Pub. Rec/Appellate Court Clerks:
HB 373 is a public records bill that expands Florida’s existing exemptions for certain public employees and officials by adding a new exemption for the personal identifying and location information of current appellate court clerks, along with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, places of employment, and school/day care information of their spouses and children. The bill defines “appellate court” as the Florida Supreme Court and the district courts of appeal, and it also makes conforming changes to related statutory cross-references. The exemption applies retroactively to information held by agencies before, on, or after the effective date.
The bill also updates and reorganizes a lengthy list of existing public records exemptions in s. 119.071, F.S., covering a wide range of law enforcement, judicial, prosecutorial, regulatory, and other sensitive positions. Several of those exemptions are subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act and include future repeal dates unless reenacted. The bill further preserves procedures for maintaining exempt status in public records, releasing exempt information upon a notarized request by the protected person, and handling certain real property records when a protected party moves, conveys property, or dies.
HB 373 would amend Florida’s public records law, section 119.071, to add appellate court clerks to the list of protected personnel whose home addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, photographs, and family location information are exempt from disclosure. It would also conform section 744.21031 to the updated definition of telephone numbers. In practical terms, the bill would require agencies and record custodians to withhold or redact the newly protected information and would extend the same privacy protections already available to many other categories of public employees and officials.
The available record suggests the bill was generally framed as a safety and privacy measure for court personnel and their families, with the stated rationale that appellate court clerks can face retaliation from dissatisfied litigants. There is no committee transcript or vote history provided showing organized opposition or debate, but the bill ultimately died in the Government Operations Subcommittee, indicating it did not advance despite its protective purpose. The absence of recorded votes or discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to measure beyond the bill’s stated public-necessity justification.
The main policy issue is the balance between Florida’s strong public records tradition and the desire to shield sensitive personal information for public employees who may face threats or harassment. Support for the bill is implied by the public necessity statement, which emphasizes retaliation risks to appellate court clerks and their families. Potential points of contention include whether appellate court clerks warrant a new exemption distinct from other court personnel, whether the exemption should be retroactive, and whether the bill adds to an already extensive set of public records carve-outs. The sunset-review provisions on some exemptions also reflect an ongoing legislative concern about limiting or revisiting secrecy over time.