pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 7 | Mr. Morris responded that he was given the data 30 days at a time; stated the Assistant City Attorney initially only gave him 30 days data; Mr. Morris then cited contradicting case law and was given an additional 30 days data; he was looking for 90 days total data; he specifically wanted to know whether the Police Department changed its booking practices in response to COVID 19 because there had been some guidance from the Sheriff's Office not to book people into jail under particular circumstances; until he complained on Twitter and filed a complaint, he was not able to get the full scope of what he was asking; he does not feel Vice Chair Shabazz was giving him a wink as a receptive audience, it was a way for him to actually get some accountability and the option existed. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding how his complaint was classified, Mr. Morris stated the Assistant City Attorney asked him specifically to delay his complaint, not to withdraw it, but delay it for 30 to 60 days for the reason that he was serving other agencies in the area and that he was going to come up with a policy that was more in line with the law; Mr. Morris told the Assistant City Attorney that he consulted with attorneys who said there is not any reading of the statute that does not say the full universe of arrests as retained by the Police Department are available; he stated the City's policy has to be to provide arrests within the period of retention and if they have those records, they have to release them; the Assistant City Attorney knew his position and stated he would work on something that would strike a balance after talking to other Police Departments; that conversation was the last Mr. Morris ever heard from the Assistant City Attorney on the issue; there was no follow up; only after Vice Chair Shabazz approached him regarding the status of his complaint, it was placed on the agenda tonight. Commissioner Reid inquired what the process is from the City's standpoint when a complaint is put on hold. The Assistant City Attorney responded he had a discussion with Mr. Morris about establishing a records retention policy; stated Mr. Morris told him he was represented by an attorney; he told Mr. Morris to have his attorney contact him with some ideas about best practices; Mr. Morris's attorney never contacted him; maybe there was a miscommunication, but he felt that under the State bar rules of ethical conduct he was prohibited by law from contacting and having conversations with someone who is represented by counsel; he was waiting for a phone call from Mr. Morris's attorney and never received one. Mr. Morris stated the statement is not true; he did not say he was represented by counsel; he said he had spoken to a lawyer to ask some questions, but the lawyer was not representing him; it was not supposed to be an adversarial thing; the Assistant City Attorney asked him to have the lawyer advise the City on what best practices would be, which would not be appropriate if the Assistant City Attorney thought it was opposing counsel; the lawyer did not think it was a good idea for him; to say that he was represented by counsel and that was the reason the Assistant City Attorney was prohibited from talking to him is just not true. Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 7 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |