pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 4 | The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative, stated the voluminous requests he mentioned were not a specific incident, requests were for any incident which fell into the new categories. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the complainant made a request for a broad variety of incidents. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Rasheed Shabazz, Complainant, stated there were multiple experiences where he did not received responses in a timely manner. Mr. Shabazz gave a brief presentation providing background information on Senate Bill, facts related to his complaint, relevant State law related to Police records; commented on the importance of transparency and perception; and provided recommendations to make local government accessible to the public. Commissioner Tilos stated he would like to see the statistical reporting regarding the public records requests; he would like to see some sort of penalty imposed on the agencies or departments that do not provide responses in a timely manner. Chair Henneberry stated the Commission's decision does not go far enough and does not establish the framework for avoiding the situation from repeating itself; he is not comfortable signing it as is; it is not comprehensive enough; there should be guarantees from the City departments that when a citizen makes a request, it will be acted on in a timely manner; 39 out of 40 requests may have been fulfilled, but dropping the ball on one request in this egregious manner is not acceptable. Commissioner Tilos stated the number of requests not been confirmed; the actual number could be lower. Commissioner Little concurred with Chair Henneberry; stated that she is not comfortable signing off on the decision as it does not outline the expectation for making sure there are procedures put into place so that the situation does not end up back before the Commission. In response to Chair Henneberry's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the staff report and decision points out that the matter was inadvertent rather than intentionally overlooking the complainant's requests; based on what he has heard from the Commission, he could draft a revised decision for the Commission to consider at the next meeting on October 7, 2019. Chair Henneberry stated the perception from the City Attorney's office is the issue was inadvertent and unintentional, which are non-legal terms. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Henneberry; stated a violation is a violation. Meeting of the Open Government Commission July 23, 2019 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |