The struggle with documents
We are constantly attempting to get documents — agendas, staff reports, receipts, policies, etc. — from cities, and there always seems to be a problem.
Here’s an issue reporter Amanda Baumfeld had to deal with this morning. Since last week, Baumfeld has been trying to get a copy of the Montebello Planning Commission agenda and packet in advance of the commission’s meeting Tuesday night.
On Friday, she put in a call to the city’s Planning Department to see if the documents were ready. They weren’t, so she asked when they would be available for pick-up. The woman over the phone explained to her that the agenda would not be completed until “after City Hall is closed.”
Hmmm, that doesn’t seem to help anything especially since City Hall was closed all weekend and is closed today for President’s Day.
Furthermore, the city does not have the agenda available on its Web site, though they do have old agendas from the city’s last council and redevelopment agency meetings.
In Montebello’s defense, City Administrator Richard Torres called Amanda late this morning to read her the agenda verbatim, but that was only after she hounded Mayor William Molinari about the issue.
Aren't there open-meeting laws out there that say these documents should be posted 72 hours in advance of a meeting? Now I’m sure this was done somewhere in City Hall within the required time frame, but is it really in the spirit of the law if it’s done when the public — and our reporters — can’t get to it?
Comments
The Brown Act requires the agenda to be posted 72 hours in advance. The agenda does not have to be available on-line. At the time the law was passed, there was no such thing as "on-line." If it was posted at city hall by Saturday afternoon, that would comply with the law.
The other documents you are requesting would fall under the California Public Records Act. They don't need to be available before a meeting, but they would have to be made available to you within a reasonable time of when you requested them. Of course, if the documents you are requesting had not yet been distributed to the Planning Commission, they wouldn't have been available to give you you ahead of time, either.
Posted by: Katmandu | February 18, 2008 5:16 PM
Actually the standard mandated by the Brown Act requires more than simply posting the agenda 72 hours in advance. Posting the agenda in City Hall on Saturday would not meet the standard, if in fact, City Hall is closed on Saturday. The agenda MUST be posted in a location that is open to the public for 72 continous hours prior to the meeting. The State Attorney General has published an opinion on the subject and the LA County District Attorney will pursue compliance by the city if they receive documentation showing that no public posting is being provided.
As to the other documents, yes they are covered under the CPRA....it would be difficult to claim they "they don't need to be available before a meeting". Usually such records are provided to the Council several days prior to the scheduled meeting...once they have been provided copies, then the public should have access as well. It would be difficult to argue that the city can timely provide the records to one group and not another.
Most well run cities have come up with a system for providing the agenda, along with the entire package of suporting documents, to the public for viewing...at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
And of course, the City could move into the new world and offer everything on the net.....but probably won't.
Posted by: Gilman | February 20, 2008 8:59 AM
Agendas posted on the glass doors to city hall, visible from outside the locked doors, meet the standard for posting in a place with public access 24 hours a day.
And I say again that the public records act doesn't require that documents be made available to the general public at the same time they are made available to city officials. I think CPRA gives the city something like ten days to respond to a request. The fact that some cities can do better than that does not change the state mandate.
Posted by: katmandu | February 20, 2008 1:58 PM
Yes posting the agenda "on the glass doors to city hall" might meet the requirement..that's of course based on the public being allowed 24 hour a day access to that area. Many cities have ordinances which prohibit a presence on city property after certain hours?
As to the public records issue....can I ask if you work within the local government field?
The CPRA does not provide the city a blanket 10 day response time! Instead, any delay in providing the documents is allowed only to resolve possible good faith doubts as to whether the record is exempt. If the city has a good faith belief the record might be exempt, then they are allowed 10 days to make such a determination...not simply as a way to prevent the production of clearly public records!
The staff reports in support of issues being conducted in a PUBLIC meeting are clearly PUBLIC records...that being the case, access is to be provided "promptly", not put off for 10 days. To underscore this point, subdivision (d) of the act states that "nothing in (the CPRA) shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records."
Lastly, "the fact that some cities can do better than that does not change the state mandate."....your right, it just makes those cities more efficient and illustrates that the act is simply the minimum threshold required.....smart local governments provide evn MORE access.
Posted by: Gilman | February 20, 2008 2:56 PM
No, I don't work in local government. I'm just giving my understanding of the law by having read about and spoken to people who have experience dealing with public record act requests. I also know from having observed governments at work that if a law does not compel an action (but leaves it open to interpretation, as in "promptly"), the law will be implemented, shall we say, slowly.
I agree with you that the state law sets the minimum threshhold, and it would be nice if cities were to do more than the minimum. But, in the absence of any compelling reason (like a fine, for example), I know that cities will tend to do the minimum or less (if they can get away with it).
Posted by: katmandu | February 20, 2008 9:00 PM