pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-10-04 | 13 | request is he is asking for the same information that is in the semi-annual report the City Attorney's Office provides as a Consent item on the City Council agenda; the last report presented was on September 7, 2021; other dates included March 2, 2021, September 3, 2019, and February 19, 2019; she could not readily find the 2020 dates; the report is required under the Sunshine Ordinance and is publicly available; she reviewed the 2016 report Vice Chair Shabazz included with his Commission Communication; it appears to be very similar, if not a duplicate, of what was submitted to the City Council; it is information that has already been made publicly available; information about how the City responds to PRAs consistent with various new laws poses a definite challenge and would require direction from the City Council because it is providing legal advice and interpretation subject to attorney-client privilege; it is not information the City Attorney's Office would normally disclose in a public meeting; the City Attorney's Office would do so if the Council directs such disclosures; if the Commission decides to make the request to the City Council, she would definitely note the fact she has indicated that such analysis may require legal interpretation that may be subject to attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. Commissioner Reid stated that she would like the Commission to receive a copy of the report sent to the City Council as a point of procedure; she would also like to see all of the PRAs that have been submitted in a monthly report sent to the OGC. Vice Chair Shabazz stated if some of the information is already being provided to the City Council, it would not be difficult to share the information with the Commission; regarding the piece on attorney-client privilege, his request is that the Commission is asking for an informational report which provides context and what is required in the Sunshine Ordinance; what is disclosable has changed over the last five years; perhaps the additional laws become an issue. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she may not have been clear and apologized; she is taking the request in two pieces; the first piece is for the City Attorney's Office to provide the OGC a report similar to what is provided to the Council indicating what, if any, documents have been released after being initially withheld from disclosure; as to that piece, the information is regularly provided twice a year to the City Council in a publicly available report; the ones that she reviewed indicate no documents have been declassified; the second piece of Vice Chair Shabazz's request is asking for an analysis or explanation of how the City Attorney's Office, and the City as a whole, treat document requests with the advent of some new laws; it is this piece the City Attorney's Office believes would require her office to divulge attorney work product or attorney-client communications because it would require her office to indicate what legal interpretation they take of the laws in their application to specific requests that are made to the City, which would require direction from City Council. Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he understands what the Chief Assistant City Attorney is communicating; it is not that he disagrees; he is in no position to make a decision for the City; he is requesting a formal, agendized Commission agenda item in the future; for the second portion, the Commission may ask the City Council for information or documents Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 4, 2021 13 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf |