pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 10 | Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he was surprised no one did the math of 27 minus 15 despite all the legalese; he agrees with Commissioner LoPilato that privacy and balancing is a really important principle and should be in the conversation about policy; it was promised by a staff member to do or work with a member of the community and it was never followed-up; there were some unfulfilled promises going back to the relationship piece; reiterated his experience when requesting information regarding an arrest made at the Target in 2017; his request was stonewalled by the City; he was eventually able to get the correct information from the District Attorney's office; the social media account was used to put out a certain narrative; being able to access information allowed him to nuance the story in a certain way; he appreciates the concerns about privacy rights; there is something to be said about the public interest and journalists being able to access information to tell stories; questioned where Alameda's benchmark is in relation to other agencies; stated there seems to be some challenges regarding the PRA in the City Attorney's Office; one of the potential resolutions is having the Annual Report now; one of the duties of the Commission could perhaps be evaluating the performance of the City Attorney's Office; if there is a sustained complaint and the Commission wants to impose a penalty, perhaps someone could attend a PRA training. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission has to have the written decision done within 30 days as required in the Code; the clearer direction the Commission could provide for the written decision to be circulated for all members to sign, the better; the next meeting is not until May which would be past the 30 days. Commissioner Reid inquired whether or not records should be made available to the public if the policy of the City is to retain the records; further inquired if Chair Tilos was leaning more towards sustaining the complaint. Chair Tilos responded in the negative, stated something is wrong; it can go several ways; it could be sustained or unfounded or found with merit; he does not think the Commission has all the answers yet; there is still another complaint to address and more conversations to have. Commissioner Chen stated the Commission did find something wrong; a citizen seeking public information was pushed around; until he made the actual complaint, he did not get the data he was requesting; if this is how Alameda is going to treat public records requests, it is an important issue, but it is not on the agenda; the Commission needs to agendize it for another meeting not to be in violation of the Sunshine Ordinance for discussing and acting on an issue that the public was not pre-warned about; the complainant did admit that he did not think he had a valid Sunshine Ordinance complaint at this point, so he is just utilizing this as a forum to be able to speak with the Commission and the community at large regarding the difficulty he had with obtaining public records; there does need to be a vote whether the Sunshine Ordinance was violated according to his complaint; then, pick up the PRA issue at a subsequent meeting. Chair Tilos stated that on the issue of timeliness, the complaint could be found sustained; he concurs with Commissioner Chen about agendizing the issue regarding the process. Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 10 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |