Under both state law (the California Pubic Records Act) and Oakland’s own “Sunshine Ordinance,” members of the public - that means anyone - can request public documents. Upon receipt of such a request, the City is obligated to respond, in writing, within 10 days, with an anticipated date the records will be made available. Under limited circumstances, the City can give itself an additional 14 days, and all records must be made available, unless they fall within very limited exceptions. That’s the state law. And City Attorney John Russo boasts that he wrote Oakland’s Sunshine Ordinance to make documents even more accessible to Oaklanders. His own website proclaims: “John Russo is a life-long Democrat dedicated to transparency in government and civic reform.” Actions speak louder than words, so let's take a look at those actions.
Since March, I’ve submitted a total of seven public records requests to the City, all related to implementation of Measure Y, how the City is responding to the judge’s decision in my lawsuit, and neighborhood crime issues. Over and over again, I failed to receive responses within the 10 day time limit. I’d remind them. I’d nag them. I even reminded them I’m a public sector attorney during the day and I pretty much do the same job they do, and I know exactly what the requirements are, and they weren’t meeting them. Still no compliance. When I finally did get records, they’d be missing tons of information (like attachments to e-mails) and were full of black ink where relevant information had been “redacted.” I wrote long letters outlining their legal obligations. No response. I warned them if things didn’t get better, I’d file a complaint with the Public Ethics Commission. They didn’t, so I made good on my promise. Today I sent them a copy of my complaint, hoping they’d see the light. They didn’t, and apparently they want to make sure none of you see it either. The light of day promised by the “Sunshine Ordinance,” that is.
One of my requests asked for the e-mail addresses of members of the Measure Y Oversight Committee. First, I directed my request to City Administrator staff person Jeff Baker. He ignored me. I sent another e-mail, asking again. This time, he said he wouldn’t provide the information, because it wasn’t “public.” I then sent a more formal request to the City Attorney’s office. Still nothing. After receiving my Public Ethics complaint today, I finally got a response. Not the one I was hoping for, however. Your City Attorney, so committed to “open government,” accessibility, and rooting out corruption, blah, blah, blah, won’t even provide e-mail addresses of public officials! Can you believe it? They can’t cite to a single exception in the Public Records Act that supports their position. Rather, they’re claiming the members of the Oversight Committee (who are publicly appointed by the Mayor and members of the City Council) have a “constitutional right to privacy” and the City Attorney’s office must personally contact each and every one of them to find out if they will consent to giving me their e-mail address. Are you kidding? Want to know why the City is broke? It is the result of lunacy and hypocrisy like this.
Here I am, the big, bad, litigious lawyer who totally knows what she’s doing, has already succeeded in one of the highest stakes lawsuits in the City's history, and this is how they deal with me. They ignore me. They give me bogus excuses. They waste their time and your tax dollars researching non-existent legal theories to prevent us from contacting our own public officials. Just think how they deal with public records requests from Joe Q. Public? Straight into the circular file? I can’t wait for a hearing before the Public Ethics Commission to expose their tactics. (Or will they tell me the location of the hearing is “confidential” and won’t be provided?)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i'll file this under oakland muni govt, tragi-comedy. the city officials are hoping you'll give up.
ReplyDeletea lot of us residents are hoping you won't.
-len raphael
temescal
Marleen. When you encounter these difficulties and requests go too far past the 10 days, you should file an ethics complaint with the Public Ethics Commission.
ReplyDeleteI usually give the City some leeway if it appears they are making an effort to comply. However, if they are dragging their feet, even due to inattentiveness, then you should file an ethics complaint.
It will help shine a light on it rather than dealing with it in a one-on-one fashion.
John Klein
Where in the California Public Records Act does it say that personal information of citizen volunteers is public record? I serve on a City Board, and I certainly wouldn't want our staff just passing out my private information to anyone who asks. It seems to me the City is doing the responsible thing in this case.
ReplyDeleteIn order to shield information under the Public Records Act, it must fall within one of the limited exceptions specified in the act, or within the "catchall" exception, which states that "on the facts of the particular
ReplyDeletecase the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly
outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record." If I were a professional spammer, and the City had reason to believe I wanted the members' e-mail addresses for the purpose of spamming them, then I could see them not wanting to provide the information. However, here, I am one of very few people who has ever even bothered to show up at one of their meetings, have no history of spamming or stalking, and I have relevant stuff to communicate with them on, so under the facts of this particular situation, there is no rational justification for not giving me the e-mail addresses.
Also, it is hard to argue that e-mail addresses are "private information." I'm not asking for their social security numbers, or even their home addresses and home phone numbers, which, by the way, the Attorney General just decided are not private information (even for public officials), in a formal opinion issued earlier this month. (I found Ron Dellums' home address listed on his "conflict of interest" statement, which is a public document, so how private could that be?)
if spamming is a concern, all the city has to do is issue every non employee board member a city email address for residents to communicate with them.
ReplyDeleteBut for the California Public Records Act to be applicable, the information has to be subject to it. Where in the CPRA does it establish that my personal e-mail address is a public record??
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a question of "spam," it's a question of volunteers not wanting to be harassed. If you have issues you want to discuss with the Measure Y Oversight Committee, clearly the appropriate place to do that is at a public meeting of said Committee. Unsolicited private communications with Committee members hardly reflect a commitment to transparency in governance.
Government Code Section 6252 defines a public record as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retain by any state or local agency..." All records are deemed "public" unless they fall within the limited exceptions specified in the PRA. There are quite a few exceptions, including specific exceptions for home address and phone numbers, but those only apply to specific people under specific conditions. There is no exception for e-mail addresses, meaning that, imho, they are public.
ReplyDeleteIn many cities and other government organizations, most positions are unpaid, volunteer positions (even the mayor and city council). The fact that somebody is a volunteer shouldn't preclude them from having to receive communications via e-mail from members of the public. (They don't have to respond, of course, but I'll draw my own conclusions if they don't). Given my history of advocacy on Measure Y, I'd hardly call my communications "harassment."
As far as going to the committee meetings, they limit people to two minutes, and there have been times I've had a lot more to say than that. Just recently, I compiled a whole new list of violations of Measure Y based on my review of Courtney Ruby's audit. (I'll post those later). I wanted to communicate this to the Committee. But I had to rely on going through Jeff Baker, and I don't think I should have to do that. (It is also inefficient to go through channels like that). No member of the public should be limited to communicating with elected and/or appointed officials solely during public meetings. Lots of people choose not to communicate in this way; rather, they go to council members' office hours, send e-mails etc.
By the way, any e-mail I would send to any City representative (including my e-mail address at the top of the page) would be a public record, so that facilitates open government just fine.