pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 2 | disingenuous; he did not need to deal with a particular Attorney; if an Attorney is out of the office for three days, the City should assign someone else to be responsible for a response; eight days into the ten day period after the conversation with the Attorney, a 14 day extension was requested because the request was voluminous; the conversation was at 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon, by 5:30 p.m., the Attorney knew that the response was voluminous; questioned how he learned so much so quickly; following the emails provided, the Attorney was asked about the definition of voluminous and never replied; the September 11th response was inadequate because it did not include when, how and by whom; if the City's position is that the complaint is frivolous, he suggests timelines mean something under the rule; provided an example of timeliness involved with receiving a parking ticket; timeliness should mean something in this instance and should be more meaningful for the City Attorney; the responsibility to timelines does not decrease as it goes up, but rather includes all of the responsibilities and assumes a much higher standard; that he is a consumer of public records; he has done a number of public record requests with the City Clerk; it is never an issue; rather than getting an email in three days telling him when he will receive the documents, he gets the documents; he is never told the documents will be provided next week; by the end of three days, he has the documents; he submitted a records request this week; 12 minutes later, he received an email from the City Clerk telling when, by whom and how; timelines matter; the complaint is not trivial given all the other incidentals of the interaction and the disingenuous nature of how the request was handled by the Attorney. Vice Chair Foreman inquired if Mr. Klein has received the documents, to which Mr. Klein responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Foreman inquired if he received the documents on October 2nd, to which Mr. Klein responded that he received them on October 1st Vice Chair Foreman inquired how voluminous were the documents, to which Mr. Klein responded 475 pages, which is not voluminous. Vice Chair Foreman inquired how many emails [were provided in response to the request], to which Mr. Klein responded that he has not been through or counted the emails; stated there are a lot of repetitive emails. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he apologies he does not have the documentation; however, he has read it all; inquired whether there was a statement by the City Attorney in one of his emails to Mr. Klein that the documents had to be reviewed before they could be released because there might be privileged material. Mr. Klein responded that he does not have his copy; it was voluminous; eight days into the request, it seems disingenuous to suddenly ask for an extension because the documents are voluminous. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he is looking at an email sent by Attorney Alan Cohen. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 14, 2015 2 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |