pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 11 | agenda between the City lobbyists and staff. Mr. Kuhn responded the Public Records Act makes a specific exception for documents governed by the deliberative process privilege; City staff need the ability to comment on, exchange dialogue and share information that goes into the City's decision-making process candidly and confidentially without having all of the draft documents or decisions made available to the public; the Court has said exposing the agency's decision-making process would discourage candid discussions within the agency and undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions; some documents not subject to attorney-client privilege are still not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA); draft documents and iterative process are not typically turned over to the public because it would discourage and prevent the City from engaging in a candid and open dialogue, sharing ideas, understanding the basis for certain positions and making revisions without having it be completely open, disclosed, and nitpicked when just trying to gather information. Commissioner Reid inquired whether the deliberative process goes beyond City staff, to which Mr. Kuhn responded it would include consultants and lobbyists as well. Commissioner Reid inquired whether the reason is because it would cause harm to the City. Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative; stated if every document was made available to the public, it would discourage candid conversations; everyone would be too worried about putting a draft together or commenting on drafts and exchanging ideas without being able to fully vet and understand different positions. Commissioner Reid inquired how that reconciles with open government and the fact that the public has a right to know the City's process. Mr. Kuhn responded the law makes a specific finding that disclosure of certain deliberative process discussions would inhibit the free and candid communication between staff; it is a finding of the law that allows the iterative process to take place before things are completely opened and shared. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Mr. Kuhn stated the City produced documents on a rolling basis; six batches of documents were produced; some batches had no redactions, some had a few; in the case where there were redactions, there was an explanation provided about the basis or reasoning why certain records were redacted when the documents were produced. Commissioner Reid stated her understanding is the PRA requires the City to explain precisely why there was a redaction in whole or in part; she does not see it in the examples. Mr. Kuhn stated the City's Position Statement includes cover emails explaining the basis Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 1, 2021 11 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |