pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 13 | In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated the cover emails stating the reasons for the redactions are exhibits to the City's Position Statement; Exhibit 8 includes the deliberative process privilege, which Mr. Garfinkle did not include. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated Exhibit 2, the City's Position Statement, includes exhibits that are clearly outlined and contain the cover letters. Commissioner Reid stated the question is whether or not the PRA provides transparency in the redactions; questioned why some documents are more redacted than others. Commissioner LoPilato stated sometimes a redaction is a portion of a document; sometimes it is a larger portion of a document; the proper process should be that if someone receives six batches of a rolling production over 1,100 pages and has questions about specific redactions, reach back out to the City for clarification; she did not see any attempt to do so; if there was evidence that the City was not responsive to follow-up questions, she would want to flag that as a possible recommendation for better transparency; unfortunately, the Complainant made no attempt to gain clarification about any of the documents; there is no obligation under the law to provide an explanation of redactions document by document; she is inclined to deny the Complaint and really wishes there had been some attempt for clarification or follow-up on the part of the Complainant. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the language she advises the Commission to look at is Government Code Section 6255, Subsection A which is a provision of the PRA; it states that: "the agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under expressed provisions of this chapter, or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record;" the provision itself does not provide any specificity for going item by item; further interpretation is found in Case law; in this instance, Case law speaks to how the California Supreme Court has spoken to what Code Section 6255 actually requires; the Supreme Court found in Section 6255, Subsection A that a requestor was not entitled to a specific log; the reasoning is that in the PRA, the legislature went to great lengths to impose very specific requirements in certain cases; the Supreme Court opined that if a public agency was required to enumerate each time and each record and what the various exception was for each record, it could have done so and chose not to; it was extrapolated that a blanket explanation is sufficient; the Case cited is Haney VS. Superior Court; the PRA does not require an itemized list of every single redaction in a document request; a blanket email with an explanation, such as the one the City provided, would be acceptable under the PRA. Commissioner Reid moved approval of sustaining the Complaint and to cure and correct, so that Mr. Garfinkle receives a thorough explanation of why the documents were redacted. Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 1, 2021 13 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |