pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 16 | court decision that was cited; questioned whether it is valid to abandon the original complaint because the Commission found violations of the Sunshine Ordinance. The Special Counsel stated that she concurs with the Chief Assistant City Attorney regarding the timeline issues; stated what is really important to recognize is what was included in the materials provided on the 27th was what was going to be required to produce a lot of the records and a very important privacy interest; just because the information is available, does not mean it is easily produced; she thinks the response from the City was timely. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission could have discussion of the motion once it is seconded and also someone could make a call for the question if they feel there has been enough discussion. Commissioner Reid stated from her point of view, the complainant did not receive the information on his request in a prompt manner; on that basis, she requests that the Commission sustain the complaint. Commissioner Chen stated that she agrees with everything Commissioner Reid said, but that is not what the complaint is; she is having trouble and needs clarification; it is clear that the City needs to do better in responding to PRAs, but that is not the issue of the complaint on tonight's agenda. Commissioner Chen made an amended [substitute] motion; moved approval of not sustaining the complaint itself; however, the Commission found a lot of other issues on how the complaint was responded to and would like to explore further with the City Attorney's Office to address them. The amended/substitute motion was not seconded. Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he sees Commissioner Chen's point of view; the question is does the Commission have to make a determination of a violation solely based on what was put into the complaint; he is ready to call the question and may also have an alternate solution. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: No; LoPilato: No; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Vice Chair Shabazz stated the only language in the Sunshine Ordinance relates to the disposition of a complaint is unfounded; there have been recommendations to sustain and not to sustain; the suggestion he was going to share was to just say that the complaint has merit; based on the complaint having merit, the Commission could proceed to recommend some of the particular cures that have been stated; if there is support for it, he would be willing to make a motion to reconsider the last vote and make a new motion. Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 16 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |