The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Fiscal Policy
BILL: CS/SB 1542
INTRODUCER: Children, Families, and Elder Affairs Committee and Senator Garcia
SUBJECT: Public Records and Public Meetings/Elder Abuse or Vulnerable Adult Abuse Fatality
Review Team
DATE: April 24, 2023 REVISED:
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Delia Cox CF Fav/CS
2. Howard Money AHS Favorable
3. Delia Yeatman FP Favorable
Please see Section IX. for Additional Information:
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE - Substantial Changes
I. Summary:
CS/SB 1542 creates public record and public meeting exemptions related to elder and vulnerable
adult fatality review teams (EV-FRTs). Specifically, the bill requires that any information
obtained by an EV-FRT for the purposes of conducting a case review which is exempt or
confidential and exempt from public records requirements retains its exempt or confidential and
exempt status when held by an EV-FRT. The bill also creates a public record exemption for
records created or held by an EV-FRT which reveals the identity of a victim, the identity of
persons responsible for the welfare of the victim, and such information is confidential and
exempt under the bill.
Any information that is maintained as exempt or confidential and exempt within chapter 415,
Florida Statutes, retains its exempt or confidential and exempt status when held by the review
team.
The bill creates a public meeting exemption for portions of an EV-FRT meeting in which the
identity of the victim, the identity of the person responsible for the welfare of the victim, or
otherwise exempt or confidential and exempt information is discussed. Records created by an
EV-FRT during such portions of meetings are also exempt from public disclosure.
BILL: CS/SB 1542 Page 2
The bill includes a public necessity statement and states that the public record and public
meeting exemptions are subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act and will stand
repealed on October 2, 2028, unless saved from repeal by reenactment by the Legislature.
The bill has no fiscal impact on state government.
The bill will become effective on the same date that SB 1540 (2023) or similar legislation takes
effect, if such legislation is adopted in the same legislative session or an extension thereof and
becomes a law.
II. Present Situation:
Public Records Law
The State Constitution provides that the public has the right to inspect or copy records made or
received in connection with official governmental business.1 This applies to the official business
of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, including all three branches of state
government, local governmental entities, and any person who acts on behalf of the government.2
Chapter 119, F.S., known as the Public Records Act, constitutes the main body of public records
laws.3 The Public Records Act states 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.4
The Public Records Act typically contains general exemptions that apply across agencies.
Agency- or program-specific exemptions often are placed in the substantive statutes that
relate to that particular agency or program.
The Public Records Act does not apply to legislative or judicial records.5 Legislative records are
public pursuant to s. 11.0431, F.S. Public records exemptions for the Legislature are codified
primarily in s. 11.0431(2)-(3), F.S., and adopted in the rules of each house of the legislature.
Section 119.011(12), F.S., defines “public records” to include:
[a] ll 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 connections with the
transaction of official business by any agency.
1
FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24(a).
2
Id.
3
Public records laws are found throughout the Florida Statutes.
4
Section 119.01(1), F.S.
5
Locke v. Hawkes, 595 So. 2d 32, 34 (Fla. 1992); see also Times Pub. Co. v. Ake, 660 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1995).
BILL: CS/SB 1542 Page 3
The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted this definition to encompass all materials made or
received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to “perpetuate,
communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type.”6
The Florida Statutes specify conditions under which public access to governmental records must
be provided. The Public Records Act guarantees every person’s right to inspect and copy any
state or local government public record at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and
under supervision by the custodian of the public record.7 A violation of the Public Records Act
may result in civil or criminal liability.8
Only the Legislature may create an exemption to public records requirements.9 An exemption
must be created by general law and must specifically state the public necessity which justifies the
exemption.10 Further, the exemption must be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated
purpose of the law. A bill that enacts an exemption may not contain other substantive
provisions11 and must pass by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting in each house
of the Legislature.12
When creating a public records exemption, the Legislature may provide that a record is “exempt”
or “confidential and exempt.” There is a difference between records the Legislature has
determined to be exempt from the Public Records Act and those which the Legislature has
determined to be exempt from the Public Records Act and confidential.13 Records designated as
“confidential and exempt” are not subject to inspection by the public and may only be released
under the circumstances defined by statute.14 Records designated as “exempt” may be released at
the discretion of the records custodian under certain circumstances.15
Open Government Sunset Review Act
The provisions of s. 119.15, F.S., known as the Open Government Sunset Review Act (the Act),
prescribe a legislative review process for newly created or substantially amended public records
or open meetings exemptions,16 with specified exceptions.17 The Act requires the repeal of such
exemption on October 2nd of the fifth year after creation or substantial amendment; in order to
save an exemption from repeal, the Legislature must reenact the exemption or repeal the sunset
6
Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Assoc. Inc., 379 So. 2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980).
7
Section 119.07(1)(a), F.S.
8
Section 119.10, F.S. Public records laws are found throughout the Florida Statutes, as are the penalties for violations of
those laws.
9
FLA CONST., art. I, s. 24(c).
10
Id.
11
The bill may, however, contain multiple exemptions that relate to one subject.
12
FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24(c)
13
WFTV, Inc. v. The Sch. Bd. of Seminole County, 874 So. 2d 48, 53 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
14
Id.
15
Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
16
Section 119.15, F.S. Section 119.15(4)(b), F.S., provides that an exemption is considered to be substantially amended if it
is expanded to include more records or information or to include meetings.
17
Section 119.15(2)(a) and (b), F.S., provides that exemptions required by federal law or applicable solely to the Legislature
or the State Court System are not subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act.
BILL: CS/SB 1542 Page 4
date.18 In practice, many exemptions are continued by repealing the sunset date, rather than
reenacting the exemption.
The Act provides that a public records or open meetings exemption may be created or
maintained only if it serves an identifiable public purpose and is no broader than is necessary.19
An exemption serves an identifiable purpose if the Legislature finds that the purpose of the
exemption outweighs open government policy and cannot be accomplished without the
exemption and it meets one of the following purposes:
 It allows the state or its political subdivision to effectively and efficiently administer a
program, and administration would be significantly impaired without the exemption;20
 The release of sensitive personal information would be defamatory or jeopardize an
individual’s safety. If this public purpose is cited as the basis of an exemption, however, only
personal identifying information is exempt;21 or
 It protects trade or business secrets.22
The Act also requires specified questions to be considered during the review process.23 In
examining an exemption, the Act directs the Legislature to question the purpose and necessity of
reenacting the exemption.
If, in reenacting an exemption or repealing the sunset date, the exemption is expanded, then a
public necessity statement and a two-thirds vote for passage are required.24 If the exemption is
reenacted or saved from repeal without substantive changes or if the exemption is narrowed, then
a public necessity statement and a two-thirds vote for passage are not required. If the Legislature
allows an exemption to expire, the previously exempt records will remain exempt unless
otherwise provided by law.25
Open Meeting Laws
The State Constitution provides that the public has a right to access governmental meetings.26
Each collegial body must provide notice of its meetings to the public and permit the public to
attend any meeting at which official acts are taken or at which public business is transacted or
18
Section 119.15(3), F.S.
19
Section 119.15(6)(b), F.S.
20
Section 119.15(6)(b)1., F.S.
21
Section 119.15(6)(b)2., F.S.
22
Section 119.15(6)(b)3., F.S.
23
Section 119.15(6)(a), F.S. The specific questions are:
 What specific records or meetings are affected by the exemption?
 Whom does the exemption uniquely affect, as opposed to the general public?
 What is the identifiable public purpose or goal of the exemption?
 Can the information contained in the records or discussed in the meeting be readily obtained by alternative means?
If so, how?
 Is the record or meeting protected by another exemption?
 Are there multiple exemptions for the same type of record or meeting that it would be appropriate to merge?
24
FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24(c).
25
Section 119.15(7), F.S.
26
FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24(b).
BILL: CS/SB 1542 Page 5
discussed.27 This applies to the meetings of any collegial body of the executive branch of state
government, counties, municipalities, school districts, or special districts.28
Public policy regarding access to government meetings also is addressed in the Florida Statutes.
Section 286.011, F.S., known as the “Government in the Sunshine Law,”29 or the “Sunshine
Law,”30 requires all meetings of any board or commission of any state or local agency or
authority at which official acts are to be taken be open to the public.31 The board or commission
must provide the public reasonable notice of such meetings.32 Public meetings may not be held at
any location that discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color, origin or economic
status or which operates in a manner that unreasonably restricts the public’s access to the
facility.33 Minutes of a public meeting must be promptly recorded and open to public
inspection.34 Failure to abide by open meetings requirements will invalidate any resolution, rule
or formal action adopted at a meeting.35 A public officer or member of a governmental entity
who violates the Sunshine Law is subject to civil and criminal penalties.36
The Legislature may create an exemption to open meetings requirements by passing a general
law by at least a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.37 The exemption must
explicitly lay out the public necessity justifying the exemption, and must be no broader than
necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the exemption.38 A statutory exemption which
does not meet these two criteria may be unconstitutional and may not be judicially saved.39
Elder Abuse Fatality Review Teams
Beginning in 2020, Florida law has authorized the creation of elder abuse fatality review teams
(EA-FRTs).40
27
Id.
28
FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24(b). Meetings of the Legislature are governed by Article III, section 4(e) of the Florida
Constitution, which states: “The rules of procedure of each house shall further provide that all prearranged gatherings,
between more than two members of the legislature, or between the governor, the president of the senate, or the speaker of the
house of representatives, the purpose of which is to agree upon formal legislative action that will be taken at a subsequent
time, or at which formal legislative action is taken, regarding pending legislation or amendments, shall be reasonably open to
the public.”
29
Times Pub. Co. v. Williams, 222 So. 2d 470, 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
30
Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So. 2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1969).
31
Section 286.011(1)-(2), F.S.
32
Id.
33
Section 286.011(6), F.S.
34
Section 286.011(2), F.S.
35
Section 286.011(1), F.S.
36
Section 286.011(3), F.S.
37
FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24(c).
38
Id.
39
Halifax Hosp. Medical Center v. New-Journal Corp., 724 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1999). In Halifax Hospital, the Florida Supreme
Court found that a public meetings exemption was unconstitutional because the statement of public necessity did not define
important terms and did not justify the breadth of the exemption. Id. at 570. The Florida Supreme Court also declined to
narrow the exemption in order to save it. Id. In Baker County Press, Inc. v. Baker County Medical Services, Inc., 870 So. 2d
189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), the court found that the intent of a public records statute was to create a public records exemption.
The Baker County Press court found that since the law did not contain a public necessity statement, it was unconstitutional.
Id. at 196.
40
Chapter 2020-17, L.O.F.
BILL: CS/SB 1542 Page 6
A state attorney, or his or her designee, may initiate an elder abuse fatality review team in his or
her judicial circuit to review deaths of elderly persons caused by, or related to, abuse or
neglect.41 EA-FRTs may include, but need not be limited to, representatives from any of the
following entities or persons located in the review team’s judicial circuit:
 Law enforcement agencies.
 The state attorney.
 The medical examiner.
 A county court judge.
 Adult protective services.
 The area agency on aging.
 The State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program.
 The Agency for Health Care Administration.
 The Office of the Attorney General.
 The Office of the State Courts Administrator.
 The clerk of the court.
 A victim services program.
 An elder law attorney.
 Emergency services personnel.
 A certified domestic violence center.42
 An advocacy organization for victims of sexual violence.
 A funeral home director.
 A forensic pathologist.
 A geriatrician.
 A geriatric nurse.
 A geriatric psychiatrist or other individual licensed to offer behavioral health services.
 A hospital discharge planner.
 A public guardian.
 Any other persons who have knowledge regarding fatal incidents of elder abuse, domestic
violence, or sexual violence, including knowledge of research, policy, law, and other matters
connected with such incidents involving elders, or who are recommended for inclusion by the
review team.43
Participation in an EA-FRT is voluntary; members serve 2-year terms, to be staggered as
determined by the co-c