Pub. Rec./Municipal Clerks
HB 247 creates a new public records exemption in Florida law for personal identifying and location information of current and former municipal clerks and certain municipal clerk staff, including elections filing officers, records management liaison officers, and deputy or assistant municipal clerks. The exemption covers home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and photographs of those individuals, as well as the names, home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and places of employment of their spouses and children, and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by their children.
The bill also adds municipal clerks and their staff to the long list of public officers and employees already protected under s. 119.071, F.S., and it applies retroactively to information held before, on, or after the effective date. It includes the standard public-records framework for requesting maintenance or release of exempt information, and it provides a public necessity statement explaining that these officials often handle sensitive duties and may face threats or violence, making privacy protections necessary. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
The bill amends Florida's public records law, specifically s. 119.071, F.S., by expanding the category of exempt personnel information to include municipal clerks and specified municipal clerk staff, along with certain family-member information. As a result, agencies must withhold the covered personal and location data from disclosure under the Public Records Act and the Florida Constitution's open-records provision, subject to the bill's existing procedures for maintenance, release, and limited disclosure to certain authorized parties. The exemption is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act and will expire on October 2, 2031, unless reenacted.
The bill text reflects a strongly supportive posture toward privacy and safety protections for municipal clerks and related staff, and the public necessity statement frames the exemption as a response to threats, sensitive duties, and the risk of violence. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment debate in the available materials. Based on the bill language alone, the measure appears to be presented as a protective, noncontroversial public-records exemption.
The main policy tension is between Florida's broad public-records transparency requirements and the bill's decision to shield additional local-government personnel information from disclosure. Supporters would likely emphasize the safety risks to municipal clerks and staff who handle elections, records management, and enforcement-related duties, while any critics would likely focus on the expansion of exemptions and the resulting reduction in public access to government-held information. The bill does not show any recorded controversy in the provided context, but the scope of the exemption and its extension to family members are the most likely points of concern.