By CAROL KENT
Holmes County Commissioners are expected to decide what steps to take to mitigate what the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is calling a data leak following a series of public records requests made in relation to the ongoing investigation of Commissioner Brandon Newsom by the Florida Department of Financial Services (FDFS).
The first request was made by Commissioner Newsom himself on March 20, just over a week prior to FDFS executing a search warrant at the county office on March 28 to seize items associated an investigation into whether Newsom’s bail bond agency – Bail Bonds by Brandon Newsom – had allowed county personnel to perform duties that are by statute only allowed to be performed by a licensed bond agent.
A written statement by Modern Tech Squad – the county’s tech support vendor – says its staff responded to the county twice that week to two separate public records requests related to a computer listed in the search warrant.
Watkins states the first request was made by Commissioner Newsom himself regarding contents of the computer utilized by the HCBOCC administrative staff.
“My company, Modern Tech Squad, was called in on Thursday, March 20, 2025, for a public records request to back up any documents having to deal with Commissioner Brandon Newsom,” wrote the tech company’s owner, Matt Watkins. “I backed up all the files from the computer and put them on a flash drive that was provided by Brandon Newsom. Once the files were backed up, I handed it to him, and I left.”
According to county officials, the flash drive had not been reviewed or redacted at that time, and it contained several files that gave personal information such as social security numbers of more than 170 past and present county employees and their dependents.
Although Newsom stated in an April 11 emergency BOCC meeting that he left the flash drive at the county office, another statement by Watkins said he witnessed Newsom leave with the flash drive – a device Newsom purchased himself for the purpose of obtaining the records – that same day.
“[Newsome] handed us the flash drive and we backed up the information on it,” said Watkins in a written statement to the county commissioners. “When the information was finished copying, we handed the flash drive to Commissioner Newsom, and he put the flash drive in his pocket. We shook hands and left the building together. I was parked behind Mr. Newsom, and we both drove off at the same time.”
Watkins later spoke with The Advertiser staff in a phone interview and reiterated that he witnessed Newsom pocket the flash drive and leave, rather than leaving the device at the county office as he stated in the public meeting. County Coordinator David Corbin, who is tasked with fulfilling public records requests, states he found the drive on his desk when he returned from a county-related trip to Tallahassee days later. It is uncertain when the drive was placed on Corbin’s desk or who placed it there.
A public records request for video surveillance from that time period could not be fulfilled because, according to Watkins, the Network Video Recorder (NVR) was not functioning and had not been for about a week.
Two other public records requests were made for the same contents that were placed on the flash drive following the drive’s return to the county and subsequent review by County Attorney Nate Nolin – one request by County Commissioner Clint Erickson and another by The Advertiser. Nolin states he had just 36 hours to review the voluminous number of documents on the drive and that he inadvertently missed the redaction of the remaining documents containing the personal information.
Newsom later noted his concern that the personal information had not been redacted after The Advertiser published the story detailing the FDFS investigation, resulting in the April 11 emergency meeting. Newsom, Erickson, and The Advertiser all returned their flash drives and agreed to sign affidavits attesting the data had not been copied or distributed.
Corbin, Nolin, and Watkins met again Tuesday, April 29, to discuss options such as providing an identity protection service like LifeLock to those affected; however, Watkins states he feels there was no true breech considering the information was distributed to only three individuals, all of whom returned the data and agreed to the affidavits.
“We know who had custody of the information, so in my opinion, those three people are held to a higher standard due to their role of service in the community,” said Watkins. “And if they all sign the affidavit that nothing was or would be leaked, then there was no true breech.”
Preliminary estimates show the cost to the county for providing a service like LifeLock would be more than $30,000.
The Holmes County Board of County Commissioner will meet again in regular session at 6 p.m., Tuesday, May 6. More discussion on this issue and possibly a decision is expected to be made in that meeting.
Staff Report 