Commission hears annual public-records report; public criticizes redaction practices and staff says time is not tracked

City staff presented the Alameda Open Government Commission with the 2025 annual report on public-records requests, prompting questions about data, staff workload and how the city explains redactions.

Commissioners said the new report format, which breaks down requests and department responses, establishes a baseline for future comparisons. City staff described the counting method: 594 unique 'next request' cases were recorded; the per-department tally reached 860 because multi-department requests are counted for each responding department. Staff also said there were 44 'not fulfilled' cases — 25 closed because no records were found, seven withdrawn, and four that were not requests.

"There were 44 of those and then um 25 out of those 44 were because there was no records," a staff speaker said while explaining the not-fulfilled category.

Commissioners pressed whether the city could report on staff time and costs associated with requests. One commissioner said the volume appears to have risen, estimating "we're up like 50% this year." Staff replied that no department currently tracks hours spent responding to requests and that outside counsel review can add to staff workload.

Public commenter Jay Garfinkle returned to speak about redactions. "The attorney's office absolutely refuses to explain why they redact things. They just plain redacted," he said, urging greater transparency and asking the commission to consider changes to practice.

Staff responded: "We do provide like the government code section exemption that they're using, but they don't go into each one and say what each one is," and noted that a requester dissatisfied with a response can file a sunshine-ordinance complaint and pursue an appeal.

The commission moved to approve the annual report and adopted it by unanimous roll-call vote.

Why it matters

The report aims to give the commission and the public a clearer picture of request volume and departmental impact; commissioners said year-to-year comparison and better accounting for staff time would help measure the true operational cost of public transparency.

What the commission said it might do next

Members suggested keeping the new reporting fields and adding comparative data in future editions. No formal directive to begin time-tracking was recorded; staff said no department currently collects that metric, and any change would require additional implementation work.