pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 14 | is tasked with telling the City Council where problems emerge in the Sunshine Ordinance. Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Chen's comments as something that could be agendized or put under Commissioner Communication for another meeting. The Chief Assistant City Attorney clarified some points, including that the Sunshine Ordinance does require a response from the City within 10 days as to whether or not there are responsive documents; if more time is needed to make that determination, a notice can be sent out to the requesting party that an additional 14 days is needed; there is no set deadline in producing the documents; there is a lot of case law about what a city needs to follow and the efforts it needs to make, but there is no specific time frame or parameters that spell out exactly what the City has to do that is objective; regarding the terms totality and efficiency she is not aware of those terms being used in the Sunshine Ordinance; she does not know whether either of the terms is used in case law that interprets either the Brown Act or PRA; the terms are general and may be used in some case law, but, to her knowledge, it is not used in some standard in the Sunshine Ordinance before the Commission tonight. Commissioner Reid stated the issue is not that the documents did not exist; the issue is that the City was reluctant to give documents to the requestor; Mr. Morris did not receive what he requested until he had to finally push for the information by filing a complaint; when the City responded, all the data was given to Mr. Morris in one day, which was 87 days of data; this is why she strongly feels the complaint is sustained; when a requestor receives resistance or has an obstacle, it is the duty of the Commission to ensure there is transparency and members of the public should be able to confidently request and get information from the City with full transparency; her motion is to sustain the complaint. Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he understands one of the intentions of the California PRA is the balancing act of having transparency weighed against the privacy of citizens; another aspect of the balancing is the efficient operations; to him, the issue around the 10 days is clear that it is not the production of the full amount of data within the 10 or 14 days; it is 10 days to respond to the request; he understands the concerns that it seems like a technicality; an option to addressing it is the concept of restorative justice and how it can be applied in this situation; one way is to address the Council as Commissioner Chen suggested; another way is to get an updated policy which Mr. Cohen promised to Mr. Morris; an finally, something related is the City's retention policy; these are all potential opportunities; it all goes back to what the complainant said was needed; it was centered around not having any obstruction; he thinks sustaining the complaint and coming back with specific recommendations within the scope as a Commission and asking for guidance from the City Council or asking for a report from the City Attorney's Office on how they are implementing the PRA so that this experience does not happen again. Commissioner Reid inquired whether Vice Chair Shabazz's comments were a second to her motion, to which Vice Chair Shabazz responded in the negative. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she sees Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 14 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |