In a letter instructing Ellis' attorney, Curt Jacobus, Esq. of GrayRobinson, P.A., to prepare a final judgment, Moxley, Jr. held, "The documents in the possession of the respondent [EDC] as a private entity must be produced as public records, because Brevard County has delegated a statutorily authorized function to the respondent and the records generated by the respondent’s performance of that duty are public records."
"Economic development and nurturing economic advances promulgated by the Chambers of Commerce are appropriate governmental functions...," Moxley stated. "...the scope of the contract delegated economic development of Brevard County to the Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast, Inc. Accordingly, any records generated in carrying out those duties are public records subject to inspection."
Moxley, Jr. did grant the request of the EDC's attorney, Kimberly Rezanka, Esq. of Dean Mead, P.A., that if the EDC believes records are not subject to inspection, to provide a privilege or exemption log to the Court specifying the basis for non-disclosure. Otherwise, the EDC must disclose the documents to Ellis.
“Judge Moxley’s opinion affirms what our office has asserted since January 2013: the EDC is subject to the Florida Public Records Act when working on behalf of the County as its economic development agency," Ellis said in a statement. "The EDC has been delegated the County’s economic development duties by contract since 1989. The EDC receives $1.4 million of taxpayer funds annually as part of that contract. We believe the ruling is a true victory for the right of the taxpayers to know how their monies are expended."
"The commitment exhibited by Curt Jacobus and Alec Russell of GrayRobinson, P.A. to the public’s right to review public records is commendable," Ellis added. "The arguments for the Court were well presented and the research extremely thorough."
In light of the Court’s ruling, we look forward to working with the EDC as it complies with our unfulfilled request for records. We clearly recognize certain documents are exempted by FS 288.075 and will honor the court’s decision to review said documents for applicability.”
|EDC CEO Lynda Weatherman|
"While we respect the authority of the Court, We disagree with this ruling and are seeking further clarification," EDC President and CEO Lynda Weatherman wrote in a letter to EDC Board members. "After review and discussion with our legal counsel and officers, we believe the Court failed to utilize the proper test for determining whether the EDC’s records are public records."
"We do not believe clear and convincing evidence was presented by the Clerk to support the ruling," Weatherman added. "The EDC merely provides services to the County as set forth in the Contract, not unlike many contracts the EDC has with other entities and businesses. Unfortunately, the ruling leaves many unanswered questions. We will review all options, including appeal, before determining our next course of action."
"To be clear, the EDC’s operations and the integrity of our files remain unchanged at this time. We will keep the Board informed as more clarity is established."