Following months of back-and-forth communication with the city of Alachua attempting to secure a full-length copy of a redacted public video, two Alachua County residents obtained the video in its entirety after hiring an attorney and laying the groundwork for a lawsuit.

The video had been the subject of much discussion and online speculation in Alachua, in part because it involved then-City Manager Mike DaRoza, who was connected to other ongoing community controversies.

Between February and March, Tamara Robbins and Bryan Buescher individually submitted public records requests—requests 25-104 and 25-126, respectively—for a copy of the “City Hall Christmas Party 2024 video” aired during the company’s holiday luncheon at Legacy Park last year.

Initially, Robbins and Buescher each received a 5-minute, 10-second redacted version of the video with Florida Statute 119.071(4), “General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records,” cited for the redactions made to the video in Robbins’ request, and Florida Statue 119.071 cited for Buescher’s.

After failing to receive an unredacted copy of the video, or specific subparagraph citations of the referenced law for the city’s redactions as requested, Robbins and Buescher jointly hired attorney Gary Edinger of Benjamin, Aaronson, Endinger & Patanzo, P.A. law firm.

In a pre-suit notice on behalf of Robbins and Buescher in June, Edinger requested that the city, “(1) either produce the entire video without redactions; or (2) justify its exemptions with the level of specificity required by Chapter 119.”

In July, the city released to Robbins and Buescher a 20 minute, 31 second version of the Christmas party video, nearly four times the length of the first.

Mainstreet reviewed the video that was made by city employees on city property. It contains content such as foul language and crude humor about the human resource’s policy on romantic relationships between employees and supervisors.

Mainstreet contacted the city of Alachua for comment on the redactions but received no response.

“Many people would find the whole (video) offensive, in poor taste and a wasteful use of city resources,” Buescher said in an email to Mainstreet. “And the city must have agreed with the latter assessment since they obviously did not want it to see the light of day.”

Robbins told Mainstreet in a phone interview that she originally requested the video earlier this year after hearing there was questionable content in it.

Buescher said in the May 19 City Commission meeting he’d heard rumors the video contained inappropriate skits unfavorable to the public officials performing in them.

According to a Feb. 25 email from City Attorney Marian Rush to DaRoza—who resigned in late May—DaRoza discussed with Rush the day before whether the video was or was not a public record.

DaRoza was one of the employees in scenes redacted from the full video.

Rush, whose email was marked as high importance, wrote that after researching the topic, the film would most likely qualify as a public record because it was “created in connection with the official business of the city, as it was made during work hours, and it was shown at a city-sponsored event on city property.”

Rush said she hadn’t found any statutory exemptions that would apply to the situation and said the burden of proving a right to such exemptions would be on the city.

“Unless there is a specific exemption to the public records law for this film, the film would most likely be found to be a public record in any challenge,” Rush wrote. “If the city denies this public records request, the city must provide the legal basis for this denial.”

Robbins said the 5-minute, 10-second redacted video she and Buescher received had entire frames erased from it. She said the video would black out but the time at the bottom of the screen kept rolling.

Buescher’s response to his record request included a link to the video that would expire in seven days and the statement: “redactions made per Florida Statutes 119.071.”

Edinger wrote in the pre-suit notice in June that the city’s general reference to Florida Statue 119.071(4) for the video redactions is “insufficiently precise to evaluate whether the city’s claimed exemptions are lawful.”

According to the law, video and photographs can be redacted in the effort to protect confidential content, such as the killing of a law enforcement officer acting in accordance with his duties and the killing of a minor or suicide. It can also be used to conceal identities of certain authorities like code enforcement officers.

Edinger said in the pre-suit notice that redactions associated with administrative assistants or motor pool staff would not be permitted under the law, and a generic reference to the law to justify doing so “does not comply with the letter or spirit of Chapter 119.”

At the May 19 commission meeting, Robbins and Buescher spoke individually during public comment about their experience obtaining the 5-minute, 10-second video.

Robbins said when she made a public records request for the employee-specific public records exemption forms required by Florida Statute 119.07(4) to be filled out for the people in the film who had been redacted from it, she never received any.

Responding at the meeting, DaRoza said the city had filled out the exemption forms to meet the statute’s requirements. He said the forms are the responsibility of a third party and not the city.

According to Florida Statute, when the custodian of a public record is not the employer, the custodian “must maintain the exempt status of that information only if the officer, employee, justice, judge, other person, or employing agency of the designated employee submits a written and notarized request [to maintain] the exemption.”

In essence, it is the responsibility of the employing agency or employee to make a written request, not the holder of the records.

When Commissioner Jacob Fletcher asked at the meeting what was in the video and if any of the commissioners had seen it, Commissioner Dayna Williams suggested Fletcher meet with DaRoza separately so that Fletcher could better form his thoughts on it.

She said she did see the video when she attended the city employee holiday luncheon where it was shown.

“There were no secrets, there was no coordination, there was nothing hidden or unethical about me seeing it,” Williams said.

A few days after the meeting, Robbins and Buescher contacted State Attorney Brian Kramer for help pursuing an unredacted copy of the video or specific redaction citations.

Robbins said Kramer told them there wasn’t much he could do because, although the city did need to reference specific sub paragraphs of the exemption code for redacting entire frames from the video, they’d provided some citations, which is in accordance with the law.

Robbins and Buescher then sent a letter addressed to Rush and copied to the Alachua City Commission and Kramer on June 3.

They entreated the city again to release the full video without redactions or reasons why Florida Statute 119.071(4) justified the redactions, writing that they reserved the right to seek judicial relief if their requests weren’t satisfied within five business days.

Rush responded on June 11 saying that due to the timing of DaRoza’s last day of employment following his resignation, there hadn’t been an opportunity to discuss Robbins’ and Buescher’s letter.

Rush said securing an interim city manager had been the city’s priority and since Rodolfo Valladares had been appointed interim city manager to the position, she and city staff had since reviewed the letter.

“The City does not admit any wrongdoing either in its responses to Public Record Requests 25-104 and 25-126 or in providing this response to the Letter,” Rush said. “If there is any ambiguity regarding the proper form for the production of the video, the city reserves its rights to seek either an Attorney General’s Opinion or an interpretation of Florida Statute 119 from the Court by filing a lawsuit seeking Declaratory Relief.”

After Edinger’s pre-suit notice in June on behalf of Robbins and Buescher, the city released the 20-minute, 31-second video in July. The copy of the video Mainstreet obtained via public records request included the following citations for redactions in it:

• Law Enforcement Personnel, Sworn and Civilian- FS 119.071(4)(d)(2.a)
• Code Enforcement Officers, Building Inspector- FS 119.071(4)(d)(2.i)
• Human Resource- Human Resource, Labor Relations, Employee Relations Directors or Assistant Directors; Managers or Assistant Managers (Hiring/Firing) FS 119.071(4)(d)(2.h)

Buescher said the incident with the Christmas party video furthers a pattern with public records requests and the city of Alachua, back to one of the first public records requests he said he made related to the Tara Developments proposed over the cave system at Mill Creek Sink. 

“I received two documents completely unrelated to my request, which prolonged the time for them to provide me the correct information,” he said. “Some months later a friend made a request for information related to the City’s Election and received the exact same two documents.”  

Robbins, a former Alachua city commissioner, said even though she would have been aghast if staff wasted their time making something like the Christmas party video under her administration, she felt the redactions cited for the full video were appropriately applied.

She said unless it somehow comes up again, receiving the full video marked the end of a potential lawsuit.