Comments on: City’s response to PD’s open records request: No

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:45:12 +0000

Just ask Erin who she is going
to vote for.

8 1

By: Caller

Caller — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:47:33 +0000

@Brown Act Jack —

The City Council made that decision at a city council BEFORE the PD’s request.

They didn’t need to have a meeting to discuss the request when the decision was already made. In no way did the city claim to discuss it after the request, and in no way did they hold a meeting without proper notice.

3 9

By: brown act Jack

brown act Jack — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:05:25 +0000

Surely, Mr. Gullickson, you should know that you have a claim now against the CC for holding a city council meeting without the public notice, don’t you?

“Although the records you seek are exempt from public disclosure, the City Council, through its adoption of City Council policy 000-23, has decided that it will make this information available for public inspection after the deadline for the receipt of all applications. Through the adoption of this policy, the City Council has balanced the interests of applicants seeking appointment against the public’s interest in obtaining this information. ”

When was the decision made to make it available? At the time of the policy making, or after you asked on Jan 17.

As far as I know there has been no CC meeting after your request therefore the CC could not have made the decision to conform to your request!

Sue em for violation of the GC 54950 et al!

8 7

By: Kirstin

Kirstin — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 03:28:46 +0000

Until the deadline no one inside or outside City Hall will know exactly who is going to apply. When the deadline passes, we will find out. Then there will be opportunity for everyone to hear the applicants answer questions before the council and for people to weigh in. It does make sense to wait before releasing the names until all have applied; then all can receive scrutiny from the press and the public for an equal amount of time.

13 3