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

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CA15DIVISION: 55
ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERY M. GRAY,
Defendant.

______________________________!

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board ("School Board") files this
complaint against Defendant Jeffery M. Gray, and alleges:

BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS
1.

This is a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and

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

2.

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

County, Florida.

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

County School District ("District").

3.

Defendant resides in St. Johns County, Florida.

4.

On August 26, 2015, Defendant visited the District Maintenance

Department, ostensibly to make a public records request for material safety data sheets.
However, he did not follow the District's public records request procedure and contact
the Community Relations Department ("CRD"), who he knew (and indeed had been
specifically instructed) was designated to process public records requests in accordance
with the Florida Public Records Act ("Act") codified in Florida Statute 119.07(1)(b), and
whose public records specialists would have promptly arranged to produce the requested
records at the Maintenance Department. Instead, without any advance notice, he showed
up at the Maintenance Department's administrative office, refused to identify himself,
and began aggressively questioning and then arguing with Susan Lee, who is a secretary
with no responsibility for or authority over the requested records.
5.

When he visited the Maintenance Department on August 26,

Defendant was not interested in obtaining records. Indeed, when CRD staff contacted
him on August 28, he did not take up CRD on its offer to produce the records for him at
the Maintenance Department. Rather, Defendants' interest was in scamming the School
Board, starting with catching an unsuspecting employee off guard and unprepared for his
request. He attempted to rattle and intimidate Ms. Lee by demanding instant, on-the-spot
compliance, refusing to follow her instructions to contact "the district downtown"
(meaning CRD) and arguing with her. Unbeknownst to Ms. Lee, Defendant was trying to
bait her into refusing to produce the records and parley that refusal into a lawsuit for
personal financial gain via a fee splitting scheme with his attorney. Indeed, in order to
develop evidence for the lawsuit he was planning, Defendant surreptitiously videotaped

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

He

planned to post the unlawfully obtained videotape on Y ouTube for financial gain in the
form of advertising revenue and contributions he solicits from his followers. He did, in
fact, post the video on Y ouTube. Such publication is also a third degree felony under
Florida Statute 934.03(1)(d).
6.

As is more fully alleged beginning at paragraph 9 below,

Defendant did, in fact, file a public records lawsuit against the School Board on October
14, 2015. Recognizing the suit was frivolous and that he and his lawyer were in jeopardy
of being taxed with attorney fees under Florida Statute 57.105, Defendant voluntarily
dismissed the suit with prejudice on December 4.
7.

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

unfounded public records lawsuit. Indeed, in Jeffery Marcus Gray v. Lutheran Social
Services of Northeast Florida, Inc., Case No. 2014-CA-4647 in the Circuit Court for
Duval County, Defendant sued Lutheran Social Services of Northeast Florida ("LSS") 1
Defendant used very similar tactics to attempt to set up his lawsuit against LSS as he did
in his case against the School Board. In its Final Order Denying Relief Under Public
Records Act dated December 1, 2014, the Court scrutinized Defendant's actions and
declared that they were a "scam" and an "unreasonable and a flagrant abuse of the
statute." A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit A.
8.

The Court found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***
4

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

***

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

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

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

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

This was accomplished in a manner purposely

designed to prevent LSS from correcting any
possible error.

***

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

***
22.
Further, the Act was not designed to create a
cottage industry for so-called "civil rights activists"
or others who seek to abuse the Act for financial
gam.
(Ex. A). Emphasis added.
9.

After having been admonished by the Duval County Circuit Court,

in December 2014, Defendant relocated his "cottage industry" to St. Johns County. On
numerous occasions during 2015, he has made surprise forays to District schools, offices
and other government offices, ostensibly to make on-the-spot public records requests. 2
10.

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

records lawsuit against the School Board, Jeffery Gray v. St. John County School Board,
Case No.: CA15-1121, in the Circuit Court of St. Johns County. A copy of the complaint
is attached as Exhibit B. Just as he had in the LSS case, Defendant alleged that Plaintiffs
response to his August 26 request for the MSDS records violated the Public Records Act
and sought an award of the attorney fees.

The School Board responded by filing a

motion to dismiss on the grounds Defendant had not made a proper request and there had
been no improper refusal to produce records. A copy is attached as Exhibit C.
2

Defendant made a request to the Airport Authority on the same day as his visit to the Maintenance
Department. He likewise requested MSDS records and filed suit against the Authority when he did not
get a textbook response. Jeffery Gray v. St. Augustine- St. Johns County Airport Auth., Case No.CA 151077 in the Circuit Court of St. Johns County.

11.

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

counsel with a Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes,
alleging that Defendant's lawsuit was frivolous because it was not supported by the
material facts or applicable law.

Under Florida Statute 57.105, Defendant and his

counsel had 21 days to withdraw their claim or face sanctions, including an award of
reasonable attorney fees against both them.
12.

Recognizing that his lawsuit was unfounded and frivolous,

Defendant dismissed the case with prejudice on December 4, 2015, the last day of the 21day period allowed by Florida Statute 57.105. A copy of the Notice of Dismissal is
attached as Exhibit D.
13.

Despite dismissing his lawsuit, Defendant continues to harass

District employees with improper public records requests. On December 4, the day he
dismissed his lawsuit, Defendant entered the R. B. Hunt Elementary School campus
unannounced and without checking in at the reception desk. He went to the bus parking
area and questioned District bus drivers about bus inspection reports, and demanded they
provide him copies, despite the fact that Defendant had previously obtained copies of bus
inspection reports on at least two occasions from the Transportation Department and once
through CRD.

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

through CRD and improperly demanded records from employees who are not custodians
or designees with authority to respond to records requests.
14.

It now appears Defendant is deliberately trying to harass, provoke

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

but also by acting suspiciously around District schools. On December 3, the day after the
San Bernardino shootings, Defendant saw fit to slowly cruise back and forth in his van
along Hickory Creek Trail, past Switzerland Point Middle School and Hickory Creek
Elementary School. He also stopped and took photographs or video of the schools. He
was thereby loitering in the School Safety Zones extending within 500 feet of those
schools, a misdemeanor in violation of Florida Statute 81 0.0975(1 )(b) 1.

Law

enforcement was summoned but Defendant had left the area by the time they arrived. A
copy of the Sheriff's Office's suspicious vehicle report is attached as Exhibit E.
15.

Defendant engaged in similar conduct at Mill Creek Elementary

School on December 14, 2012, the day after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. A
copy of the Sheriff's Office report is attached as Exhibit F.
16.

All conditions precedent to this action have been satisfied.

COUNT ONE -DECLARATORY RELIEF

17.

The Background Allegations are realleged and incorporated by

18.

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

reference.

and obligations under the Florida Public Records Act and Florida Statute 734.01.
19.

There is a real and ongoing controversy between the parties over

the validity of the District's public records procedures.

Defendant contends that the

District's procedures do not comply with the requirements of law and that they infringe
on his right to access public records.

Defendant insists that he is not required to follow

8

District procedures. He also persists in disobeying the specific instruction to submit his
requests through CRD and in surreptitiously videotaping his conversations with District
staff.
20. Defendant's refusal to follow District procedures is antagonistic and
disruptive to the lawful, orderly and safe operation of District schools and offices. There
is a bona fide need for judicial resolution of the outstanding issues between the parties to
prevent (i) further disruption of District operations stemming from Defendant's surprise,
adversarial public records demands at outlying District schools and offices; (ii) further
surprise confrontations with unsuspecting District staff where law enforcement must be
summoned to deal with Defendant; (iii) further vexatious litigation; and (iv) further
instances of Defendant surreptitiously videotaping his encounters with District staff,
which the District contends is criminal.
21.

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

Schools is the custodian of all District public records. Under Florida Statute 119.07(1 )(b)
and (3)(c), the Superintendent as custodian has the right to designate other District
officers and employees to respond to public records requests and also to adopt reasonable
rules regarding the inspection, copying and photographing of records.
22.

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

environment requires specialized training, expertise and experience. The District

maintains and routinely handles a huge trove of student education records and data that
are confidential under FERP A. Public records requests and potentially responsive
documents must be carefully reviewed and redacted by specially trained and experienced
9

staff to prevent unlawful disclosure of confidential information and inappropriate

disclosure of exempt material. For that reason, and in order to assure proper, efficient
and uniform processing of public records requests throughout all District schools and
offices, the Superintendent has designated the CRD as designee for responding to public
records requests. Its staff members are readily accessible to the public.

They are

designated and highly qualified to promptly and properly respond to requests for District
records.
23.

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

They provide, in pertinent part:

The Community Relations Department staff is designated
as the District custodian's designee to process public
records requests.
The designated staff members are
Christina Langston, Emily Serrano and Danielle Cook.
They may be reached by contacting the Community
Relations Department at (904) 54 7-7 63 7 or by emailing
[email protected].
Ex. G.
24.

As authorized by statute and District procedures, Defendant has

been specifically instructed to submit public records requests to the CRD as designee. On
June 1, 2015, after Defendant complained to the Superintendent that when he requested
records from Bartram Trail High School and Wards Creek Elementary, he had been
referred to the CRD. By email dated June 1, CRD staff member Danielle M. Cook
responded on the Superintendent's behalf:
I am responding to your email to Dr. Joyner dated June 1.

10

At both Wards Creek and Bartram Trail, you were

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

***
We trust that in the future you will contact Ms.
Langston or any of our department members with any
request for district records.
(Emphasis added). A copy of Ms. Cook's June 1 email is attached as Exhibit H.
25.

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

Ms. Cook reiterated the District's procedure. Defendant asked for clarification about
where requests should be directed:
[Q] Could you please clarify whether or not the public can
submit public our records request directly to the schools
where the records are actually stored or will we be
redirected to Community Relations.

[A] Public records requests can be submitted to any of our

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

11

In the future, feel free to contact me or Ms. Langston

directly with any public records requests and we will
see that the requested public records are made available
to you promptly.
A copy of Ms. Cook's June 2 email is attached as Exhibit I (emphasis added).
26.

Evidently more interested in harassing District employees and

trying to set up the District for lawsuits than in obtaining a prompt, informed response
from the specialists at CRD, Defendant has disregarded CRD's instructions.

He

continues to visit outlying District offices unannounced, hoping to catch employees off
guard and unprepared for his demands. Oftentimes, he accosts and demands records
from employees who do not have custody of records or any authority to respond to public
records requests.
27.

Defendant contends that the District's public record procedures do

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

(a)

Defendant contends that it is a violation of the Act to

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

(b)

Although the Act allows a requesting party to inspect and

photograph records at the office where they are kept, Defendant contends that he has the
right to make public records requests in person to employees at that office, regardless of
whether the employees have been designated as custodian of the records or the
custodian's designee. He argues that only an officer or employee at that location can be
designated to process such a request and coordinate the production of the records there.

12

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

response to requests for records kept at outlying locations because CRD's only office is at
District headquarters in downtown St. Augustine.
(c)

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

to sign in as part of its safety and security procedures. Defendant contends that that
requirement violates his rights under the Act and he refuses to abide by it.
(d)

The District's acceptable use policy prohibit visitors from

videotaping in its schools during the school day, with certain immaterial exceptions.
Defendant contends that policy infringes on his rights and he refuses to abide by it.
(e)

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

videotaping a conversation without the consent all parties. A violation is a third degree
felony. Defendant refuses to obey the law and repeatedly has surreptitiously videotaped
District employees at its schools and offices.
(f)

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

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

Defendant also refuses to obey that law and repeatedly has posted unlawfully recorded
videotapes ofhis conversations with District employees on YouTube.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board respectfully
requests the Court to grant relief declaring:
A.

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

records requests does not violate the Public Records Act.

13

B.

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

to submit public records requests to CRD as the custodian's designee, including requests
to inspect and photograph copies at the location where they are kept.
C.

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

not a violation of the Act but rather is a facially valid exercise of its responsibility and
authority to provide for the safety and security of District students and staff.
D.

Defendant's practice of videotaping conversations with District

staff without their consent (outside of School Board meetings and other public meetings)
is unlawful.
E.

It is unlawful to further disclose a surreptitiously recorded and

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

F.

The District's public records procedures do not otherwise violate

the Public Records Act.

The School Board respectfully requests the Court to award such other relief as may be
just and proper, including reasonable attorney fees and costs.

COUNT TWO- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the Background

Allegations and the allegations of paragraphs 19 - 2 7.

14

29.

This is a claim for injunctive relief.

30.

On at least s1x occasiOns during 2015, Defendant has made

surprise visits at the District schools and offices for the ostensible purpose of making
public records requests. As found by the Duval County Circuit Court and as alleged
above, Defendant was not interested in actually obtaining the records, but rather was
trying to induce unprepared District employees to make a procedural error in responding
to his request. He did so for personal financial gain, standing not only to profit from a
potential public records lawsuit, but also from posting surreptitiously obtained videos of
District employees on his Y ouTube site, where he solicits contributions from his
followers and from which he receives advertising revenues.

31.

During these encounters, Defendant has frightened, intimidated,

baited and provoked District employees, particularly female employees who feel
menaced and threatened by him. Defendant has disrupted the orderly school and office
environment, refused to follow instructions, and provoked staff into calling law
enforcement and issuing him trespass warnings at various facilities.

32.

Defendant's unlawful posting of surreptitiously obtained videos

of conversations with District staff has subjected the employees to threatening, vulgar
and defamatory telephone calls, emails and internet postings from Defendant's internet
followers. Defendant's activities have frightened and intimidated District staff; disrupted
the school environment; interfered with District operations; and have required the
interdiction of law enforcement.

15

33.

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

Defendant loitered in the 500-foot School Safety Zones at the Mill Creek, Hickory Creek
and Switzerland Point schools in violation of Florida Statute 810.0975. Coming at times
of heightened school safety consciousness and concern, Defendant knew or should of
known his actions would be suspicious and threatening, and would disturb and disrupt the
school environment.
34.

The School Board seeks injunctive relief to prevent Defendant

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

frighten, and provoke District staff and disrupt District operations.
35.

The School Board acknowledges and respects Defendant's right to

inspect, copy and photograph the District's public records. However, there is no need for
Defendant's guerilla tactics to obtain records. The District is ready, willing and able, to
honor and facilitate Defendant's right of access to such records by processing his requests
through CRD, whose staff knows Defendant and is more than capable of responding
properly to his requests.
36.

Defendant's unlawful and disruptive tactics and the resulting harm

to the District and its employees are continuing. As shown by Defendant's actions on
December 3 and 4, he continues to harass District employees and attempts to provoke
confrontations with District staff and law enforcement.
37.

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

redress Defendant's unlawful and inappropriate conduct.

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board demands

injunctive relief:
A.

Enjoining Defendant to submit all requests for District public

records to the CRD;

B.

Enjoining Defendant from attempting to harass, intimidate or

disrupt District schools, offices or staff;

C.

Enjoining Defendant from videotaping conversations with District

employees or anyone on District property without first requesting and obtaining their
consent; provided however, that this injunction shall not apply and prevent Defendant
from videotaping proceedings at a duly noticed School Board or other public meeting.
D.

Enjoining Defendant from unlawfully posting surreptitiously and

unlawfully obtained videotapes of conversations with District employees on the internet

or otherwise publishing them.
E.

Ordering Defendant to forthwith remove from his YouTube site

unlawfully obtained videotapes of District employees.

F.

Awarding such other relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT THREE- MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

38.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the Background

Allegations, and the allegations of paragraphs 19- 27.

17

39.

This is a claim for malicious prosecution, seeking monetary

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

40.

On October 14, 2015, Defendant commenced an original judicial

proceeding against Plaintiff, Jeffery Gray v. St. Johns County School Board, Case No.
CA15-1121, in the Circuit Court of St. Johns County, Florida.

41.

Defendants dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice in response to

Plaintiffs 57.105 notice was a bona fide termination in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant
dismissed the case because he realized it had no merit. Ex. C.

42.

Defendant lacked probable cause for the lawsuit, for the reasons

communicated in Plaintiffs motion to dismiss the complaint and in its 57.105 notice.
There was no basis in fact or law for Defendant to claim that he had submitted a proper
public records request, that Ms. Lee had legal custody of the requested record or had a
duty to respond to his request, or that there was an unjustified refusal to produce the
records. Indeed, Defendant told the St. Augustine Record on September 23, 2015, after
he made his request for maintenance records, that he "had never had an issue obtaining
documents from a public records request through the district." Ex. J.

43.

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

the Duval County Circuit Court had admonished him making a public records request for
the purpose of setting up a lawsuit for personal financial gain is an abuse of the Public
Records Act and a scam. Despite the Court's admonition, Defendant tried to pull the

18

same scam on the District. His actions at Hickory Cree, Switzerland Point and R. B.
Hunt on December 3 and 4 are further evidence of his malice.
44.

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

against Plaintiff, Plaintiff substantial legal fees in the defense of the case. Defendant is
liable for such fees as consequential damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board demands
judgment against Defendant Jeffery M. Gray for damages and costs.

COUNT FOUR- ABUSE OF PROCESS

45.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by referenced the Background

Allegations and the allegations of paragraphs 19 - 27.

46.

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

excess of$15,000.
47.

Defendant did not file his public records lawsuit to obtain public

records but rather for the improper purpose of personal monetary gain, which he hoped to
derive by inducing the School Board to settle and splitting any settlement proceeds with
his attorney. As found by the Circuit Court of Duval County, such an arrangement is an
improper fee-splitting arrangement and filing suit for that purpose is an abuse of the Act.
48.

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

proceeding for its purpose of obtaining public records, but rather to induce the School
Board to pay him to drop the case. In fact, Defendant had no legitimate use, need or

19

desire for the requested MSDS records, and he prosecuted the action for personal
financial advantage via the improper fee-splitting arrangement with his attorney.
Although his efforts to extort money from Plaintiff were unsuccessful, his actions were
an abuse of the process he initiated.

49.

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

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff St. Johns County School Board demands

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

/s/ David M. Delaney

DAVID M. DELANEY
Florida Bar No.: 121060
RYAN L. GILBERT
FloridaBarNo.: 105931
203 NE 1st Street
Gainesville, FL 32601
(352) 372-4381
Attorneys for Plaintiff
St. Johns County School Board

20

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

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA.

CASE NO.: 2014-CA-4647-XXXX

DIVISION: CV-E

JEFFREY MARCUS GRAY

Plaintiff,

v.
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF
NORTHEAST FLORIDA, INC.
Defendant.

--------------------------~/
FINAL ORDER DENYING RELIEF UNDER PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
This cause came to be heard on the Initial Complaint filed by Plaintiff, Jeffrey Ma\l'cus
Gray [hereinafter "Gray"], requesting that the court declare Defendant Lutheran

So~ial

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

Florida Statutes [hereinafter "the Act"], and award attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Act.
From the evidence the court finds:

1. Gray is a self-described "civil rights activist" who earns part of his livelihood
by making public records requests for unwanted documents on unsuspecting
private entities which are agents of public agencies, and potentially subject to
the requirements of the Act.
2. LSS is a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist people in need. LSS
helps people that are vulnerable due to illness or poverty. Their beneficiaries
include refugees, children of refugees, people afflicted with AIDS, the

EXHIBIT

"A"

homeless, and those suffering from mental illness. It provides social services,
mental health case management services, youth services, and other vitally
important services to people in need within the community.
3. Gray and others have teamed up to make public record demands for unwanted
documents on numerous private entities which contract with various
government agencies generally to provide specific services. To date, Gray is
or has been a plaintiff in 18 separate 2014 lawsuits involving public records
requests in Duval County. The means utilized by Gray and those associated
with him to make these public records requests follow a similar pattern. The
means used in the instant case to make a request of LSS is representative of
that pattern.
4. Abraham Shakfeh [hereinafter "Shakfeh"] is one ofthe lawyers that files these
suits on behalf of Gray. In Duval County in the year, 2014, Shakfeh has filed
approximately 13 lawsuits seeking public records on behalf of Gray. Shakfeh
lists his home office in Tampa, Florida.
5. Joel Chandler [hereinafter "Chandler''] identified himself as Shakfeh's
paralegal and sat at counsel table next to Shakfeh at hearing. Chandler picked
up Gray and drove him to LSS and several other places that day for the sole
purpose of making public record requests. According to Gray, Chandler is a
resident of Lakeland, Florida.
6. Thomas Covenant [hereinafter "Covenant"] was with Gray when Gray entered
the offices ofLSS on June 16, 2014. He testified the purpose of his presence
at LSS was to provide witness testimony in future legal proceedings.

Page 2 of8

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

Website" to scan posted contracts executed between private entities and
government agencies. The results of the search are supplied to Gray. The
contracts are printed and Gray, Chandler, and Covenant drive to various
private entities and request unwanted documents under the Public Records
Act. They often visit more than one place in a day.
8. Thirteen of the eighteen cases that Gray has filed this year in Duval County
were filed by Shakfeh. In ten of these cases, which appear to be separate and
unrelated to each other, Shakfeh and Gray allege dates of public records
requests between June 16, 2014, and June 19, 2014. In case 2014-CA-4544,
Gray alleges he sought public records on June 16, 2014 [the same date as the
instant action], from an entity named Eisman and Russo Inc.
9. Neither Gray, nor any of his associates, made any effort to inform or advise
anyone associated with LSS that they were coming to request documents
under the Act. The failure to provide advance notice or written notice of any
kind to LSS was intentional and designed to catch LSS off-guard to obtain an
initial rejection of Gray's unneeded request.
10. Shakfeh pays Gray when he recovers attorneys' fees in these cases. Gray
testified and Shakfeh argued that payments to Gray in the past were from
"settlement proceeds."

However, the relief available under the Act is

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

not a basis for an award for monetary damages. Shakfeh claimed during
argument that the "settlement proceeds" are generated in exchange for

Page 3 of8

dismissing claims for "declaratory relief." This, too, would not give rise to an
award for monetary damages. The court concludes that any payment to Gray
in the past in other cases is merely a fee-splitting arrangement between Gray
and Shakfeh. The use of the term "settlement proceeds" is simply an effort to
mislabel any monetary distribution between them.
11. Based on this agreement, Gray has a financial interest in assuring that his
requests for public records are refused. The circumstances surrounding his
request in the instant case leave no doubt that his utterances to representatives
of LSS regarding potential public records were a baiting gesture meant to
achieve personal financial gain; not a legitimate request for public records.
12. Before Gray entered the offices ofLSS, he strapped a video camera around his
neck and surreptitiously filmed and recorded conversations between himself
and representatives of LSS. He purposely refrained from touching the camera
with his hands to avoid attention to it. It is apparent from the video that those
engaged in conversations with Gray had no idea they were being recorded.
13. Before entering the office; Gray marked the time of his arrival by videotaping
a clock in the automobile driven by Shakfeh' s paralegal. Gray acknowledged
this was done to present as evidence in subsequent legal proceedings.
14. The contract in question between Children and Family Services [the public
agency] and LSS provides for youth services by LSS to refugees living in
Duval County. The language of the contract states that "the Department is
engaging the provider for the purpose of providing youth services to assist

Page 4 of8

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

local community."
15. Initially, Gray asked Mr. Richard Machowski ["Machowski"] to inspect and
photograph the general insurance policy of LSS. Although Gray had the
contract in hand, he did not reference the contract when he made this request.
Machowski suggested that Gray speak with Jerome Crawford [hereinafter
"Crawford"], the project manager on the contract.
16. Crawford immediately discussed the matter with Gray. When asked by Gray,
Crawford acknowledged his belief that LSS was subject to the Act. Gray
asked Crawford for proof of insurance required by the contract. This request
was substantially different from the request made earlier to Machowski and
possibly created some confusion. Crawford acknowledged that LSS possessed
proof of insurance at the office, but believed that the document was not
subject to disclosure under the Act from LSS, and advised Gray that it was
available from the Department of Children and Family Services. Gray and
Covenant left the office without providing any contact information. When
asked why he failed to provide such information, Gray testified he wanted
"anonymity," despite being personally present at the office. Once Gray left,
LSS had no way to contact him.
17. The next contact LSS had with Gray occurred when he filed the instant
lawsuit on July 1, 2014. Oddly, Gray did not identify in his Initial Complaint
the documents that he claimed were denied him. Notwithstanding the lack of
clarity as to the documents in question, LSS promptly provided Gray

Page 5 of8

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

2014, Shakfeh, with Gray beside him, was unsure whether or not his client
wanted more than what had already been provided to him. Nevertheless, LSS
offered and the court ordered Shakfeh and Gray an opportunity to inspect
documents.
18. The means to request public records under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes,
utilized by Gray was unreasonable and a flagrant abuse of the statute. Gray in
an effort to ambush LSS, purposely denied LSS any advanced or written
notice of his demands, purposely failed to provide any contact information,
and purposely appeared on a busy work day in hopes of manufacturing an
attorneys' fee, to be shared with Gray. It was nothing more than a scam.
19. Notwithstanding the unreasonableness of the actions of Gray and his
associates, Gray obtained the documents in a reasonable time. This was not
accomplished by the filing of a lawsuit. The lawsuit served only to provide
Gray's contact information to LSS. However, it was not necessary to file a
lawsuit in order to merely provide an address or phone number.
20. The actions of Gray, Chandler, and Covenant prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that they obtained exactly what they wanted, namely an initial denial of
an unreasonable and bogus request. This was accomplished in a manner
purposely designed to prevent LSS from correcting any possible error.
21. Gray and his associates secretly and unlawfully recorded representatives of
LSS in a room where those in need of housing or mental health services, or
those suffering with AIDS, wait for assistance. The fact that these clients of

Page 6 of8

LSS use this room as a waiting area weighs heavily in favor of finding an
expectation of privacy at the time representatives of LSS were secretly
recorded. However, by agreement the parties consented to the introduction of
the DVD which contained audio recordings.
22. Gray's lawsuits in Duval County prove that he schemes against many private
agencies that contract with the state of Florida. These private entities may be
subject to the requirements of the Act. In fact, the contract between LSS and
the Department of Children and Family Services puts LSS on notice that it is
subject to the Act. However, if this court and other courts are willing to
condone or reward the type of abuse demonstrated here, private entities may
not be as willing to contract with the state of Florida. If a private entity must
pay an attorney's fee every time an agent denies a needless request, the cost to
the state to provide important services by contracting with private entities will
increase; or private entities might discontinue bidding on these contracts. The
chilling effect could be disastrous to the State. Further, the Act was not
designed to create a cottage industry for so-called "civil rights activists" or
others who seek to abuse the Act for financial gain.

CONCLUSION

The means utilized by Gray to obtain public records was unreasonable. The filing
of the lawsuit served nothing more than to provide Gray's address and/or phone number
to LSS which could have easily been done by Gray without the necessity of a lawsuit.

Page 7 of8

Nevertheless, Gray was provided all unwanted records to photograph and inspect in a
reasonable time.
Therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that:
I. The Initial Complaint seeking relief under Chapter 119 is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers

Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, this 1st

day ofDecember, 2014.

Circuit Judge

Copies furnished to:

Abraham Shakfeh, Esquire
Daniel K. Bean, Esquire

Page 8 of8

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

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

JEFFERY GRAY,

Case Number; c,~

Plaintiff,

-F:Jf I

v.
ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendants

--------------------------~/
PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant and, in doing so, states the
following:

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in St. Johns County, Florida.
2. Defendant is a government agency as defined by Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, located in
St. Johns County, Florida.
3. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief.

FACTS
4. On or about August 25, Plaintiff went to 299 School House Road, Saint Augustine, FL to
make a public records request.
5. Specifically, Plaintiff requested to inspect and photograph the Material Safety Data
Sheets at the location.
6. Plaintiff made verbally made the request to Suzan Lee.
7. Suzan Lee requested Plaintiff to identify himself.

EXHIBIT

"B"

8. Plaintiff declined to identify himself.

9. Suzan Lee informed Plaintiff he would have to obtain the records from the "district
downtown" despite the records being maintained at the present location.
10. Such procedure constitutes an unlawful restriction of accessing public records.
11. Plaintiff insisted on his right to inspect and photograph public records at the location in
which they are stored.
12. Suzan Lee called the St. Johns County Sheriff's Office who arrived and threatened to
arrest Plaintiff if he did not leave.
13. Plaintiff was not permitted to inspect and photograph public records.
14. All conditions precedent for this action have been fulfilled.

COUNT I-VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES.

15. Plaintiffre-alleges paragraphs 1-14 of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
16. By requiring Plaintiff to make his records request at a location other than where the
records are stored, Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights under Chapter 119, Florida
Statutes.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court provide injunctive relief of requiring Defendant to
provide him access to public records in a manner consistent with Chapter, 119, Florida Statutes,
declare Defendant to be in violation of the Public Records Act, enjoin Defendant from trespassing
Plaintiff in the course of accessing public records, and provide Plaintiff costs and attorney's fees for
bringing this action, and any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted on this 14th day of October, 2015.

Is/ Abraham M. Shakfeh

Abraham Shakfeh
Shakfeh Law, LLC.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
1207 N. Franklin St.
Suite 219
Tampa, FL 33602
Florida Bar Number: 0092035
Tel: (813) 228-0101
E-Mail: [email protected]

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

TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT TN AND
FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.:

CAlS-1121

JEFFERY GRAY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant.

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW, Defendant, St. Johns County School Board, (hereinafter 'me School
Board," by its undersigned attorneys pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b) and
moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a cause of action with
prejudice. As grounds therefore, Defendant would show the Court as follows:
1. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff made a public records request to "Suzan Lee,"

but fails to allege ultimate facts showing that Ms. Lee was a person with a legal duty
to respond to a public records request. Florida's public records law states that or.ly a
records custodian, or that person's designee, is responsible for maintaining public
records. Florida Statute 119.011(5). A records custodian may also permit other
persons who have custody of a public record to produce those records for inspection
and copying under the supervision of the custodian. Florida Statute 119.07(1 )(a).
2. However, Plaintiff's Complaint is devoid of any allegations that Ms. Lee was the
custodian of the requested records, a designee of the records custodian, or even a
person with custody of the requested records. (Plaintiffs Complaint paragraph 6, 9).

EXHIBIT

"C"

Indeed, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege that Ms. Lee was even a School Board
employee.
3. The Complaint also fails to allege that the custodian of the records, a person having
custody of the records, or a person designated to respond to public records requests
on their behalf refused to allow the records to be photographed at the location where
they are kept. Florida Statute 119.07(3)
4. Notably, the Complaint alleges that Ms. Lee directed Plaintiff to the "district
downtown," referring to the District's Community Relations Department. (Plaintiff's
Complaint paragraph 9). As Plaintiff is aware from his numerous prior public records
requests and prior communications with School Board staff, employees within the
District's Community Relations Department have been designated as the custodian of
public records for the St. Johns County School Board. The Complaint fails to allege,
and in fact is unable to truthfully allege, that the Community Relations Department
refused to allow the records to be photographed where they are kept.
5. The Complaint fails to allege that it was necessary for Plaintiff to file suit in order to
obtain the requested records. This omission is significant because Plaintiff fails to
disclose that the Community Relations Department contacted Plaintiff by email and
offered to produce the records at the Maintenance Office where they are kept, but
Plaintiff declined that offer.
6. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action on the theory that it was a violation of
the public records law to refer Plaintiff to an off-site designee for a response to his
public records request. Florida Statute 119.07(l)(b) specifically states
"a person having custody of public records may designate another officer
or employee of the agency to permit the inspection and copying of public

records, but must disclose the identity of the designee to the person
requesting to inspect or copy public records."
While Florida Statue 119.07(3)(d) requires records to be photographed where they
are kept, the statute authorizes a records custodian designee to process public records
requests. The statute contemplates that the designee should be ''another officer or
employee of the agency," but it does not require that the designee must have an office
at the same location. Florida Statute 119.07(1)(a) and (b). It would have been a
simple matter for Plaintiff to have made his request to the Community Relations
Department, and the Community Relations Department would have arranged for him
to photograph the requested records at the location where they are kept, as it has done
on other occasions and offered to do in this case.
7. The Complaint fails to allege that the Defendant unlawfully refused to produce the
requested records so as to be entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. Florida Statute

119.12.

Because Plaintiff was offered the opportunity to inspect, copy, and

photograph the records requested prior to the filing of this lawsuit, there can be no
legitimate claim for attorney's fees in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiffs request for
attorney's fees must be denied.
8. For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action and

failsto present an actual legal controversy. Indeed, under any truthful description of
the facts involved, Plaintiff is unable to state a cause of action. Therefore, all the
relief requested therein must be denied, and the Complaint should be dismissed with
prejudice.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

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

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

for attorney's fees and scam public dollars from public agencies through manufactured noncontroversies. Jeffery Marcus Gray, Plaintiff v. Lutheran Social Services of Northeast Florida,.
Inc .. Defendant, Case Number 2014-CA-4647-:XXXX (Fla. 14th Cir. Ct. 2014).
In this case, Plaintiff does not allege that "Suzan Lee" had the actual authority to comply
with his public records request. It is obvious that every single employee of the St. Johns County
public school system is not tasked with the responsibility of responding to public records
requests. A misdirected request to an employee who is not the records custodian or his designee
is not the basis for a statutory violation. "Until a request is actually made to a custodian or
designee there is no obligation for any response." Florida Consumer Rights, LLC v. UPion
County, 159 So.3d 882, 887 (Fla.

1st

DCA 2015).

Florida law establishes that the each school district's Superintendent is charged with the
responsibility for keeping all records "necessary to provide complete information regarding the
district school system."

Florida Statute 1002.51(3); and see Florida Statute 119.011(5)

("Custodian of public records" means the elected or appointed state, county, or municipal officer
charged with the responsibility of maintaining the office having public records, or his or her
designee.") As the records custodian for the school district, the Superintendent may designate
additional employees to maintain the records and oversee the production of those records in
response to a public records request. Here, the Superintendent has followed the statute and
exercised his legal authority to designate the Office of Community Relations to handle public

records requests. Plaintiffs failure to avail himself of the Office of Community Relations cannot
conjure a statutory violation out of thin air.
In addition, Plaintiff has failed to plead a basis for this Court to grant declaratory or
injunctive relief.

The plaintiff in a public records case must demonstrate a pattern of

noncompliance with the Public Records Law, together with a showing of likelihood of future
violations. Daniels v. Bryson, 548 So. 2d 679 at 680-681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Town of
Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citing to Daniels v. Bryson for
the standard for

i~junctive

relief). ln Florida, "an injunction will not be granted where it appears

that the acts complained of have already been committed and there is no showing by the
pleadings and proof that there is a reasonably well grounded probability that such course of
conduct will continue in the future." City of Jacksonville v. Wilson, 27 So.2d 108, 111 ( 1946).

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the
Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and designated service to the following in accordance with Rule
2.516, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration: Abraham Shakfeh, Shakfeh Law, LLC., 1207 N.
Franklin St., Suite 219, Tampa, FL 33602, AShakfeh(W,Shakfehlaw.com this November 10,2015.

D.a\rkVM. Delaney
Florida Bar No.: 121060
[email protected]
Ryan L. Gilbert
Florida Bar No.: 105931
[email protected]
203 NE 151 Street

Gainesville, FL 32601
(352) 372-4381
Frank D. Upchurch III
Florida Bar No. 195211
Post Office Drawer 3007
St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007
Telephone No. (904) 829-9066
Facsimile
No.
(904)
825-4862
Primary
email
address:
[email protected]
Secondary
email
address:
[email protected]
Firm email address: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant

Filing#

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

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

JEFFERY
Plaintiff,

Number: I

1121

v.
JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendants

voluntarily

Plaintiff, by and
prejudice pursuant to Fla. R.

the

case with

P. I
Respectfully submitted this 4th

2015.

EXHIBIT
"D"

The undersigned
that a copy the Tnre>rrnt
on this 4th day of December 20 15 at:
David M. Delaney

sent to Defendant's

[email protected]
[email protected]

Abraham Shakfeh
Attorney for Plaintiff

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

Report Date I Tima

1210412015 10:23 AM

1Reporting Officer (I D)

fAgency CAD Number

Report Number

fSJS015CAD158516

13137

'Reporting Officer (Rank) JReporting Officer (Name)

LE DEPUTY

DOUGLAS M. KOWIESKI

Reason

SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY

LOCATION
1

Location Description

L:ounty

HICKORY CREEK ELEMENTARY 5477450

STJOHNS
Street NumberJStreet

235

HICKORY CREEK TR

JAptllot/Bidg

JCity

JSAINT JOHNS

JState

JFL

IZip COde
32259

'Lamuoe

ILongtuoe

SUBJECT

Year

!Make

HD

Vehicle Linked to Person

I MOdel

I ODYSSEY

Style

!MINIVAN

1Color
ISIL

1State & License Plate Number

IVIN

Gray, Jeffrey Marcus

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

EXHIBIT

"E"
SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE

Page 1 of1

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

NARRATIVE

Observed a w/m subject standing on the grass portion betwoon the fence and sidewalk In front of Mill Creek Elementary video taping
the children as they ware exiting the school.
When asked about his behavior, he stated he was taping the extra law enforcement presence at the school. During our conversation,
I advl89d him It was not the best Idea to video the school considering the events that occurred during the day In Newton Conn.
When asked for his Identification, he refused but did provided his name, Jeff Gray. When asked If he had any children enrolled In the
school, he stated he did not.
The school principle approached and requested he not video tape the children and asked for him not to enter the property.
After our encounter, J. Gray continued to video tape the school for an approximately an addltlonal1 0 minutes. The principle of Mill
Creek notified the school district and advised them of the Incident.
It should be noted the subject video taped our entire encounter.

EXHIBIT

"F"
FIELD INTERVIEW

Page 1 of 1

Jobus County School District

Public

this

St. Johns County

School District
HOME

CALENDAR

CONTACT

COMMUNITY

us

SCHOOL

Community
Relations

Public Records

Public Records Requests

Public

for the St. johns

are

the Community
by

Retention

Production

are many statutory exemptions from public

and some
are statutorily
(student information,
security
production, the
are not confidential or

Subdepartments

Community
and nature of
You will

EXHIBIT

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

Public Records

Johns County School District

2 of5

In

to
photograph or obtain
you do not have to provide your
identification or give a reason for the request.
anonymous, you
pick up the
with
community
medium that
not

Awards &
Recognitions

public
name, show
If you wish to
in
n, or
for delivery
identification.

Designation of Community Relations Staff

Community

Related links

Plan

Procedures and Optional Public Records Request

Forms
It is not necessary to use the District's optional public records
request forms provided below. Those forms are optional and
provided for convenience only. If you would
you may
orally or in writing without
with
any
in

Submitting the Request Online

You
Department
button at
Community

public

by

to
Community
below is provided
the
be sent to the

Submitting the Request by FAX, Mail, Phone or in

Person

Public Records Requests I St. Johns County School District

3 of5

through the Community Relations

You may

Augustine,

An

is provided for your

Community Relations

johns County

District Community

Department, 40

FL -''"'u-...

main

at 40

Florida.

including
military
first
allows for any

the

return
Department by FAX,

Optional Public Records Request Forn

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

1.

Full Name

Company

\'1

Public Records Requests I St. Johns County School

4 of5

Families

Staff

Community

FL

Parent Resource

Public Records

Follow us on

Menus

Auctions

(INK)

From:
Sent:
To:

2015 9:02AM

From: Danlelle Cook

Sent: Monday, October

To: Christina H.
,:,u~;,Jv~o;.

FW: Public

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

to your email to Dr. Joyner dated June 1.

At both Wards Creek and Bartram

you were
that public records
are
by the district
Community Relations
and directed to contact Community Relations with your
You are aware of
that
from your previous
The
of Community Relations (specifically Chief of Community
Relations Christina
to process public records
is authorized by Florida Statute 119.07(1)(b).
Although you did not contact our
as
we are
the
The
records are
for your
this afternoon. Alternatively, we can copy them and send them to you. Please
to this
email me If you would like
We understand that it Is not necessary for you to identify yourself as a condition of
public records. At Wards
did not ask you to Identify yourself as a
she redirected you to submit your
without asking for
to Community Relations.
you, the principal advised that you would be
to
yourself to
come on campus in the future. It Is district policy to
all visitors to
when they enter a school
for
public events.
Is a
We trust that In the future you will contact Ms.
district records.

oranyofour

members with any

for

EXHIBIT

"H"

Follow

to and from St. Johns

records law of Florida. This

its official business are available

for
Notice: This email message,
any
and may contain confidential and
information. Any
If you are not the intended
contact the sender

use, disclosure or distribution

reply email and
all
of the

Danielle Cook
Subject:
Attachments:

FW: Public
SJCSDPR.pdf

From: Danfelle Cook

June 02, 2015 2:34PM
Gray <[email protected]>
Cc: Christina H.
<[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Public Records

Danielle M. Cook

"All
law
for

sent to and from St. Johns

to the

This
available

From: Jeffrey Gray ~..:.:.:.:===~~~===:..:..:.:.J

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 8:08AM
To: Danfelle Cook; Christina H. Langston

Cc: Joel Chandler; Thomas Covenant

Subject: Public Records Request

Danielle,
You wrote the following in your response emaiL..
Although you did not contact our department as instructed, we are orc,ce!ISII112 the request The
original
are available
your inspection this

EXHIBIT
"I"

Johns County School District official written

Jeff Gray (HonorYourOath, PINAC)

ransP<:1rer1cv + Accountability Liberty
On Jun I 2015, at 15:07, Jeffrey

wrote:

Although you did not contact our department as instructed, we are

records are available for your
this .:~thrnl'lr.n

pro~ce~;smlg

the

JOIN

Posted: September

2015

10:45pm 1 Updated: September

::1015

:o:53pm

MARTI II

records requests made In schools.

In addition to sections on
assessment and Instructional
new category
with "school safety."
Under this category is one item in which
school district would support
records requests at a school site to check in with proper identificstlon.
"This Item Is In no way an intent to limit
those documents, a said Beth Sweeny, coordinator of

records requests or
relations for the district.
county schools

She said the distrlet:s

parents of students currently
issue.''
Joe Joyner said. "The
to ask someone to
"It's a
a campus with children seems to be pretty apparent
pretty basic but It's not."
Sweeny said there's been an
In
records requests made in
themselves,
In St. Johns County but across Northeast Florida.
"It's scary for the staff that this is
School board chair Bev

onto

schools

to

done to them and it's not In the best interest of our studeitls," she said.

said even school board members have to

In each time

visit a school.

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

He said It's
"We have the
to go there and
the
records request,
should do
nrovldinR identification In order to review

he

"If

person is there to do

to accommodate."
records, Gray said he considers

crucial part of

EXHIBIT
"J"

community relations for the district, said

from
district

mail,

visitor or make them show their

ro

many statutory
from
number and health eare records.

a school

student's
at the custodian's election

the
Relations
disclosure under the Florida
of the records.

on the nature of the request

"tt

the moment or if

need further assistance from the school

Charter chatter
support the creation of a Public Education

will once
The Senate

construction allocation

this
nrcwicled additional
allocated to charter schools.
$100

dollars for

million in PECO KI2 malntennnce

schools

but with

now

and charter schools

soso.
School
enrolln11mt.

member

Barrera said

for charters should be

shouldn't have such

percentage of money
students across the state/ she ssld.
Charter schools are
the state, St. Johns

funded schools that operate

has not seen the enrollment

to such a small percentage of entities that serve

become a
other school districts have "'"""'"""""111

across

nriulltl>ltJ

In 2014-15, there were about 650 charters with 250,000 students In Florida and six charters with about 250
students in St. Johns County.
The district will once
districts
take past

support Increased loeal control In charter school

reviews
of charter school operators Into account
of the IIP!)IIcattcm evaluation.
rules created
the State Board of Edueation this year that
not written Into the sUI'lUt~~s.

"You

not allowed to use It

favorable to the

for denial

denial were recommended for both charter llPlllicatl<ms

district last year.
before the board could dlsapprove.
school district

No
The district would
schools.

11/1

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

Other matters
The district will continue supporting restoration of the Base Student Allocation to the 2007-08 funding level Florida's previous high mark.
There was an increase in the BSA for 201516 of $122.68, from $4,031.77 to $4,15445, which still comes $74.71
short of the 2007-08 level.
The district will also support an increase in the Digital Classrooms Allocation for technology needs - including
infrastructure, hardware, software, training and portable devices - resulting from statutory requirements to expand
online testing, digital/virtual instruction and data collection.
In the 2015 Legislative Session, Florida lawmakers approved a $20 million increase in the Digital Classrooms
Allocation, maldng for a total of $6o million.
In 2014-15, the district received about $524,000 in Digital Classrooms money. This year, it will receive an estimated

$Boo,ooo.
Much of the push for technology comes from pressure from the state to switch from the traditional paper/pencil
type of standardized testing to online testing.
The district will continue supporting additional paper/pencil options for the Florida Standards Assessment "until
adequate infrastructure, devices and students' digital skills are in place and ready for successful administration.''
School district officials cited the numerous technical glitches during the rollout of the new online-based FSA in the
spring.
A final draft of the 2016 Legislative Platform is expected to be presented to the school board for approval later this
faiL

YoUL' rating: None

Bac~

to Top

CLOSE X

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