Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam has been seen as the GOP front-runner in Florida’s nationally watched governor’s race. | AP Photo Putnam’s office mischaracterized interviews for concealed carry investigation, withheld records from media

TALLAHASSEE — Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam’s bid for governor has been dogged over the past month by an explosive report that his office didn’t fully review applications for hundreds of concealed carry gun permits.

The missed permit reviews, though, are not the end of Putnam’s problems.


His department’s own investigators signed off on a final report looking at the issue that said every interview conducted with department staff was done under oath and recorded, but according to records reviewed by POLITICO, two key interviews were not. In addition, his office delayed the release of records related to the report, including not initially releasing requested documents to the media outlets.

“It’s a huge issue,” Barbara Petersen, an attorney and president of the First Amendment Foundation, said of interviews listed as “sworn” not being under oath. “It is at the heart of our ability to oversee our government and hold them accountable."

The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services inspector general’s report — which found 291 people who weren’t supposed to got concealed carry permits — has already dogged Putnam’s gubernatorial campaign. The additional records, reviewed by POLITICO, now outline that the investigation into improperly reviewed conceal carry gun permits included key inaccuracies, and that Putnam’s office dragged its feet when receiving requests for further records.

Putnam has been seen as the GOP front-runner in Florida’s nationally watched governor’s race. He has responded to critics of his handling of the permits, which in Florida are issued by Putnam’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, by blasting the Tampa Bay Times’ original reporting on the investigation, which initially overstated the number of applications impacted.

Jenn Meale, the communications director in Putnam’s official office, confirmed that two staff interviews as part of the investigation were listed in the report as being recorded and sworn, but were not. She said they were characterized that way in the final inspector general’s report “inadvertently.”

The mistake means that key staffers interviewed as part of an investigation into wrongly issued concealed carry gun permits were not required to first swear to tell the truth, which is both generally how the inspector general conducts interviews, and how other staff members were investigated. Meale did not respond to a follow-up question about whether the department was looking into how that happened.

The inspector general’s report was completed in June 2017, but not widely known about until it was first reported by the Times last month.

It found that concealed carry permits were issued that should not have been because follow-up reviews were not conducted after applications were flagged by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It is one of three federal databases used by Putnam's office when reviewing concealed carry permit applications. As a result of the lapse, 291 concealed carry permits were revoked after applications were wrongly approved.

Former department staffer Lisa Wilde admitted that she “dropped the ball,” and was subsequently fired after the issue surfaced within the department.

The nine-page report signed by department Inspector General Ron Russo and Chief Inspector Christopher Pate said that each of the staff interviews conducted as part of the investigation were “sworn,” meaning under oath, and “recorded.”

That, however, was not the case.

Interviews conducted with Laura Gallagher, the Division of Licensing’s chief of license issuance, and another with Mary Kennedy, who was a Division of License employee at the time, were conducted via phone and were not under oath or recorded, according to the newly reviewed records.

The final inspector general’s report indicated both gave sworn statements that were recorded. Summaries of those two interviews were sent to Gallagher and Kennedy to confirm they correctly reflected what the two said during the non-recorded phone interviews. Both agreed the final summaries were accurate, department emails show.

Meale, Putnam’s communications director, said that the interviews were done by phone and not under oath because one employee was tending to a sick family member, while another was no longer with the department.

“All employees are expected to be honest, and if an employee is found in violation of this department policy, disciplinary action can and will be taken,” she said.

The other employee interviews conducted as part of the investigation were sworn and recorded, according to department records. POLITICO reached out directly to Russo, the department’s inspector general. He did not return a request for comment, instead sending questions to Putnam’s communications office.

“This is not the type of error or deception one would expect to see in an inspector general report,” Florence Snyder, a Tallahassee-based attorney and former administrative law judge.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement manual used for the Inspectors General Accreditation Program says that interviews should be “taken under oath” unless there are specific exemptions, but none are listed in the report. The standards manual says that interviews should be “recorded or documented.” Most interviews taken as part of the concealed weapons permit investigation were recorded, but only a written summary exists for the two that were not taken under oath.

“It is outrageous, particularly given the stakes,” said Petersen, who heads the First Amendment Foundation. “There is a huge conflict in the report.”

‘Wasn’t intentional

Backup records related to the inspector general report were first released to the office of state Sen. Linda Stewart (D-Orlando), who sought them as part of a June 11 public records request.

Records related to the interviews recorded and taken under oath were released to Stewart on June 15, but backup documents related to the two interviews that were not sworn or recorded were not initially released, which prompted Stewart to send two demand letters.

“No explanation or legal exemption under Florida’s public records statutes was provided at the time, nor during subsequent email exchanges with Grace Lovett, your agency’s legislative liaison, who had been the individual reposing to, collecting, and releasing the requested material,” read a June 29 letter from Stewart to Steven Hall, the Agriculture Department’s general counsel.

The records were provided to Stewart on July 2, but that release did not extend to the handful of media organizations, including POLITICO, that made public records requests similar to that filed by Stewart.

In a story last week about the records, the Times indicated it first put in a request with the department on June 8 but did not receive the records until last Friday, which was after it had obtained the information from Stewart’s office, the newspaper reported. POLITICO requested the backup document June 20, but never received records until following up with the department last Friday.

Aaron Keller, the Agriculture Department press secretary, said the agency made a mistake.

“Our legislative team provided the exhibits to Senator Stewart's office on Monday, and I should have then sent them to you and the other reporters who asked for the documents,” he said. “It was my mistake, but it wasn't intentional.”