pages: CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-04-06 | 14 | the matter is in line to be reviewed and is in the back of the queue due to the amount of documents; it will be quite some time before staff is able to get to the request. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has informed Councilmember Herrera Spencer about having the e-mails. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated he communicated to both Councilmember Herrera Spencer and the other PRA request after the Council Referral was submitted. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it has not been confirmed whether or not e-mails have been deleted; she would like e-mails retrieved if emails were deleted; staff has not addressed the point about deleted e-mails, which is a concern; a gmail account is not a City e-mail account; when PRA requests are made, the City needs access to all records; there has been no statement from the City about whether or not e-mails have been deleted. Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about where the matter is leading; stated members of various Boards and Commissions are volunteers; questioned whether there will be PRA requests for members' private e-mail accounts; discussed members deleting personal e-mails; questioned whether a member of the public has a right to file a PRA request for access to information from personal e-mail accounts related to matters presented at the OGC, Planning Board or any other Board or Commission; questioned how to go about verifying whether or not e-mails have been deleted from personal accounts; stated the matter seems to be a slippery slope; requested clarification from the City Attorney about where the matter is leading Council; stated there are many volunteers working in civil engagement on Boards and Commissions that are not given a City e-mail address and documents are received by said volunteers at times; inquired the implications. The City Attorney responded staff's recommendation for conducting City business is to use a City e-mail address; stated a City e-mail is the easiest way for the Information Technology (IT) Department to download information; staff recognizes there are times where City officials end up using private e-mails; outlined a City of San Jose case; stated when City officials receive City information on private e-mails, the Supreme Court made clear that the City may make a request to the private individuals private e-mail for information asking the public official to certify that they have provided all information to the City; the subcommittee gmail address is a novel issue of law; the gmail address is not associated with any individual and was created for one purpose: City communications; the City has requested the password so that all e-mails may be downloaded; the City Attorney's office is happy to review all information received. Councilmember Daysog stated the gmail address was posted on the City's website; the issue raised by Councilmember Herrera Spencer is unique to the situation; the issue raised by Vice Mayor Vella is separate; the City Attorney has reflected that City officials may have to provide private e-mail transmittals to the extent that the transmittals have public aspects; the information is valuable; expressed support for providing the e-mails; Council is depending on the City Manager and staff to properly vet certain situations; he prefers not to tell people website protocols or how the website should look; the case being raised is valid; the account created should not have been a gmail account; a City e-mail account should have been created with clear rules regarding the public's ability to access information and should have been an obvious choice. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 April 06, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf |