pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 4 | and was able to read the complete comments. Mr. Shabazz responded in the negative; stated that he received two links to policies related to elected officials usage of the Nextdoor platform, as well as a number of different comments; he does not use Nextdoor; initially he was using a laptop and was unable to access the application in order to read the complete comments. In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated there were not any more to the comments than the screenshots provided to the Commission; only excerpts were provided; this was done because the City Attorney's office was not clear whether or not the Complainant was requesting records from the City's agency account; an email stating the documents were excerpts was sent asking if the information was what was being requested before sending full documents; the Complainant sent a response stating his request was not about the City's Nextdoor account, but the writings of a City official discussing City business through a specific social media platform; the City Attorney's office interpreted the statement to mean there was no interest in additional records and why the documents remained as excerpts. Mr. Shabazz shared his screen verifying the email correspondence with the Assistant City Attorney. In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated that he provided the excerpted documents because he was unclear at the time whether or not the Complainant was interested in them. Vice Chair LoPilato inquired what the City's position is on whether a social media communication could constitute a public record. The Assistant City Attorney responded the City's position is that there is not clear legal authority on the issue; a number of other arguments have been raised that the Commission should consider; the City Attorney's office believes the Commission does not need to decide the weighty Constitutional issue, which should be dealt with by the Legislature; there is no clear guidance; one of the practical considerations raised in dealing with social media being a public record is a retention schedule; gave an example of a Snapchat post which disappears immediately and cannot be saved or retained like an email message which is retained for three years; the Commission should not be the body to make a decision on such a difficult and weighty Constitutional issue. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated for the Nextdoor account owned, retained and maintained by the City, there is very little issue with producing information to any requestor; what is being discussed tonight is a personal social media account; clarified that the City is not taking the position that the post on the City's account is not a public record. Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she is aware an agency may rely on an employee to search their own personal files, accounts and devices for responsive materials; inquired whether Meeting of the Open Government Commission December 6, 2021 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf |