The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability
BILL: SPB 7020
INTRODUCER: For consideration by the Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee
SUBJECT: OGSR/Agency Cybersecurity Information
DATE: March 17, 2025
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Harmsen McVaney Pre-meeting
I. Summary:
SPB 7020 delays for one additional year the repeal of the public record exemption in
s. 282.318(5), F.S., which makes confidential and exempt from public inspection and copying
requirements the portions of risk assessments, evaluations, external audits, and other reports of a
state agency’s cybersecurity program for the data, information, and state agency IT resources
which are held by a state agency, if the disclosure of such portions of records would facilitate
unauthorized access to, or the unauthorized modification, disclosure, or destruction of:
• Data or information, whether physical or virtual; or
• IT resources, which include:
o Information relating to the security of the agency’s technologies, processes, and practices
designed to protect networks, computers, data processing software, and data from attack,
damage, or unauthorized access; or
o Security information, whether physical or virtual, which relates to the agency’s existing
or proposed IT systems.
The bill also delays from repeal the current public meetings exemption for any portion of a
meeting that would reveal the information described above.
The bill also moves up by one year (to October 2, 2026) the sunset review date for, and repeal of,
the public record and public meeting exemption codified in s. 119.0725(2) and (3), F.S. This
exemption makes confidential and exempt from public inspection and copying requirements the
following information held by an agency before, on, or after July 1, 2022:
• Coverage limits and deductible or self-insurance amounts of insurance or other risk
mitigation coverages acquired for the protection of IT systems, operational technology
systems, or data of an agency.
• Information relating to critical infrastructure.
• Cybersecurity incident information that is reported by a state agency or local government
pursuant to ss. 282.318 or 282.3185, F.S.
REVISED: BILL: SPB 7020 Page 2
• Network schematics, hardware and software configurations, or encryption information or
information that identifies detection, investigation, or response practices for suspected or
confirmed cybersecurity incidents.
Any portion of a public meeting that would reveal the above confidential and exempt
information is closed to the public and exempt from public meetings laws.
Without action by the Legislature to extend or delete the repeal date, the exemptions in
ss. 282.318(5) and (6), F.S., will repeal on October 2, 2025. The bill extends the public records
and meeting exemptions for one additional year, setting a new repeal date of October 2, 2026, in
order to continue the confidential and exempt status of the information and relevant portions of
the meetings. The provisions will be subject to another Open Government Sunset Review in
2026. This will allow the public records and meeting exemptions to be reviewed in concert with
the public record and meeting exemptions in s. 119.0725, F.S., which is now also scheduled for
an Open Government Sunset Review in 2026.
The bill is not expected to affect state or local government revenues and expenditures.
The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
II. Present Situation:
Public Records Law
The State Constitution provides that the public has the right to inspect or copy records made or
received in connection with official governmental business.
1
This applies to the official business
of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, including all three branches of state
government, local governmental entities, and any person acting on behalf of the government.
2
Additional requirements and exemptions that relate to public records are found in various
statutes and rules, depending on the branch of government involved.
3
For instance, Legislative
records are public pursuant to s. 11.0431, F.S. Public records exemptions for the Legislature are
codified primarily in s. 11.0431(2)-(3), F.S., and adopted in the rules of each house of the
legislature. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 governs public access to judicial
branch records.
4
Lastly, ch. 119, F.S., the Public Records Act, provides requirements for public
records held by executive agencies and constitutes the main body of public records laws.
The Public Records Act provides that all state, county, and municipal records are open for
personal inspection and copying by any person. Each agency has a duty to provide access to
public records.
5
1
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 24(a).
2
Id. See also, Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Sarasota, 48 So. 3d 755, 762-763 (Fla. 2010).
3
Chapter 119, F.S., does not apply to legislative or judicial records. See, Locke v. Hawkes, 595 So. 2d 32, 34 (Fla. 1992); see
also Times Pub. Co. v. Ake, 660 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1995).
4
State v. Wooten, 260 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4
th
DCA 2018).
5
Section 119.01(1), F.S. BILL: SPB 7020 Page 3
Section 119.011(12), F.S., defines “public records” to include:
[a]ll documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films,
sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of
the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or
received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction
of official business by any agency.
The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted this definition to encompass all materials made or
received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to “perpetuate,
communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type.”
6
The Florida Statutes specify conditions under which public access to governmental records must
be provided. The Public Records Act guarantees every person’s right to inspect and copy any
state or local government public record at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and
under supervision by the custodian of the public record.
7
A violation of the Public Records Act
may result in civil or criminal liability.
8
Only the Legislature may create an exemption to public records requirements.
9
An exemption
must be created by general law and must specifically state the public necessity justifying the
exemption.
10
Further, the exemption must be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated
purpose of the law. A bill enacting an exemption may not contain other substantive provisions
11
and must pass by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting in each house of the
Legislature.
12
When creating a public records exemption, the Legislature may provide that a record is “exempt”
or “confidential and exempt.” There is a difference between records the Legislature has
determined to be exempt from the Public Records Act and those which the Legislature has
determined to be exempt from the Public Records Act and confidential.
13
Records designated as
“confidential and exempt” are not subject to inspection by the public and may only be released
under the circumstances defined by statute.
14
Records designated as “exempt” may be released at
the discretion of the records custodian under certain circumstances.
15
6
Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Assoc. Inc., 379 So. 2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980).
7
Section 119.07(1)(a), F.S.
8
Section 119.10, F.S. Public records laws are found throughout the Florida Statutes, as are the penalties for violating those
laws.
9
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 24(c).
10
Id.
11
The bill may, however, contain multiple exemptions that relate to one subject.
12
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 24(c)
13
WFTV, Inc. v. The Sch. Bd. of Seminole County, 874 So. 2d 48, 53 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 2004).
14
Id.
15
Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 1991). BILL: SPB 7020 Page 4
General exemptions from the public records requirements are typically contained in the Public
Records Act.
16
Specific exemptions are often placed in the substantive statutes which relate to a
particular agency or program.
17
Open Meetings Laws
The State Constitution provides that the public has a right to access governmental meetings.
18
Each collegial body must provide notice of its meetings to the public and permit the public to
attend any meeting at which official acts are taken or at which public business is transacted or
discussed.
19
This applies to the meetings of any collegial body of the executive branch of state
government, counties, municipalities, school districts, or special districts.
20
Public policy regarding access to government meetings also is addressed in the Florida Statutes.
Section 286.011, F.S., which is also known as the “Government in the Sunshine Law”
21
or the
“Sunshine Law,”
22
requires all meetings of any board or commission of any state or local agency
or authority at which official acts are taken be open to the public.
23
The board or commission
must provide the public reasonable notice of such meetings.
24
Public meetings may not be held at
any location that discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color, origin or economic
status or which operates in a manner that unreasonably restricts the public’s access to the
facility.
25
Minutes of a public meeting must be promptly recorded and open to public
inspection.
26
Failure to abide by open meetings requirements will invalidate any resolution, rule,
or formal action adopted at a meeting.
27
A public officer or member of a governmental entity
who violates the Sunshine Law is subject to civil and criminal penalties.
28
The Legislature may create an exemption to open meetings requirements by passing a general
law by a two-thirds vote of the House and the Senate.
29
The exemption must explicitly lay out
the public necessity justifying the exemption and be no broader than necessary to accomplish the
16
See, e.g., s.119.071(1)(a), F.S., exempting from public disclosure examination questions and answer sheets of exams
administered by a governmental agency for the purpose of licensure.
17
See, e.g., s. 213.053(2), F.S., exempting from public disclosure information received by the DOR, including investigative
reports and information.
18
FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24(b).
19
Id.
20
FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24(b). Meetings of the Legislature are governed by Article III, section 4(e) of the Florida
Constitution, which states: “The rules of procedure of each house shall further provide that all prearranged gatherings,
between more than two members of the legislature, or between the governor, the president of the senate, or the speaker of the
house of representatives, the purpose of which is to agree upon formal legislative action that will be taken at a subsequent
time, or at which formal legislative action is taken, regarding pending legislation or amendments, shall be reasonably open to
the public.”
21
Times Pub. Co. v. Williams, 222 So.2d 470, 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
22
Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1969).
23
Section 286.011(1)-(2), F.S.
24
Id.
25
Section 286.011(6), F.S.
26
Section 286.011(2), F.S.
27
Section 286.011(1), F.S.
28
Section 286.011(3), F.S.
29
FLA. CONST., art. I, s. 24(c). BILL: SPB 7020 Page 5
stated purpose of the exemption.
30
A statutory exemption which does not meet these two criteria
may be unconstitutional and may not be judicially saved.
31
State Cybersecurity Act
The State Cybersecurity Act
32
(the Cybersecurity Act) requires the Department of Management
Services (DMS), acting through the Florida Digital Services (FLDS), to establish standards and
processes for assessing state agencies’ cybersecurity risks and determine appropriate security
measures. Additionally, the DMS must:
33
• Adopt rules to mitigate risk and to safeguard state agency digital assets, data, information,
and IT resources to ensure its confidentiality and integrity;
• Develop an annual cybersecurity strategic plan which includes the identification and
mitigation of risk, proactive protections against threats, and threat reporting and response and
recovery protocols for a cyber incident;
• Publish an IT security framework for use by state agencies;
• Annually review state agencies’ strategic and operational cybersecurity plans; and
• Operate a Cybersecurity Operations Center (CSOC), which serves as “a clearinghouse for
threat information” and coordinates with the Department of Law Enforcement to support
state agencies with their response to a confirmed or suspected cybersecurity incident.
Each agency is also vested with responsibilities under the Cybersecurity Act, which include:
34
• Creating a cybersecurity response team which convenes upon notice of a cybersecurity
incident and reports on all confirmed or suspected incidents;
• Submitting an annual report on the agency’s strategic and operational cybersecurity plans;
• Performing a triennial comprehensive risk assessment to determine security threats to the
agency
• Developing internal procedures, including for reporting cybersecurity incidents and breaches
to the Cybercrime Office and the FLDS;
• Receiving recommendations from the DMS regarding identified risks to agency data,
information, and IT resources, and implementation of safeguards and risk assessment
remediation plans to resolve the risk;
• Ensuring the performance of periodic internal audits and evaluations of the agency’s
cybersecurity program for the data, information, and IT resources of the agency; and
• Submitting an after-action report, including a summary of “insights gained as a result of the
incident” to the FLDS within 1 week after the agency’s resolution or remediation of a
cybersecurity incident or ransomware incident.
30
Id.
31
See supra note 10.
32
Section 282.318(1), F.S.
33
Section 282.318(3), F.S.
34
Section 282.318(4), F.S. BILL: SPB 7020 Page 6
Public Records Exemptions for Cybersecurity Information
The Cybersecurity Act ultimately requires the creation of documents and communications that
are likely to contain highly sensitive information, that may reveal vulnerabilities in state agency
data or cybersecurity.
For example, the Office of the Inspector General conducts state agency cybersecurity audits
pursuant to s. 20.055(6)(i), F.S, and each state agency Inspector General is required to
incorporate a specific cybersecurity audit plan into their annual audit planning process.
35
Additionally, the Auditor General “regularly conduct information technology audits of
governmental entities pursuant to s. 11.45, F.S.”
36
Further, agencies are required to communicate
incident reports and after-action reports regarding hacking events to specific governmental
entities.
Section 282.318(4), F.S., Exemptions
The Cybersecurity Act provides that the following state agency information is confidential and
exempt from public record requirements:
• Comprehensive risk assessments, whether completed by the agency itself or a private
vendor;
37
• Internal policies and procedures that, if disclosed, could facilitate the unauthorized
modification, disclosure, or destruction of data or IT resources;
38
and
• The results of internal cybersecurity audits and evaluations.
39
This information must be made available to the Auditor General, the Cybercrime Office of the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the FLDS, and—for agencies under the jurisdiction of
the Governor—the Chief Inspector General.
Section 282.318(5), F.S., Exemptions
In 2016, the Legislature created s. 282.318(5), F.S., which more generally designates as
confidential and exempt from public record requirements the portions of risk assessments,
40
evaluations, external audits,
41
and other reports of a state agency’s cybersecurity program for the
data, information, and state agency IT resources
42
held by a state agency if the disclosure of such
35
Florida Office of Inspector General, Cybersecurity Resources, https://www.floridaoig.com/cyberSecurity.htm (last visited
Jan. 20, 2025). See, e.g., Florida Department of Health Office of Inspector General, Internal Audit Report # 2223-001 (June
5, 2024), https://www.floridahealth.gov/about/administrative-functions/inspector-general/A-2324-001FinalReport.pdf (last
visited Jan. 20, 2025).
36
Florida Office of the Auditor General, Open Government Sunset Review Questionnaire (Cybersecurity Risk Assessments
and Audits) (September 2024) (on file with the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee).
37
Section 282.318(4)(d), F.S.
38
Section 282.318(4)(e), F.S.
39
Section 282.318(4)(g), F.S.
40
Section 282.0041(29) defines a “risk assessment” for purposes of ch. 282, F.S., as the “process of identifying security risks,
determining their magnitude, and identifying areas needing safeguards.”
41
For purposes of subsection (5) of s. 282.318, F.S., an “external audit” is defined as one conducted by an entity other than
the state agency that is the subject of the audit.
42
Section 282.0041(22), F.S., defines “IT resources” as data processing hardware and software services, communications,
supplies, personnel, facility resources, maintenance, and training. BILL: SPB 7020 Page 7
portions of records would facilitate unauthorized access to or the unauthorized modification,
disclosure, or destruction of:
• Data or information, whether physical or virtual; or
• IT resources, which include:
o Information relating to the security of the agency’s technologies, processes, and practices
designed to protect networks, computers, data processing software, and data from attack,
damage, or unauthorized access; or
o Security information, whether physical or virtual, which relates to the agency’s existing
or proposed IT systems.
An agency must disclose this information only to the Auditor General, the Cybercrime Office of
the FDLE, the FLDS, and—for agencies under the Governor’s jurisdiction—the Chief Inspector
General. Portions of records may be made available to a local government, another state agency,
or a federal agency for cybersecurity purposes or in furtherance of the state agency’s official
duties.
43
The 2016 public necessity statement for this public record exemption, found that independent,
external review of state agency cybersecurity information and related systems was valuable.
44
The bill’s public necessity statement further provided as a basis for the public record exemption
that:
Such documents would likely include an analysis of the state agency’s
current [IT] program or systems which could clearly identify
vulnerabilities or gaps in current systems or processes and propose
recommendations to remedy identified vulnerabilities. The disclosure of
such portions of records would jeopardize the [IT] security of the state
agency, and compromise the integrity and availability of agency data and
[IT] resources, which would significantly impair the administration of
governmental programs.
Section 119.0725, F.S., Exemptions
Florida law also has a similar public record exemption in s. 119.0725, F.S., which makes
confidential and exempt from public record requirements:
45
• Coverage limits and deductible or self-insurance amounts of insurance or other risk
mitigation coverages acquired for the protection of IT systems, operational technology
46
systems, or an agency’s data;
• Information relating to “critical infrastructure”, defined as existing and proposed IT and
operational technology systems and assets (physical or virtual), the incapacity or destruction
of which would negatively affect security, economic security, public health, or public safety;
43
Section 282.382(7), F.S.
44
Chapter 2016-114, Laws of Fla. See also, Senate Bill 624 (2016).
45
Section 119.0725(2), F.S. This public record exemption was implemented in 2022, after s. 282.318, F.S., was passed, to
better address ransomware incidents.
46
“Operational technology” is the hardware and software that causes or detects a change through the direct monitoring or
control of physical devices, systems, processes, or events. Section 119.0725(1)(g), F.S. BILL: SPB 7020 Page 8
• Cybersecurity incident information reported by state agencies or local governments pursuant
to ss. 282.318 and 282.3185, F.S.; and
• Network schematics; hardware and software configurations; encryption information; or
information that identifies detection, investigation, or response practices for suspected or
confirmed cybersecurity incidents, including suspected or confirmed breaches, if the
disclosure of such information would facilitate unauthorized access to or unauthorized
modification, disclosure, or destruction of:
o Data
47
or information (physical or virtual); or
o IT resources, which include an agency’s existing or proposed IT systems.
An agency must make this information available to a law enforcement agency, the Auditor
General, the Cybercrime Office of the FDLE, the FLDS, and—for agencies under the jurisdiction
of the Governor—the Chief Inspector General. An agency may disclose the information
confidential and exempt information addressed in s. 119.0725, F.S., “in the furtherance of its
official duties and responsibilities or to another agency or governmental entity in the furtherance
of its statutory duties and responsibilities.”
48
Agencies must still report information about cybersecurity incidents in the aggregate.
49
Portions of this exemption were previously included in s. 282.318, F.S., until 2022, when the
general exemption for specific cybersecurity information in s. 119.075, F.S., was created.
50
Section 119.0725(3), F.S., also creates a public meeting exemption for any portion of a meeting
that would reveal the information made confidential and exempt pursuant to s. 119.0725(2), F.S.;
however, any portion of an exempt meeting must be recorded and transcribed. The recording and
transcript are confidential and exempt from public record inspection and copying requirements.
These exemptions are currently scheduled to undergo an Open Government Sunset Review and
repeal on October 2, 2027.
Cybersecurity Advisory Council
The Florida Cybersecurity Task Force (Task Force) was created in 2019
51
to “review and
conduct an assessment of the state’s cybersecurity infrastructure, governance, and operations.”
The Task Force produced a final report of its findings and recommendations on February 1,
2021, after which, the body expired.
In 2021, the Legislature subsequently created the Florida Cybersecurity Advisory Council
(Advisory Council) within the DMS.
52
The Advisory Council’s duties, generally, are to meet on
a quarterly basis to review Florida’s current cybersecurity policy and recommend changes. The
47
“Data” is the subset of structured information in a format that allows such information to be electronically retrieved and
transmitted. Section 282.0041(9), F.S.
48
Section 119.0725(5), F.S.
49
Section 119.0725(6), F.S.
50
See ch. 2022-220, Laws of Fla.
51
Chapter 2019-118, s. 29, Laws of Fla.
52
Chapter 2021-234, s. 7, Laws of Fla. BILL: SPB 7020 Page 9
Advisory Council is specifically tasked with assessing ongoing risks to state agency IT and
critical cyber infrastructure; recommending a reporting and information sharing system to notify
state agencies of new risks; recommending data breach simulation exercises; assisting with the
development of cybersecurity best practice recommendations; assessing cybersecurity and
ransomware incident reporting from state agencies, counties, and municipalities; and examining
inconsistencies between state and federal law regarding cybersecurity.
53
The Advisory Council must also annually submit two separate reports: the first to the President
of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives which details legislative
recommendations the Advisory Council considers necessary; the second to the Governor,
President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, which reports the data,
trends, analysis, and recommendations for state and local action regarding ransomware incidents.
The membership of the Advisory Council consists of up to 19 members, including the Lieutenant
Governor, state chief information officer, state chief information security officer, and various
other members from state agencies and the public. The members are required to maintain the
confidential or exempt status of information they receive in the performance of their duties and
responsibilities as members of the council.
54
Of the 52 meetings held by the Advisory Council’s workgroups between June 28, 2022, and
November 7, 2024, one had a general meeting portion open to the public—the rest of the
“executive sessions” were shaded meetings and generally did not offer a specific citation as the
basis for the meeting’s closure.
55
Open Government Sunset Review Act
The provisions of s. 119.15, F.S., known as the Open Government Sunset Review Act (the Act),
prescribe a legislative review process for newly created or substantially amended public records
or open meetings exemptions,
56
with specified exceptions.
57
The Act requires the repeal of such
exemption on October 2nd of the fifth year after creation or substantial amendment. In order to
save an exemption from repeal, the Legislature must reenact the exemption or repeal the sunset
date.
58
In practice, many exemptions are continued by repealing the sunset date, rather than
reenacting the exemption.
The Act provides that a public records or open meetings exemption may be created or
maintained only if it serves an identifiable public purpose and is no broader than is necessary.
59
An exemption serves an identifiable purpose if the Legislature finds that the purpose of the
53
Section 282.319, F.S.
54
Section 282.319(8), F.S.
55
Florida Department of Management Services, Cybersecurity Advisory Council, Advisory Council Overview: Workgroups,
https://www.dms.myflorida.com/other_programs/cybersecurity_advisory_council (last visited Jan. 8, 2025).
56
Section 119.15, F.S. Section 119.15(4)(b), F.S., provides that an exemption is considered to be substantially amended if it
is expanded to include more records or information or to include meetings.
57
Section 119.15(2)(a) and (b), F.S., provides that exemptions required by federal law or applicable solely to the Legislature
or the State Court System are not subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act.
58
Section 119.15(3), F.S.
59
Section 119.15(6)(b), F.S. BILL: SPB 7020 Page 10
exemption outweighs open government policy and cannot be accomplished without the
exemption and it meets one of the following purposes:
• It allows the state or its political subdivision to effectively and efficiently administer a
program and administration would be significantly impaired without the exemption;
60
• It protects sensitive, personal information, the release of which would be defamatory or
would jeopardize an individual’s safety. If this public purpose is cited as the basis of an
exemption, however, only personal identifying information is exempt;
61
or
• It protects trade or business secrets.
62
The Act also requires specified questions to be considered during the review process.
63
In
examining an exemption, the Act directs the Legislature to question the purpose and necessity of
reenacting the exemption.
If the exemption is continued and expanded, then a public necessity statement and a two-thirds
vote for passage are again required.
64
If the exemption is reenacted or saved from repeal without
substantive changes or if the exemption is narrowed, then a public necessity statement and a two-
thirds vote for passage are not required. If the Legislature allows an exemption to expire, the
previously exempt records will remain exempt unless otherwise provided by law.
65
Open Government Sunset Review of the Public Records and Open Meetings Exemptions
for Cybersecurity Information
The staff of the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee and the House
Government Operations Subcommittee jointly surveyed Florida agencies to ascertain whether the
public record and open meeting exemptions in s. 282.318(5) and (6), F.S., remain necessary.
Staff reviewed a total of 24 agencies’ responses, a majority of which recommend that the
Legislature reenact the public record exemptions without any changes.
Public Record Exemption Findings
Legislative staff requested that respondents consider the public records exemption for
cybersecurity in s. 119.0725, F.S., to determine if there is any overlap between those provisions
and the exemption under review. Some respondents noted that s. 119.0725, F.S., did have some
overlap with s. 119.0713(5), F.S.; however, many of those that gave such feedback noted that s.
119.0725, F.S., did not include the full breadth of the information protected by s. 282.318, F.S.
60
Section 119.15(6)(b)1., F.S.
61
Section 119.15(6)(b)2., F.S.
62
Section 119.15(6)(b)3., F.S.
63
Section 119.15(6)(a), F.S. The specified questions are:
• What specific records or meetings are affected by the exemption?
• Whom does the exemption uniquely affect, as opposed to the general public?
• What is the identifiable public purpose or goal of the exemption?
• Can the information contained in the records or discussed in the meeting be readily obtained by alternative means?
If so, how?
• Is the record or meeting protected by another exemption?
• Are there multiple exemptions for the same type of record or meeting that it would be appropriate to merge?
64
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 24(c).
65
Section 119.15(7), F.S. BILL: SPB 7020 Page 11
Further, many respondents noted that, unless several provisions of s. 282.318(5), F.S., were
imported verbatim into s. 119.0725, F.S., there would be a loss in information currently protected
if the chapter 282, F.S., provision was not reenacted.
The responding agencies generally did not report any issue interpreting or applying the
exemptions, and noted that the exemptions were used, in particular, to protect relevant portions
of audits, security incident reports, and security protocols.
Responding agencies also state that they share the confidential and exempt documents with the
Office of Inspect General, Auditor General, FLDS, and FDLE, usually for audit or reporting
purposes. At least one agency cites sharing exempt information with the Executive Office of the
Governor, IRS, FBI, Social Security Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Multi-State Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (MS-ISAC), and federal Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, for
either incident reporting, required auditing, or in order to meet a federal funding requirement.
The Legislature is directed to consider whether the records subject to an Open Government
Sunset Review are protected by another exemption, and if so, if it would be appropriate to merge
the exemptions.
66
As outlined above, there are at least three public record exemptions that may
cover information made confidential and exempt by s. 282.318(5), F.S. Several agencies seem to
rely on the exemptions as a group to protect “cybersecurity information” rather than distinguish
between them.
Public Meeting Exemption Findings
Few responding agencies report using the public meeting exemption in s. 282.318(6), F.S., which
exempts those portions of a public meeting that would reveal records which are confidential and
exempt under s. 282.318(5), F.S. Of the nine respondents who provided feedback regarding the
public meeting exemption in s. 282.318(6), F.S., all but one supported its reenactment without
any change.
One respondent reports using the exemption in IT procurement meetings that include
cybersecurity discussions. The DMS reports using the exemption approximately 20 times for
incident response meetings, risk assessment meetings, audit meetings, and assessment
meetings—it is unclear whether this number includes the Cybersecurity Advisory Council’s
meetings throughout the year.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
The bill delays for one year the repeal of the public records exemption and related public
meeting exemption for portions of risk assessments, evaluations, external audits, and other
reports of a state agency’s cybersecurity program for the data, information, and state agency IT
resources which are held by a state agency, if the disclosure of such portions of records would
facilitate unauthorized access to, or the unauthorized modification, disclosure, or destruction of:
• Data or information, whether physical or virtual; or
• IT resources, which include:
66
Section 119.15(6)(a), F.S. BILL: SPB 7020 Page 12
o Information relating to the security of the agency’s technologies, processes, and practices
designed to protect networks, computers, data processing software, and data from attack,
damage, or unauthorized access; or
o Security information, whether physical or virtual, that relates to the agency’s existing or
proposed IT systems.
These exemptions will repeal on October 2, 2025, if this bill does not become law.
The bill extends the repeal date for the public records exemption for specific cybersecurity
information in s. 282.318(5) and the related public meeting exemption in s. 282.318(6) for an
additional 2 years, from October 2, 2025, until October 2, 2026.
Conversely, the bill moves up by one year (to October 2, 2026), the Open Government Sunset
Review for the public record and public meeting exemptions in s. 119.0725(2) and (3), F.S. This
exemption makes confidential and exempt from public inspection and copying requirements the
following information held by an agency before, on, or after July 1, 2022:
• Coverage limits and deductible or self-insurance amounts of insurance or other risk
mitigation coverages acquired for the protection of IT systems, operational technology
systems, or data of an agency.
• Information relating to critical infrastructure.
• Cybersecurity incident information that is reported by a state agency or local government
pursuant to ss. 282.318 or 282.3185, F.S.
• Network schematics, hardware and software configurations, or encryption information or
information that identifies detection, investigation, or response practices for suspected or
confirmed cybersecurity incidents.
Any portion of a public meeting that would reveal the above confidential and exempt
information is closed to the public and exempt from public meetings laws.
This will allow the two exemptions to be assessed at the same time.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
Not applicable. The bill does not require counties or municipalities to take an action
requiring the expenditure of funds, reduce the authority that counties or municipalities
have to raise revenue in the aggregate, nor reduce the percentage of state tax shared with
counties or municipalities.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
Vote Requirement
Article I, s. 24(c) of the State Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the members
present and voting for final passage of a bill creating or expanding an exemption to the
public records disclosure requirements or public meeting requirements. This bill BILL: SPB 7020 Page 13
continues a current public records exemption and a public meeting exemption beyond the
current date of repeal and moves up another public record and public meeting exemption;
thus, the bill does not require an extraordinary vote for enactment.
Public Necessity Statement
Article I, s. 24(c) of the State Constitution requires a bill creating or expanding an
exemption to the public records disclosure requirements to state with specificity the
public necessity justifying the exemption. This bill continues a current public records
exemption without creating a new exemption or expanding the current exemption, and
therefore does not require a public necessity statement.
Breadth of Exemption
This bill does not expand or narrow the breadth of the exemption provided for in prior
law. Article I, s. 24(c) of the State Constitution requires an exemption to the public
records requirements to be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of
the law. The purpose of the law is to protect information relating to state agency
cybersecurity which could make the state more vulnerable to attack or other criminal
activity. This bill exempts only those portions of records and meetings that contain
relevant information and therefore does not appear to be broader than necessary to
accomplish the purposes of the law.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None identified.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None identified.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None identified.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None identified.
B. Private Sector Impact:
The private sector will continue to be subject to the cost associated with an agency’s
review and redaction of exempt records in response to a public record request for
information covered by s. 282.318(5), F.S. BILL: SPB 7020 Page 14
C. Government Sector Impact:
The government sector will continue to incur costs related to the review and redaction of
exempt records associated with responding to public records requests.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends sections 282.318 and 119.0725 of the Florida Statutes.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.