations with District staff and law enforcement.

37. The School Board lacks an adequate remedy at law to prevent and

redress Defendant's unlawful and inappropriate conduct.

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board demands

injunctive relief:

A. Enjoining Defendant to submit all requests for District public

records to the CRD;

B. Enjoining Defendant from attempting to harass, intimidate or

disrupt District schools, offices or staff;

C. Enjoining Defendant from videotaping conversations with District

employees or anyone on District property without first requesting and obtaining their

consent; provided however, that this injunction shall not apply and prevent Defendant

from videotaping proceedings at a duly noticed School Board or other public meeting.

D. Enjoining Defendant from unlawfully posting surreptitiously and

unlawfully obtained videotapes of conversations with District employees on the internet

or otherwise publishing them.

E. Ordering Defendant to forthwith remove from his Y ouTube site

unlawfully obtained videotapes of District employees.

F. Awarding such other relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT THREE- MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

38. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the Background

Allegations, and the allegations of paragraphs 19- 27.

17

39. This is a claim for malicious prosecution, seeking monetary

damages in excess of $15,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

40. On October 14, 2015, Defendant commenced an original judicial

proceeding against Plaintiff, Jeffery Gray v. St. Johns County School Board, Case No.

CA15-1121, in the Circuit Court of St. Johns County, Florida.

41. Defendants dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice in response to

Plaintiffs 57.105 notice was a bona fide termination in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant

dismissed the case because he realized it had no merit. Ex. C.

42. Defendant lacked probable cause for the lawsuit, for the reasons

communicated in Plaintiffs motion to dismiss the complaint and in its 57.105 notice.

There was no basis in fact or law for Defendant to claim that he had submitted a proper

public records request, that Ms. Lee had legal custody of the requested record or had a

duty to respond to his request, or that there was an unjustified refusal to produce the

records. Indeed, Defendant told the St. Augustine Record on September 23, 2015, after

he made his request for maintenance records, that he "had never had an issue obtaining

documents from a public records request through the district." Ex. J.

43. Defendant acted maliciously in filing the lawsuit. In the LSS case,

the Duval County Circuit Court had admonished him making a public records request for

the purpose of setting up a lawsuit for personal financial gain is an abuse of the Public

Records Act and a scam. Despite the Court's admonition, Defendant tried to pull the

18

same scam on the District. His actions at Hickory Cree, Switzerland Point and R. B.

Hunt on December 3 and 4 are further evidence of his malice.

44. As a result of Defendant's malicious prosecution of his lawsuit

against Plaintiff, Plaintiff substantial legal fees in the defense of the case. Defendant is

liable for such fees as consequential damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board demands

judgment against Defendant Jeffery M. Gray for damages and costs.

COUNT FOUR- ABUSE OF PROCESS

45. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by referenced the Background

Allegations and the allegations of paragraphs 19 - 27.

46. This is an action for abuse of process seeking monetary damages in

excess of$15,000.

47. Defendant did not file his public records lawsuit to obtain public

records but rather for the improper purpose of personal monetary gain, which he hoped to

derive by inducing the School Board to settle and splitting any settlement proceeds with

his attorney. As found by the Circuit Court of Duval County, such an arrangement is an

improper fee-splitting arrangement and filing suit for that purpose is an abuse of the Act.

48. Following the filing of the suit, Defendant did not use the

proceeding for its purpose of obtaining public records, but rather to induce the School

Board to pay him to drop the case. In fact, Defendant had no legitimate use, need or

19

desire for the requested MSDS records, and he prosecuted the action for personal

financial advantage via the improper fee-splitting arrangement with his attorney.

Although his efforts to extort money from Plaintiff were unsuccessful, his actions were

an abuse of the process he initiated.

49. As a result of Defendant's abuse of process, the School Board

incurred damages, including attorney fees and expenses in defending the action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board demands

judgment against Defendant Jeffery M. Gray for damages and costs.

/s/ David M. Delaney DAVID M. DELANEY Florida Bar No.: 121060

RYAN L. GILBERT FloridaBarNo.: 105931

203 NE 1st Street Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 372-4381

Attorneys for Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board

20

Filing# 21082147 Electronically Filed 12/01/2014 02:42:17 PM

JEFFREY MARCUS GRAY

Plaintiff, v.

LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA, INC.

Defendant.

--------------------------~/

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA.

CASE NO.: 2014-CA-4647-XXXX DIVISION: CV-E

FINAL ORDER DENYING RELIEF UNDER PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

This cause came to be heard on the Initial Complaint filed by Plaintiff, Jeffrey Ma\l'cus

Gray [hereinafter "Gray"], requesting that the court declare Defendant Lutheran So~ial

Services of Northeast Florida, Inc. [hereinafter "LSS"] to be in violation of Chapter 119,

Florida Statutes [hereinafter "the Act"], and award attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Act.

From the evidence the court finds:

1. Gray is a self-described "civil rights activist" who earns part of his livelihood

by making public records requests for unwanted documents on unsuspecting

private entities which are agents of public agencies, and potentially subject to

the requirements of the Act.

2. LSS is a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist people in need. LSS

helps people that are vulnerable due to illness or poverty. Their beneficiaries

include refugees, children of refugees, people afflicted with AIDS, the

EXHIBIT "A"

homeless, and those suffering from mental illness. It provides social services,

mental health case management services, youth services, and other vitally

important services to people in need within the community.

3. Gray and others have teamed up to make public record demands for unwanted

documents on numerous private entities which contract with various

government agencies generally to provide specific services. To date, Gray is

or has been a plaintiff in 18 separate 2014 lawsuits involving public records

requests in Duval County. The means utilized by Gray and those associated

with him to make these public records requests follow a similar pattern. The

means used in the instant case to make a request of LSS is representative of

that pattern.

4. Abraham Shakfeh [hereinafter "Shakfeh"] is one ofthe lawyers that files these

suits on behalf of Gray. In Duval County in the year, 2014, Shakfeh has filed

approximately 13 lawsuits seeking public records on behalf of Gray. Shakfeh

lists his home office in Tampa, Florida.

5. Joel Chandler [hereinafter "Chandler''] identified himself as Shakfeh's

paralegal and sat at counsel table next to Shakfeh at hearing. Chandler picked

up Gray and drove him to LSS and several other places that day for the sole

purpose of making public record requests. According to Gray, Chandler is a

resident of Lakeland, Florida.

6. Thomas Covenant [hereinafter "Covenant"] was with Gray when Gray entered

the offices ofLSS on June 16, 2014. He testified the purpose of his presence

at LSS was to provide witness testimony in future legal proceedings.

· Page 2 of8

7. Either Chandler or Covenant regularly reviews the "Chief Financial Officer's

Website" to scan posted contracts executed between private entities and

government agencies. The results of the search are supplied to Gray. The

contracts are printed and Gray, Chandler, and Covenant drive to various

private entities and request unwanted documents under the Public Records

Act. They often visit more than one place in a day.

8. Thirteen of the eighteen cases that Gray has filed this year in Duval County

were filed by Shakfeh. In ten of these cases, which appear to be separate and

unrelated to each other, Shakfeh and Gray allege dates of public records

requests between June 16, 2014, and June 19, 2014. In case 2014-CA-4544,

Gray alleges he sought public records on June 16, 2014 [the same date as the

instant action], from an entity named Eisman and Russo Inc.

9. Neither Gray, nor any of his associates, made any effort to inform or advise

anyone associated with LSS that they were coming to request documents

under the Act. The failure to provide advance notice or written notice of any

kind to LSS was intentional and designed to catch LSS off-guard to obtain an

initial rejection of Gray's unneeded request.

10. Shakfeh pays Gray when he recovers attorneys' fees in these cases. Gray

testified and Shakfeh argued that payments to Gray in the past were from

"settlement proceeds." However, the relief available under the Act is

production of the requested documents, costs, and attorneys' fees. There is

not a basis for an award for monetary damages. Shakfeh claimed during

argument that the "settlement proceeds" are generated in exchange for

Page 3 of8

dismissing claims for "declaratory relief." This, too, would not give rise to an

award for monetary damages. The court concludes that any payment to Gray

in the past in other cases is merely a fee-splitting arrangement between Gray

and Shakfeh. The use of the term "settlement proceeds" is simply an effort to

mislabel any monetary distribution between them.

11. Based on this agreement, Gray has a financial interest in assuring that his

requests for public records are refused. The circumstances surrounding his

request in the instant case leave no doubt that his utterances to representatives

of LSS regarding potential public records were a baiting gesture meant to

achieve personal financial gain; not a legitimate request for public records.

12. Before Gray entered the offices ofLSS, he strapped a video camera around his

neck and surreptitiously filmed and recorded conversations between himself

and representatives of LSS. He purposely refrained from touching the camera

with his hands to avoid attention to it. It is apparent from the video that those

engaged in conversations with Gray had no idea they were being recorded.

13. Before entering the office; Gray marked the time of his arrival by videotaping

a clock in the automobile driven by Shakfeh' s paralegal. Gray acknowledged

this was done to present as evidence in subsequent legal proceedings.

14. The contract in question between Children and Family Services [the public

agency] and LSS provides for youth services by LSS to refugees living in

Duval County. The language of the contract states that "the Department is

engaging the provider for the purpose of providing youth services to assist

Page 4 of8

eligible refugees/entrants to strengthen family stability and integration into the

local community."

15. Initially, Gray asked Mr. Richard Machowski ["Machowski"] to inspect and

photograph the general insurance policy of LSS. Although Gray had the

contract in hand, he did not reference the contract when he made this request.

Machowski suggested that Gray speak with Jerome Crawford [hereinafter

"Crawford"], the project manager on the contract.

16. Crawford immediately discussed the matter with Gray. When asked by Gray,

Crawford acknowledged his belief that LSS was subject to the Act. Gray

asked Crawford for proof of insurance required by the contract. This request

was substantially different from the request made earlier to Machowski and

possibly created some confusion. Crawford acknowledged that LSS possessed

proof of insurance at the office, but believed that the document was not

subject to disclosure under the Act from LSS, and advised Gray that it was

available from the Department of Children and Family Services. Gray and

Covenant left the office without providing any contact information. When

asked why he failed to provide such information, Gray testified he wanted

"anonymity," despite being personally present at the office. Once Gray left,

LSS had no way to contact him.

17. The next contact LSS had with Gray occurred when he filed the instant

lawsuit on July 1, 2014. Oddly, Gray did not identify in his Initial Complaint

the documents that he claimed were denied him. Notwithstanding the lack of

clarity as to the documents in question, LSS promptly provided Gray

Page 5 of8

documents on July 31, 2014. At a preliminary hearing held September 1,

2014, Shakfeh, with Gray beside him, was unsure whether or not his client

wanted more than what had already been provided to him. Nevertheless, LSS

offered and the court ordered Shakfeh and Gray an opportunity to inspect

documents.

18. The means to request public records under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes,

utilized by Gray was unreasonable and a flagrant abuse of the statute. Gray in

an effort to ambush LSS, purposely denied LSS any advanced or written

notice of his demands, purposely failed to provide any contact information,

and purposely appeared on a busy work day in hopes of manufacturing an

attorneys' fee, to be shared with Gray. It was nothing more than a scam.

19. Notwithstanding the unreasonableness of the actions of Gray and his

associates, Gray obtained the documents in a reasonable time. This was not

accomplished by the filing of a lawsuit. The lawsuit served only to provide

Gray's contact information to LSS. However, it was not necessary to file a

lawsuit in order to merely provide an address or phone number.

20. The actions of Gray, Chandler, and Covenant prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that they obtained exactly what they wanted, namely an initial denial of

an unreasonable and bogus request. This was accomplished in a manner

purposely designed to prevent LSS from correcting any possible error.

21. Gray and his associates secretly and unlawfully recorded representatives of

LSS in a room where those in need of housing or mental health services, or

those suffering with AIDS, wait for assistance. The fact that these clients of

Page 6 of8

LSS use this room as a waiting area weighs heavily in favor of finding an

expectation of privacy at the time representatives of LSS were secretly

recorded. However, by agreement the parties consented to the introduction of

the DVD which contained audio recordings.

22. Gray's lawsuits in Duval County prove that he schemes against many private

agencies that contract with the state of Florida. These private entities may be

subject to the requirements of the Act. In fact, the contract between LSS and

the Department of Children and Family Services puts LSS on notice that it is

subject to the Act. However, if this court and other courts are willing to

condone or reward the type of abuse demonstrated here, private entities may

not be as willing to contract with the state of Florida. If a private entity must

pay an attorney's fee every time an agent denies a needless request, the cost to

the state to provide important services by contracting with private entities will

increase; or private entities might discontinue bidding on these contracts. The

chilling effect could be disastrous to the State. Further, the Act was not

designed to create a cottage industry for so-called "civil rights activists" or

others who seek to abuse the Act for financial gain.

CONCLUSION

The means utilized by Gray to obtain public records was unreasonable. The filing

of the lawsuit served nothing more than to provide Gray's address and/or phone number

to LSS which could have easily been done by Gray without the necessity of a lawsuit.

Page 7 of8

Nevertheless, Gray was provided all unwanted records to photograph and inspect in a

reasonable time.

Therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that:

I. The Initial Complaint seeking relief under Chapter 119 is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, this 1st

day ofDecember, 2014.

Copies furnished to:

Abraham Shakfeh, Esquire

Daniel K. Bean, Esquire

Circuit Judge

Page 8 of8

Filing# 33239248 E-Filed 10/14/2015 03:47:46 PM

JEFFERY GRAY,

Plaintiff, v.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

Case Number; c,~ -F:Jf I

ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendants

--------------------------~/

PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant and, in doing so, states the

following:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in St. Johns County, Florida.

2. Defendant is a government agency as defined by Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, located in

St. Johns County, Florida.

3. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief.

FACTS

4. On or about August 25, Plaintiff went to 299 School House Road, Saint Augustine, FL to

make a public records request.

5. Specifically, Plaintiff requested to inspect and photograph the Material Safety Data

Sheets at the location.

6. Plaintiff made verbally made the request to Suzan Lee.

7. Suzan Lee requested Plaintiff to identify himself.

EXHIBIT "B"

. 8. Plaintiff declined to identify himself.

9. Suzan Lee informed Plaintiff he would have to obtain the records from the "district

downtown" despite the records being maintained at the present location.

10. Such procedure constitutes an unlawful restriction of accessing public records.

11. Plaintiff insisted on his right to inspect and photograph public records at the location in

which they are stored.

12. Suzan Lee called the St. Johns County Sheriff's Office who arrived and threatened to

arrest Plaintiff if he did not leave.

13. Plaintiff was not permitted to inspect and photograph public records.

14. All conditions precedent for this action have been fulfilled.

COUNT I-VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES.

15. Plaintiffre-alleges paragraphs 1-14 of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.

16. By requiring Plaintiff to make his records request at a location other than where the

records are stored, Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights under Chapter 119, Florida

Statutes.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court provide injunctive relief of requiring Defendant to

provide him access to public records in a manner consistent with Chapter, 119, Florida Statutes,

declare Defendant to be in violation of the Public Records Act, enjoin Defendant from trespassing

Plaintiff in the course of accessing public records, and provide Plaintiff costs and attorney's fees for

bringing this action, and any other relief this Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted on this 14th day of October, 2015.

Is/ Abraham M. Shakfeh Abraham Shakfeh

Shakfeh Law, LLC. Attorney for the Plaintiff

1207 N. Franklin St. Suite 219

Tampa, FL 33602 Florida Bar Number: 0092035

Tel: (813) 228-0101 E-Mail: AShakfeh@Shakfehlaw.com

Filing# 34301860 E-Fi1ed 11/10/2015 04:19:39 PM

TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT TN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO.: CAlS-1121 JEFFERY GRAY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant.

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW, Defendant, St. Johns County School Board, (hereinafter 'me School

Board," by its undersigned attorneys pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b) and

moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a cause of action with

prejudice. As grounds therefore, Defendant would show the Court as follows:

1. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff made a public records request to "Suzan Lee,"

but fails to allege ultimate facts showing that Ms. Lee was a person with a legal duty

to respond to a public records request. Florida's public records law states that or.ly a

records custodian, or that person's designee, is responsible for maintaining public

records. Florida Statute §119.011(5). A records custodian may also permit other

persons who have custody of a public record to produce those records for inspection

and copying under the supervision of the custodian. Florida Statute§ 119.07(1 )(a).

2. However, Plaintiff's Complaint is devoid of any allegations that Ms. Lee was the

custodian of the requested records, a designee of the records custodian, or even a

person with custody of the requested records. (Plaintiffs Complaint paragraph 6, 9).

EXHIBIT "C"

Indeed, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege that Ms. Lee was even a School Board

employee.

3. The Complaint also fails to allege that the custodian of the records, a person having

custody of the records, or a person designated to respond to public records requests

on their behalf refused to allow the records to be photographed at the location where

they are kept. Florida Statute § 119.07(3)

4. Notably, the Complaint alleges that Ms. Lee directed Plaintiff to the "district

downtown," referring to the District's Community Relations Department. (Plaintiff's

Complaint paragraph 9). As Plaintiff is aware from his numerous prior public records

requests and prior communications with School Board staff, employees within the

District's Community Relations Department have been designated as the custodian of

public records for the St. Johns County School Board. The Complaint fails to allege,

and in fact is unable to truthfully allege, that the Community Relations Department

refused to allow the records to be photographed where they are kept.

5. The Complaint fails to allege that it was necessary for Plaintiff to file suit in order to

obtain the requested records. This omission is significant because Plaintiff fails to

disclose that the Community Relations Department contacted Plaintiff by email and

offered to produce the records at the Maintenance Office where they are kept, but

Plaintiff declined that offer.

6. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action on the theory that it was a violation of

the public records law to refer Plaintiff to an off-site designee for a response to his

public records request. Florida Statute§ 119.07(l)(b) specifically states

"a person having custody of public records may designate another officer or employee of the agency to permit the inspection and copying of public

records, but must disclose the identity of the designee to the person requesting to inspect or copy public records."

While Florida Statue § 119.07(3)( d) requires records to be photographed where they

are kept, the statute authorizes a records custodian designee to process public records

requests. The statute contemplates that the designee should be ''another officer or

employee of the agency," but it does not require that the designee must have an office

at the same location. Florida Statute § 119.07(1)(a) and (b). It would have been a

simple matter for Plaintiff to have made his request to the Community Relations

Department, and the Community Relations Department would have arranged for him

to photograph the requested records at the location where they are kept, as it has done

on other occasions and offered to do in this case.

7. The Complaint fails to allege that the Defendant unlawfully refused to produce the

requested records so as to be entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. Florida Statute

§ 119.12. Because Plaintiff was offered the opportunity to inspect, copy, and

photograph the records requested prior to the filing of this lawsuit, there can be no

legitimate claim for attorney's fees in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiffs request for

attorney's fees must be denied.

8. For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action and

failsto present an actual legal controversy. Indeed, under any truthful description of

the facts involved, Plaintiff is unable to state a cause of action. Therefore, all the

relief requested therein must be denied, and the Complaint should be dismissed with

prejudice.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The public policy of the State of Florida is to ensure that public records are available for

insp~ction by the public. Florida's public records law is not designed to generate spurious claims

for attorney's fees and scam public dollars from public agencies through manufactured non­

controversies. Jeffery Marcus Gray, Plaintiff v. Lutheran Social Services of Northeast Florida,.

Inc .. Defendant, Case Number 2014-CA-4647-:XXXX (Fla. 14th Cir. Ct. 2014).

In this case, Plaintiff does not allege that "Suzan Lee" had the actual authority to comply

with his public records request. It is obvious that every single employee of the St. Johns County

public school system is not tasked with the responsibility of responding to public records

requests. A misdirected request to an employee who is not the records custodian or his designee

is not the basis for a statutory violation. "Until a request is actually made to a custodian or

designee there is no obligation for any response." Florida Consumer Rights, LLC v. UPion

County, 159 So.3d 882, 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Florida law establishes that the each school district's Superintendent is charged with the

responsibility for keeping all records "necessary to provide complete information regarding the

district school system." Florida Statute §1002.51(3); and see Florida Statute §119.011(5)

("Custodian of public records" means the elected or appointed state, county, or municipal officer

charged with the responsibility of maintaining the office having public records, or his or her

designee.") As the records custodian for the school district, the Superintendent may designate

additional employees to maintain the records and oversee the production of those records in

response to a public records request. Here, the Superintendent has followed the statute and

exercised his legal authority to designate the Office of Community Relations to handle public

records requests. Plaintiffs failure to avail himself of the Office of Community Relations cannot

conjure a statutory violation out of thin air.

In addition, Plaintiff has failed to plead a basis for this Court to grant declaratory or

injunctive relief. The plaintiff in a public records case must demonstrate a pattern of

noncompliance with the Public Records Law, together with a showing of likelihood of future

violations. Daniels v. Bryson, 548 So. 2d 679 at 680-681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Town of

Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citing to Daniels v. Bryson for

the standard for i~junctive relief). ln Florida, "an injunction will not be granted where it appears

that the acts complained of have already been committed and there is no showing by the

pleadings and proof that there is a reasonably well grounded probability that such course of

conduct will continue in the future." City of Jacksonville v. Wilson, 27 So.2d 108, 111 ( 1 946).

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the

Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and designated service to the following in accordance with Rule

2.516, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration: Abraham Shakfeh, Shakfeh Law, LLC., 1207 N.

Franklin St., Suite 219, Tampa, FL 33602, AShakfeh(W,Shakfehlaw.com this November 10,2015.

D.a\rkVM. Delaney Florida Bar No.: 121060 ddelaney@dellgraham.com Ryan L. Gilbert Florida Bar No.: 105931 rgilbert@dellgraham.com 203 NE 151 Street

Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 372-4381

Frank D. Upchurch III Florida Bar No. 195211 Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Telephone No. (904) 829-9066 Facsimile No. (904) 825-4862 Primary email address: fdupchurch@ubulaw.com Secondary email address: cindy@ubulaw.corn Firm email address: pleadings@ubulaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Filing# 1 108 E-Filed 12/04/2015 10:56:30 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT OF SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

JEFFERY

Plaintiff, Number: I 1121 v.

JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendants

Plaintiff, by and voluntarily the case with

prejudice pursuant to Fla. R. P. I

Respectfully submitted this 4th 2015.

EXHIBIT "D"

The undersigned that a copy the Tnre>rrnt

on this 4th day of December 20 15 at:

David M. Delaney ddelaney@dellgraham.com lcampbell@dellgraham.com

sent to Defendant's

Abraham Shakfeh Attorney for Plaintiff

SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE

ST JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE 4015 LEWIS SPEEDWAY ST. AUGUSTINE, FL

Report Date I Tima 1210412015 10:23 AM

I Report Number fAgency CAD Number fSJS015CAD158516

1 Reporting Officer (I D) 'Reporting Officer (Rank) JReporting Officer (Name) 13137 LE DEPUTY DOUGLAS M. KOWIESKI

Reason SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY

LOCATION 1 L:ounty STJOHNS Street NumberJStreet 235 1

SUBJECT

Year !Make HD

Vehicle Linked to Person Gray, Jeffrey Marcus

NARRATIVE

!Location Description HICKORY CREEK ELEMENTARY 547·7450

JAptllot/Bidg JCity HICKORY CREEK TR J JSAINT JOHNS

I MOdel I ODYSSEY !Style

MINIVAN 1 Color ISIL

JState IZip COde JFL 32259

'Lamuoe ILong•tuoe

1 State & License Plate Number IVIN

On 12/3/15, at about 1030 hours a silver Honda Odyssey mini-van was observed driving up and down Hickory Creek Tr., which leads to Switzerland Point M.S. and Hickory Creek E.S., and taking pictures. At some point a white male, later identified as Jeff Gray, stopped outside the receiving gate of Hickory Creek E.S. and asked a district maintenance employee standing near the gate if Hickory Creek Tr. was county maintained or maintained by the school district. Gray left the area after the employee told him he did not know. Exterior video showed a silver Honda mini-van driving up and down Hickory Creek Tr. several times. The district employee was able to identify Gray by photo. There was no further incident.

EXHIBIT "E"

SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE Page 1 of1

NARRATIVE

FIELD INTERVIEW

ST JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE 4015 LEWIS SPEEDWAY ST. AUGUSTINE, FL

Observed a w/m subject standing on the grass portion betwoon the fence and sidewalk In front of Mill Creek Elementary video taping the children as they ware exiting the school.

When asked about his behavior, he stated he was taping the extra law enforcement presence at the school. During our conversation, I advl89d him It was not the best Idea to video the school considering the events that occurred during the day In Newton Conn. When asked for his Identification, he refused but did provided his name, Jeff Gray. When asked If he had any children enrolled In the school, he stated he did not.

The school principle approached and requested he not video tape the children and asked for him not to enter the property.

After our encounter, J. Gray continued to video tape the school for an approximately an addltlonal1 0 minutes. The principle of Mill Creek notified the school district and advised them of the Incident.

It should be noted the subject video taped our entire encounter.

EXHIBIT "F"

FIELD INTERVIEW Page 1 of 1

Public Jobus County School District 1 5

St. Johns County School District

this

CALENDAR CONTACT

us

Community Relations

Retention

Production

Subdepartments

HOME COMMUNITY

SCHOOL

• Public Records

Public Records Requests

Public for the St. johns are

the Community

by

are many statutory exemptions from public

and some are statutorily

(student information, security

production, the

are not confidential or

and nature of

You will

I

Community

EXHIBIT "G"

httn·//www <:tinhn<: kl? fln<:/t'.rlrPnnP<:t/

Public Records

Awards & Recognitions

Related links

Plan

Johns County School District 2 of5

• In to photograph or obtain public you do not have to provide your name, show

identification or give a reason for the request. If you wish to anonymous, you pick up the in n, or

with community for delivery medium that not identification.

Designation of Community Relations Staff Community

Procedures and Optional Public Records Request Forms It is not necessary to use the District's optional public records

request forms provided below. Those forms are optional and provided for convenience only. If you would you may

orally or in writing without any in with

Submitting the Request Online

You Department

button at Community

public by to Community below is provided

the

be sent to the

Submitting the Request by FAX, Mail, Phone or in Person

Public Records Requests I St. Johns County School District 3 of5

You may through the Community Relations

Augustine, An

is provided for your

Community Relations

johns County District Community

Department, 40 FL -''"'u-...

military

first

allows for any

the

Florida.

main at 40

including

return

Department by FAX,

Optional Public Records Request Forn

Please note: You are not required to submit your public records request in \'1

1. Full Name·

Company·

Public Records Requests I St. Johns County School 4 of5

Families Staff Community

• • FL •

• •

• Parent Resource •

• •

Public Records 5 5

• • • Follow us on

Menus

• • n • Auctions

• (INK)

5

From: Sent: To:

From: Danlelle Cook Sent: Monday, October To: Christina H. ,:,u~;,Jv~o;.•• FW: Public

From: Cook Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 12:46 PM To: Cc: Christina H. Subject: Public Records Ke(mest

Mr.

2015 9:02AM

lam to your email to Dr. Joyner dated June 1.

At both Wards Creek and Bartram you were that public records are by the district Community Relations and directed to contact Community Relations with your You are aware of that from your previous The of Community Relations (specifically Chief of Community Relations Christina to process public records is authorized by Florida Statute 119.07(1)(b).

Although you did not contact our as we are the The records are for your this afternoon. Alternatively, we can copy them and send them to you. Please to this

email me If you would like

We understand that it Is not necessary for you to identify yourself as a condition of public records. At Wards did not ask you to Identify yourself as a

without asking for she redirected you to submit your to Community Relations. you, the principal advised that you would be to yourself to come on campus in the future. It Is district policy to all visitors to when they enter a school for public events. Is a

We trust that In the future you will contact Ms. district records.

oranyofour members with any for

EXHIBIT "H"

Follow

to and from St. Johns

for

Notice: This email message, any and may contain confidential and information. Any

If you are not the intended contact the sender

records law of Florida. This its official business are available

use, disclosure or distribution reply email and all of the

Danielle Cook

Subject: Attachments:

From: Danfelle Cook

FW: Public SJCSDPR.pdf

June 02, 2015 2:34PM Gray <tgray9937@hotmafl.com>

Cc: Christina H. <Christina.Lansston@stjohns.k12.fl.us> Subject: FW: Public Records

"All law for

Danielle M. Cook

sent to and from St. Johns

From: Jeffrey Gray ~..:.:.:.:===~~~===:..:..:.:.J Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 8:08AM To: Danfelle Cook; Christina H. Langston Cc: Joel Chandler; Thomas Covenant Subject: Public Records Request

Danielle, You wrote the following in your response emaiL..

to the This

available

Although you did not contact our department as instructed, we are orc,ce!ISII112 the request The original are available your inspection this

1 EXHIBIT

"I"

Johns County School District official written

Jeff Gray (HonorYourOath, PINAC) ransP<:1rer1cv + Accountability Liberty

On Jun I 2015, at 15:07, Jeffrey wrote:

Although you did not contact our department as instructed, we are pro~ce~;smlg the records are available for your this .:~th•rnl'lr.n

Posted: September 2015 10:45pm 1 Updated: September ::1015 :o:53pm

MARTI II

records requests made In schools.

In addition to sections on assessment and Instructional new category with "school safety."

Under this category is one item in which school district would support records requests at a school site to check in with proper identificstlon.

"This Item Is In no way an intent to limit those documents, a said Beth Sweeny, coordinator of

records requests or relations for the district.

She said the distrlet:s parents of students currently

"It's a issue.'' Joe Joyner said. "The to ask someone to a campus with children seems to be pretty apparent pretty basic but It's not."

Sweeny said there's been an In records requests made in themselves, In St. Johns County but across Northeast Florida.

schools

JOIN

county schools

onto

to

"It's scary for the staff that this is done to them and it's not In the best interest of our studeitls," she said.

School board chair Bev said even school board members have to In each time visit a school.

Information

correspontdellt for Is Not a Crime, has video-documented some of his attempts to make records requests at schools In St Johns County and them to his YouTube channel, "HonorYourOath.''

He said It's the school's front office area.

"We have the to go there and the he "If person is there to do records request, should do to accommodate."

nrovldinR identification In order to review records, Gray said he considers crucial part of

EXHIBIT "J"

community relations for the district, said mail, district from

visitor or make them show their ro a school

many statutory from student's number and health eare records.

at the custodian's election the Relations disclosure under the Florida

of the records.

"tt on the nature of the request the moment or if need further assistance from the school

Charter chatter

will once support the creation of a Public Education construction allocation

The Senate this

nrcwicled additional allocated to charter schools.

dollars for schools now

$100 million in PECO K·I2 malntennnce so·so.

but with and charter schools

School enrolln11mt.

member Barrera said for charters should be

shouldn't have such percentage of money to such a small percentage of entities that serve students across the state/ she ssld.

Charter schools are the state, St. Johns

funded schools that operate nriulltl>ltJ become a has not seen the enrollment other school districts have "'"""'"""""1•11

In 2014-15, there were about 650 charters with 250,000 students In Florida and six charters with about 250

students in St. Johns County.

The district will once districts take past

support Increased loeal control In charter school reviews of charter school operators Into account of the IIP!)IIcattcm evaluation.

across

rules created the State Board of Edueation this year that favorable to the· not written Into the sUI'lUt~~s.

"You not allowed to use It a for denial

denial were recommended for both charter llPlllicatl<ms district last year. before the board could dls•approve.

No school district

The district would schools.

11/1

St. Johns Cotmty School Board considers supp01iing protocol change for public records re... Page 3 of 3

Other matters

The district will continue supporting restoration of the Base Student Allocation to the 2007-08 funding level -Florida's previous high mark.

There was an increase in the BSA for 2015·16 of $122.68, from $4,031.77 to $4,15445, which still comes $74.71

short of the 2007-08 level.

The district will also support an increase in the Digital Classrooms Allocation for technology needs - including infrastructure, hardware, software, training and portable devices - resulting from statutory requirements to expand online testing, digital/virtual instruction and data collection.

In the 2015 Legislative Session, Florida lawmakers approved a $20 million increase in the Digital Classrooms Allocation, maldng for a total of $6o million.

In 2014-15, the district received about $524,000 in Digital Classrooms money. This year, it will receive an estimated

$Boo,ooo.

Much of the push for technology comes from pressure from the state to switch from the traditional paper/pencil type of standardized testing to online testing.

The district will continue supporting additional paper/pencil options for the Florida Standards Assessment "until adequate infrastructure, devices and students' digital skills are in place and ready for successful administration.''

School district officials cited the numerous technical glitches during the rollout of the new online-based FSA in the spring.

A final draft of the 2016 Legislative Platform is expected to be presented to the school board for approval later this faiL

i YoUL' rating: None Bac~ to Top

CLOSE X

http://staugustine.com/news/school-news/20 15-09-23/st-iohns-countv-school-board-consL ll /l i/10 I 'i