pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 4 | or position, but when broadened other formal actions and activities could be constituted as all different situations. Vice Chair Foreman suggested taking the suggested position that it is an inappropriate revision to the Sunshine Ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney stated Council could take up the matter as a separate item; inquired if the approach is acceptable, to which the Commissioners responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation. Vice Chair Foreman stated his position last time about Section 2-92.6 was that it should not be included; the more he reviews it, the stronger he feels that it should not be included; if it is going to be included, it should not be under Section 2-92.6 which has to do with records; it should be moved to Section 2-91.18; he did research on the City employee issue; the term City employee is better; public employee could be somebody who works for the County, federal government or State; a City employee, under case law, can speak out on a matter of public concern other than his/her duties; speaking pursuant to official duties does not allow first amendment protection; provided an example: a Police Officer talking about the new fire station, which is not part of his duties, has protection; however, if what the Officer says is knowingly or recklessly false or if it makes it impossible for him to carry out his duties, he is not protected; inquired whether the interpretation is generally right. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the difficulty is trying to distinguish between is the person speaking within his or her official duties or if the matter is really of public concern; it is a very slippery slope. Vice Chair Foreman stated it is a very slippery slope, which is why he thinks the Section should not be included; stated there should not be any reference to a City Board, Commission or Committee, which is already covered. Chair Aguilar noted it does not [have any such reference]. Vice Chair Foreman read the first sentence; provided the argument he would use if he were representing an employee; stated the employee can say anything he/she wants to say and there is nothing the City can do about it; he knows that is not the intent; the information belongs in an employee handbook. Commissioner Dieter stated the Section does piggyback on the other Section just discussed; roles and responsibilities of policy bodies or City employees do not seem appropriate for a Sunshine Ordinance because the whole purpose of the Sunshine Ordinance is to make government more transparent and give people access to their government; to include what people are not allowed to do it is a fine line; the clause Meeting of the Open Government Commission March 30, 2015 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |