Number: AGO 2010-44
Date: November 5, 2010
Subject: Sunshine Law, applicability to nonprofit corp.
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith
St. Lucie County Assistant County Attorney
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
RE: GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE LAW – OPEN MEETINGS – CORPORATIONS – COUNTIES – whether not-for-profit corporation is subject to open meetings law. ss. 163.08 and 286.011, Fla. Stat.
Dear Ms. Mackenzie-Smith:
At the request of a majority of the members of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County you have asked for my opinion on substantially the following question:
Whether meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to the open meetings requirement of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law?
In sum:
Meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes, the Government in the Sunshine Law.
According to your letter, in July 2010, the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., (hereinafter "the fund" or "SELF") filed for incorporation as a Florida nonprofit corporation with the Department of State Division of Corporations. The by-laws of the corporation reflect the purposes for which the corporation was organized:
"Within the general purposes for which the corporation is organized, the primary purpose shall be to foster the development of a green economy through education and facilitating the implementation of public programs and related activities promoting and implementing conservation of energy usage and generating and/or utilizing alternative energy production facilities with the goal of assisting in the conservation and protection of the Florida environment within St. Lucie County, Florida, and the surrounding area, through the use, development, deployment, creation and facilitation of energy conservation technologies, alternative energy production and/or distribution technologies, additional energy production and conservation related technologies yet to be developed, and related economic and community development and revitalization strategies historically utilized by local governments and community based organizations to foster and promote conservation of energy, economic revitalization and community development through investment in and assistance to community based institutions. The corporation is intended to organize and qualify as a Community Development Financial Institution ('CDFI') as authorized and contemplated by the Reigle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, as amended, and through its operations, to lessen the burdens of government undertaken by St. Lucie County, Florida."[1]
The solar and energy loan fund, in excess of $20 million, was created from private capital and an energy block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy which was applied for and awarded to St. Lucie County. In addition, the county has authorized the issuance of special assessment improvement funding and reimbursement agreements for this energy financing program.
Information obtained by this office indicates that the solar and energy loan fund specifically targets energy conservation, energy efficiency, and rooftop solar for residential and non-residential property owners. The fund makes loans for terms of 10 to 20 years at low interest rates designed to keep the monthly loan payments lower than the energy savings and cost diversion derived from the "green" enhancements funded through the program. Property owners participate in this no money down loan program by agreeing to voluntary property assessments through newly created sustainability taxing districts. The property assessment collection methodology enables property owners to pay these loans over an extended period as a part of the tax bill for the particular piece of property and the loan payments are returned to the non-profit organization to replenish the fund. A small administration charge will also apply.
As indicated above, a two million plus dollar energy block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy was applied for and awarded to St. Lucie County and the county "assign[ed] its responsibilities under the Grant to SELF[.]"[2] The agreement specifies that "SELF desires to accept assignment of the County's responsibilities under the grant subject to any County oversight[.]"[3] The agreement designates the project as "an appropriate use of Grant funds and further benefits the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida.[4]
In a resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,[5] the county relies on section 163.08, Florida Statutes, for authority to undertake the Energy Financing Program.[6] The county's resolution provides that a program administrator may be engaged for purposes of administering the Energy Financing Program and designates the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., as the program administrator.
The county resolution also authorizes the county to validate not more than $50 million in special assessment improvement funding and reimbursement agreements to fund the energy financing program. The funding and reimbursement agreements would be entered into between the county and a lending entity such as the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County. These funding agreements would provide for:
"1. the establishment of one or more revolving lines of credit with which to pay the costs associated with energy conservation and efficiency improvements and renewable energy improvements,
2. the repayment of amounts drawn on the lines from the proceeds of voluntary special assessments imposed against the real property benefitted by such improvements, and
3. reimbursement to the County for amounts advanced in furtherance of the energy financing program."[7]
At some time in the future the fund will apply to the Internal Revenue Service for designation as a 501(c)(3) organization. The eight member board of directors of the fund has one member who is a sitting St. Lucie County Commissioner and that member is chosen by the board of county commissioners. The other seven members of the board of the fund are members of the business and educational communities. You state that no public or governmental entity will have any ownership interest in or right to control the fund or have any majority interest on its board.
You ask whether meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to the open meetings requirement of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law.
The Government in the Sunshine Law, section 286.011, Florida Statutes, requires that meetings of a public board or commission at which official acts are to be taken are to be open to the public. The test for whether the meetings of particular boards, councils, commissions, or similar entities are subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes, has been judicially determined to be whether the board or council or other entity is subject to the dominion and control of the Legislature.[8] The statute has been held to extend to the discussions and deliberations of, as well as formal action taken by, a public board or commission.[9] In interpreting the Government in the Sunshine Law, the courts have stated that it was the intent of the Legislature to bind "every 'board or commission' of the state, or of any county or political subdivision over which it has dominion and control."[10]
A private organization that performs services for a public agency and receives compensation for these services is not, by virtue of that relationship alone, subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes. Rather, the courts have generally considered whether there has been a delegation of the public agency's governmental or legislative functions or whether the private organization plays an integral part in the public agency's decision-making process.[11]
Recent decisions by Florida courts to determine whether the open government laws apply to a private entity focus on whether the private entity is merely providing services to the public agency or whether it has substituted itself for the public agency in the performance of these services. For example, the court in Stanfield v. Salvation Army,[12] held a private corporation subject to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and noted that a private corporation taking over the county's role as the provider of probation services "was not the provision of architectural services as in Schwab, but the complete assumption of a governmental obligation. Rather than providing services to the county, the Salvation Army provided services in place of the county."[13] (emphasis in original)
The Fifth District Court of Appeal in News-Journal Corporation v. Memorial Hospital- West Volusia, Inc.,[14] reviewed the relationship between a hospital authority and the not-for-profit company leasing the public hospital's facilities. The court recognized a distinction between a contract in which the private entity provides services to a public body and a contract in which the private entity provides services in place of the public entity:
"If one merely undertakes to provide material--such as police cars, fire trucks, or computers--or agrees to provide services--such as legal services, accounting services, or other professional services--for the public body to use in performing its obligations, then there is little likelihood that such contractor's business operation or business records will come under the open meetings or public records requirements. On the other hand, if one contracts to relieve a public body from the operation of a public obligation--such as operating a jail or providing fire protection--and uses the same facilities or equipment acquired by public funds previously used by the public body then the privatization of such venture to the extent that it can avoid public scrutiny would appear to be extremely difficult, regardless of the legal skills lawyers applied to the task."[15] (emphasis in original)
The district court reversed the lower court's holding that the not-for-profit company was outside the scope of the Public Records Law and the Government in the Sunshine Law and the Florida Supreme Court approved this decision.[16]
More recently, in an Informal Attorney General Opinion, this office considered the application of Florida's open government laws to Florida's Great Northwest, Inc., a private not-for-profit corporation existing to "facilitate economic and workforce development within the sixteen county region of northwest Florida."[17] Membership in the organization was open to any person or organization with an interest in the economic development of the state and was made up primarily of private development organizations, post-secondary education institutions, and workforce development boards. The corporation was managed by a board of directors made up of public and private sector members. The informal opinion concluded that the corporation was not subject to the public records and sunshine laws since no delegation of a public agency's governmental function was apparent and the corporation did not appear to play an integral part in the decision-making process of a public agency. Further, while acknowledging that economic development is a governmental function, the opinion recognized that it is not exclusively governmental and the corporation, in that instance, was not acting on behalf of a particular public agency in accomplishing this function. Finally, the funding of the corporation was by membership pledges primarily received from private entities and federal grant moneys, rather than state or local funds.
In the instant inquiry, the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., appears to be a private nongovernmental organization created to foster the development of a green economy in St. Lucie County. However, the situation you have described is not one in which a private not-for-profit entity presents independently developed, unsolicited plans or proposals for green economic development to the county. Rather, it appears that St. Lucie County has delegated its governmental powers to the fund. By utilizing the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., for the accomplishment of the county-adopted energy financing program, the board of county commissioners has effectively delegated accomplishment of the goals set forth in the plan to the corporation.
Thus, while the statute would not ordinarily apply to private organizations, section 286.011, Florida Statutes, does apply when there has been a delegation of a board’s authority to conduct public business such as carrying out the terms of the county's green economic development plan. In addition, substantial financial ties link the county and the fund. The county applied for an energy block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and administration of this grant, when it was awarded to St. Lucie County, was reassigned to and accepted by the fund. The county has also used its governmental powers to authorize the issuance of special assessment improvement funding and reimbursement agreements for this energy financing program. While the receipt of public funds is not a determinative factor in whether or not a private entity is subject to the open government laws, the apparent substitution of the fund for the county in this undertaking leads me to the conclusion that the fund stands in the shoes of the county for this program and is subject to the open meetings law to the same extent as the county.
In sum, it is my opinion that meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes, the Government in the Sunshine Law.
Sincerely,
Bill McCollum
Attorney General
BM/tgh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See Art. II, s. 1.(b), By-Laws of Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc.
[2] See Whereas clause, p. 1, Agreement Between Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc. and St. Lucie County (EECBG).
[3] Id.
[4] Supra at n.2.
[5] Resolution No. 10-259, approved October 5, 2010.
[6] See s. 1.03(S), Resolution No. 10-259.
[7] See Inter-office Memorandum, St. Lucie County, Florida, prepared by McIntyre, C.A. No. 10-1240, dated September 27, 2010.
[8] City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971); Times Publishing Company v. Williams, 222 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
[9] Times Publishing Company, supra.
[10] Id.
[11] And see IDS Properties, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 279 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), wherein the court held that there was no government by delegation exception to the Government in the Sunshine Law by undertaking to delegate the conduct of public business through the use of an alter ego.
[12] 695 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
[13] Id. at 503.
[14] 695 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
[15] Id. at 420.
[16] See Memorial Hospital-West Volusia, Inc. v. News-Journal Corp., 729 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1999).
[17] See Inf. Op. to Gaetz and Coley, dated December 17, 2009.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Another Florida Attorney General's opinion on abuse of non-profit group to evade Sunshine and Open Records laws
Another Florida Attorney General's opinion on abuse of non-profit groups to evade Sunshine and Open Records laws
Number: AGO 2010-44
Date: November 5, 2010
Subject: Sunshine Law, applicability to nonprofit corp.
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith
St. Lucie County Assistant County Attorney
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
RE: GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE LAW – OPEN MEETINGS – CORPORATIONS – COUNTIES – whether not-for-profit corporation is subject to open meetings law. ss. 163.08 and 286.011, Fla. Stat.
Dear Ms. Mackenzie-Smith:
At the request of a majority of the members of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County you have asked for my opinion on substantially the following question:
Whether meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to the open meetings requirement of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law?
In sum:
Meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes, the Government in the Sunshine Law.
According to your letter, in July 2010, the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., (hereinafter "the fund" or "SELF") filed for incorporation as a Florida nonprofit corporation with the Department of State Division of Corporations. The by-laws of the corporation reflect the purposes for which the corporation was organized:
"Within the general purposes for which the corporation is organized, the primary purpose shall be to foster the development of a green economy through education and facilitating the implementation of public programs and related activities promoting and implementing conservation of energy usage and generating and/or utilizing alternative energy production facilities with the goal of assisting in the conservation and protection of the Florida environment within St. Lucie County, Florida, and the surrounding area, through the use, development, deployment, creation and facilitation of energy conservation technologies, alternative energy production and/or distribution technologies, additional energy production and conservation related technologies yet to be developed, and related economic and community development and revitalization strategies historically utilized by local governments and community based organizations to foster and promote conservation of energy, economic revitalization and community development through investment in and assistance to community based institutions. The corporation is intended to organize and qualify as a Community Development Financial Institution ('CDFI') as authorized and contemplated by the Reigle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, as amended, and through its operations, to lessen the burdens of government undertaken by St. Lucie County, Florida."[1]
The solar and energy loan fund, in excess of $20 million, was created from private capital and an energy block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy which was applied for and awarded to St. Lucie County. In addition, the county has authorized the issuance of special assessment improvement funding and reimbursement agreements for this energy financing program.
Information obtained by this office indicates that the solar and energy loan fund specifically targets energy conservation, energy efficiency, and rooftop solar for residential and non-residential property owners. The fund makes loans for terms of 10 to 20 years at low interest rates designed to keep the monthly loan payments lower than the energy savings and cost diversion derived from the "green" enhancements funded through the program. Property owners participate in this no money down loan program by agreeing to voluntary property assessments through newly created sustainability taxing districts. The property assessment collection methodology enables property owners to pay these loans over an extended period as a part of the tax bill for the particular piece of property and the loan payments are returned to the non-profit organization to replenish the fund. A small administration charge will also apply.
As indicated above, a two million plus dollar energy block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy was applied for and awarded to St. Lucie County and the county "assign[ed] its responsibilities under the Grant to SELF[.]"[2] The agreement specifies that "SELF desires to accept assignment of the County's responsibilities under the grant subject to any County oversight[.]"[3] The agreement designates the project as "an appropriate use of Grant funds and further benefits the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida.[4]
In a resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,[5] the county relies on section 163.08, Florida Statutes, for authority to undertake the Energy Financing Program.[6] The county's resolution provides that a program administrator may be engaged for purposes of administering the Energy Financing Program and designates the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., as the program administrator.
The county resolution also authorizes the county to validate not more than $50 million in special assessment improvement funding and reimbursement agreements to fund the energy financing program. The funding and reimbursement agreements would be entered into between the county and a lending entity such as the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County. These funding agreements would provide for:
"1. the establishment of one or more revolving lines of credit with which to pay the costs associated with energy conservation and efficiency improvements and renewable energy improvements,
2. the repayment of amounts drawn on the lines from the proceeds of voluntary special assessments imposed against the real property benefitted by such improvements, and
3. reimbursement to the County for amounts advanced in furtherance of the energy financing program."[7]
At some time in the future the fund will apply to the Internal Revenue Service for designation as a 501(c)(3) organization. The eight member board of directors of the fund has one member who is a sitting St. Lucie County Commissioner and that member is chosen by the board of county commissioners. The other seven members of the board of the fund are members of the business and educational communities. You state that no public or governmental entity will have any ownership interest in or right to control the fund or have any majority interest on its board.
You ask whether meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to the open meetings requirement of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law.
The Government in the Sunshine Law, section 286.011, Florida Statutes, requires that meetings of a public board or commission at which official acts are to be taken are to be open to the public. The test for whether the meetings of particular boards, councils, commissions, or similar entities are subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes, has been judicially determined to be whether the board or council or other entity is subject to the dominion and control of the Legislature.[8] The statute has been held to extend to the discussions and deliberations of, as well as formal action taken by, a public board or commission.[9] In interpreting the Government in the Sunshine Law, the courts have stated that it was the intent of the Legislature to bind "every 'board or commission' of the state, or of any county or political subdivision over which it has dominion and control."[10]
A private organization that performs services for a public agency and receives compensation for these services is not, by virtue of that relationship alone, subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes. Rather, the courts have generally considered whether there has been a delegation of the public agency's governmental or legislative functions or whether the private organization plays an integral part in the public agency's decision-making process.[11]
Recent decisions by Florida courts to determine whether the open government laws apply to a private entity focus on whether the private entity is merely providing services to the public agency or whether it has substituted itself for the public agency in the performance of these services. For example, the court in Stanfield v. Salvation Army,[12] held a private corporation subject to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and noted that a private corporation taking over the county's role as the provider of probation services "was not the provision of architectural services as in Schwab, but the complete assumption of a governmental obligation. Rather than providing services to the county, the Salvation Army provided services in place of the county."[13] (emphasis in original)
The Fifth District Court of Appeal in News-Journal Corporation v. Memorial Hospital- West Volusia, Inc.,[14] reviewed the relationship between a hospital authority and the not-for-profit company leasing the public hospital's facilities. The court recognized a distinction between a contract in which the private entity provides services to a public body and a contract in which the private entity provides services in place of the public entity:
"If one merely undertakes to provide material--such as police cars, fire trucks, or computers--or agrees to provide services--such as legal services, accounting services, or other professional services--for the public body to use in performing its obligations, then there is little likelihood that such contractor's business operation or business records will come under the open meetings or public records requirements. On the other hand, if one contracts to relieve a public body from the operation of a public obligation--such as operating a jail or providing fire protection--and uses the same facilities or equipment acquired by public funds previously used by the public body then the privatization of such venture to the extent that it can avoid public scrutiny would appear to be extremely difficult, regardless of the legal skills lawyers applied to the task."[15] (emphasis in original)
The district court reversed the lower court's holding that the not-for-profit company was outside the scope of the Public Records Law and the Government in the Sunshine Law and the Florida Supreme Court approved this decision.[16]
More recently, in an Informal Attorney General Opinion, this office considered the application of Florida's open government laws to Florida's Great Northwest, Inc., a private not-for-profit corporation existing to "facilitate economic and workforce development within the sixteen county region of northwest Florida."[17] Membership in the organization was open to any person or organization with an interest in the economic development of the state and was made up primarily of private development organizations, post-secondary education institutions, and workforce development boards. The corporation was managed by a board of directors made up of public and private sector members. The informal opinion concluded that the corporation was not subject to the public records and sunshine laws since no delegation of a public agency's governmental function was apparent and the corporation did not appear to play an integral part in the decision-making process of a public agency. Further, while acknowledging that economic development is a governmental function, the opinion recognized that it is not exclusively governmental and the corporation, in that instance, was not acting on behalf of a particular public agency in accomplishing this function. Finally, the funding of the corporation was by membership pledges primarily received from private entities and federal grant moneys, rather than state or local funds.
In the instant inquiry, the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., appears to be a private nongovernmental organization created to foster the development of a green economy in St. Lucie County. However, the situation you have described is not one in which a private not-for-profit entity presents independently developed, unsolicited plans or proposals for green economic development to the county. Rather, it appears that St. Lucie County has delegated its governmental powers to the fund. By utilizing the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., for the accomplishment of the county-adopted energy financing program, the board of county commissioners has effectively delegated accomplishment of the goals set forth in the plan to the corporation.
Thus, while the statute would not ordinarily apply to private organizations, section 286.011, Florida Statutes, does apply when there has been a delegation of a board’s authority to conduct public business such as carrying out the terms of the county's green economic development plan. In addition, substantial financial ties link the county and the fund. The county applied for an energy block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and administration of this grant, when it was awarded to St. Lucie County, was reassigned to and accepted by the fund. The county has also used its governmental powers to authorize the issuance of special assessment improvement funding and reimbursement agreements for this energy financing program. While the receipt of public funds is not a determinative factor in whether or not a private entity is subject to the open government laws, the apparent substitution of the fund for the county in this undertaking leads me to the conclusion that the fund stands in the shoes of the county for this program and is subject to the open meetings law to the same extent as the county.
In sum, it is my opinion that meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes, the Government in the Sunshine Law.
Sincerely,
Bill McCollum
Attorney General
BM/tgh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See Art. II, s. 1.(b), By-Laws of Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc.
[2] See Whereas clause, p. 1, Agreement Between Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc. and St. Lucie County (EECBG).
[3] Id.
[4] Supra at n.2.
[5] Resolution No. 10-259, approved October 5, 2010.
[6] See s. 1.03(S), Resolution No. 10-259.
[7] See Inter-office Memorandum, St. Lucie County, Florida, prepared by McIntyre, C.A. No. 10-1240, dated September 27, 2010.
[8] City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971); Times Publishing Company v. Williams, 222 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
[9] Times Publishing Company, supra.
[10] Id.
[11] And see IDS Properties, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 279 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), wherein the court held that there was no government by delegation exception to the Government in the Sunshine Law by undertaking to delegate the conduct of public business through the use of an alter ego.
Date: November 5, 2010
Subject: Sunshine Law, applicability to nonprofit corp.
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith
St. Lucie County Assistant County Attorney
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
RE: GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE LAW – OPEN MEETINGS – CORPORATIONS – COUNTIES – whether not-for-profit corporation is subject to open meetings law. ss. 163.08 and 286.011, Fla. Stat.
Dear Ms. Mackenzie-Smith:
At the request of a majority of the members of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County you have asked for my opinion on substantially the following question:
Whether meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to the open meetings requirement of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law?
In sum:
Meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes, the Government in the Sunshine Law.
According to your letter, in July 2010, the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., (hereinafter "the fund" or "SELF") filed for incorporation as a Florida nonprofit corporation with the Department of State Division of Corporations. The by-laws of the corporation reflect the purposes for which the corporation was organized:
"Within the general purposes for which the corporation is organized, the primary purpose shall be to foster the development of a green economy through education and facilitating the implementation of public programs and related activities promoting and implementing conservation of energy usage and generating and/or utilizing alternative energy production facilities with the goal of assisting in the conservation and protection of the Florida environment within St. Lucie County, Florida, and the surrounding area, through the use, development, deployment, creation and facilitation of energy conservation technologies, alternative energy production and/or distribution technologies, additional energy production and conservation related technologies yet to be developed, and related economic and community development and revitalization strategies historically utilized by local governments and community based organizations to foster and promote conservation of energy, economic revitalization and community development through investment in and assistance to community based institutions. The corporation is intended to organize and qualify as a Community Development Financial Institution ('CDFI') as authorized and contemplated by the Reigle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, as amended, and through its operations, to lessen the burdens of government undertaken by St. Lucie County, Florida."[1]
The solar and energy loan fund, in excess of $20 million, was created from private capital and an energy block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy which was applied for and awarded to St. Lucie County. In addition, the county has authorized the issuance of special assessment improvement funding and reimbursement agreements for this energy financing program.
Information obtained by this office indicates that the solar and energy loan fund specifically targets energy conservation, energy efficiency, and rooftop solar for residential and non-residential property owners. The fund makes loans for terms of 10 to 20 years at low interest rates designed to keep the monthly loan payments lower than the energy savings and cost diversion derived from the "green" enhancements funded through the program. Property owners participate in this no money down loan program by agreeing to voluntary property assessments through newly created sustainability taxing districts. The property assessment collection methodology enables property owners to pay these loans over an extended period as a part of the tax bill for the particular piece of property and the loan payments are returned to the non-profit organization to replenish the fund. A small administration charge will also apply.
As indicated above, a two million plus dollar energy block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy was applied for and awarded to St. Lucie County and the county "assign[ed] its responsibilities under the Grant to SELF[.]"[2] The agreement specifies that "SELF desires to accept assignment of the County's responsibilities under the grant subject to any County oversight[.]"[3] The agreement designates the project as "an appropriate use of Grant funds and further benefits the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida.[4]
In a resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,[5] the county relies on section 163.08, Florida Statutes, for authority to undertake the Energy Financing Program.[6] The county's resolution provides that a program administrator may be engaged for purposes of administering the Energy Financing Program and designates the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., as the program administrator.
The county resolution also authorizes the county to validate not more than $50 million in special assessment improvement funding and reimbursement agreements to fund the energy financing program. The funding and reimbursement agreements would be entered into between the county and a lending entity such as the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County. These funding agreements would provide for:
"1. the establishment of one or more revolving lines of credit with which to pay the costs associated with energy conservation and efficiency improvements and renewable energy improvements,
2. the repayment of amounts drawn on the lines from the proceeds of voluntary special assessments imposed against the real property benefitted by such improvements, and
3. reimbursement to the County for amounts advanced in furtherance of the energy financing program."[7]
At some time in the future the fund will apply to the Internal Revenue Service for designation as a 501(c)(3) organization. The eight member board of directors of the fund has one member who is a sitting St. Lucie County Commissioner and that member is chosen by the board of county commissioners. The other seven members of the board of the fund are members of the business and educational communities. You state that no public or governmental entity will have any ownership interest in or right to control the fund or have any majority interest on its board.
You ask whether meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to the open meetings requirement of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law.
The Government in the Sunshine Law, section 286.011, Florida Statutes, requires that meetings of a public board or commission at which official acts are to be taken are to be open to the public. The test for whether the meetings of particular boards, councils, commissions, or similar entities are subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes, has been judicially determined to be whether the board or council or other entity is subject to the dominion and control of the Legislature.[8] The statute has been held to extend to the discussions and deliberations of, as well as formal action taken by, a public board or commission.[9] In interpreting the Government in the Sunshine Law, the courts have stated that it was the intent of the Legislature to bind "every 'board or commission' of the state, or of any county or political subdivision over which it has dominion and control."[10]
A private organization that performs services for a public agency and receives compensation for these services is not, by virtue of that relationship alone, subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes. Rather, the courts have generally considered whether there has been a delegation of the public agency's governmental or legislative functions or whether the private organization plays an integral part in the public agency's decision-making process.[11]
Recent decisions by Florida courts to determine whether the open government laws apply to a private entity focus on whether the private entity is merely providing services to the public agency or whether it has substituted itself for the public agency in the performance of these services. For example, the court in Stanfield v. Salvation Army,[12] held a private corporation subject to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and noted that a private corporation taking over the county's role as the provider of probation services "was not the provision of architectural services as in Schwab, but the complete assumption of a governmental obligation. Rather than providing services to the county, the Salvation Army provided services in place of the county."[13] (emphasis in original)
The Fifth District Court of Appeal in News-Journal Corporation v. Memorial Hospital- West Volusia, Inc.,[14] reviewed the relationship between a hospital authority and the not-for-profit company leasing the public hospital's facilities. The court recognized a distinction between a contract in which the private entity provides services to a public body and a contract in which the private entity provides services in place of the public entity:
"If one merely undertakes to provide material--such as police cars, fire trucks, or computers--or agrees to provide services--such as legal services, accounting services, or other professional services--for the public body to use in performing its obligations, then there is little likelihood that such contractor's business operation or business records will come under the open meetings or public records requirements. On the other hand, if one contracts to relieve a public body from the operation of a public obligation--such as operating a jail or providing fire protection--and uses the same facilities or equipment acquired by public funds previously used by the public body then the privatization of such venture to the extent that it can avoid public scrutiny would appear to be extremely difficult, regardless of the legal skills lawyers applied to the task."[15] (emphasis in original)
The district court reversed the lower court's holding that the not-for-profit company was outside the scope of the Public Records Law and the Government in the Sunshine Law and the Florida Supreme Court approved this decision.[16]
More recently, in an Informal Attorney General Opinion, this office considered the application of Florida's open government laws to Florida's Great Northwest, Inc., a private not-for-profit corporation existing to "facilitate economic and workforce development within the sixteen county region of northwest Florida."[17] Membership in the organization was open to any person or organization with an interest in the economic development of the state and was made up primarily of private development organizations, post-secondary education institutions, and workforce development boards. The corporation was managed by a board of directors made up of public and private sector members. The informal opinion concluded that the corporation was not subject to the public records and sunshine laws since no delegation of a public agency's governmental function was apparent and the corporation did not appear to play an integral part in the decision-making process of a public agency. Further, while acknowledging that economic development is a governmental function, the opinion recognized that it is not exclusively governmental and the corporation, in that instance, was not acting on behalf of a particular public agency in accomplishing this function. Finally, the funding of the corporation was by membership pledges primarily received from private entities and federal grant moneys, rather than state or local funds.
In the instant inquiry, the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., appears to be a private nongovernmental organization created to foster the development of a green economy in St. Lucie County. However, the situation you have described is not one in which a private not-for-profit entity presents independently developed, unsolicited plans or proposals for green economic development to the county. Rather, it appears that St. Lucie County has delegated its governmental powers to the fund. By utilizing the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., for the accomplishment of the county-adopted energy financing program, the board of county commissioners has effectively delegated accomplishment of the goals set forth in the plan to the corporation.
Thus, while the statute would not ordinarily apply to private organizations, section 286.011, Florida Statutes, does apply when there has been a delegation of a board’s authority to conduct public business such as carrying out the terms of the county's green economic development plan. In addition, substantial financial ties link the county and the fund. The county applied for an energy block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and administration of this grant, when it was awarded to St. Lucie County, was reassigned to and accepted by the fund. The county has also used its governmental powers to authorize the issuance of special assessment improvement funding and reimbursement agreements for this energy financing program. While the receipt of public funds is not a determinative factor in whether or not a private entity is subject to the open government laws, the apparent substitution of the fund for the county in this undertaking leads me to the conclusion that the fund stands in the shoes of the county for this program and is subject to the open meetings law to the same extent as the county.
In sum, it is my opinion that meetings of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc., are subject to section 286.011, Florida Statutes, the Government in the Sunshine Law.
Sincerely,
Bill McCollum
Attorney General
BM/tgh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See Art. II, s. 1.(b), By-Laws of Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc.
[2] See Whereas clause, p. 1, Agreement Between Solar and Energy Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc. and St. Lucie County (EECBG).
[3] Id.
[4] Supra at n.2.
[5] Resolution No. 10-259, approved October 5, 2010.
[6] See s. 1.03(S), Resolution No. 10-259.
[7] See Inter-office Memorandum, St. Lucie County, Florida, prepared by McIntyre, C.A. No. 10-1240, dated September 27, 2010.
[8] City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971); Times Publishing Company v. Williams, 222 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
[9] Times Publishing Company, supra.
[10] Id.
[11] And see IDS Properties, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 279 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), wherein the court held that there was no government by delegation exception to the Government in the Sunshine Law by undertaking to delegate the conduct of public business through the use of an alter ego.
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies Press Release: Come speak out about St. Johns County Sheriff's Office, April 11, 2011 at 7 P
PUBLIC NOTICE
CALEA
COMMISSION ON
ACCREDITATION FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES, INC.
The St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office is scheduled for an on-site assessment as part of a program to achieve reaccreditation by verifying the Agency meets professional standards.
Administered by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA), the accreditation program requires agencies to comply with state-of-the-art standards in four (4) basic areas: policy and procedures, administration, operations, and support services.
As part of the on-site assessment, agency personnel and members of the community are invited to offer comments at a public information session Monday, 11 April 2011 beginning at 7:00 pm. The session will be conducted at the First Coast Technical College, 3640 Gaines Road, St. Augustine, Florida.
Agency personnel and the public are also invited to offer comments by calling (904) 209-1155 on Sunday, 10 April 2011 between the hours of 2:00-4:00 pm. Comments will be taken by the Assessment Team.
Telephone comments as well as appearances at the public information session are limited to 10 minutes and must address the agency’s ability to comply with CALEA’s standards. A copy of the Standards is available for review at the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office, Administration building, (904) 824-8304 contact Captain Mary Fagan or SGT Carol Newmans.
Persons wishing to submit written comments about the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office and its ability to comply with the standards for reaccreditation, may send them to the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA), 13575 Heathcote Boulevard, Suite 320, Gainesville, Virginia 20155.
CALEA
COMMISSION ON
ACCREDITATION FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES, INC.
The St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office is scheduled for an on-site assessment as part of a program to achieve reaccreditation by verifying the Agency meets professional standards.
Administered by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA), the accreditation program requires agencies to comply with state-of-the-art standards in four (4) basic areas: policy and procedures, administration, operations, and support services.
As part of the on-site assessment, agency personnel and members of the community are invited to offer comments at a public information session Monday, 11 April 2011 beginning at 7:00 pm. The session will be conducted at the First Coast Technical College, 3640 Gaines Road, St. Augustine, Florida.
Agency personnel and the public are also invited to offer comments by calling (904) 209-1155 on Sunday, 10 April 2011 between the hours of 2:00-4:00 pm. Comments will be taken by the Assessment Team.
Telephone comments as well as appearances at the public information session are limited to 10 minutes and must address the agency’s ability to comply with CALEA’s standards. A copy of the Standards is available for review at the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office, Administration building, (904) 824-8304 contact Captain Mary Fagan or SGT Carol Newmans.
Persons wishing to submit written comments about the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office and its ability to comply with the standards for reaccreditation, may send them to the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA), 13575 Heathcote Boulevard, Suite 320, Gainesville, Virginia 20155.
Governor Richard Scott's opposition to pill mill legislation is ill-advised
St Augustine Record Letter: Scott needs to end pill mills
Editor: Florida Gov. Richard Scott thinks government regulations are "bad" for "business" and must be "slashed."
"Bad" for whose "business?"
Scott wants to repeal the Legislature's requirements for monitoring "pill mills," designed to halt oxycodone prescription drug deaths. Why?
A ripple of death and misery flows from Florida "pill mills." Seven Floridians die daily from oxycodone, including babies born addicted. Florida fills 75 percent of America's oxycodone prescriptions, mostly to out-of-state drug dealers.
Florida's Republican Attorney General Pamela Bondi has appointed former Democratic State Sen. David Aronberg to be our AG's special counsel, to shut down the pill mills.
Aronberg reports that there are more than twice as many pill mills as McDonald's restaurants in Broward County. Aronberg says that "you know it's a pill mill if" the alleged "medical clinic" is located between a tattoo parlor and a pawn shop; brandishes armed security guards and guard dogs; provides pills to a long line of people in cars with out-of-state license plates; takes only cash (not health insurance or credit cards); and is unadorned by a single tongue depressor.
As our late U.S. Attorney General Robert Francis Kennedy said, "Government belongs wherever there are people in distress who cannot help themselves or wherever evil needs an adversary."
But rather than fight organized oxycodone addiction, Scott errantly supposes our Florida legislators were "picking on business" -- organized criminals selling oxycodone painkillers.
Scott's Columbia/HCA HMO paid $1.7 billion for Medicare/Medicaid fraud. Scott purchased our governor's office with $78 million of his own money. Scott's done nothing for average Floridians. Scott lacks transparency and sensitivity to needs of our people.
Scott worships anti-regulatory ideology -- in Lincoln's words, "idolatry that practices human sacrifice."
Scott must execute faithfully the laws that he swore to uphold. Please get with the program, Governor!
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
St. Petersburg Times: Governor Scott's opposition to pill mill legislation may be overcome
Opposition to prescription drug monitoring program could be softening
By Meg Laughlin, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Gov. Rick Scott continues to express doubts about Florida's prescription drug monitoring program. But there are new signs that opposition is softening to the electronic database, aimed at stemming the state's deadly trade in addictive painkillers.
• The Legislature's top supporter and opponent of the program are meeting today to hash out their differences.
• The new head of the Department of Health said Tuesday that he will implement the database, if the 2009 law creating it stands, as expected.
• And members of Scott's tea party political base say they're not opposing the program.
On Tuesday, the governor expressed concern about the epidemic that kills an average of seven Floridians a day.
"Look, the pill mill issue is a major issue in our state. And we are losing people every day. So we've got to come up with a plan that's going to solve this issue," he said.
But he repeated his fears about patient confidentiality being breached if anyone were to hack into the database, which aims to thwart "doctor shopping" by people who go from doctor to doctor, and pharmacy to pharmacy, filling duplicative prescriptions for powerful medications.
"With regard to the database, I am very uncomfortable where we are now because of privacy," Scott said.
Last week, tea party members gave state legislators a list of 11 issues that matter most to the organization. But the database didn't rate.
"The tea party is focused on the tsunami of government debt, not the prescription drug program, which we understand is to be privately funded," said Karen Jaroch, chairwoman of the 912 Project in Tampa, a tea party affiliate. "We have people for the program and against it, so we're not taking a united stand on it."
Thirty-four states already have such databases, and none have reported breaches of patient confidentiality. Still, that's a frequently voiced objection.
"Like the governor, some of us have privacy concerns about the database, but opposing it doesn't rise to the top of what we want to take on as a group," said Sharon Calvert, chairwoman of the Tampa Tea Party.
Rep. Rob Schenck, R-Spring Hill, has been adamantly opposed to the electronic data base. But Schenck will meet today with the lead supporter of the database, Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey.
"Rep. Schenck and Sen. Fasano will hash it out and come up with the best solution. They both have the same goal of stopping deaths from abuse of prescription drugs," said Schenck's spokesman, Ryan Anderson.
Fasano said he "would not compromise on repeal of the database," but is open to compromise on his new legislation calling for the state to eventually pay for the database, rather than relying on private support as the 2009 law requires. Fasano also said he supports certain parts of Schenck's bill, which would monitor drug wholesalers and limit doctors' abilities to sell pain pills directly out of their offices.
Funds already have been raised for the program, and Purdue Pharma, which makes the pain pill OxyContin, just donated $1 million. Last week, a company vice president said Purdue is "open to a conversation about long-term funding."
"A database is particularly important in Florida, not only for the state itself but because people from other states like Ohio, New York and Kentucky go there to abuse drugs," said Purdue's Alan Must.
But supporters of the monitoring program fear that even if the law is not repealed, Scott's lack of support could still doom it. That's because he supervises the state Department of Health, which would administer the program.
"If he is prepared to be outright manipulative with the Health Department, he could severely hamper the prescription monitoring program," said Dan Gelber, a former Democratic leader in the state Senate.
"He could fire anyone at Health who tries to implement the database or find other ways to stall the contract," said Gelber.
But the new chief of the Health Department said such fears are unfounded. Dr. Frank Farmer, an Ormond Beach internist and former head of the Florida Medical Association, was appointed by Scott on Tuesday to lead the department.
"If the Legislature keeps (the monitoring program) on the books in its infinite wisdom, I'll support the law that makes it a tool," Farmer said.
Times staff writers Janet Zink and Katie Sanders and researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report. Meg Laughlin can be reached at mlaughlin@sptimes.com.
[Last modified: Mar 22, 2011 09:56 PM]
Monday, March 21, 2011
Supermoon over St. Augustine (Daron Dean from St. Augustine Record)
Another beautiful day in a beautiful place -- don't stop thinking about tomorrow!
With your help, we will enact the St. Augustine National Historical Park, National Seashore and Scenic Coastal Parkway Act of 2011. See www.staugustgreen.com for details!
Harvard University/Nieman Journalism Lab: Who Owns Newspaper Companies? Banks and Other Institutional Investors
Nieman Journalism Lab logo
Who owns newspaper companies? The banks, funds, and investors and their (big) slices of the industry
By Martin Langeveld
Who owns America’s newspapers?
In January, I detailed how a hedge fund named Alden Global Capital, which played a role in the shakeup at MediaNews Group, also had significant holdings in newspaper groups Freedom Communications, Philadelphia Newspaper Holdings, Journal Register Company, Tribune, and the Canadian newspaper firm Postmedia Network — all firms with current or recent bankruptcy status.
After noticing that Alden also owned, as of December 31, 3.91 percent of Gannett’s common stock, I surveyed all of the U.S. public newspaper companies to see whether Alden pops up elsewhere as well. It turns out that, other than Alden’s stake in Gannett, there’s little crossover between the principal investors in the public companies and those that have picked up the “distressed opportunities” created by trips through bankruptcy court.
First, here’s a set of slides detailing the top investors in each of the publicly-owned newspaper publishers. I’ve included among these News Corporation (both the class A and class B common stock), but for the rest of this analysis, News Corp. is excluded because its global multimedia holdings in film, television, magazines and book dwarf the entire rest of the American newspaper business. (Note: All holding and valuations throughout this post are as of December 31, 2010
To read the charts, go to:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/03/who-owns-newspaper-companies-the-banks-funds-and-investors-and-their-big-slices-of-the-industry/#
Note that these lists include both institutional investments (banks, pension funds, hedge funds) and mutual funds (pooled investments owned by individuals or corporations). Either way, the listed investor can vote the shares and in theory could influence strategy — but without board seats real influence is minimal. Most of these investors are looking for growth or dividends, not operational involvement.
What stands out on these slides is that, with a few exceptions, ownership is diversified to the point that no single entity owns more than 10 percent. The exceptions are noteworthy but are longstanding stakes that don’t point to the kind of financial restructuring that Alden and others are signaling in the private post-bankruptcy sector of the business. The entire 10-percent-plus club consists of:
* Edward W. Scripps Trust: 22.55 percent of E.W. Scripps. (The trust was established in 1922 for the benefit of Scripps heirs and has not invested outside of the Scripps group of papers.)
* Berkshire Hathaway: 20.45 percent of Washington Post Company. (Also a long-term investment, acquired more than 30 years ago — Warren Buffett said recently he would never sell a single share, even though he was stepping down from the Post board.)
* Ariel Investments: 18.95 percent of Lee Enterprises
* GAMCO Investors: 13.07 percent of Journal Communications
* Rupert Murdoch: 39.71 percent of News Corp. Class B common stock. (This gives Murdoch effective control, but in terms of market capitalization, his stake is just 13.1 percent.)
Which investors are making the biggest bets in the newspaper business? To find out, I aggregated and ranked the total newspaper holdings of all of the top investors in each company. Here’s the result (leaving out News Corp., as noted above):
Berkshire Hathaway‘s Washington Post Company holding, it turns out, is the biggest single investment in U.S. newspapers, with a current value of $759 million. Not far behind, though, is Vanguard, with $703 million invested through a variety of funds in every public newspaper company: Washington Post, A.H. Belo, Gannett, Journal Communications, McClatchy, New York Times, Scripps, Media General, and Lee Enterprises. If this were one big company, Vanguard would own 6.74 percent of it.
As Wall Street investments go, though, Vanguard’s across-the-board bet on newspapers is smaller than a rounding error — it has $1.4 trillion in invested assets, so its newspaper holdings are about 1/20th of a percent of its investments. And, to put the U.S. publishers in perspective versus the News Corp. juggernaut, Vanguard’s investment in News Corp. alone is worth $2.5 billion.
After Berkshire Hathaway and Vanguard, the list drops quickly to smaller investments by JP Morgan Chase ($543 million), Ariel Investments ($497 million), and BlackRock ($335 million). (BlackRock, with $3.6 trillion under management, is the world’s largest money manager and the sixth-largest owner of Gannett stock.)
A few names do cross over between the “distressed opportunities” investors I listed last month and those with some holdings of public (and not-quite-as-distressed) newspaper companies. They include:
* Alden Global Capital: As noted above, it has a major stake in Gannett; it also owns 1.53 percent of McClatchy and 0.75% of Media General.
* Credit Suisse: An investor in the Philadelphia Media Network, it also has 3.56 percent of A.H. Belo, 2.59 percent of Journal Communications, 3.26 percent of McClatchy, and 3.21 percent of Gannett.
* JP Morgan Chase: With distressed holdings in Tribune, it also controls, through several funds, 4.07 percent of A.H. Belo, 11.50 percent of Gannett, 1.37 percent of Journal Communications, and 3.15 percent of Washington Post.
Generally, at all of these companies, the total institutional/mutual fund ownership is between 60 and 90 percent; insiders hold no more than single-digit percentages in the aggregate.
Conclusion: While Alden and others, using MediaNews as a base of operations, may be looking to engineer some mergers, consolidations, and realignments in the distressed sector, they don’t have a significant enough toehold in the more stable public sector to have a similar impact there. That doesn’t preclude the possibility of wider strategic moves beyond the potential for a MediaNews/Freedom combination (and perhaps other mergers or trades involving Tribune and Journal Register) — but they will have to result from persuasion rather than clout. MediaNews executive chairman Dean Singleton, in his new role as strategic dealmaker, will be one voice trying to do the persuading.
Who owns newspaper companies? The banks, funds, and investors and their (big) slices of the industry
By Martin Langeveld
Who owns America’s newspapers?
In January, I detailed how a hedge fund named Alden Global Capital, which played a role in the shakeup at MediaNews Group, also had significant holdings in newspaper groups Freedom Communications, Philadelphia Newspaper Holdings, Journal Register Company, Tribune, and the Canadian newspaper firm Postmedia Network — all firms with current or recent bankruptcy status.
After noticing that Alden also owned, as of December 31, 3.91 percent of Gannett’s common stock, I surveyed all of the U.S. public newspaper companies to see whether Alden pops up elsewhere as well. It turns out that, other than Alden’s stake in Gannett, there’s little crossover between the principal investors in the public companies and those that have picked up the “distressed opportunities” created by trips through bankruptcy court.
First, here’s a set of slides detailing the top investors in each of the publicly-owned newspaper publishers. I’ve included among these News Corporation (both the class A and class B common stock), but for the rest of this analysis, News Corp. is excluded because its global multimedia holdings in film, television, magazines and book dwarf the entire rest of the American newspaper business. (Note: All holding and valuations throughout this post are as of December 31, 2010
To read the charts, go to:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/03/who-owns-newspaper-companies-the-banks-funds-and-investors-and-their-big-slices-of-the-industry/#
Note that these lists include both institutional investments (banks, pension funds, hedge funds) and mutual funds (pooled investments owned by individuals or corporations). Either way, the listed investor can vote the shares and in theory could influence strategy — but without board seats real influence is minimal. Most of these investors are looking for growth or dividends, not operational involvement.
What stands out on these slides is that, with a few exceptions, ownership is diversified to the point that no single entity owns more than 10 percent. The exceptions are noteworthy but are longstanding stakes that don’t point to the kind of financial restructuring that Alden and others are signaling in the private post-bankruptcy sector of the business. The entire 10-percent-plus club consists of:
* Edward W. Scripps Trust: 22.55 percent of E.W. Scripps. (The trust was established in 1922 for the benefit of Scripps heirs and has not invested outside of the Scripps group of papers.)
* Berkshire Hathaway: 20.45 percent of Washington Post Company. (Also a long-term investment, acquired more than 30 years ago — Warren Buffett said recently he would never sell a single share, even though he was stepping down from the Post board.)
* Ariel Investments: 18.95 percent of Lee Enterprises
* GAMCO Investors: 13.07 percent of Journal Communications
* Rupert Murdoch: 39.71 percent of News Corp. Class B common stock. (This gives Murdoch effective control, but in terms of market capitalization, his stake is just 13.1 percent.)
Which investors are making the biggest bets in the newspaper business? To find out, I aggregated and ranked the total newspaper holdings of all of the top investors in each company. Here’s the result (leaving out News Corp., as noted above):
Berkshire Hathaway‘s Washington Post Company holding, it turns out, is the biggest single investment in U.S. newspapers, with a current value of $759 million. Not far behind, though, is Vanguard, with $703 million invested through a variety of funds in every public newspaper company: Washington Post, A.H. Belo, Gannett, Journal Communications, McClatchy, New York Times, Scripps, Media General, and Lee Enterprises. If this were one big company, Vanguard would own 6.74 percent of it.
As Wall Street investments go, though, Vanguard’s across-the-board bet on newspapers is smaller than a rounding error — it has $1.4 trillion in invested assets, so its newspaper holdings are about 1/20th of a percent of its investments. And, to put the U.S. publishers in perspective versus the News Corp. juggernaut, Vanguard’s investment in News Corp. alone is worth $2.5 billion.
After Berkshire Hathaway and Vanguard, the list drops quickly to smaller investments by JP Morgan Chase ($543 million), Ariel Investments ($497 million), and BlackRock ($335 million). (BlackRock, with $3.6 trillion under management, is the world’s largest money manager and the sixth-largest owner of Gannett stock.)
A few names do cross over between the “distressed opportunities” investors I listed last month and those with some holdings of public (and not-quite-as-distressed) newspaper companies. They include:
* Alden Global Capital: As noted above, it has a major stake in Gannett; it also owns 1.53 percent of McClatchy and 0.75% of Media General.
* Credit Suisse: An investor in the Philadelphia Media Network, it also has 3.56 percent of A.H. Belo, 2.59 percent of Journal Communications, 3.26 percent of McClatchy, and 3.21 percent of Gannett.
* JP Morgan Chase: With distressed holdings in Tribune, it also controls, through several funds, 4.07 percent of A.H. Belo, 11.50 percent of Gannett, 1.37 percent of Journal Communications, and 3.15 percent of Washington Post.
Generally, at all of these companies, the total institutional/mutual fund ownership is between 60 and 90 percent; insiders hold no more than single-digit percentages in the aggregate.
Conclusion: While Alden and others, using MediaNews as a base of operations, may be looking to engineer some mergers, consolidations, and realignments in the distressed sector, they don’t have a significant enough toehold in the more stable public sector to have a similar impact there. That doesn’t preclude the possibility of wider strategic moves beyond the potential for a MediaNews/Freedom combination (and perhaps other mergers or trades involving Tribune and Journal Register) — but they will have to result from persuasion rather than clout. MediaNews executive chairman Dean Singleton, in his new role as strategic dealmaker, will be one voice trying to do the persuading.
The Keynoter: State of Florida delays lawsuit over Republican footdragging over implementing state constitutional amendments on fair redistricting
Redistricting lawsuit is delayed
By KEVIN WADLOW
kwadlow@keynoter.com
Posted - Saturday, March 19, 2011 10:40 AM EDT
A federal lawsuit filed on behalf of five Monroe County residents may factor into the state redistricting process, officially triggered by this week's release of new U.S. Census Bureau numbers for Florida.
On Feb. 3, voter-rights groups and five Monroe residents sued Gov. Rick Scott and Secretary of State Kurt Browning. The suit charges that Florida officials are stalling on actions needed to implement state constitutional amendments intended to reduce gerrymandering in creating election districts.
"We are still waiting for the state to answer the complaint," said Dan Gelber, a former state senator who supports Fair District Florida, a group that campaigned for amendments 5 and 6. Both amendments passed by large margins in the November election.
The plaintiffs agreed to the state's request for an extension in filing a response, Gelber said Thursday. A response should be submitted by early April, he said.
The reason for the delay? "I think [state officials] are getting sued a lot," Gelber said.
Lower Keys residents Charles Major Jr., Sarah Fowler, Rosanne Potter, Michael E. Berman and Patricia M. Lenny are the only individuals listed as plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
Monroe is one of five Florida counties under special federal elections oversight due to "a long history of racial discrimination," according to the suit, so local residents have standing
By KEVIN WADLOW
kwadlow@keynoter.com
Posted - Saturday, March 19, 2011 10:40 AM EDT
A federal lawsuit filed on behalf of five Monroe County residents may factor into the state redistricting process, officially triggered by this week's release of new U.S. Census Bureau numbers for Florida.
On Feb. 3, voter-rights groups and five Monroe residents sued Gov. Rick Scott and Secretary of State Kurt Browning. The suit charges that Florida officials are stalling on actions needed to implement state constitutional amendments intended to reduce gerrymandering in creating election districts.
"We are still waiting for the state to answer the complaint," said Dan Gelber, a former state senator who supports Fair District Florida, a group that campaigned for amendments 5 and 6. Both amendments passed by large margins in the November election.
The plaintiffs agreed to the state's request for an extension in filing a response, Gelber said Thursday. A response should be submitted by early April, he said.
The reason for the delay? "I think [state officials] are getting sued a lot," Gelber said.
Lower Keys residents Charles Major Jr., Sarah Fowler, Rosanne Potter, Michael E. Berman and Patricia M. Lenny are the only individuals listed as plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
Monroe is one of five Florida counties under special federal elections oversight due to "a long history of racial discrimination," according to the suit, so local residents have standing
NRC will investigate safety of US nuclear powerplants in disasters, including FP&L's Turkey Point
Regulators to investigate safety of U.S. nuclear plants
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
By Julie Patel March 21, 2011 12:25 PM
Federal nuclear regulators said today that they will verify the safety of emergency plans and equipment at 104 existing U.S. nuclear reactors in the next 30 days and will conduct deeper investigations in the next 90 days.
But there are no changes planned yet for how regulators will review proposed reactors and reactor expansions.
The U.S. Regulatory Commission met today to receive an update on problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, which is considered close to being stabilized. The Commission also discussed its plans in light of President Barack Obama’s request last week that the agency do a comprehensive review of existing plants.
The deeper review, based on findings of what precisely went wrong at Fukushima, will evaluate how U.S. reactors protect against natural disasters, blackouts and severe accidents of used nuclear fuel and whether new rules or regulations are needed, said Bill Borchardt, the NRC's executive director of operations.
Nuclear plant operators are also working to double-check their safety systems and plans, according to an industry trade group. Florida has five nuclear reactors, two Florida Power and Light's Turkey Point plant near Miami, two at its plant in St. Lucie County, and one at Progress Energy's plant near Crystal River.
FPL has proposed building two new reactors at Turkey Point and expanding all four of the existing reactors. Progress Energy wants to build two new reactors in Levy County. The NRC is evaluating the proposals.
"None of the existing schedules on [expansions], licensing reviews or anything else have changed as a result of the events in Japan," Joey Ledford, an NRC spokesman, wrote in an email. He said the agency expects to finish its review this fall of a proposed 15 percent expansion of the power produced by the existing Turkey Point reactors and it's not sure yet about a 12 percent expansion of the St. Lucie reactors.
The NRC decided late last month to allow opponents of new reactors proposed by FPL to raise several concerns. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and National Parks Conservation Association will be able to raise questions on possible groundwater contamination from FPL's plan to move water used to cool the reactors into the Florida aquifer.
The Citizens Allied for Safe Energy will be allowed to raise two issues related to the environmental and safety impacts of where FPL will store low level nuclear waste in the long-term. FPL says it plans to ship the waste somewhere away from the plant but the NRC wrote that "at this juncture of the proceeding, however, we are not able to conclude, based on the present record, that FPL will in fact be able to do so."
The NRC rejected more than two dozen other concerns opponents raised. For instance, CASE alleged that FPL failed to "consider the impact of projected sea level rise, storm surge, and site inundations that could result in the dispersal of [low-level radioactive waste] off the Turkey Point site," the NRC wrote. "We conclude CASE fails to explain why such a scenario is plausible, much less reasonably foreseeable."
The regulators also said CASE's concern was premised on assumptions that are not part of FPL's plan.
"I wonder if any of them would buy a home in Leisure City or Homestead," wrote Barry White, a CASE member, after the NRC issued its decision.
The agency plans to ask for more information on safety issues in May and to release an initial report on environmental issues in October.
The NRC plans to issue an initial safety report on the expansion proposed by Progress Energy in September and a draft of responses to environmental concerns in November.
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
By Julie Patel March 21, 2011 12:25 PM
Federal nuclear regulators said today that they will verify the safety of emergency plans and equipment at 104 existing U.S. nuclear reactors in the next 30 days and will conduct deeper investigations in the next 90 days.
But there are no changes planned yet for how regulators will review proposed reactors and reactor expansions.
The U.S. Regulatory Commission met today to receive an update on problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, which is considered close to being stabilized. The Commission also discussed its plans in light of President Barack Obama’s request last week that the agency do a comprehensive review of existing plants.
The deeper review, based on findings of what precisely went wrong at Fukushima, will evaluate how U.S. reactors protect against natural disasters, blackouts and severe accidents of used nuclear fuel and whether new rules or regulations are needed, said Bill Borchardt, the NRC's executive director of operations.
Nuclear plant operators are also working to double-check their safety systems and plans, according to an industry trade group. Florida has five nuclear reactors, two Florida Power and Light's Turkey Point plant near Miami, two at its plant in St. Lucie County, and one at Progress Energy's plant near Crystal River.
FPL has proposed building two new reactors at Turkey Point and expanding all four of the existing reactors. Progress Energy wants to build two new reactors in Levy County. The NRC is evaluating the proposals.
"None of the existing schedules on [expansions], licensing reviews or anything else have changed as a result of the events in Japan," Joey Ledford, an NRC spokesman, wrote in an email. He said the agency expects to finish its review this fall of a proposed 15 percent expansion of the power produced by the existing Turkey Point reactors and it's not sure yet about a 12 percent expansion of the St. Lucie reactors.
The NRC decided late last month to allow opponents of new reactors proposed by FPL to raise several concerns. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and National Parks Conservation Association will be able to raise questions on possible groundwater contamination from FPL's plan to move water used to cool the reactors into the Florida aquifer.
The Citizens Allied for Safe Energy will be allowed to raise two issues related to the environmental and safety impacts of where FPL will store low level nuclear waste in the long-term. FPL says it plans to ship the waste somewhere away from the plant but the NRC wrote that "at this juncture of the proceeding, however, we are not able to conclude, based on the present record, that FPL will in fact be able to do so."
The NRC rejected more than two dozen other concerns opponents raised. For instance, CASE alleged that FPL failed to "consider the impact of projected sea level rise, storm surge, and site inundations that could result in the dispersal of [low-level radioactive waste] off the Turkey Point site," the NRC wrote. "We conclude CASE fails to explain why such a scenario is plausible, much less reasonably foreseeable."
The regulators also said CASE's concern was premised on assumptions that are not part of FPL's plan.
"I wonder if any of them would buy a home in Leisure City or Homestead," wrote Barry White, a CASE member, after the NRC issued its decision.
The agency plans to ask for more information on safety issues in May and to release an initial report on environmental issues in October.
The NRC plans to issue an initial safety report on the expansion proposed by Progress Energy in September and a draft of responses to environmental concerns in November.
Miami Herald: Could a nuclear accident happen at FP&L's Turkey Point Nuclear powerplant?
The Miami Herald
Posted on Sat, Mar. 19, 2011
Despite approval, critics question new Turkey Point reactor design
By Curtis Morgan
Turkey Point nuclear plant
Lynne Sladky / AP
Turkey Point nuclear plant
The next-generation reactors Florida Power & Light hopes to install at Turkey Point have been touted as simpler and safer, boasting an emergency cooling system that automatically kicks on during a power loss like the one that sparked the crisis at a Japanese plant.
A tank high atop the Westinghouse AP 1000 holds 780,000 gallons of water. That’s enough, Westinghouse calculates, to control reactor heat for 72 hours — without electricity or anyone even pushing a button. Instead, the system relies on gravity to deliver water and on evaporation and condensation to re-circulate it until generators or outside power can be brought on line.
The “passive” cooling design was a key reason FPL selected the unit for its proposal to add two reactors to Turkey Point, said spokesman Michael Waldron. “Every decision made by this company from the line worker to the CEO is done with, first and foremost, safety in mind.’’
But critics contend the AP 1000 — also picked by Progress Energy for a new plant in Levy County and the leading model in the nuclear power industry’s expansion plans — may have flaws that could make it less safe under assault from an earthquake, tornado or hurricane and leave it more exposed to damaging corrosion along the salty coastline of South Biscayne Bay.
In a March 7 letter, sent before Japan’s 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revaluate its all-but-final approval of the AP 1000, citing concerns raised by John Ma, the agency’s own lead structural reviewer for the design.
An outer shield building that serves as first line of defense was too brittle, Markey wrote, and could fail during a quake or “if struck by an airplane or an automobile or other missile carried by a storm. In fact, Dr. Ma warned that if the AP 1000 shield was struck it could shatter like a glass cup.”
Failure of the building, Markey’s letter said, could expose the steel reactor containment vessel inside to damage. It also could potentially compromise the massive tank holding more than 3,000 tons of water atop the 130-foot structure.
Another analysis commissioned by environmental groups last year questioned whether the steel containment vessel — a critical barrier against accidental radiation release — was too vulnerable to rust that could cause dangerous holes and cracks, which have been discovered in a half-dozen older reactors nationwide.
Arnie Gundersen, a Vermont-based nuclear engineer and consultant who authored that study, said the flaws potentially could undermine the AP 1000’s safety features.
“There is a concept in the nuclear industry called a single point of vulnerability,’’ Gundersen said. “Remember, Goliath was a pretty tough guy but there was a hole in his armor.’’
After more than five years of review, and numerous design changes, the NRC announced last month that it had approved the AP 1000, pending a public comment period ending May 10.
The NRC has not yet responded to the letter from Markey, a longtime critic of the industry and agency. But spokesman Roger Hannah said, “We don’t see any reason to believe at this point that the overall AP 1000 design doesn’t meet all safety requirements.’’
The AP 1000 and other new designs, he said, are all intended to provide a “greater margin of safety” than existing facilities. But Hannah stressed regulators also intend to scrutinize the disaster in Japan and apply any lessons learned to domestic reactors.
If nuclear power maintains its public and political support, the AP 1000 stands to be in wide use over the next decade. Half of the NRC’s 28 pending reactor applications are AP 1000s — with projects proposed for Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. China also has purchased four and is scheduled to flick the switch on the first new-generation nuclear reactor in 2013.
Older designs, such as the ones at FPL’s Turkey Point and St. Lucie County plants, encased reactors in steel containment vessels surrounded by several feet of concrete that acts as a secondary barrier to accidental radiation release.
The AP 1000 design is, as Gundersen puts it, “entirely different.” It employs a single steel vessel around the reactor — but with a wall more than four times thicker, at 1.75 inches, than older steel linings. Another change is a reactor shield building, constructed of a concrete-steel composite, which works as protection from the elements and terrorist attacks and as a thermal vent. The design allows air from outside to flow around the vessel, shunting heat out a rooftop hole, much like a chimney.
While the thicker steel vessel is good, Gundersen believes the design removes the concrete radiation barrier while inviting rust in places difficult to inspect and could worsen accidents by spewing out radioactive isotopes through its chimney.
For the nuclear industry, securing NRC certification for the AP 1000 represents a milestone in a nuclear revival now threatened by the disaster in Japan. It’s the furthest along in a new generation of reactors designed to improve safety and the operator’s bottom line. Westinghouse claims it will cost less to build and operate and last longer, up to 60 years.
The design dramatically reduces potential trouble spots by reducing components — valves by 50 percent and piping by 80 percent. The reduction in components also means a reduction in the size of the earthquake-proof structures operators must build — a huge savings for many operators. At the same time, the company says, NRC’s risk models suggest it will be 100 times less likely to suffer core damage than current reactors.
Westinghouse, FPL and the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s policy organization in Washington, D.C., all defend the design, saying it meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements that it withstand the worst quakes and other natural forces — as well as airplane strikes.
Turkey Point, FPL’s Waldron points out, has already weathered Category 5 Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The plant, with its reactors shut down as a standard precaution, lost a fuel tank and some backup generators but never lost cooling capacity. Waldron said the federal review process should ensure that the AP 1000 is equally robust. And South Florida is not considered at any serious seismic risk.
“In the nuclear industry, we’re not going to compromise when it comes to safety,’’ he said.
The NRC and its independent panel, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, had examined issues raised by Ma, Gundersen and others, said NEI spokesman Mitch Singer. He dismissed the concerns, saying they were pushed by groups with anti-nuclear agendas.
“They would like to see no nuclear and of course they would be critical of any reactor design,’’ he said.
Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert said the shield building has been exhaustively reviewed and thoroughly tested in the lab and with computer modeling that replicates earthquake and aircraft strikes.
“A broad spectrum of industry experts have revived the design and concurred with the NRC’s conclusion that it is a safe design,’’ Gilbert said in an e-mail.
But NRC approval, announced in February, came with an internal dissent from Ma, who filed a “non-concurrence’’ statement last November. Even after Westinghouse redesigned the shield building walls after an initial NRC rejection, Markey’s letter said Ma still found points of concern.
Among those detailed in Markey’s letter: Sections of a first-of-its-kind steel-concrete module to be used in much of the building “failed miserably” in a direct physical test of its toughness. Ma also questioned whether Westinghouse’s computer models overstated the ability of the structure to withstand violent seismic shaking. The design, Ma wrote, also did not meet codes set by the American Concrete Institute requiring the structure to be flexible enough to absorb quake shocks.
The NRC noted it would “advantageous’’ to develop such a ductility standard for the new design but approved the design anyway.
Hannah, from the NRC , said Ma’s letter was “an expected part of the process’’ intended to ensure issues were throughly vetted. The NRC found that while Ma’s changes might be an improvement, the design still meets safety standards and, Hannah said, changes could still be ordered to address site-specific issues, such as hurricanes.
There have long been concerns about the nation’s aging nuclear plants. Almost all of the 104 operating reactors are at least 20 years old and half are 30 years old or older. Turkey Point, the oldest plant in Florida, will mark its 40th year of operation next year, but FPL’s Waldron said all “critical components’’ undergo a constant cycle of upgrades and replacement.
But industry critics remain skeptical.
Mark Oncavage, conservation chair for the Sierra Club in South Florida who has long monitored Turkey Point, said newer designs continue — among other issues — to treat potentially volatile spent fuel, stored in large volumes in pools, in buildings that aren’t as strong or secure as reactors.
But the overriding concern about the AP 1000, he said, is that “none of them have been built and proven yet. It’s an experimental design.’’
Gundersen believes the last reactors built in the 1980s had ironed out most problems and should be what the industry builds in the future. Newer designs, he said, stress economic savings along with safety.
He and David Lochbaum, director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, also question the glowing safety numbers produced by the NRC’s risk models. With fewer components, routine operating risks might be lowered, Lochbaum said, but he doubts they’ll endure natural disaster any better.
“We don’t think new plant designs are significantly safer than the current ones,’’ he said.
© 2011 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/19/v-print/2124260/despite-approval-critics-question.html#ixzz1HGlmofUb
Posted on Sat, Mar. 19, 2011
Despite approval, critics question new Turkey Point reactor design
By Curtis Morgan
Turkey Point nuclear plant
Lynne Sladky / AP
Turkey Point nuclear plant
The next-generation reactors Florida Power & Light hopes to install at Turkey Point have been touted as simpler and safer, boasting an emergency cooling system that automatically kicks on during a power loss like the one that sparked the crisis at a Japanese plant.
A tank high atop the Westinghouse AP 1000 holds 780,000 gallons of water. That’s enough, Westinghouse calculates, to control reactor heat for 72 hours — without electricity or anyone even pushing a button. Instead, the system relies on gravity to deliver water and on evaporation and condensation to re-circulate it until generators or outside power can be brought on line.
The “passive” cooling design was a key reason FPL selected the unit for its proposal to add two reactors to Turkey Point, said spokesman Michael Waldron. “Every decision made by this company from the line worker to the CEO is done with, first and foremost, safety in mind.’’
But critics contend the AP 1000 — also picked by Progress Energy for a new plant in Levy County and the leading model in the nuclear power industry’s expansion plans — may have flaws that could make it less safe under assault from an earthquake, tornado or hurricane and leave it more exposed to damaging corrosion along the salty coastline of South Biscayne Bay.
In a March 7 letter, sent before Japan’s 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revaluate its all-but-final approval of the AP 1000, citing concerns raised by John Ma, the agency’s own lead structural reviewer for the design.
An outer shield building that serves as first line of defense was too brittle, Markey wrote, and could fail during a quake or “if struck by an airplane or an automobile or other missile carried by a storm. In fact, Dr. Ma warned that if the AP 1000 shield was struck it could shatter like a glass cup.”
Failure of the building, Markey’s letter said, could expose the steel reactor containment vessel inside to damage. It also could potentially compromise the massive tank holding more than 3,000 tons of water atop the 130-foot structure.
Another analysis commissioned by environmental groups last year questioned whether the steel containment vessel — a critical barrier against accidental radiation release — was too vulnerable to rust that could cause dangerous holes and cracks, which have been discovered in a half-dozen older reactors nationwide.
Arnie Gundersen, a Vermont-based nuclear engineer and consultant who authored that study, said the flaws potentially could undermine the AP 1000’s safety features.
“There is a concept in the nuclear industry called a single point of vulnerability,’’ Gundersen said. “Remember, Goliath was a pretty tough guy but there was a hole in his armor.’’
After more than five years of review, and numerous design changes, the NRC announced last month that it had approved the AP 1000, pending a public comment period ending May 10.
The NRC has not yet responded to the letter from Markey, a longtime critic of the industry and agency. But spokesman Roger Hannah said, “We don’t see any reason to believe at this point that the overall AP 1000 design doesn’t meet all safety requirements.’’
The AP 1000 and other new designs, he said, are all intended to provide a “greater margin of safety” than existing facilities. But Hannah stressed regulators also intend to scrutinize the disaster in Japan and apply any lessons learned to domestic reactors.
If nuclear power maintains its public and political support, the AP 1000 stands to be in wide use over the next decade. Half of the NRC’s 28 pending reactor applications are AP 1000s — with projects proposed for Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. China also has purchased four and is scheduled to flick the switch on the first new-generation nuclear reactor in 2013.
Older designs, such as the ones at FPL’s Turkey Point and St. Lucie County plants, encased reactors in steel containment vessels surrounded by several feet of concrete that acts as a secondary barrier to accidental radiation release.
The AP 1000 design is, as Gundersen puts it, “entirely different.” It employs a single steel vessel around the reactor — but with a wall more than four times thicker, at 1.75 inches, than older steel linings. Another change is a reactor shield building, constructed of a concrete-steel composite, which works as protection from the elements and terrorist attacks and as a thermal vent. The design allows air from outside to flow around the vessel, shunting heat out a rooftop hole, much like a chimney.
While the thicker steel vessel is good, Gundersen believes the design removes the concrete radiation barrier while inviting rust in places difficult to inspect and could worsen accidents by spewing out radioactive isotopes through its chimney.
For the nuclear industry, securing NRC certification for the AP 1000 represents a milestone in a nuclear revival now threatened by the disaster in Japan. It’s the furthest along in a new generation of reactors designed to improve safety and the operator’s bottom line. Westinghouse claims it will cost less to build and operate and last longer, up to 60 years.
The design dramatically reduces potential trouble spots by reducing components — valves by 50 percent and piping by 80 percent. The reduction in components also means a reduction in the size of the earthquake-proof structures operators must build — a huge savings for many operators. At the same time, the company says, NRC’s risk models suggest it will be 100 times less likely to suffer core damage than current reactors.
Westinghouse, FPL and the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s policy organization in Washington, D.C., all defend the design, saying it meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements that it withstand the worst quakes and other natural forces — as well as airplane strikes.
Turkey Point, FPL’s Waldron points out, has already weathered Category 5 Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The plant, with its reactors shut down as a standard precaution, lost a fuel tank and some backup generators but never lost cooling capacity. Waldron said the federal review process should ensure that the AP 1000 is equally robust. And South Florida is not considered at any serious seismic risk.
“In the nuclear industry, we’re not going to compromise when it comes to safety,’’ he said.
The NRC and its independent panel, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, had examined issues raised by Ma, Gundersen and others, said NEI spokesman Mitch Singer. He dismissed the concerns, saying they were pushed by groups with anti-nuclear agendas.
“They would like to see no nuclear and of course they would be critical of any reactor design,’’ he said.
Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert said the shield building has been exhaustively reviewed and thoroughly tested in the lab and with computer modeling that replicates earthquake and aircraft strikes.
“A broad spectrum of industry experts have revived the design and concurred with the NRC’s conclusion that it is a safe design,’’ Gilbert said in an e-mail.
But NRC approval, announced in February, came with an internal dissent from Ma, who filed a “non-concurrence’’ statement last November. Even after Westinghouse redesigned the shield building walls after an initial NRC rejection, Markey’s letter said Ma still found points of concern.
Among those detailed in Markey’s letter: Sections of a first-of-its-kind steel-concrete module to be used in much of the building “failed miserably” in a direct physical test of its toughness. Ma also questioned whether Westinghouse’s computer models overstated the ability of the structure to withstand violent seismic shaking. The design, Ma wrote, also did not meet codes set by the American Concrete Institute requiring the structure to be flexible enough to absorb quake shocks.
The NRC noted it would “advantageous’’ to develop such a ductility standard for the new design but approved the design anyway.
Hannah, from the NRC , said Ma’s letter was “an expected part of the process’’ intended to ensure issues were throughly vetted. The NRC found that while Ma’s changes might be an improvement, the design still meets safety standards and, Hannah said, changes could still be ordered to address site-specific issues, such as hurricanes.
There have long been concerns about the nation’s aging nuclear plants. Almost all of the 104 operating reactors are at least 20 years old and half are 30 years old or older. Turkey Point, the oldest plant in Florida, will mark its 40th year of operation next year, but FPL’s Waldron said all “critical components’’ undergo a constant cycle of upgrades and replacement.
But industry critics remain skeptical.
Mark Oncavage, conservation chair for the Sierra Club in South Florida who has long monitored Turkey Point, said newer designs continue — among other issues — to treat potentially volatile spent fuel, stored in large volumes in pools, in buildings that aren’t as strong or secure as reactors.
But the overriding concern about the AP 1000, he said, is that “none of them have been built and proven yet. It’s an experimental design.’’
Gundersen believes the last reactors built in the 1980s had ironed out most problems and should be what the industry builds in the future. Newer designs, he said, stress economic savings along with safety.
He and David Lochbaum, director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, also question the glowing safety numbers produced by the NRC’s risk models. With fewer components, routine operating risks might be lowered, Lochbaum said, but he doubts they’ll endure natural disaster any better.
“We don’t think new plant designs are significantly safer than the current ones,’’ he said.
© 2011 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/19/v-print/2124260/despite-approval-critics-question.html#ixzz1HGlmofUb
USDOJ Press Release/KNS -- Tenn. Businessman Sentenced to Six Months in Prison for Burning a Cross on Lawn of Interracial Couple (Including Niece)
Convicted cross-burner STEVEN DEWAYNE ARCHER is going to federal prison
white spacer
For Immediate Release
March 18, 2011 United States Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of Tennessee
Contact: (865) 545-4167
Anderson County Man Receives Six-Month Prison Sentence for Cross-Burning
KNOXVILLE, TN—Steven D. Archer, 50, Heiskell, Tennessee, was sentenced today by the Honorable Thomas W. Phillips, U.S. District Judge, to serve six months in federal prison, followed by six months of community confinement. This sentence follows Archer's July 1, 2011, conviction for willfully interfering with a couple’s federal housing rights because of their race by burning a wooden cross outside the Anderson County residence occupied by the victims—a Caucasian female and an African-American male.
The cross-burning occured on July 23, 2008, and the proof at trial demonstrated that Archer built a wooden cross at his place of business and transported it to the front yard of the victims’ residence. The evidence also showed that before setting fire to the cross, Archer wrapped the cross in fuel-soaked cloth and attached .22 caliber blank shells to the cross, which exploded as the cross burned. Archer admitted burning the cross, but denied a racial motivation. A federal court jury found otherwise and convicted Archer of violating the victims’ federal housing rights.
“Cross-burning is a despicable act of hatred and intolerance,” said U.S. Attorney Bill Killian, and further added, “Americans of all races should be free to live where they choose, undisturbed by such deplorable conduct. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in conjunction with the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, will aggresively investigate cross-burnings and all other hate crimes.”
This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Trey Hamilton represented the United States.
--------
Knoxville News-Sentinel
Cross-burner gets six months in prison
A Knoxville businessman who insisted he burned a cross to protect his family will spend six months in federal prison.
Steven Dewayne Archer, 51, of Heiskell claimed he set a cross - complete with blank .22-caliber shells as trimmings - ablaze on July 23, 2008, in front of the home his white niece shared with her black fiance for personal, not racial, reasons. He didn't convince a jury - or U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips.
Phillips sentenced Archer, the operator of City Auto Glass on Magnolia Avenue, to six months in prison Friday, along with another six months in a federal halfway house. The halfway house is also on Magnolia Avenue. Upon finishing the sentence, Archer must spend two years on supervised release.
The cross-burning happened in the yard of Emily Devente and Billy Woodruff near the Knox-Anderson county line. Archer claimed he wanted to intimidate Woodruff personally because he considered Woodruff a drug dealer and a thief. An employee testified, however, that Archer habitually used racial slurs.
"Although no one was physically hurt in this offense, it was an act intended to intimidate the victim because of his race," the judge said. "The court takes that very seriously."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Trey Hamilton objected to the sentence, saying the law called for Archer to serve at least a year behind bars. The judge overruled, saying the split sentence met the requirement.
Archer's lawyer, James A.H. Bell, asked the judge to let Archer stay free on bond until he decided whether to appeal the conviction.
"If he is incarcerated (now), by the time we got the appeal heard, he'd have served his sentence," Bell said.
The judge said no, and deputy U.S. marshals took Archer into custody.
Matt Lakin may be reached at 865-342-6306.
Get Copyright Permissions © 2011, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2011 Knoxville News Sentinel. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
More progress needed on African-American and Civil RIghts tourism in St. Augustine, Florida
Our view: Black heritage tourism making progress
Created 02/27/2011 - 1:17am
St. Augustine Record editorial
St. Augustine's African-American history used to consist of stories handed down from one generation to another, rarely shared outside the black community.
St. Augustine's African-American history used to consist of stories handed down from one generation to another, rarely shared outside the black community.
African-Americans are rooted in the city's history back to its founding in 1565 by Pedro Menendez of Aviles. By 1738, Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose (Fort Mose) -- was the first free black town in what is now the United States. Two centuries later, the acclaimed leader of the civil rights movement, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., answered the call for help from Dr. Robert B. Hayling, a local dentist. St. Augustine's place in the nation's civil rights history was assured for the pivotal role the city's strife in the summer of 1964 played in the passage of the Civil Rights Art.
St. Augustine's African-American heritage now comes to life in the well-documented and highly visible markers along the 40th ACCORD Freedom Trail, in the visitor center of Fort Mose Historic State Park and in the Excelsior Museum & Cultural Center in the heart of Lincolnville, the city's historically African-American community.
Ambassador Andrew Young, a former Atlanta mayor and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has donated the interviews linked to a documentary, "Crossing in St. Augustine," to Flagler College for a digital archive. The documentary tells the story of Young and other demonstrators who were beaten by whites in the city's Plaza de la Constitucion in June 1964.
St. Augustine updated its official tour guide test/manual to expand its black history information in 2009. Walking tours and trolley and trailer train tours now highlight Lincolnville and the city's black history as they do other parts of our heritage.
The Foot Soldiers Remembrance monument, a sculpture honoring the heroes and sheroes of St. Augustine's civil rights era, is expected to be installed this year in the Plaza.
Looking ahead, First America Foundation, Inc., the non profit organization formed to create events for the city's 450th anniversary, 2012-2015, will focus in 2014, the 50th anniversary of the civil rights movement in St. Augustine.
Mayor Joe Boles has organized a steering committee to consider the creation of a St. Augustine Civil Rights Museum, too.
Certainly St. Augustine will play a role in the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, another point for African-American history to be showcased.
A future link is in the works to the National Park Service's Gullah-Geechee Cultural Corridor. It emphasizes the route slaves took in the 1600s to Spanish St. Augustine and freedom via an "underground railway."
On Monday, the Tourist Development Council will discuss the upcoming contract with the St. Johns County Cultural Council as the new manager of the Category II Art and Culture bed-tax grants starting in October. The Category I bed-tax tourism promotion funds are administered by the Visitor and Convention Bureau. Both these categories can bring more visibility to our African-American heritage tourism opportunities.
The goal of the bed-tax, the county's four percent tax on overnight paid lodging, is to get visitors to stay longer.
As we conclude Black History Month in St. Johns County, we see much progress in telling the city's African-American story but much more to be done. We encourage the TDC to establish a committee to formally link the TDC with 40th ACCORD, the Excelsior Museum & Cultural Center, Fort Mose Historic State Park, First America Foundation, Inc., and Flagler College to ensure that the our African-American story becomes as well known to residents and visitors as our place in history as the nation's oldest continuing European settlement.
Created 02/27/2011 - 1:17am
St. Augustine Record editorial
St. Augustine's African-American history used to consist of stories handed down from one generation to another, rarely shared outside the black community.
St. Augustine's African-American history used to consist of stories handed down from one generation to another, rarely shared outside the black community.
African-Americans are rooted in the city's history back to its founding in 1565 by Pedro Menendez of Aviles. By 1738, Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose (Fort Mose) -- was the first free black town in what is now the United States. Two centuries later, the acclaimed leader of the civil rights movement, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., answered the call for help from Dr. Robert B. Hayling, a local dentist. St. Augustine's place in the nation's civil rights history was assured for the pivotal role the city's strife in the summer of 1964 played in the passage of the Civil Rights Art.
St. Augustine's African-American heritage now comes to life in the well-documented and highly visible markers along the 40th ACCORD Freedom Trail, in the visitor center of Fort Mose Historic State Park and in the Excelsior Museum & Cultural Center in the heart of Lincolnville, the city's historically African-American community.
Ambassador Andrew Young, a former Atlanta mayor and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has donated the interviews linked to a documentary, "Crossing in St. Augustine," to Flagler College for a digital archive. The documentary tells the story of Young and other demonstrators who were beaten by whites in the city's Plaza de la Constitucion in June 1964.
St. Augustine updated its official tour guide test/manual to expand its black history information in 2009. Walking tours and trolley and trailer train tours now highlight Lincolnville and the city's black history as they do other parts of our heritage.
The Foot Soldiers Remembrance monument, a sculpture honoring the heroes and sheroes of St. Augustine's civil rights era, is expected to be installed this year in the Plaza.
Looking ahead, First America Foundation, Inc., the non profit organization formed to create events for the city's 450th anniversary, 2012-2015, will focus in 2014, the 50th anniversary of the civil rights movement in St. Augustine.
Mayor Joe Boles has organized a steering committee to consider the creation of a St. Augustine Civil Rights Museum, too.
Certainly St. Augustine will play a role in the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, another point for African-American history to be showcased.
A future link is in the works to the National Park Service's Gullah-Geechee Cultural Corridor. It emphasizes the route slaves took in the 1600s to Spanish St. Augustine and freedom via an "underground railway."
On Monday, the Tourist Development Council will discuss the upcoming contract with the St. Johns County Cultural Council as the new manager of the Category II Art and Culture bed-tax grants starting in October. The Category I bed-tax tourism promotion funds are administered by the Visitor and Convention Bureau. Both these categories can bring more visibility to our African-American heritage tourism opportunities.
The goal of the bed-tax, the county's four percent tax on overnight paid lodging, is to get visitors to stay longer.
As we conclude Black History Month in St. Johns County, we see much progress in telling the city's African-American story but much more to be done. We encourage the TDC to establish a committee to formally link the TDC with 40th ACCORD, the Excelsior Museum & Cultural Center, Fort Mose Historic State Park, First America Foundation, Inc., and Flagler College to ensure that the our African-American story becomes as well known to residents and visitors as our place in history as the nation's oldest continuing European settlement.
Traffic congestion must be resolved in time for St. Augustine's 4t0th Celebration
Letter: Traffic jams won't help 450th celebration
By Mary Anne Augustyn
Created 03/15/2011 - 12:00am
St. Augustine Record
Editor: I hope the folks who are in charge of the 450th celebration were in town on March 12. The traffic jams were unbelievable!
It took us 45 minutes to go eight miles. Traffic on May Street was backed up halfway across the Vilano Bridge. San Marco Avenue was backed up all the way back to U.S. 1 near Schooners on the north, and U.S. 1 was backed up all the way to State Road 207 on the south. Wonder who made the plans for all the celebrations taking place this weekend?
We will never be able to accomodate tourists and locals for the 450th without a lot more parking facilities, which I am sad to say, probably will never happen.
If you need to come up with more money, how about getting permission to fine the people who ride their bikes across the Bridge of Lions?
Mary Anne Augustyn
St. Augustine
By Mary Anne Augustyn
Created 03/15/2011 - 12:00am
St. Augustine Record
Editor: I hope the folks who are in charge of the 450th celebration were in town on March 12. The traffic jams were unbelievable!
It took us 45 minutes to go eight miles. Traffic on May Street was backed up halfway across the Vilano Bridge. San Marco Avenue was backed up all the way back to U.S. 1 near Schooners on the north, and U.S. 1 was backed up all the way to State Road 207 on the south. Wonder who made the plans for all the celebrations taking place this weekend?
We will never be able to accomodate tourists and locals for the 450th without a lot more parking facilities, which I am sad to say, probably will never happen.
If you need to come up with more money, how about getting permission to fine the people who ride their bikes across the Bridge of Lions?
Mary Anne Augustyn
St. Augustine
POLITICO/SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER: U.S. REP. JOHN MICA VISITED ITALY AND AFGHANISTAN WITH REP. NANCY PELOSI, et al. DURING RECESS
http://www.seattlepi.com/politico/437433_politico51652.html
Pelosi released from hospital in Rome
Monday, March 21, 2011
Last updated 8:35 a.m. PT
By
POLITICO
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was released from an Italian hospital after a brief stay Monday.
Pelosi's office did not have an immediate comment, but the AFP reported that she felt "unwell."
The Californian is leading a trip to Italy with Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), John Mica (R-Fla.) and Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa). They also visited Afghanistan, while the House is in recess.
The trip was to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Italian unification. Pelosi, 70, was invited by the president of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, according to her office. She had plans to get briefed on military actions in Africa and Asia, and meet with top Italian officials. While in Afghanistan, the delegation met with U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a member of the Politico Network.
© 1998-2011 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Ironically, Rep. JOHN LUIGI MICA blasted his 2012 opponent and tried to tie her to Nancy Pelosi. See below:
Mica ignores District 7 opponent, invokes Pelosi
By Matt Dixon
Created 10/22/2010 - 12:18am
Beaven running 'Where's Mica?' e-mail campaign, challenging him to debate
Morris News Service
U.S. Rep. John Mica is employing a popular strategy to fend off a feisty opponent: Invoke national Democrats.
"My first vote [after re-election] will not be to continue Nancy Pelosi taxing and spending. That is the biggest difference," Mica said.
The Republican incumbent in the 7th Congressional District is running against Heather Beaven, a Palm Coast Democrat. Though a long shot, Beaven gained early momentum -- and cash -- by hammering Mica on his oil industry ties after the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
She has also gone after Mica for spending time outside of the district and not debating her.
In September, Beaven, 40, sent out an e-mail that had Mica's face on a cartoon depiction of Waldo from the Where's Waldo book series. The picture was under a logo that included the phrase "Where's Mica?" and called him out for missing in-district events.
Mica, 67, said there was a good reason he missed the area events.
"Most of the candidate forums cited occurred while Congress was in session," he said.
On job creation, Beaven said she wants to create job incubators throughout the district modeled after the Jacksonville-based Beaver Street Enterprises.
"It's simple. If (a small business goes) through an incubator you are seven times more likely to succeed," she said.
Mica said his approach to lowering the unemployment rate in the district will be to oppose tax increases.
"I will help spur our economy by voting for lower taxes, less federal spending and by making government work better not grow bigger," he said.
If Republicans retake the House of Representatives, Mica would become chairman of its Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
"It is always beneficial to have a leader of any committee from your state. It is unique opportunity with Florida having dozens of projects," he said.
Mica has been the ranking GOP member on the committee since 2006.
Because so much of his campaign funding comes from representatives of the transportation industry, Mica's leadership spot on the committee has become a talking point for Beaven throughout the last few weeks of her campaign.
"When your ... campaign coffers are brimming with infrastructure and transportation (industry) money, how can you say you are not biased?" she asked.
Beaven says she wants to take on the practice of members of Congress receiving large sums of campaign funding from the industries they regulate.
At $578,027, the air transportation industry has given the largest amount to Mica over his career, with the $236,460 from the construction industry coming in third, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Overall, Mica's campaign has $1 million in cash on hand to apply toward his re-election efforts.
Because Beaven has gotten a large chunk of campaign fundraising money from labor unions -- $17,750 of her total $205,886 -- Mica says her argument is full of holes.
"Her base represents one particular special interest, and quite a few liberal contributions," he said.
Pelosi released from hospital in Rome
Monday, March 21, 2011
Last updated 8:35 a.m. PT
By
POLITICO
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was released from an Italian hospital after a brief stay Monday.
Pelosi's office did not have an immediate comment, but the AFP reported that she felt "unwell."
The Californian is leading a trip to Italy with Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), John Mica (R-Fla.) and Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa). They also visited Afghanistan, while the House is in recess.
The trip was to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Italian unification. Pelosi, 70, was invited by the president of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, according to her office. She had plans to get briefed on military actions in Africa and Asia, and meet with top Italian officials. While in Afghanistan, the delegation met with U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a member of the Politico Network.
© 1998-2011 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Ironically, Rep. JOHN LUIGI MICA blasted his 2012 opponent and tried to tie her to Nancy Pelosi. See below:
Mica ignores District 7 opponent, invokes Pelosi
By Matt Dixon
Created 10/22/2010 - 12:18am
Beaven running 'Where's Mica?' e-mail campaign, challenging him to debate
Morris News Service
U.S. Rep. John Mica is employing a popular strategy to fend off a feisty opponent: Invoke national Democrats.
"My first vote [after re-election] will not be to continue Nancy Pelosi taxing and spending. That is the biggest difference," Mica said.
The Republican incumbent in the 7th Congressional District is running against Heather Beaven, a Palm Coast Democrat. Though a long shot, Beaven gained early momentum -- and cash -- by hammering Mica on his oil industry ties after the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
She has also gone after Mica for spending time outside of the district and not debating her.
In September, Beaven, 40, sent out an e-mail that had Mica's face on a cartoon depiction of Waldo from the Where's Waldo book series. The picture was under a logo that included the phrase "Where's Mica?" and called him out for missing in-district events.
Mica, 67, said there was a good reason he missed the area events.
"Most of the candidate forums cited occurred while Congress was in session," he said.
On job creation, Beaven said she wants to create job incubators throughout the district modeled after the Jacksonville-based Beaver Street Enterprises.
"It's simple. If (a small business goes) through an incubator you are seven times more likely to succeed," she said.
Mica said his approach to lowering the unemployment rate in the district will be to oppose tax increases.
"I will help spur our economy by voting for lower taxes, less federal spending and by making government work better not grow bigger," he said.
If Republicans retake the House of Representatives, Mica would become chairman of its Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
"It is always beneficial to have a leader of any committee from your state. It is unique opportunity with Florida having dozens of projects," he said.
Mica has been the ranking GOP member on the committee since 2006.
Because so much of his campaign funding comes from representatives of the transportation industry, Mica's leadership spot on the committee has become a talking point for Beaven throughout the last few weeks of her campaign.
"When your ... campaign coffers are brimming with infrastructure and transportation (industry) money, how can you say you are not biased?" she asked.
Beaven says she wants to take on the practice of members of Congress receiving large sums of campaign funding from the industries they regulate.
At $578,027, the air transportation industry has given the largest amount to Mica over his career, with the $236,460 from the construction industry coming in third, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Overall, Mica's campaign has $1 million in cash on hand to apply toward his re-election efforts.
Because Beaven has gotten a large chunk of campaign fundraising money from labor unions -- $17,750 of her total $205,886 -- Mica says her argument is full of holes.
"Her base represents one particular special interest, and quite a few liberal contributions," he said.
IN HAEC VERBA: Interior Department Illegally Delays Response to Freedom of Information Act Request on St. Augustine's 450th for Eleven Months --
-----Original Message-----
From: easlavin@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 6:09 pm
Subject: FOIA Request OS-2010-00246 -- St. Augustine 450th Commemoration Commission and DoI compliance with FACA and 1964 Civil Rights Act -- Yes, we still want the records; No we do not agree to any further delays
Dear Mr. McInerny:
In response to your February 25, 2011 form letter, which you sent to me as our Secretary of the Interior's personal FOIA officer:
1. Yes, we still want the records.
2. Yes, we still request a fee waiver. We would have been willing to pay $25 IF DoI had ever done anything to comply with FOIA's mandatory deadlines. Bu DoI hasn't done so -- DOI should be ashamed to ask for money about a matter involving potential civil rights violations by DOI I the City of St. Augustine, which has a long history of racism from which we are just beginning to recover. In fact, Rev. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his June 11, 1964 letter to rabbis that St. Augustine is the "most lawless city in America." Our City and County have some 11,000 years of compelling human history, including Native American, African-American, Civil Rights and Hispanic history, as well as natural beauty and splendor that is unsurpassed. Our history and natural resources must be protected and not neglected. That is why we need a National Civil Rights Museum here, under DOI auspices, as part of a St. Augustine National Historical Park, National Seashore and Scenic Coastal Parkway. Please see http://staugustineunderground.net/2011/staugustine/news/florida/readers-rail-st-augustines-history-is-a-national-treasure/916/
3. We requested expedited consideration when the request was filed on April 20, 2010 -- nearly eleven months ago. If any fees are due, the Secretary's staff should waive them. On November 21, 1974, I was working for Senator Ted Kennedy as an undergraduate intern the day that FOIA was enacted, over President Gerald Ford's veto -- I was proud to walk Senator Kennedy's press release on the historic FOIA veto override to the three Senate press galleries that day. I am an experienced FOIA requester and won declassification of the largest mercury pollution event in the history of this planet in 1983. Where FOIA is concerned, I reckon that Congress meant what it said and said what it meant in overriding President Ford's veto. There are still federal officials who hate FOIA, despise FOIA requesters and do everything they can to undermine us -- as I observed first-hand in taking the Attorney General's Advocacy Institute two-day course on FOIA/PA in August 1988. As Bill Clinton said, "a right without a remedy is simply a suggestion." FOIA requesters should not be obliged to file federal court lawsuits to receive prompt responses -- that should be a given. No more excuses, please - DoI has not complied with my request. This is unacceptable. DoI must resolve to do better, from this day forward.
4. No, we don't think missing the FOIA's mandatory 20 day deadline -- by a country mile -- justifies anything other than an abject apology and full compliance. Any exemptions have been waived by DOI's inexplicable delay.
5. The records sought are essential and materially relevant to protection of civil rights here in St. Augustine and at DoI.
6. The prior St. Augustine City Manager's antique, unenlightened notion of appointing only "rich and powerful people" to a Federal Advisory Committee Act committee involving the 450th Anniversary of the City of St. Augustine was a stench in the nostrils of our Nation. It would violate civil rights laws and FACA. We know that President Obama and Secretary Salazar want no part of such agendas and neither does the current St. Augustine City Manager (or current City Commission).
7. Dr. Robert Hayling, DDS was the father of the civil rights movement here in St. Augustine. Dr. Hayling has recently and rightly criticized the lack of diversity on our City's First America Foundation (FAF) board. http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-02-17/story/civil-rights-leader-urges-st-augustine-involve-blacks-citys-anniversary. ; Lack of diversity in our City's federally-funded celebration of our 400th anniversary in 1965 led Dr. King and local activists to activate, resulting in worldwide coverage and breaking of the filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, resulting in passing the legislation that secured the rights of minorities and women to equal rights in employment, education, public accommodations and housing. We believe that FAF also violates Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and our Open Records and Sunshine Laws. Our prior City Manager's intentions in requesting that Secretary Salazar appoint "rich and powerful people" to a FACA-chartered advisory committee were deeply suspect. We have a right to know exactly what was said and to whom.
8. DoI must not imitate our City of St. Augustine in its historic illegality and insensitivity. Secretary Salazar must appoint a diverse FACA committee to the St. Augustine 450th Anniversary Celebration Commission, one that is diverse and fairly balanced as FACA requires.
9. Thus, the American people have a right to know exactly what our City of St. Augustine (under its prior City Manager) said to DOI about appointing rich and powerful people to a Congressionally-mandated FACA committee that is required by law to be "reasonably balanced." We have a right to have our FOIA rights respected and not neglected.
10. Will you please provide the requested records by PDF by close of business on Monday, March 21, 2011? Will you please send me all records generated in response to my April 20, 2010 request, including any documentation of work on response to my 11-month old request?
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com
904-829-3877 (o-direct)
215-554-1187 (cellular)
Dear Mr. McInerny:
1. Pursuant to FOIA and the Privacy Act, please E-mail me next week all paper and electronic documents concerning:
A. The proposed National Civil Rights Museum in St. Augustine, Florida.
B. The proposed St. Augustine National Historical Park, National Seashore and Scenic Coastal Parkway Act. (please see attachments).
C. Any and all documents on me, my uncomplicated April 20, 2010 FOIA request and any documents on any efforts to respond to my request.
D. An aged listing of all pending FOIA requests to the Office of the Secretary and their subject(s).
E. A listing of all FOIA requests to the Secretary made on or since April 20, 2010, showing which have been responded to and which are still not answered (and why).
F. Any documentation for the putative justifications for delays given in your February 25, 2011 form letter (e.g., lack of federal funds).
G. The present and prospective levels of funding for FOIA processing at DOI, including all detailed budget justifications seeking more funds and the disposition of all such requests. If there is not a separate line item for FOIA/PA, please provide the detailed budget justifications for the account(s) under which these activities are funded.
H. Any requests for additional funding for FOIA/PA request handling from DoI or the Office of the Secretary.
I. A listing of all discretionary funds available to the Secretary to respond to FOIA requests and what discretionary funds have been requested to halt delays.
J. All program evaluations, audits, Congressional hearings, lawsuits and citizen complaints re: DoI's FOIA/PA operations.
K. All plans, directives and orders from the Secretary for improving DoI's FOIA/PA response time or any other documents evidencing the accuracy the last sentence in your form letter, in which you state, "Within the Office of the Secretary, we are committed to providing you, our customer, with the highest quality of service possible."
2. I request a waiver of any and all fees under FOIA/PA as the release of the requested information is in the public interest and I have the experience and ability to assure that the public receives the benefit of the information, which will advance the cause of public understanding of government operations at DoI.
3. By separate E-mail attachment, I am sending you my c.v. in support of the fee waiver request.
Thank you in advance for your full compliance with FOIA. Please take steps so that no requester ever has to wait eleven (11) months to receive an obnoxious form letter like the one that you mailed on March 1, 2011 (backdated to February 25, 2011).
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ed
Ed Slavin
www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com
P.O Box 3084
St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3084
904-829-3877 (o-direct)
215-554-1187 (cellular)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)