I do hope that Mr. Kiester has the financial wherewithall (or can raise it) to take this very important matter up the ladder. A county judge does not have the final say on the interpretation of a state law that has such far-reaching implications.

Backed by Mr. Arceri and Mr. Lazarus, Mr. Sciarrino accused Mr. Kiester of deleting e-mails from his personal computer. He did not choose to bring the same charge against Mr. Tucker and Ms. DiSciullo who have publically admitted to committing the same "crime." It is clear that Mr. Sciarrino brought the charges against Mr. Kieester for political reasons and has admitted as much.

My purpose in this posting is not to attack Messrs. Sciarrino, Arceri and Lazarus or to defend Mr. Kiester but to point out that, if this county judge's decision is allowed to stand, the people of Florida will have no way to communicate in private with their representatives. I cannot believe that this was the intention of the state legislature in passing this law. The law forbids destruction of "public records" such as those on the city's server. It is only the Attorney General's "opinion" that the ban extends to a councilor's private computer.

If a private e-mail automatically becomes public simply because the person to whom it is sent is a councilor, does it not follow that a telephone conversation to that person must be recorded and made public too? Both are electronic means of communication. For that matter, musn't each councilor carry a voice recorder and make a permanent record of every conversation he or she has on the street because it might have to do with "public business"? No one knows how a convesation will progress until it is over so all must be preserved for Big Brother.

This is the real problem I have with the county judge's decision. If allowed to stand, every citizen loses the right to privacy that is guaranteed by our constitution. I submit that no county judge has the authority to abrogate that right.

Perhaps this is a matter for the ACLU. Is the right to privacy not a "civil liberty" guaranteed to every American? Is privacy of communication not a right that distinguishes our society from that of totalitarian states like Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Cuba under Castro?

Messers. Arceri, Sciarrino and Lazarus raised an issue for local political ends. In doing so, they opened Pandora's Box and obtained a decision from a politically appointed county judge that has national implications. This is the first time that the Florida Attorney General's "opinion" has been tested in court. It is imperative that higher judicial authorities review this decision and let Americans know whether they do or do not have the right to privacy in their communications with their representatives.

Ed Foster

There are so many absurdities in Mr. Foster's comments that I am not going to even begin to address them.

However, Mr. Foster, a little civics lesson....county judges are ELECTED not appointed.

ed34145:

I stand corrected. I find it difficult to distinguish between "elected" and "appointed" in Collier County.

Ed Foster

Ed, it's like when they "anoint" someone. First a lawyer is selected by the elite to run for a judicial vacancy, then they "anoint" the lawyer, so that they somehow become wise and forever beholding to those who made it possible. CC elects it's judges making them political animals. This is why a jury trial needs to be requested if you want a chance at justice. A jury trial however, won't help you if you are filing a suit against a governing body like a City or a wealthy commercial interest that contributes to the election process. This is because they can always appeal a jury verdict up thru the elected appellate Court Justices and again to the the "elected" members of the Florida Supreme Court (who have received a double dose of "wisdom"). That court is where citizens cannot prevail unless it the issue is clearly unconstitutional or one that the populace has a strong interest in.

Hawke1:

Thank you for the clarification. Now I understand. It's sort of like religion. You must have faith in the annointed judge's integrity and intelligence and never question or think for yourself.

Tell me Hawke1, do you think the same applies to newspaper reporters and newspaper editors who refuse to print guest commentaries or LTEs that might differ from official policy for fear of losing advertising? I sent the above posting to both local papers asking that it be printed. It's not divisive; it was written simply so literate people might consider the possible ramifications of the judge's decision. It hasn't been printed yet and probably will never be.

Was it Lenin or Stalin who called religion "the opiate of the people"? They were wrong; it's not religion that dulls people's mind. It's the media.

Ed Foster

Ed Foster: Do you know why your LTE may not be printed? Because you and your words and ideas are totally irrelevant. You do not understand the Sunshine statutes yet you can not help yourself and write a bunch of meaningless words. Read my lips loser; Sunshine statutes apply to comminications between elected officials or those selected to advisory committes. You can write as much of your trash as you wish to any government official. No one cares. However, if you are a elected official; you better not delete your emails as they are all subject to Sunshine. You are a sore loser. Your candidates were decimated and thrown into the trash bin of history. I think it is time you shut up and leave us alone.

patton1:

I did not dispute that "communications between elected officials" fall under the Sunshine Law. However, I am not an elected official. Nor have I been selected to an advisory committee. That being the case, I question whether MY personal communications with a councilor fall under this law. I am not so willing to sacrifice my right to private communications as you seem to be. Nor will the results of a local election or the ruling of a local judge dissuade me from defending those rights.

I suggest you learn to read before you speak. And, since you are prone to question my spelling, may I advise you that "committee" is spelled with two "e"s.

Ed Foster

Patton1, you are clearly part of the problem.