pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 6 | Commissioner Bonta stated Mr. Cohen did respond via email within the three day time period and followed up with a phone call to get clarifying information; the height of customer service is to actually speak to someone directly and try to get the information. Mr. Klein stated it is difficult to understand said reasoning when the rule clearly states within three days the requester will get a response with regarding to when, how and by whom the request will be fulfilled. Vice Chairman Foreman stated that is the issue; Mr. Klein is not complaining about not getting the documents; his formal complaint is limited to the three day rule; that he leans toward the three day rule was violated; what bothers him is that Attorney Cohen may have a perfectly good explanation, but is not here; Attorney Cohen is the one who wrote the email and the Commission is supposed to be having a hearing about the email. Mr. Klein inquired whether the other party is supposed to present, to which the Assistant Attorney responded he is present on Mr. Cohen's behalf because the documents speak for themselves; the Commission has enough information to determine whether or not there was or was not a violation of the ordinance; that he does not think intent, except as read through the email, is relevant. Vice Chair Foreman stated that is a good point; it is not a question of intent. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of finding that there was a violation of the three day rule and [staff] did not comply with the requirements thereof; the needed clarification could have easily been satisfied in three days. Chair Aguilar stated the City met "by whom:" the City Attorney would be responding on behalf of the Councilmembers; "when" was going to be discussed; the Attorney could not answer "when" because he needed information on the timeframe; he needed to know where to start and stop gathering information; maybe the Attorney could have put the timeframe of the documents in the email or maybe he could not have; maybe he thought it was going to take a lot more back and forth discussion; the Attorney needing clarification on "when" then it is "how;" as far as she is concerned "how" is the only outstanding thing. Vice Chair Foreman stated the Attorney could not really answer "how" until "when" was answered. Chair Aguilar stated the Attorney needed information; maybe in his judgement a phone call was the best way to get to the bottom of what Mr. Klein wanted without having 16 emails go back and forth; the Attorney was out of the office and said he was not going to be available; she is having a hard time saying that the Attorney violated the Sunshine Ordinance because the email has whom and when; how was the problem because the Attorney needed clarification and could not address how without when. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 14, 2015 6 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |