pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 4 | for the City Attorney's office to check with the Councilmembers about their individual emails; more time is involved when making a records request of a public official as opposed to walking into the City Clerk's office where documents can be obtained immediately; there were reasons why it took longer than what otherwise would be allowed; the email speaks for itself; that he does not find it to be offensive; Mr. Cohen was trying to get some clarification; it is true the email does not say it is on behalf of the five Councilmembers; however, since all of the requests came in on September 7th, if he were the recipient, he would think it would be reasonable to assume it is in response to the requests from that date. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he does not see a problem; the Attorney should have indicated who he was representing; however, he thinks it is obvious; when he read all of the emails, he assumed that the Attorney was responding for everybody; Mr. Klein does have a point that the Attorney said he wanted clarification and what he wanted to know was the timeframe; he understands how Mr. Klein could assume there was something ambiguous in his request; the very simple clarification could have been stated in the Attorney's email. The Assistant City Attorney stated the point of clarification was about the beginning timeframe; correspondence relative to rent control issues have been before the City Council since September, 2014; Mr. Cohen was simply asking how far back in time to go; after a telephone conversation, the email Mr. Cohen sent to Mr. Klein on September 16th indicates that the time frame is June 1st through September 1st; that [timeline] seems to be the point of clarification; there were emails and other material relative to rent control that predated September 2015; that he does not disagree the email could have been more artfully written; however, eventually Mr. Klein received the documents within a reasonable time and within the 14 day extension. Commissioner Bonta stated there is one way to look at the email from Mr. Cohen; "by whom" is Attorney Cohen; "how" is by having a conversation to seek clarification; "when" was Wednesday morning to schedule a time; it is very clear that Mr. Klein was frustrated by the engagement; she agrees there could have been more clarity in the initial email response; however, it does seem like there was intention to be responsive in the areas that Mr. Klein is primarily concerned with: when, how and whom, within the three day timeframe. Commissioner Dieter thanked Mr. Klein for bringing the matter before the Commission; even if there was not a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance, the Commission strives to make government more transparent and more accessible to individuals; Mr. Klein's feedback may actually improve a couple of things. Mr. Klein stated the Attorney's response sounds a lot like someone trying to talk their way out of a parking ticket. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the City did respond within three business days; and whether then, within ten days, the City stated that the request was voluminous so it Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 14, 2015 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |