|« ETA Blog Moves||Pension Issue Now Mainstream »|
City Denies the Kitchen Sink
Pavement Report Update
The city released the final pavement management report and the city has been underfunding streets work.
During the summer of 2010, city staff denied access to the report and claimed that the report was not finalized.
A lawsuit was filed to gain access to the draft (according to staff) document and to the correspondence between the city and the consultant about the report.
The report was subsequently released and the final report was dated March 2010. The city was refusing to release the document and calling it a draft long after that.
The city did not release a draft document or any correspondence, which was what was requested. Proposition 59 was approved by the voters to make the deliberative process more transparent. Such access limits the city's capacity to manipulate and artificially delay the process. In this case, there doesn't appear to have been any deliberation, only delay and obfuscation.
The public records access issue is not closed simply because the final report was released. Indeed, the revelation that the report was done in March, before the Calaware request was made, only heightens the importance of the records denial being adequately explained and justified.
The issue remains in the Superior Court and the City continues to try to cloud the issue and delay a reconciliation with the law.
Here is an excerpt from a motion to strike City Attorney Glenn Sabine's response to the court:
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Petitioner and Plaintiff (“Cummins”) brings this motion to strike portions of Respondent and Defendant City of Encinitas’ (“City”) Answer to Cummins’ Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief (“Petition”) to stop the City from jerking this Court and the parties around any further. For example, the City admits it is a municipal corporation but denies that it is subject to the California Public Records Act applicable by law to all cities in California (Government Code § 6250, et seq., “CPRA”). The City unqualifiedly denies that it received a demand for records then denies the authenticity of the responses from City employees to the CPRA demand.
In eleven instances, the City denies (usually on lack of information and belief) verified allegations as to matters which are presumably within its knowledge or matters of public records. Such sham answers should be stricken.
Get most of the exhibits in these posts:
Scroll to the bottom of this post