pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 7 | Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated it is dismaying that the City would accept an email from Anonymous and egregious to allow Anonymous to address the Commission; the distinction between public record and public domain needs to be clarified; the process is dysfunctional; the Commission should provide specific direction to City staff. Matt Reid, Alameda, stated there are some interesting parallels with the Morris case heard earlier this year; made comparisons between the Garfinkle and Morris cases; stated there needs to be a better policy for training elected officials in terms of how they behave in social media while at the same time, respecting the right to privacy; Nextdoor is used to amplify information that is also available elsewhere; he does not think it constitutes being disclosed under the PRA. Alexia Arocha, Alameda, stated that she supports the Complainant; a request was made; a timely response was not provided; response was only provided when a complaint was made; trying to use legalese and Constitutional ambiguity is not quite accurate; a City official discussing City issues on Nextdoor is not considered a private person; she does not agree with the comments made about doxing or about being able to face an accuser; this is not criminal court. Chair Tilos summarized the complaint and suggested bifurcating the issues. Vice Chair LoPilato stated it is abundantly clear that there was a violation in that the City failed to respond timely; enforcing the Sunshine Ordinance statute of limitations would only generate more complaints and disincentivise back and forth discussion between City staff and the requestor; if the Commission has to dismiss the first claim as potentially time-barred, a written decision should probably include a recommendation to the City about how to deal with the issue. Chair Tilos stated he concurs with Vice Chair LoPilato about encouraging more follow up between City staff and requestors; he wishes that the City Attorney's office and the Complainant could have come to a resolution before five months went by to avoid a complaint being filed. Commissioner Montgomery stated the case is difficult because of the time constraints for both parties; the City did not respond timely and the Complaint was not filed within the required time period; there should be comments regarding how it should be done in the future. Chair Tilos stated one of the decision options is Complaint dismissed due to jurisdictional or procedural grounds. In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated one option the Commission has under the newest revision of the Sunshine Ordinance, specifically Subsection D of 2-93.2 states: the Commission may also consider options for informal resolutions of complaint to avoid similar violations;' options Meeting of the Open Government Commission December 6, 2021 7 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf |