of official business by any judicial entity.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin 2.051(b)(l)(A)-(B) (emphasis supplied). Thus, judicial records subject to public disclosure are still limited to those "made or received pursuant to court rule, law, or ordinance, or in connection with the transaction of official business.” 5 . See Division of Library and Information Services, Department of State, General Records Schedule GS1-L for Local Government Agencies ii (2001) available at http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/barrn/gensche-dules/gensched.htm. 6 . Compare Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 99-74 (1999) (advising a school board that its phone records were public records even if the calls indicated were personal and paid for by the employee) with Media Gen. Operation, Inc. v. Feeney, 849 So.2d 3, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). 7 .We decline to address the remaining issue
holding that records relating to a student court were not education records holding that university students redacted disciplinary records were not education records holding that records of personal phone calls made by staff employees of the house of representatives fall outside the current definition of public records and were properly redacted holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception holding that the public records act does not mandate disclosure of records protected by tennessee rule of criminal procedure 16