pages: CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2005-12-20 | 10 | Councilmember Matarrese stated the data could be used for anything if the data was public information. Mr. Allen stated that some of the work product could be kept confidential ; the final product would be public. Councilmember Matarrese stated the County is a public entity and the data should be public. Mayor Johnson stated the Contract would identify ownership. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities have expressed concern regarding ownership. Mr. Allen responded other cities have agreed with the concerns raised by Alameda. The City Attorney noted that the memorandum from the County stated that information collected would be subject to the Public Records Act. Mayor Johnson stated the Authority would be subject to the Public Records Request Act but not the consultants. The City Attorney stated the data should be publicly available. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the data could be provided to the participants. Councilmember Matarrese stated there was concern that a consultant could ask a broad spectrum of questions, gain personal advantage in running a County survey, and use the data for something else; a condition should be that the data be published along with the report. Mayor Johnson stated that some information has been provided on the election; inquired whether the Authority would pay for the election. Mr. Allen responded that the election cost would be paid by the Authority as a straight charge from the fee. Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the proposed assessment did not pass, to which Mr. Allen responded the cost would come out of the Authority's budget. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the election cost estimate. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 December 20, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf |