Records he was entitled to under the sunshine ordinance act and under the open records act, and was not given them and was given them later than the period he asked for them. Youre aware of that . Yes. Okay. So what youre saying when you agree with your report you are agreeing that in regard to your department your department did then violate the particular rules relating to the obligation to turn over these materials at the time they should have been turned over . Yes. We will contend those will not willfully done in that manner. But they were violations and you accept the fact that your department violated those regulations whether willful or non willful. The materials that are referenced in the report that should have been turned over werent turned over in a timely fashion. They may have been turned over later but at the time they were supposed to be. Thats correct. And youre aware thats a violation of the sunshine ordinance and also the Public Records ordinance in regard to a City
I take it to regard to any things done in violation of any rules or regulation by these individuals who were named in the report that at some point mr. Ram would have been informed of that if the supervisor knew of it and that he would have taken some disciplinary steps . He would have informed if they felt the department wasnt in compliance or the planners werent responding in a timely fashion and to my understanding there was no knowledge of that of the supervisor at that time so in other words we felt they responded in a timely fashion and responding mr. Ringel of all of the emails in possession of the Planning Department. You said you agreed with the report of our staff and in relation to the chronology and how this happened. Is that correct . Thats correct. In the report it does mention a number of times the gentleman asked for various records he was entitled to under the sunshine ordinance act and under the open records act, and was not given them and was given them later than th
You are stating to us that the Planning Department violated those sections referenced in the report of our staff . We did not provide some of those materials in a timely fashion, yes. Which was a violation of the rules as reflected in the materials that are put forth in the report of our staff . Youve already said you agree with it . Thats correct. Okay. I dont have anything further. Others . Thank you for your recounting and commissioner keane that helped me. I was going to come at this differently. Would you treat this request the same way . How would you treat the request that came from mr. Ringel . How would the department treat the request today . Its treaty similarly but since i have been appointed we made procedurally changes and added staff in my department to specifically target these types of Public Record well, all record requests really, and so we have a better procedure in place to identify those planner who is are involved with processing materials so in fact for example
Wondering what the thinking is on the timing for that . Its usually a few months down the road, but given the various things that happened this cycle, i believe it will be interesting to look at the numbers after the fact and maybe we can have some discussion at that time about the program and how it works given what we anticipated about a yearago going into this cycle. I dont know if staff has an indication of when that mike be happening. A few months. Thanks. Next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on the amendments to the ordinance. Nobody is a stranger to the subject matter in front of us. The commission made some progress and combing through input from the Sunshine Ordinance Task force and the staffs updated and redirected recommendations and then once again, after the last time the commission discussed this, staff has put together sort of a chronology of what has happened so far, and tried to distill all of the direction from the commission into a set of Decisio
Commissioners to have additional questions or comments about how things should be addressed . Is there a motion to adopt Decision Point 2 subject to the following amendments 1, to change subsection 2d3 and make that subsection 2d2 and flip it with what currently exists as 2d . Im lost. Commission rennes suggestion and to add email language to subsection 2c2. Other amendments that were proposed . Is there a motion to adopt Decision Point subject to those changes . So moved . Second. All in favor . Aye. Opposed . Hearing none, the motion passes. Decision point 3 has do with chapter 3. Any comments from the commissioners on Decision Point 3 . I think we might want to make the same change that commissioner renne suggested earlier in 3b, reversing 2 and 3. Agreed. B2 would become b3 and b3 would become b2. Right. Any other issues . I had a couple of questions. Do we have any provision for the situation where something comes to us originally, we dismiss it, and then the same complaint goes t