pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 4 | requestor about what is going to happen within 10 days; stated staff generally tries to provide the documents, but sometimes there is a delay. Chair Schwartz inquired whether there is an opportunity to request an extension, like the State's Public Records Act statute. The Chief Assistant City Attorney Responded in the Affirmative; stated extensions happens when documents are voluminous or take significant time to review to determine whether documents are privileged; the requestor is informed additional time will be needed; ideally, there is a 14 day window in which to provide the response; at times, the requestor is informed it will take additional time; staff tries to work within the 24 day window to provide the documents. Commissioner Little inquired whether a notes column should be added at the end for transparency or if there is another mechanism to clarify circumstances and explain why the records request was not complied with within the timeframe. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that is a very good point; stated the reasons for response outside of the timeframe can be added to the note column; the request is good and easy enough to do. Chair Schwartz stated the table should be sufficiently simple to be digestible, but on the other hand the notes would help explain issues; the next go round could have a mechanism that shows when extensions were required. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff can do that. Commissioner Shabazz expressed appreciation for the table, which allows people to understand what documents the City is producing and the amount of requests; encouraged staff to utilize notes to help with processing and tracking; knowing SeeClickFix is not the best solution, collaborative software should be used to communicate between different parties and should having tracking. Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he has another non-agenda items to discuss. Chair Schwartz stated the Commission is currently addressing the agenda item. Mr. Garfinkle stated that he was surprised about cases with no documents produced; there should be an explanation when no records are found; if records are exempt, the letter from the City should explain the exemption; suggested ways to use the data and complaints to improve quality; stated that he spoke to the Attorney's office when he made a request; requestors should be able to communicate with the custodian of records directly; response to his request was timely, but the custodian of records was out of the office; expressed concern over voicemails being out of date. Commissioner Shabazz concurred with Mr. Garfinkle about a notation when there are no Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 3, 2020 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |