pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 11 | was provided. In response to Chair Tilos, Commissioner LoPilato stated the question is when could the Complainant have known when they actually had a claim to bring; with Claim 1, the City did not respond in ten days, which he knew on day 11; with Claim 2, he could not have known that there were no responsive documents until the City told him. Chair Tilos concurred with Vice Chair LoPilato and Commissioner Montgomery that timeliness is not a factor and can be struck to address the social media piece. Commissioner Chen stated the Complainant did not know until October 19th when he received an email from the City informing him that there were no records. Commissioner Reid stated she agrees with all Commissioners; something to discuss is what would constitute the conduct of public business. Chair Tilos stated if the City has its own account for blasting information to members of the public and a public official comments, it would be considered a public record; if the public official makes comments on a personal account, outside of the City's lane, he does not want to make a determination about that and needs guidance. Commissioner Montgomery stated that she is leaning towards whatever happens on social media should be considered public record; if one Commissioner posted on a City matter and two other Commissioners responded, the three members responding would constitute a City meeting and be conducting City business. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Montgomery stated discussing issues on social media that are coming on an agenda is City business. Chair Tilos stated that he does not want to go down the rabbit hole and make a statement or determination about what is considered City business and what is not. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she cautions the Commission to address what is actually in the complaint; in the communication between the Complainant and the Assistant City Attorney, the Complainant stated he was interested in statements made in the private social media account of Councilmember Herrera Spencer; the Commission is being asked to decide whether or not the City, in telling the Complainant to deal directly with Nextdoor for the information he requested, is a violation of the PRA; the question is whether there is a requirement by the City to go to Nextdoor or do something else to get the information for the Complainant. Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she respects the delineation made by the Chief Assistant City Attorney if the Commission goes in that direction; any Commission decision should state it was upon guidance from the City Attorney's office; the Complainant believes the communications by Councilmember Herrera Spencer on Nextdoor are subject to the PRA; while she understands there was back and forth after the complaint was filed, she Meeting of the Open Government Commission December 6, 2021 11 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf |