Winter 2013 News Inside This Issue: Exclusive Article: To Check or Not to Check? A Public Entity s Use of Criminal Background and Social Media Information in Hiring Decisions... 4 Welcome New Preferred Members... 6 Special Article: Bullying Related Tragedies Emphasize Proper School District Action... 7 News Extra: 2014 Risk Advisory Board Members... 8 Preferred Earns GFOA s Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for Third Year in Row... 10 Holiday Greeting... 10 Breaktime Fun -n- Games... 11 Your E-mails May Be Public Records By Lyman H. Reynolds, Jr. - Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC Top executives, such as the Chief Financial Officer for Washington, D.C. as well as the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, admit to sending e-mails relating to official business using their personal e-mail addresses. 1 Sending an e-mail from a personal e-mail address means that the e-mail is not subject to the Public Records Act, right? WRONG! E-mails sent by government officials conducting official business from their personal e-mail addresses are subject to the Public Records Act, as provided by Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, 2 just as if the e-mails were sent from their government e-mail addresses. When an E-mail is Subject to the Public Records Act The nature of the record, not the physical location or form of the document,is the determining factor of whether a document is a public record subject to disclosure. 3 The Florida Supreme Court has taken a broad interpretation of what constitutes a public record. 4 Simply put, information is a public record if it concerns the business of an agency. 5 E-mails have been found to be subject to the Public Records Act as e-mails are merely electronic versions of letters. 6 The mere placement of an e-mail on a government computer network is not a controlling factor in determining whether e-mails are public records. 7 That is, private emails are not automatically a public record by virtue of their placement on a government computer network. Likewise, the fact that e-mails are sent from a personal e-mail address on a personal computer is not a controlling factor. 8 In determining whether the e-mails are private or public records, Florida courts look at whether the e-mails are prepared in connection with the official business of an agency and are intended to perpetuate, communicate, and formalize the knowledge of some type. 9 Private or personal e-mails fall outside of the definition of a public record as such e-mails are not made or received pursuant to law or ordinance nor created or received in connection with the official business of the [government agency] or in connection with the transaction of official business. 10 The public records act applies to documents used in the transaction of public business and either prepared by a government agent or prepared by a private party and received by a government agent. 11 CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
FEATURE ARTICLE Therefore, regardless of the origin of the e-mail, that is, whether the government agent sends or receives an e-mail from his or her private or public e-mail address, the e-mail may be subject to the Public Records Act. The court will look to the content of the e-mail in order to determine whether the e-mail is a public record. As the ability for people to access e-mail from various devices grows, so does the ability of a court to access those devices. In addition to the ability of a court to order the production of e-mails, the court can also order an examination of the hardware from cell phones, tablets, or computers which have access to your e-mails. 12 It is important to realize that even deleted computer files, including e-mail, are discoverable. 13 To Whom the Public Records Act Applies Florida s Public Records Act applies to every agency of the state. 14 During the 2013 Regular Legislative Session, the Florida Legislature passed CS/CS/HB 1309, which relates to governmental accountability in contracting. 15 This legislation created 119.0701, Fla. Stat., a new section in Florida s Public Records Act which took effect on July 1, 2013. 16 119.0701, Fla. Stat., mandates that Florida public agencies include provisions in services contracts where the contractor is acting on behalf of the public agency confirming the contractor s obligations under the Public Records Act. If the contractor does not comply with these contractual provisions, 119.0701(3), Fla. Stat., requires the public agency to enforce the contract provisions in accordance with the contract. The two circumstances in which documents in a private entity s possession, classified as a contractor under the new 119.0701, Fla. Stat., become public records are when a public entity delegates a statutorily authorized function to a private entity and when a public entity contracts with a private entity for the provision of certain goods or services to facilitate the public agency s performance of its duties. 17 In the latter circumstance, the private entity s records may be public records if the totality of the factors indicates significant involvement by the public agency. Id. Those factors include, but are not limited to: 1) the level of public funding; 2) commingling of funds; 3) whether the activity was conducted on publicly owned property; 4) whether services contracted for are an integral part of the public agency s chosen decision-making process; 5) whether the private entity is performing a governmental function or a function which the public agency otherwise would perform; 6) the extent of the public agency s involvement with, regulation of, or control over the private entity; 7) whether the private entity was created by the public agency; 8) whether the public agency has a substantial financial interest in the private entity; and 9) for who s benefit the private entity is functioning. 18 For example, a private engineering company s documents were held to be public records when the private engineering company was found to be acting de facto as a city s engineer because the a city delegated its municipal engineering functions to the private engineering company. 19 Additionally, a towing company s documents were held to be public records when, the towing company, which had entered into an agreement with a city to remove the wrecked and abandoned automobiles from public streets and property, was considered to essentially be performing a governmental function. 20 On the other hand, documents from a private entity which merely leased land from a governmental agency for private development were not held to be public records where the governmental agency did not delegate a government function or a government project. 21 Based on the totality of factors test, a volunteer fire department s documents were held to be public records when the court found that the volunteer fire department was acting on behalf of a public agency because the organization was entrusted with the sole stewardship over firefighting, was funded in part by public money, and the conduct of all of the organization s activities occurred on county owned property. 22 On the other hand, an architectural firm s documents were held not to be public records where the architectural firm that contracted with a county school board to provide professional services for the construction of a school was found not to be acting on behalf of a public agency. 23 The school board played no part in the creation of the architectural firm, the public funds received by the architectural firm were in consideration for professional services rendered, the school board did not have control over the architectural firm, the architectural firm was not involved in the school board s decision making process, the architectural firm was not performing a government function, and the architectural firm was not motivated to provide a public service. 24 2 CONTINUED ON PAGE 3
FEATURE ARTICLE Consequences of a Failure to Produce Public Records Failing to produce public records could result in expensive consequences. If the agency is found to have unlawfully refused to permit the inspection or copying of a record, reasonable attorneys fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party. 25 It is important to realize that an unjustified delay in complying with the request amounts to an unlawful refusal. 26 Additionally, a public officer who violates the law may be subject to penalties which include a fine of $500, suspension, removal, or impeachment from office, and criminal misdemeanor or felony claims. 27 Conclusion Government entities can implement policies for their employees regarding using a work e-mail address solely for city or agency business or can even go as far as requiring their employees to have two separate devices, one for work matters and one for personal matters. The safest way to protect yourself as a government agent is to only send e-mails regarding official business from your government e-mail address. Do not use your personal e-mail address for any discussions which may potentially be considered a business purpose. Lyman H. Reynolds, Jr. is a founding partner at RRB&T. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree with honors from Emory University and his Juris Doctor degree from Vanderbilt University College of Law. Mr. Reynolds was the Robert Tyre Bobby Jones Scholar and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Mr. Reynolds began his practice out of law school with the law firm of Jones, Walker in New Orleans where he handled Jones Act and Seaman, Longshoremen, and Harbor Workers cases as well as federal maritime collision and products liability cases. While in New Orleans, Mr. Reynolds also taught legal research and writing classes at Tulane University. After moving to Florida, Mr. Reynolds began handling a wide variety of civil litigation matters, representing numerous governmental entities, corporations and insurance companies for their general liability claims, in addition to continuing to handle work in maritime litigation involving both commercial and private vessels. Mr. Reynolds is a member of the Florida Bar and is an AV rated lawyer by Martindale-Hubbell. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, Fifth and Eleventh U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal and the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. With more than 31 years of litigation experience, Mr. Reynolds has tried more than 100 cases to verdict. He specializes in handling cases with large exposure and complicated issues. Mr. Reynolds is known for his impressive trial presentation and presence in the courtroom. Mr. Reynolds areas of litigation practice include products liability, negligent security liability, employment law, governmental agency liability, general negligence, medical malpractice and maritime law. 1. Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer of Washington, D.C. has testified to sending e-mails from his personal e-mail address to the mayor and other D.C. counsel members occasionally for office purposes. Mike DeBonis, D.C. Officials Say They Use Personal E-mail Accounts for Official Business, WASHINGTON POST (December 7, 2011), http://articles.washington post. com/2011-12-07/local/35287508_1_personal-e-mail-e-mail- accounts-separate-deposition (last visited October 4, 2013). Gina McCarthy, current Administrator and President Obama s nominee for head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also admits to using her personal e-mail address to send official documents. Brendan Greeley, There s a Reason Politicians Use Private E-mail for Official Business, BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-14/theres-a-reason-politicians- use-private-e-mail-for-official-business (last visited October 4, 2013). 2. Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution provides that [e]very person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf. The rights created by the Florida Constitution are enforced through Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. 119.01(1), Fla. Stat., provides that [i]t is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person. Providing access to public records is a duty of each agency. 119.07(1), Fla. Stat., permits inspection and copying of public records by any person desiring to do so. 3. State v. City of Clearwater, 863 So. 2d 149, 154 (Fla. 2003); Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Santa Fe College, 109 So. 3d 851, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 4. Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Assocs., 379 So. 2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980); Rhea, 109 So. 3d at 855. 5. See 119.011(12) (Defining a public record as: all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by an agency. ) 6. See, e.g., Rhea, 109 So. 3d at 855. 7. See Clearwater, 863 So. 2d at 154, 155. 8. Butler v. City of Hallandale Beach, 68 So. 3d 278, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). 9. Clearwater, 863 So. 2d at 154; Butler, 68 So. 3d at 281. 10. Clearwater, 863 So. 2d at 154. See also Times Publ'g Co. v. City of Clearwater, 830 So. 2d 844, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). 11. NCAA v. AP, 18 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that an e-mail received by an agency s legal counsel from a secure, password protected website that was operated from a remote computer since the agency s legal counsel s use of the info from the website was for a public purpose.) 12. See Wynmoor Cmty. Council, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 280 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (indicating that a forensic exam of a computer was warranted). 13. See Bank of Mong. v. M&P Global Fin. Servs., 258 F.R.D. 514 (S.D. Fla. 2009). 14. An agency is defined as under 119.011(2), Fla. Stat., as: [a]ny state, county, district, authority, or municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law including, for the purposes of this chapter, the Commission on Ethics, the Public Service Commission, and the Office of Public Counsel, and any other public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on behalf of any public agency. 15. H.B. 1309, Appropriations Comm., 2013 Reg. Leg. Sess. (Fla. 2013). 16. See 119.0701, Fla. Stat. 17. Weekly Planet v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth., 829 So. 2d 970, 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). 18. News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Schwab, Twitty & Hanser Architectural Group, 596 So. 2d 1029,1031 (Fla. 1992). 19. See B & S Utils., Inc. v. Baskerville-Donovan, Inc., 988 So. 2d 17, 18, 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). 20. Fox v. News-Press Pub. Co., 545 So. 2d 941, 942, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). 21. See Weekly Planet, 829 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). 22. Schwartzman v. Merritt Island Volunteer Fire Dep't, 352 So. 2d 1230, 1231-32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). 23. Sun-Sentinel, 596 So. 2d at 1030, 1033. 24. Id. at 1032. 25. 119.12, Fla. Stat.; Barfield v. Town of Eatonville, 675 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). 26. Barfield, 675 So. 2d at 224. 27. 119.10, Fla. Stat. 3
EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE To Check or not to Check? A Public Entity s Use of Criminal Background and Social Media Information in Hiring Decisions By T. R. Unice, Jr., Esquire & David M. Rosenbaum, Esquire - Unice Salzman, P.A. Everytown has been accepting job applications for its vacant city clerk position. Everytown reviewed the application of Mr. Candidate and the results of his criminal background check. The check revealed that Mr. Candidate was convicted on a DUI charge 10 years ago and received a fine. Additionally, Mr. Candidate refused to answer a question on Everytown s application asking him to identify any social media accounts he used. Everytown decided not to hire Mr. Candidate because of his DUI conviction and because it was concerned of Mr. Candidate s trustworthiness as he refused to identify his Facebook account that Everytown found. Everytown has just received notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Mr. Candidate has filed a charge of discrimination alleging that he was not hired because he is Hispanic. Should Everytown be worried? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has become increasingly aggressive in policing employer use of arrest and conviction records when conducting background checks on potential employees. In April 2012, the EEOC issued its controversial Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Guidance warns employers that, in the EEOC s view, an employer s use of criminal background checks may cause Title VII violations under two different theories: (1) disparate treatment liability when an employer treats criminal background information differently among applicants based on their race or other protected class; and (2) disparate impact liability when an employer s seemingly neutral criminal background check policy disproportionately impacts applicants based on their protected class, and the background checks are not job related and consistent with business necessity. The Guidance focuses on several categories of evidence that the EEOC may use to show that protected characteristics motivated an employer s use of criminal records in a hiring decision. In order to establish discrimination, the EEOC will look for: (1) biased statements, which includes comments by the employer that are derogatory or protected class related stereotypes regarding criminality; (2) inconsistencies in the hiring process, specifically whether the employer requested criminal background information more often for applicants within protected groups or whether the employer gave those in protected groups less opportunities to explain their criminal history when compared to Caucasian applicants; (3) similarly situated comparators, whether the applicant was treated differently than other persons who are not within the applicant s protected group; (4) employment testing, whether matched-pair testing 2 reveals that applicants are being treated differently because of their protected characteristics; and (5) statistical evidence, including evidence derived from an examination of an employer s applicant and workforce data, and third party criminal background history data. If it is established that an employer s criminal background check policy causes a disparate impact, an employer can still demonstrate that its practices are job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessities. In order to do so, an employer needs to show that its policy effectively links specific criminal conduct and its dangers with the risks connected to the duties of a particular position. To be consistent, an employer should consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the offense, and the nature of the job sought. The EEOC strongly warns against using arrest records in the criminal background check process because arrests are not proof that criminal conduct has occurred and arrest records may not reflect the outcome of the arrest. 4 CONTINUED ON PAGE 5
EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE The Guidance provides employers with a list of best practices to consider when using criminal background information in the hiring process. Employers should eliminate blanket policies that exclude applicants for having any criminal record. Employers should develop a narrowly tailored policy for criminal background screenings that: identifies essential job requirements; determines the specific criminal offenses that may demonstrate unfitness for a particular position; determines a specific time frame for criminal conduct exclusions; and includes an individualized assessment. An individualized assessment is a policy where an employer notifies the applicant that he may be excluded because of criminal background information, provides an opportunity for the applicant to demonstrate that he should not be excluded, and allows for the employer to consider whether the additional information provided by the applicant, if any, shows that the employer s policy is not being applied in manner consistent with business necessity. The EEOC has not been shy in bringing suit against employers for their allegedly discriminatory use of criminal background checks in the application process. But recently, in EEOC v. Freeman,3 the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland thrashed the EEOC in a strong ruling in favor of the defendant employer. The EEOC sued Freeman alleging that its use of criminal background information in the hiring process violated Title VII because of its discriminatory effect on African-Americans, Hispanics, and men. Freeman used a multi-step procedure to evaluate an applicant s background information. Freeman considered whether the applicant was truthful about his criminal convictions on its application forms, whether the applicant had outstanding warrants, whether the applicant had criminal convictions within the past seven years, and whether the criminal conduct underlying a conviction made an applicant unsuitable for employment. The EEOC asserted that Freeman s criteria had a significant disparate impact on protected classes and were not job-related or consistent with business necessity. In support, the EEOC submitted statistical analyses of Freeman s hiring patterns. Therein lay the problem. The Court hammered the EEOC and stated that it must do more than merely raise a statistical inference of discrimination... it must actually prove the discriminatory impact. The Court found that the EEOC s data was incomplete, unreliable, contained analytical fallacies, and an egregious example of scientific dishonesty. That was not all, even if the analyses were reliable, the EEOC failed in its burden of identifying the specific Freeman policy that caused the alleged disparate impact. By bringing a general complaint against Freeman s policy as a whole, even though the policy had multiple, discrete parts, the EEOC could not demonstrate that any or all of the discrete parts caused a disparate impact. The Court concluded with a strong admonishment, that any rational employer in the United States should pause to consider the implications of actions of this nature... the EEOC has placed many employers in the Hobson s choice of ignoring criminal history... or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers. Although this decision should provide some relief to employers, the EEOC continues to bring suit against employers using criminal background information. Despite Freeman, in 2013, the EEOC filed suit against two more large corporations, BMW and Dollar General.4 The outcomes of these cases will continue to bring clarity to employers regarding how courts will determine when an employer s use of criminal background information is discriminatory. Criminal background information is not the only employer tool currently under the microscope. Florida is poised to join a growing number of states that protect employee and applicant social media account information. If Senate Bill 198 passes the Florida legislature, as of October 1, 2014, employers will be barred from asking or requiring employees or applicants to provide social media user names and passwords, or from demanding access to social media information that is not publically available. Under this bill, employers cannot make a hiring decision based on an applicant s refusal to provide social media access. The bill grants a private cause of action to employees and applicants against employers and a two-year statute of limitations to file suit. Employees and applicants can seek injunctive relief, the greater amount of $500 per violation or actual damages, and will be entitled to attorneys fees. If this bill becomes law, Florida will join 16 other states (6 passed laws in 2012, 10 in 2013) with similar prohibitions on an employer s use of private social media information in hiring and other employment decisions. 5 CONTINUED ON PAGE 6
EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE Although there have been no recent court decisions regarding the use of social media by an employer to prescreen applicants, in a recent workshop presented by the EEOC s Training Institute, the EEOC cautioned that pre-screening applicants through social media may create issues for the employer if a charge is filed against it. The EEOC used the following hypothetical situation: a job candidate posts information about an early pregnancy on her Facebook wall and a potential employer sees this information during a pre-screen. The woman is not hired and brings a charge claiming she was not hired due to her pregnancy. It is the EEOC s opinion that the employer will have a more difficult time arguing that the pregnancy information was not a factor because the company obtained it prior to making a hiring decision. In essence, a main concern is that an employer may learn information regarding a potential employee s protected characteristics from social media and then use that information in a discriminatory manner, such as not offering an interview to the potential candidate. An employer s use of criminal background check information and social media information in its hiring decisions are emerging areas of the law. Until these areas develop, employers should use this information carefully and assess whether the risk of using this information outweighs the risk of foregoing it. T.R. UNICE, JR., ESQUIRE, Admitted to The Florida Bar, 1982; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 1983; U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 1985; and U.S. Supreme Court, 1987. Attended The American University, received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Washington and Jefferson College in 1979 and a Juris Doctor from Ohio Northern University in 1982. Board Certified by The Florida Bar as a Civil Trial Lawyer and, nationally, by the American Board of Trial Advocacy. Mr. Unice began his law practice as an Assistant State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas and Pasco County, Florida in 1983, immediately after law school, where he served on the Arson Prosecution Unit working closely with insurance companies, state arson and fraud investigators and local fire investigative teams. After leaving the Office of the State Attorney in 1986, Mr. Unice devoted his practice to insurance defense litigation. His background includes representing governmental entities, insurance companies and self-insured entities in all types of personal injury matters, insurance coverage issues, bad faith claims, products liability, professional liability, nursing home/aclf, motor vehicle and truck accidents, civil rights claims and employment matters. Mr. Unice has been selected as Super Lawyer in the State of Florida and Tampa Bay s Top Lawyers. Mr. Unice is admitted to practice in the state courts of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the Northern, Middle and Southern Districts of Florida, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. 1. The Guidance, Number 915.002, is available at www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm. 2. The EEOC acknowledges that is has not conducted matched-pair testing to investigate allegedly discriminatory employment practices. More information on matched-pair testing can be found at www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/testers.html 3. EEOC v. Freeman, Case No. RWT 09-cv-2573 (D. Md. Aug. 9, 2013). 4. EEOC v. BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC (S.D.S.C. 2013), Case No. 7:13-cv-01583 and EEOC v. Dolgencorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General (N.D. Ill. 2013), Case No. 1:13-cv-04307. Preferred would like to welcome the following new members... City of Atlantis City of Fort Myers City of Satellite Beach Fishhawk III CDD Golden Gate Fire Control Heritage Landing CDD Heritage Harbour South CDD Monroe County BOCC Orange County Sheriff s Office River Cities Community Charter School 6
SPECIAL ARTICLE Bullying Related Tragedies Emphasize Proper School District Action By Kenneth Picton, Vice President - PGCS Claim Services It is common for most of us to think about the smiling, eager and hopeful children who fill the halls and classrooms of our schools. Sadly however, statistics show that many children don t share this enthusiasm but rather fear what each day will bring. Consider these figures: 30 percent of students are regularly involved in bullying, either as victims, bullies or both. One in five high school students say they have been bullied at school. 15 percent of students are severely traumatized or distressed by encounters with bullies. When these kinds of statistics are combined with the fact that bullied children are five times more likely to develop depression and as high as eight times more likely to contemplate suicide, it s easy to see the ramifications for our schools, families and communities. It is natural for people to want to assess blame when student-to-student interactions resulting in serious physical or mental injury occur at school or arise from school-related events. The truth is no school can absolutely guarantee the avoidance of harm to every student every day. There are simply too many factors involved, many of which are out of the school s control. In fact, courts have been clear that while society places a significant responsibility upon school officials to provide a safe environment for students, this responsibility does not make school officials insurers of the safety of their students. School district personnel must not turn a blind eye to peer-to-peer bullying and harassment that is going on around them, and, when put on notice of the occurrences of harassment, schools must take reasonable action in an attempt to remedy the situation. If their reactions to known student offenses are unreasonable, they may be found liable for a foreseeable injury that occurs. While negligence actions against school districts in peer harassment cases often fail on the foreseeability test, as well as the proximate cause element (due to the fact it is the other student who is deemed to be the legal cause of the bullied student s harm), today s recognition of the harmful effects of bullying and the overall well-being of students demand a proactive approach on the part of the school district. It is also important to note that in terms of school system liability, lawsuits resulting from bullying and harassment don t begin and end with negligence actions in state courts. There are also federal implications based on due process, equal protection, and discrimination in the form of racial or sexual harassment. So what can a school system do to combat bullying and adhere to its legal responsibilities? First, it should adopt a policy prohibiting bullying and harassment. Second, follow the policy, create procedures for reporting bullying; promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints; and take proper action, including punishing offenders, when confirming or witnessing bullying and harassment. Train staff on how to implement the policy and identify the prohibited behavior and work to create an environment within the school through programs, assemblies and individualized attention that discourages bullying and educates students on its ramifications. Unfortunately there are no guarantees, but it is important that schools foster an environment of respect and one where destructive behavior is not tolerated. Kenneth Picton began his career with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company as a multiple-line field claim adjuster subsequent to earning a Bachelor of Arts degree from Bradley University. He has over thirty-six years of insurance claims and management experience having worked for both carriers and third party administrators. Prior to coming to PGCS, Kenneth was a Litigation Claim Supervisor handling public entity claims for the Tennessee Municipal League and most recently served as Vice-President, SE Zone for Gallagher Bassett Services. Kenneth has earned the Associate in Claims designation from the Insurance Institute of America and is currently enrolled in the Associate in Risk Management Program. He has also completed several courses to earn the American Educational Institute s SCLA designation. An Illinois native, Kenneth has resided and handled claims in the states of Illinois, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Florida. 7
NEWS EXTRA 2014 Risk Advisory Board Members The Preferred Governmental Insurance Trust formed its Risk Advisory Board back in 2005 to provide valuable assistance and input to the program administrator, Public Risk Underwriters of Florida. The board s makeup is comprised of a diverse group of 14 Risk Managers from Preferred member cities, counties and special districts located throughout the state who handle the day-to-day insurance matters and challenges for their respective entities. Their main focus and initiative has been to provide timely education and training to the membership at large and also working with the administrator on the periodic development of new products and services. For example, the Risk Advisory Board has been instrumental in serving on panel discussions at seminars conducted throughout Florida in a question and answer format on a wide range of risk management topics with members. Public Risk Underwriters of Florida and its various business partners very much appreciates the hard work and dedication of this group of risk managers who definitely add a valuable dimension to Preferred. Reneé Hudson began her career with the City of Bradenton in 1988 serving Bradenton for over 25 years with 21 years experience in the Risk Management Department and 15 years as the Risk Manager. A graduate from Bradenton s Southeast High School Reneé has attained the Public Entity Risk Management (RMPE) designation from the Insurance Institute of America. Renee Hudson City of Bradenton RAB Chair Renee is also committed to serving Manatee County. She served as a Board of Director for the Manatee County Safety Council from 1992 through 2012 and has been the Vice President of Manatee County Crime Stoppers since 2003. Reneé currently serves as an Emergency Support Liaison for the Manatee County Emergency Operations Center. She was recently elected as the Treasurer of the Southwest Florida Chapter of Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA) and remains an active member of National PRIMA. Lori is the Risk Manager for the City of Naples, and has more than 20 years experience in public sector Risk Management As Risk Manager for a self- insured government agency, Lori manages a combined budget of $10M and is responsible for program design/structure, loss fund administration, budgeting, cost allocation, safety and loss control, and claim and litigation management. She also oversees the City s health care planning. Lori Parsons City of Naples RAB Vice Chair Lori is an active member of the SWFL chapter of PRIMA (Public Risk and Insurance Management Association) and active member of the South West Florida Chapter of the Risk and Insurance Management Society. She is a certified public entity risk manager (RMPE). Reene Daugherty is the Risk Manager for the Town of Davie. Prior to joining the Town of Davie, Reene was the Manager Workers Compensation for AutoNation, Inc. Her prior work experience also included being the Director Risk Management for Interim HealthCare, Inc. and Jackson Health System/University of Miami School of Medicine. Reene Daugherty Town of Davie Reene received her MS in Psychology from Carlos Albizu University and BS in Psychology from Nova Southeastern University. She is a Licensed Healthcare Risk Manager in the State of Florida, holds an All Lines Adjuster License in the State of Florida and is currently working on her ARM certification. Maureen is the Risk Manager for the City of Ttusville. Maureen began her career in City government in 1985 in a Central Florida Police Department as the Police Chief s secretary; she also volunteered as Fire Fighter. In the private sector, Maureen worked for a multi-billion dollar electrical contractor. Maureen s desire to return to local government lead her to an ambulance company that ran 2 tier with Fire Departments in a County with 16 municipalities. Maureen Gochee City of Titusville She has Risk Management, Safety, Benefits and Human Resources Administration experience in both municipal/county government and the private sector. Ricky is the Sr. Risk & Environmental Safety Manager for the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART ). He has been with the Transit Authority for over 28 years, and has worked in Risk Management for the last 15 years. As part of his duties he also manages HART s Safety and Security Department. Ricky Kendall Ricky holds a BS degree in Criminology - MBA, and is a designated RMPE. He is a past President of the Tampa Bay PRIMA. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority 8
NEWS EXTRA RAB Members Not Pictured Gerard Visco, Insurance Director - Brevard County BOCC Sanjeev Bissessar, Risk Manager - City of Coconut Creek Deborah Franklin, Director of Human Resources & Risk Management - Village Community Development Districts Richard H. Swann, Jr.., Hillsborough County Sheriff s Office - Director of Risk Mgmt. & Facilities Mgmt. Bureaus Christina is the Risk Manager for the City of Ormond Beach. Since her college days at West Virginia University, during her tenure as a teacher and through her 20+ year career in risk management, she is guided by the 5 Steps in the Risk Management Process and is dedicated to finding the best possible outcome. She earned a BA in Mathematics in 1987, the ARM in 1997 and the RMPE in 2002. Christina was awarded a RIMS Fellowship in 2002 to teach at Eastern Kentucky University. Christina Maguire City of Ormond Beach She remains active and involved in PRIMA, United Way, Mayor s Health & Fitness Challenge, Ormond Beach Leadership, and the American Heart Association. Keri began her career at the City of Winter Park in 1994. In 2005 Keri was named Assistant Risk Manager, and in 2007 was promoted to her current position of Risk Manager. Prior to working for the City of Winter Park, Keri worked in Corporate Real Estate while obtaining a real estate salesperson license in Securities Trading with a Series 7 license in Municipal Building, Planning and Code Enforcement. Keri earned an Associate of Science degree in Legal Studies in 1996. She earned her RMPE designation in 2007 and is currently woking on attaining her ARM designation. Keri Martin City of Winter Park She is the 2013/2014 President of Central Florida PRIMA and the current Risk Management Lead for the Florida Benchmarking Consortium. Kim Pilcher is the Director of Human Resources and Safety for the City of Panama City. Kim received her Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from Florida State University and her Master of Science in Counseling Psychology degree from Troy University. Kim is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator, is certified as a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR), and is a Certified Labor Relations Professional (CLRP) through Florida Public Employer Relations Association. Kim Pilcher City of Panama City She serves as a member of the national Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and is a member of the local Human Resource Management Association (HRMA) chapter, current President of the Board for Girls Inc. of Bay County, Board Member and Grants Chairperson for Junior Achievement of NW FL and serves the needs of abused and neglected children as a Guardian Ad Litem for the 14th Judicial Circuit. Jennifer Poirrier is the Human Resources Director and Risk Manager for the City of Treasure Island. Prior to coming to Treasure Island, Jennifer was the Human Resources Officer for the City of Gulfport for seven years, and also has worked in the private sector of Human Resources. She also served as an active PRIMA board member, and is currently serving for the third year as the President of the Tampa Bay Chapter. In addition, Jennifer has served for several years on the board of director s for a self insured property and casualty pool, and currently sits as the Vice-Chairman for a self insurance health insurance pool. Jennifer Poirrier City of Treasure Island Jennifer holds a BA in Human Resources from the University of South Florida, and a Masters of Business Administration from Florida Atlantic University. Additionally, she is a nationally certified professional in Human Resources. Mike has served as the City of Cape Coral s Risk Manager since 2003. Prior to working for the City of Cape Coral, Mike worked for Crawford and Company as a Branch Claims Manager and Asst. Operations Supervisor. Mike Quigley Mike attended Westfield State College where he earned a BS degree in Business Administration. He also retains a Public Entity Risk Management (RMPE) designation. City of Cape Coral 9
HOLIDAY GREETING Preferred Earns GFOA s Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for Third Year in Row The Preferred Governmental Insurance Trust has been awarded the Government Financial Officers Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the third consecutive year for it s 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Preferred is the only insurance trust in Florida to earn GFOA recognition for financial reporting and is one of less than 20 similar trusts nationwide to earn this distinction. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of regognitionin in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting. Please join our board, administration and finance staff in celebrating the ongoing commitment of your Trust to excellence and to remaining clearly preferred. Would like to wish it s Members, Agents, Business Partners, and their families a Joyful Holiday Season & Prosperous New Year 10
BREAKTIME FUN -N- GAMES WINTER WORD SCRAMBLE & NEW YEAR CRYPTOGRAM 1. Unscramble each of the clue words (clue words consist of other words used for cold and types of clothing worn in winter). 2. Match the letters from the numbered cells of the clue words with the numbered cells of the new year cryptogram to decode. Please visit www.pgit.org/resources/preferred News 2013 - Winter 2013/Article Index for winter word scramble & new year cryptogram solution keys KEY STAFF CONTACTS: As a member of Preferred your first call should always be to your agent, if however you need help beyond your agent please feel free to contact us as indicated below: Marketing: marketing@publicrisk.com 321-832-1455 Kurt Heyman Operations: ahansen@publicrisk.com 321-832-1510 Ann Hansen Loss Control: mstephens@publicrisk.com 321-832-1658 Mike Stephens Claims: liability claims@pgcs-tpa.com 866-683-7710 Julius Hajas 11
P. O. BOX 958455 - Lake Mary, FL 32795-8455 Standard Presort U.S. Postage PAID Permit 1979 Orlando, FL