Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly members say proposed public-records overhaul seeks more transparency; drafting continues
Summary
Committee members reported line-by-line drafting of a public-records ordinance intended to clarify access and strengthen assembly access to municipal records; members disputed a blog report that the ordinance would restrict access.
On Aug. 14 the Assembly Rules Committee discussed a municipal public-records ordinance currently being drafted by assembly members and staff. Committee members said the draft is intended to clarify public access and to prevent past practices that withheld records from assembly members.
"It was reported by a blog that the intent of that project is to make it more difficult for the public to receive or to access records. Can you maybe speak to that a little bit?" an assembly member asked during the meeting. "It's the opposite," the chair replied.
Committee members described a multi-year process to consolidate and clarify public-notice and public-records practices. A chair27s office member said the assembly has been reviewing a draft line-by-line with administration attorneys and that there remain areas of disagreement; those areas will be highlighted when the ordinance is introduced. "We spent 2 hours, and we only got through 2 pages of a 10 page ordinance," the chair said, describing the early-stage, detailed review.
Members emphasized two objectives for the draft: (1) to make public access clearer and easier where practicable, and (2) to confirm that assembly members can review municipal records relevant to their duties. A speaker said a forthcoming line will explicitly state that assembly members may review records with attorneys in confidence but cannot be denied records that should be available to the assembly. Committee members said they plan to identify agreed sections for early introduction and mark unresolved issues for further deliberation.
No ordinance was introduced or voted on at the Aug. 14 meeting. Staff said additional drafting and inter-office negotiation with the administration is ongoing and that the committee will introduce the ordinance after areas of agreement are assembled.
End note: The committee presented the public-records drafting effort as a transparency initiative and urged members to await the introduced ordinance rather than rely on third-party reporting.
