05-15-2009, 07:01 PM
A federal investigation into Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott’s appearance at a campaign rally last year will not become public — due to concerns for the outspoken sheriff’s privacy.
A staff attorney for the Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency that announced the inquiry into Scott seven months ago, said he was not allowed to even confirm an investigation exists, much less report on its progress.
Privacy concerns will also keep the office from releasing any results of a concluded investigation, the attorney said.
“Our policy has always been that we don’t release this type of information, the type of information you’re seeking, because it’s covered by the Privacy Act,” the attorney, Darshan Sheth, said.
The decision shrouds an investigation into a televised appearance that was rebroadcast across the country, eliciting hundreds of phone calls to the Lee County Sheriff’s Office and gaining attention from national pundits. It was a moment when Scott became known nationally as ‘that Florida sheriff who used Barack Obama’s middle name.’
“Welcome to the Alice-in-Wonderland world of federal privacy,” said Charles N. Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition and a professor at the Missouri School of Journalism. Davis said privacy exemptions are commonly cited for withholding federal investigation results, but rarely had he seen such a public matter kept private.
“I would say here, the expectation of privacy is non-existent,” he said.
The Sheriff’s Office is also questioning whether the investigation still exists or if it was dismissed. After failing to hear from investigators for five months, agency attorney Barry Hillmyer wrote a letter to the office on April 22, questioning the inquiry’s status.
“We have yet to hear anything back,” said Sheriff’s Office spokesman Tony Schall.
The Privacy Act limits government disclosure of private information to a handful of exceptions, one of them being a federal Freedom of Information Act request. But personal privacy is also an exemption for such requests, as the Office of Special Counsel notes on its Web site.
The exemption, according to the site, allows information to be withheld “when disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Likewise, mere mention of the existence of a case “could lead members of the public to draw adverse inferences...” the site states. On Oct. 6, 2008, Scott spoke at a Fort Myers rally for then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Clad in his Sheriff’s Office uniform, Scott told the crowd, “On Nov. 4, let’s leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened.” Thousands leapt to their feet and cheered.
Others saw the comment as intentionally provocative.
In the wake of the controversy, Scott defended himself in the local press and refused to apologize, even after the Palin campaign distanced itself from his comments.
The day after the speech, the Office of Special Counsel, an anti-corruption government watchdog, announced its investigation into the sheriff. Scott, by wearing his uniform and driving his office cruiser to the event, potentially violated the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits state and local employees of agencies that accept federal funds from using their office to further partisan aims.
“We are launching a formal investigation into Sheriff Scott today on the basis of possible violation of Hatch Act,” Anthony Guglielmi, a former spokesman, said at the time.
Since the announcement, seven months have passed, with little public word of the case. During that time, the Office of Special Counsel saw its leadership change when Special Counsel Scott Bloch resigned after falling under allegations he retaliated against his employees.
His communications director, Jim Mitchell, had been fired by Bloch in August 2008. Guglielmi, the former spokesman, eventually left the office for another job.
President Obama has yet to appoint a new special counsel to the office.
Filling the void is Acting Special Counsel William E. Reukauf, who, according to Sheth, has returned to a no-comment policy about ongoing investigations. As for closed investigations, Sheth said the office has always shielded results due to privacy concerns. The only remedy, he suggested, was to request the file be released due to public interest.
The Naples Daily News filed a request on Wednesday.
Mitchell, Bloch’s former communications director, said the office should be more open with the public, especially with Scott’s case. He said the office has become stricter with public records.
“It was a lot of different when I was there,” he said.
Freedom of Information Act requests take time to process, and Davis, the advocate, said they are never guaranteed to work.
“The question to apply is, ‘What evil are we seeking to prevent?’”
Scott has maintained that he has little concern over the investigation and expects to be exonerated.
“I am an elected official not in the executive branch of government as defined by Florida’s Constitution,” he wrote in an e-mail. “To suggest that I am unable to participate in political functions is absurd ... I campaign for my own re-election if nothing else.”
Asked if the investigation would be made public as soon as the Sheriff’s Office receives it, agency spokesman John Sheehan said it would be treated as would any public record in the office’s possession.
A staff attorney for the Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency that announced the inquiry into Scott seven months ago, said he was not allowed to even confirm an investigation exists, much less report on its progress.
Privacy concerns will also keep the office from releasing any results of a concluded investigation, the attorney said.
“Our policy has always been that we don’t release this type of information, the type of information you’re seeking, because it’s covered by the Privacy Act,” the attorney, Darshan Sheth, said.
The decision shrouds an investigation into a televised appearance that was rebroadcast across the country, eliciting hundreds of phone calls to the Lee County Sheriff’s Office and gaining attention from national pundits. It was a moment when Scott became known nationally as ‘that Florida sheriff who used Barack Obama’s middle name.’
“Welcome to the Alice-in-Wonderland world of federal privacy,” said Charles N. Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition and a professor at the Missouri School of Journalism. Davis said privacy exemptions are commonly cited for withholding federal investigation results, but rarely had he seen such a public matter kept private.
“I would say here, the expectation of privacy is non-existent,” he said.
The Sheriff’s Office is also questioning whether the investigation still exists or if it was dismissed. After failing to hear from investigators for five months, agency attorney Barry Hillmyer wrote a letter to the office on April 22, questioning the inquiry’s status.
“We have yet to hear anything back,” said Sheriff’s Office spokesman Tony Schall.
The Privacy Act limits government disclosure of private information to a handful of exceptions, one of them being a federal Freedom of Information Act request. But personal privacy is also an exemption for such requests, as the Office of Special Counsel notes on its Web site.
The exemption, according to the site, allows information to be withheld “when disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Likewise, mere mention of the existence of a case “could lead members of the public to draw adverse inferences...” the site states. On Oct. 6, 2008, Scott spoke at a Fort Myers rally for then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Clad in his Sheriff’s Office uniform, Scott told the crowd, “On Nov. 4, let’s leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened.” Thousands leapt to their feet and cheered.
Others saw the comment as intentionally provocative.
In the wake of the controversy, Scott defended himself in the local press and refused to apologize, even after the Palin campaign distanced itself from his comments.
The day after the speech, the Office of Special Counsel, an anti-corruption government watchdog, announced its investigation into the sheriff. Scott, by wearing his uniform and driving his office cruiser to the event, potentially violated the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits state and local employees of agencies that accept federal funds from using their office to further partisan aims.
“We are launching a formal investigation into Sheriff Scott today on the basis of possible violation of Hatch Act,” Anthony Guglielmi, a former spokesman, said at the time.
Since the announcement, seven months have passed, with little public word of the case. During that time, the Office of Special Counsel saw its leadership change when Special Counsel Scott Bloch resigned after falling under allegations he retaliated against his employees.
His communications director, Jim Mitchell, had been fired by Bloch in August 2008. Guglielmi, the former spokesman, eventually left the office for another job.
President Obama has yet to appoint a new special counsel to the office.
Filling the void is Acting Special Counsel William E. Reukauf, who, according to Sheth, has returned to a no-comment policy about ongoing investigations. As for closed investigations, Sheth said the office has always shielded results due to privacy concerns. The only remedy, he suggested, was to request the file be released due to public interest.
The Naples Daily News filed a request on Wednesday.
Mitchell, Bloch’s former communications director, said the office should be more open with the public, especially with Scott’s case. He said the office has become stricter with public records.
“It was a lot of different when I was there,” he said.
Freedom of Information Act requests take time to process, and Davis, the advocate, said they are never guaranteed to work.
“The question to apply is, ‘What evil are we seeking to prevent?’”
Scott has maintained that he has little concern over the investigation and expects to be exonerated.
“I am an elected official not in the executive branch of government as defined by Florida’s Constitution,” he wrote in an e-mail. “To suggest that I am unable to participate in political functions is absurd ... I campaign for my own re-election if nothing else.”
Asked if the investigation would be made public as soon as the Sheriff’s Office receives it, agency spokesman John Sheehan said it would be treated as would any public record in the office’s possession.