pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 11 | Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he agrees there was a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance due to the lack of timely response and he is prepared to make a motion to that effect; for his own complaint in 2019, there was a subsequent meeting and process of how the actual decision was written and was hoping that could be a potential option; he is concerned about the behavior of City staff in this situation; people should not have to file a complaint just to receive a response when they make a request under the California PRA. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is curious about the resolution options; she would like to know how to bifurcate the motion. Chair Tilos stated that he would approve sustaining on the basis of timeliness; discussing the process could come at another meeting. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her role is not as an advocate for either side; it is to provide guidance on the law; there is a provision in the Code of Civil Procedure that is accepted for all courts in California that when the last day to perform or complete an act falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the timeliness limit is extended to the next court day closest to the trial date; there are no references within the PRA so the default is calendar days. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she appreciates the clarification since it is such a tight technicality, which also was not offered up by the complainant; in civil litigation, there is a similar issue that occurs where parties are asked to engage in discovery and document production; it is a little similar in that there is a 30-day timeline; inquired whether there is an analogous production deadline. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded it is her understanding that if the due date to provide discovery falls on New Year's Day, you would get the benefit of the holiday; stated most attorneys would ensure that documents are postmarked or emailed timely. Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he is hearing it is the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law; he finds it interesting that in the response to the complainant there was a quick going to the letter of the law, but he sees the Commission is feeling a little bit more merciful; due to his own previous experience with requesting information under the PRA, it is evidence of a previous violation for the current incident; his own opinion is to go with the letter of the law for the 10 day response time which was not referenced by the legal analysis and, then, coming back to figure out what the potential penalty or recommendation is; he is leaning more toward the letter of the law in this instance because of the pattern he has observed. Commissioner Reid moved to sustain the complaint based on the fact that Mr. Morris did not receive the totality of his request within the 10 days through the provisions of the California PRA. Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 11 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |