pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 13 | access on its account and it was public record. The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether Vice Chair LoPilato's rationale for finding a violation was that the record was not produced at the time Mr. Shabazz filed his complaint, to which Vice Chair LoPilato responded in the affirmative, stated it does seem like a viable basis to say there was a violation. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Montgomery stated that she is leaning toward sustaining the complaint; she does not feel like the Complainant received the available documents. Chair Tilos stated that he is leaning towards a cure and correct that the Commission needs more guidance to interpret between public and personal accounts. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated there are two different potential violations: 1) whether or not the agency posts were timely produced, and 2) whether the City did all it could do to track down and produce the information requested; there are potentially two separate cure and corrects; requesting guidance would be helpful and valuable, but harder to manufacture since there are no laws yet; a cure and correct to get agency postings is easier to fashion. Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she likes the delineation of whether there was a violation of the agency account versus the private account; she is prepared to make a motion; inquired whether the reference to the City encompasses the individual official as an agent of the City and is there a way to parse that. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the question is difficult; neither party briefed the question and she does not have either party's perspective; the complaint did not address the violation on behalf of the individual; the violation was addressed against the City and argues that the City did not do what it was supposed to do vis a vis the PRA and Sunshine Ordinance; if the question is whether there could be a separate complaint against an individual, that is not what is before the Commission now and she is reluctant to say that could happen. Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she is not going in that direction so much as she is hoping to delineate that City staff did all they could do with respect to producing records given that no records were provided to them by the individual; the clarification would be important in order not to endorse the act of not responding to the City's request to provide personal account information. Chair Tilos stated the City Attorney asked the official to produce it, but the Commission does not have teeth to enforce it. Vice Chair LoPilato moved approval of sustaining the complaint on the basis that there was a violation in that the City was the custodian of an agency Nextdoor account which contained comments by a Councilmember using the Nextdoor social media platform, Meeting of the Open Government Commission December 6, 2021 13 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf |