Follow-Up: Nearly 3,000 PIN Messages Released in Florida

Following the revelation that public service commission aides had given their PIN access codes to a Florida Power & Light attorney, the Herald/Times obtained email records and instant messages of staff and commissioners at Florida's utility regulator. PIN messages allow the senders to bypass state servers.  

 Of the nearly 3,000 messages obtained, more than 2,400 are from Public Service Commissioner Nancy Argenziano.  Argenziano's seemingly stream-of-consciousness messages reveal her distrust of fellow commissioners.  Because Argenziano has been an outspoken critic of the PSC, Associated Industries of Florida has questioned her impartiality in a rate case and have called for the agency's inspector general to investigate her.  

Get more details here. 

Trying to Keep Up with Technology

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum's trying to keep pace with technology. Following the scandal surrounding three members of the Florida Public Service Commission who gave their Blackberry PIN numbers to lobbyists, which could mean communications sent outside the state record-keeping channels, McCollum proposed a measure encouraging state agencies to begin capturing any state-related communications that staff or officials receive via text messages.

For more information, click here.

Update - Florida Public Service Commission to Face Grand Jury Investigation

Following up with a story we told you about the potential PIN-to-PIN messaging being used by Florida utility executives and Public Service Commission (PSC) members to avoid a paper trail, the Miami Herald reports a PSC lobbyist resigned in the midst of the controversy and Commissioner Nancy Argenziano has called for a grand jury investigation into any influence on the PSC from utility companies.

Get the full scoop here.

PIN-to-PIN Communication to Skirt Sunshine Laws

Three aides to a Florida utility regulators repeatedly sent private PIN-to-PIN Blackberry codes to an utility executive, which could allow the utility to communicate with the regulators out of public view and without a paper trail.

A St. Petersburg Times blog states:

"State law prohibits PSC commissioners from discussing a pending rate case with utility officials but it specifically excludes PSC staff from the ban. A 1991 grand jury report recommended that the statute be changed to close that loophole but it was never amended.

PSC rules forbid staffers and commissioners from discussing certain types of commission business out of the public eye with those who appear before the regulatory panel. Under state law, a commissioner who engages in such discussions -- called 'ex parte communications' -- and who fail to report them could face a $5,000 fine and even removal."

For the full report, click here.

Interesting Piece on Presidential Blackberry Devices...

Not sure I agree with all of this, but it is well worth a read....

The problem of how to classify electronic messages has broader ramifications. Private firms sued in civil actions must produce relevant documents--including records of emails and text messages--while they do not have to produce transcripts of face-to-face and telephone conversations, for the simple reason that the latter leave no record. But at least in the civil litigation context, the law in principle treats these categories the same. Absent a valid privilege, if asked about a relevant conversation that produced no permanent record, a party or party's agent must divulge the substance of that conversation, at least to the best of his ability to remember. Of course, this regime makes it easier for a bad actor to cover up purely oral conversations than to cover up email and other written communications, but for a law-abiding firm, there is no ex ante distortion of incentives for using various modes of communicating.

This much is certain: the law surrounding electronic communication is likely not going to stay the same...