pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 4 | to already have the Commission's opinion written seems like a stacked deck; she is concerned about the way the documents come before the Commission; it was not until she saw Mr. Morris's statement that she actually understood what was going on. The City Clerk stated staff hears the Commission and can come back with a different format next time with a more neutral staff report with the two opposing sides attached. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated she concurs with the City Clerk about the discussion to clarify the staff report format issue; emphasized that the proposed decision submitted by special counsel in both cases is the way that they are advocating; the other side is open to prepare their own desired decision as well; when attorneys file motions in court, typically, both sides prepare a proposed order or decision; it is a way for the attorney to urge the judge; she apologizes that it seems like stacking the deck, but the proposed decision is truly an advocacy piece; she appreciates the comments and the City Attorney's office will work with the City Clerk to clarify the process as appropriate. Complainant Scott Morris gave a brief presentation. Special Counsel Kristen Rogers gave a brief presentation, including outlining objections to Vice Chair Shabazz participating in the discussion. Vice Chair Shabazz inquired whether responses to PRAs are 10 calendar days or 10 business days, to which the City Clerk responded it is 10 calendar days. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether Mr. Morris received the full time frame of the documents he sought from the other County agencies or if the agencies just gave him more than Alameda. Mr. Morris responded each of the other 12 county agencies gave him the full time frame of the documents he requested, except for the Alameda County Sheriff's office and the Oakland Police Department, neither of which appropriately responded to his request at all which is the subject of litigation right now with the City of Oakland. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the notion of limiting it to contemporaneous as to a specific look back period is something that Mr. Morris saw in a written statute or was it purely from case law. Mr. Morris responded the statute of issue has a list of things the City must deliver with regards to each arrest; current address used to be included; based on that, a Court of Appeals in Los Angeles interpreted the legislative intent of the law to be that it would only be for a limited period of time, but what the time would be was not defined and was only supposed to be what was reasonable; in 1995, the legislature removed the current address; years later there was a different decision looking directly at the subsequent section of that statute which defines the list of things that has to be released about every time a Police Officer goes somewhere and current address was also removed; since the language was removed, it does not apply anymore; there is no reason that it has any kind Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |