Florida Senate - 2013                        COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
       Bill No. CS for SB 1276
       
       
       
       
       
       
                                Barcode 573486                          
       
                              LEGISLATIVE ACTION                        
                    Senate             .             House              
                  Comm: RCS            .                                
                  04/09/2013           .                                
                                       .                                
                                       .                                
                                       .                                
       —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————




       —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
       The Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability
       (Montford) recommended the following:
       
    1         Senate Amendment 
    2  
    3         Delete lines 51 - 96
    4  and insert:
    5         Section 2. The Legislature finds that it is a public
    6  necessity that meetings of the board of directors of a direct
    7  support organization established under s. 1004.28, Florida
    8  Statutes, or of the executive committee or other committees of
    9  such board, at which the identity of a donor or prospective
   10  donor, any proposal seeking research funding from the
   11  organization, or a plan or program for either initiating or
   12  supporting research is discussed should be held exempt from s.
   13  286.011, Florida Statutes, and s. 24(b), Art. I of the State
   14  Constitution. For the benefit of our state universities, and
   15  ultimately all the people of Florida, direct-support
   16  organizations serve a vital role in raising donations from
   17  private sources. This undertaking demands great sensitivity and
   18  discretion, as donors frequently seek anonymity and are
   19  concerned about the potential release of sensitive financial
   20  information. If direct-support organizations cannot honor those
   21  requests and protect such information from public disclosure,
   22  potential donors may decline to contribute, thus hampering the
   23  ability of the direct-support organization to carry out its
   24  activities. The state has recognized these realities by making
   25  most of the records of direct-support organizations confidential
   26  and exempt from the state’s public records requirements,
   27  including the identity of donors and prospective donors.
   28  However, without the exemption from public meeting requirements,
   29  release of the identity of donors or prospective donors via a
   30  public meeting would defeat the purpose of the public records
   31  exemption. It is therefore the finding of the Legislature that
   32  the exemption from public meeting requirements is a public
   33  necessity. Additionally, the resources raised by direct-support
   34  organizations are frequently used to initiate, develop, and fund
   35  plans and programs for research that routinely contain sensitive
   36  proprietary information, including university-connected research
   37  projects, which provide valuable opportunities for faculty and
   38  students and may lead to future commercial applications. This
   39  activity requires the direct-support organization to develop
   40  research strategies and evaluate proposals for research grants
   41  that routinely contain sensitive or proprietary information,
   42  including specific research approaches and targets of
   43  investigation, the disclosure of which could injure those
   44  conducting the research. Maintaining the confidentiality of
   45  research strategies, plans, and proposals is a hallmark of a
   46  responsible funding process, is practiced by the National
   47  Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, and
   48  allows for candid exchanges among reviewers. The state has
   49  recognized these realities by expressly making most of the
   50  records of direct-support organizations confidential and exempt
   51  from the state’s public records requirements, including
   52  proposals seeking research funding. Failure to close meetings in
   53  which these activities are discussed would significantly
   54  undermine the confidentiality of the strategies, plans, and
   55  proposals themselves. Without the exemption from public meeting
   56  requirements, the release during a public meeting of a proposal
   57  seeking research funding from the direct-support organization or
   58  a plan or program for either initiating or supporting research
   59  would defeat the purpose of the public records exemption. It is
   60  therefore the finding of the Legislature that the exemption from
   61  public meeting requirements is a public necessity.