Deerfield Beach Housing Authority Attempting to Pass Possibly Unlawful Public Records Rule

Categories: Broward, News
sunshine-law.jpg
unofficiallywinslow.blogspot.com
In what would seem like an effort to ban the often insulting and/or profanity-laden public records requests of activist Chaz Stevens, the Deerfield Beach Housing Authority voted at its last Board of Commissioners meeting to adopt a resolution outlawing "improper" requests for public records.

In the opinion of Stevens, as well as the opinion we received from an independent open-government foundation, the housing authority isn't quite authorized to impose such a barrier.

Here's what came from the minutes of the Housing Authority's August meeting:

Item 13: Lewd, abusive or other improper requests for records. The DBHA will deny any "request' made using harassing, obscene, offensive , discriminatory, lewd, sexually suggestive, sexually explicit, pornographic, intimidating, defamatory, derogatory, violent language or communication in any form or which contains profanity or vulgarity, regardless of intent as an improper request not made for the purpose of obtaining public records under the Florida Constitution or Florida Public Records Act.

Motion was made by Commissioner Berner and seconded by Commissioner Gray to adopt Resolution 2011-11: A Resolution of the Deerfield Beach Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Approving the Deerfield Beach Housing Authority's Amendment No. 2 Records Management Policies and Schedules with the condition of the BOC reviewing Amendment No. 2 at the next scheduled SOC meeting.

Voice Vote: YEAS: Chairman Emery, Commissioner Leavitt, Commissioner Berner, and Commissioner Gray. NAYS: Commissioner Potter

The Pulp reached out to First Amendment Foundation President Barbara Petersen, who says the Housing Authority's resolution "raises some serious First Amendment concerns":

Florida courts have made it pretty clear that a government agency can't impose restrictions on the public's right of access that aren't statutorily authorized, including any barrier such as this resolution.

In addition, numerous courts have addressed the issue of obnoxious requestors:

"[T]he law provides any member of the public access to public records, whether he or she be the most outstanding civic citizen or the most heinous criminal." Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc., v. Wood, No. 97-688CI-07 (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. February 27, 1997)

"[A]s long as the citizens of this state desire and insist upon 'open government' and liberal public records disclosure, as a cost of that freedom public officials have to put up with demanding citizens even when they are obnoxious as long as they violate no laws."  State v. Colby, No. MM96-317A-XX (Fla. Highlands Co. Ct May 23 1996)

"Even though a public agency may believe that a person or group are fanatics, harassers or are extremely annoying, the public records are available to all of the citizens of the State of Florida."  Salvador v. City of Stuart, No. 91-812 CA (Fla. 19th Cir. Ct. December 17, 1991)

And although I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, I believe the resolution raises some serious first amendment concerns.  The FA allows government to impose some restrictions on speech, but those must be content (and speaker) neutral.

If anyone is defamed, there are remedies under tort law; if anyone is intimidated or threatened, complaints can be filed with local law enforcement. 

In response to the resolution -- which seems all but passed barring the "review" at this month's meeting -- Stevens has filed three additional records requests, titled "Lewd, harrassing, vulgar, and utterly fucking profane Public Records Request," "Another utterly fucking rude Public Record Request" as well as a "Sexually Suggestive Public Records Request."

With Stevens' consent, here's the "Sexually Suggestive Public Records Request," which he says has not drawn a response from the Housing Authority (If you're not familiar with Stevens, this email contains some non-family-friendly language):

Dear Numbnuts;

As we all have had the great unsettling displeasure to learn that WankerTom Connick has assumed the dual DBHA roles of Personal Defense Attorney and Special Co-Counsel, a move oddly reminiscent of a doubled-headed dildo (though which ends goes in which hole is up for grabs), it would seem quite evident that Anus T. AnalGlands would have had to provide to the Board for their an "ethics waver" for his most amazing ethically challenged move.

I mean, I hope that Glands provided such and document and didn't leave it up to the Board Chairman, Keith DoucheBerry to opine "well, it's okay 'cause I say it's okay." Know what I mean jelly bean?

You did get this waver document and it was approved by the Board? Right? Duh and/or hello?

So, assuming your hands aren't covered and smothered in K-Y Jelly (all to ease the insertion of such a dildo into the process of Governmental transparency), when you once again get off your lazy ass, go grab me a copy of that document.

Contrary to the opinion of your Fee Attorney, this is a formal request for public information.

Chow ciao.

Chaz Stevens

As Stevens says in a previous email to the "Ass Clowns play acting as Records Custodians," requesting the minutes from the meeting in which that resolution was voted on, "Dumb shits.  See you in Court."


Follow The Pulp on Facebook and on Twitter: @ThePulpBPB. Follow Matthew Hendley on Facebook and on Twitter: @MatthewHendley.
My Voice Nation Help
17 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
FreudianProjection
FreudianProjection

DBHA, this asswipe is a pimple - he  isnt deserving of this BS resolution.  Kindly let him self destruct publicly without your help 

Chaz Stevens, Genius
Chaz Stevens, Genius

Destruct?

Man...  Hahahahahahaha...

I wondered where my stalker went.  Welcome back.

FreudianProjection
FreudianProjection

Mathew, I dont like this comment calling me a stalker, please delete asap.

FreudianProjection
FreudianProjection

If a psycho is so delusional that he doesn't even understand that he is self destructing, is he still responsible?   Is it still self-destruction or plain destruction?  

I'm not stalking you, psycho clown. Getting on a blog every now and then and and adding a little reality to one of your more psycho delusions is not stalking.

Texting someone 49 times in a couple days, tossing pee onto their balcony, tossing your poop in their general direction - now that's stalking. Here is a good example.

http://myperspectiveis.blogspo...

Ferreting out IP addresses and other personal information and blasting that info all over the internet (even if its a sick psycho preacher) - again, that would be stalking.

Bubba The Wise
Bubba The Wise

I believe that what the DBHA is attempting to accomplish with this ruling is wrong on every level. Those on the board that voted for it have outed themselves in favor of the Director in a way that leaves no doubt about their status. These board members should be removed as soon as possible for the non-crime of incorrectable stupidity. I don't care what your opinions are of Chaz Stevens. He is a citizen of Deerfield Beach and entitled to the public records he has requested. This fiasco has gone on far too long and needs to come to a halt. Geive the "PUBLIC RECORDS" to the public and stop trying to protect another politician's career. As a matter of fact, get the records out and protect the citizens of Deerfield Beach.

Commissioner Keith S. London
Commissioner Keith S. London

This public records request would be hysterical if Chaz did not have to go over the top for information state law says the public is entitled to already.Why not give Chaz what he is asking for?Why is the director trying to hide behind some bogus rule?Why is the attorney trying to hide behind some bogus rule?Where are my tax dollars?Please answer ALL the questions!

Chaz Stevens, Genius
Chaz Stevens, Genius

Commissioner.

I've heard it said that in order to conserve water you no longer shower. Mayor Cooper and I would like to know the answer to this question.

Fucking sweaty hippy.

Chaz Stevens, Genius
Chaz Stevens, Genius

See Matt, the thing is...

Before the Board passed this "resolution", my requests were never really vulgar, profane, or the such... 

However...

My requests were highly problematic -- as I am getting closer and closer to sending the Executive Director to jail -- to wit, the HUD OIG has launched a criminal investigation into that agency.

Only *after* the DBHA passed that inane resolution did I break out the f-bombs. Passed not to battle my potty mouth, but to curb my ability to get information.

If we are to follow this absolutely fucking illegal mandate, instead of complying with my requests, the DBHA will apply some form of "purity test" to my demand. Making me wonder would the DBHA consider those records which may land the ED in jail "harassing"?

In the end, I have been carrying the ACLU card since the mid 1980's -- as such, don't fuck with my right of free speech.

Redone123
Redone123

Chaz. I understand your feelings. Your saying things that all of us (Well most of us) feel, but couldn't the same thing be handled without the profanity?  After all it is most likley being read and handled by some clerk who has nothing to do with the" doucheberry's" bad moves.  Remember what MOM taught us, More can be accomplished with sugar than vinegar.  By the way keep working on the ass holes.    They need the shit!     I thought you were appointed to that board.

Chaz Stevens, Genius
Chaz Stevens, Genius

Why am I not on the Board? The City forgot to file the Resolution the night of my appointment.

Actually, my Mom taught me "never to trust those in power."

Redone123
Redone123

Will you be placed on the board, or is the loss just another way to screw with you?

Chaz Stevens, Genius
Chaz Stevens, Genius

The "screwup" was totally unintentional.  Will I get on the Board?  Who knows...  Those folks who are hoping to keep Pam Davis in her job have made it a competition of personalities. A personable, female black lady against the brash asshole Chaz Stevens.  A game I will always lose as I never worried about such things.

The other teams says I am a racist (yet, I spent 18 months learning the PHA ropes to help serve those most in need - which are folks mostly of color).  Not true.

The other team says I am rude, mistaken, arrogant, egotistical, hateful, hurtful, and the such. True.

However, I didn't fire a single mom of 5 who asked questions.  I didn't spend $50,000 in taxpayer money darkening transparency.  I didn't try to curtail anyone's legal rights.

So tell me.  Just who is fucking rude here?

***

As I have yet to receive a response to my PRR, I fired in this followup email to the Executive Director.

Dear Asstard.

Did you hear this one?

Harry's wife says, "Harry, do these jeans make my ass look like the side of the house"?

He says, "No, our house isn't blue."

Speaking of fat asses (and getting off yours), how goes it on my public records request?

See you on Wednesday!

Toodles

Chaz

Chaz Stevens, Genius
Chaz Stevens, Genius

Redone;

It's not being handled by a "clerk".  It's being handled by the Executive Director and her $225/hr attorney.  A tag team who, in 2010, spent in excess of $50,000 attempting to curb my investigations.

The same ED who lied to Tom Francis, lied to her Board, and well, let's see if she's got the stones to lie to the Feds.

RedBroward
RedBroward

Someone has to protect the rights of Sylvia Poitier and Vicente Thrower, right? Give 'em Hell Chaz

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...