pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 9 | Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is troubled by the same patterns; requested the Chief Assistant City Attorney to clarify what the timeliness requirement is with respect to calendar or business days under the law. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her understanding is that the Public Records Act does not specify a calendar versus business days and that general principles of law indicate that absent a denomination of either of those terms, the default is calendar days; in this case, the request was made on Wednesday, April 15th and the 10 day period would have been on a Saturday, the 25th, so the 27th was the first business day. Commissioner LoPilato stated there is a heightened privacy interest in the differences and types of information someone can request from a Police Department; she does see privacy interest in arrest records relative to calls for service which sounds to be a reasonable premise on which the case law may have developed to have a slight delineation between whether it makes sense to have a temporal limitation on arrest records because there is countervailing privacy interests; from a common sense and societal concern standpoint, it is important to balance transparency and privacy interests. Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of redacting personal information in the May 12, 2020 attachment, which contains the arrest record log; stated that she was troubled to see the information with respect to names and addresses on the website for the purposes of tonight's hearing; it is important to have a mechanism from the transparency standpoint to redact the information. Chair Tilos seconded the motion. In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it is an appropriate motion and is fine from a legal standpoint. The City Clerk concurred; stated the redaction can be done. Under discussion, Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he appreciates and supports the motion; his intention for forwarding the materials he received was to share some of the dialogue that was not included in the exhibits or shared from City staff; it is important to have the other material that was omitted. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Abstain; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1. Commissioner LoPilato stated the timeliness is an interesting aspect looking at the technicalities; she is unclear what the Commission's authority is to recommend other type of solutions, but she is curious to know what others think about the timeliness issue; there is another angle there that was not fleshed out. Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 9 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |