Links to Pavement Management Report Issue:
City warned it is violating the law and principles of open government
City will not address legal issues
Report is done

Re-posted Entry Below: Had the Council decided to have open discussions about the city's public record practices the "draft" exclusion being used to withhold the pavement management report would have been brought up, discussed and resolved in a collaborative manner.

On June 10th (2009) the council considered drafting a sunshine ordinance. Kevin Cummins had cornered a less than willing council into deciding if they would take up the matter.

Here is what CFAC writes about sunshine ordinances in California:

Although state law--mainly in the form of the Brown Act and the Public Records Act--governs access rights at the local level, cities and counties are free to enact ordinances that provide GREATER RIGHTS OF ACCESS than state law. These local laws providing extra rights are often referred to as "Sunshine" laws.

Teresa Barth provided the lone vote for moving forward with a sunshine ordinance.

Houlihan voted against an ordinance. It was unclear why. Some observers didn't even realize she had voted against it.

Jerome Stocks apparently voted against the ordinance because the city was already being open and transparent. He used the staff's report as evidence that staff has been doing a great job and that the city is very open. Staff and Stocks are correct about the city being responsible for following the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act.

Stocks did not discuss the Open Government practices and provisions that are beyond these two state laws. In some cases, these provisions are included in the sunshine ordinances of other cities. The practice at Encinitas City Hall does not exceed many of the key extensions found in the sunshine ordinances of other cities.

City staff disclosed that they had left these provisions out of the staff report, but none of the council members inquired into the missing information.

Stocks also failed to address years of objections from the public and that the city often does only the minimum, uses gray areas in the law to restrict public access, and frequently violates the CPRA and Brown Act. Danny Dalager even admitted to violating the Brown Act during the discussion.

Danny has implied several times, on record, that open government laws are a burden (without qualifying it as a necessary/useful burden). This week he told a story about how a resident had conduced a records request for an email that contained a citizen's phone number.

Danny says the requester used the phone number to harass the citizen who sent the email to the city. His conclusion wasn't clear to me, but I think that is his justification for deleting his public record emails. It wasn't clear if he was also admitting to violating the California Public Records Act. He was certainly admitting to violating the law's intent.

Unfortunately, Danny did not discuss why his concern couldn't have been addressed during the drafting of a sunshine ordinance. Indeed, without taking action the story could repeat.

No one brought up that there is no satisfactory means for the public to have their concerns regarding violations of open government laws resolved, short of suing the city. This is the first thing I would ask to have included in a sunshine ordinance.

Recommendation
The citizenry will either have to: elect a council majority interested in ensuring the fundamental components of democracy are secured, or adopt a sunshine ordinance via an initiative.

See Also:
50% Chance of Sunshine

City made a practice of deleting emails. Deleted emails were not backed up.