of North America, 508 So.2d 395, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (noting, although court's decision was not predicated on Legislative Staff Summary and Analysis, this particular type of extrinsic aid to statutory interpretation is accorded significant respect by Florida courts). 6 . We would note that strong arguments may be made that the individual members' notes are also an integral part of the deliberation process and that required disclosure would only force members to rely on their memories. It is , v. Gosser, 20 Ohio St.3d 30, 485 N.E.2d 706, 710 (1985) (finding judge's personal notes regarding trial and sentencing hearing were not public records); American Fedn. of Govt. Emp., Local 2782 v. United States Dept. of Commerce, 632 F.Supp. 1272 (D.D.C.1986), aff'd 907 F.2d 203 (D.C.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). But cf. Tingling v. Lang, 39 Misc.2d 338, 240
holding employees personal notes not intended for distribution through usual agency channels are beyond the scope of the federal foia holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents holding that the scope of the trade secrets act is at least coextensive with that of exemption 4 of foia holding that when a plaintiff has no pending foia request with an agency and has not averred that he intends to make foia requests to the agency in the future any claim of future injury is simply too speculative and remote to give him standing holding that a response to a foia request falls within the scope of  3730e4as administrative  report provision