Review of Proposed City Sunshine Ordinance; Agenda Item 3, 12 Jul 2016

July 12, 2016

Via E-Mail

Members of the Law & Legislation Committee,
Sacramento City Council
New City Hall
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Review of Proposed City Sunshine Ordinance; Agenda Item 3 Today

Dear Messrs. Schenirer, Harris, Guerra and Jennings:

After a delay of over eight months, staff has brought back to you the draft sunshine ordinance that you last considered on November 9, 2016. It has not improved with age. In fact, it is identical to the draft submitted to you last year. At that time, we offered a detailed critique of the proposal before the Law & Leg meeting was abruptly adjourned. We do so again.

By way of background, the draft ordinance is derived from a “Framework of Recommendation on Open Government” that was approved by the City Council in September of last year.

Overall Comment
The substantive provisions of the proposed sunshine ordinance comprise just a few pages of text that are in numerous respects vague, overwhelmingly repetitious of existing law and city practice, ineffectual, minimalist, include unenforceable promises of future reviews and improvements, backed up by an enforcement clause that assures zero real consequences for violations. The staff proposal is not a serious effort to enact real transparency reform in Sacramento. The proposed ordinance is largely a restatement of existing practices designed to offer the public the window dressing of reform without the substance of it. Such a minimalist approach fails to address the aspirations of the public for serious open government and transparency reform of city government.

Codification of Existing Law or Practice
Fully eight of the 26 provisions of the draft sunshine ordinance are, in whole or in part, duplicative of existing state law, city code or existing city practice. The codification of existing practice would have some minimal value if the ordinance served to impose actual consequences for their violation. But the proposed fails to lay out any consequence for their violation and even includes declarations that violations will not constitute either misdemeanors or an infractions.

No Consequences, No Reform
An ordinance is a law. Adopting laws which explicitly state that there will be no legal consequences if they are violated – as is the case with these ordinances – renders such laws a dead letter and would only serve to undermine respect for the law. The fact that the draft ordinance expressly disavows any penalty for its violation is clear evidence that the intent of the ordinance is to mislead the public into the false belief that meaningful transparency reform is being enacted. If proponents were serious about reform, the ordinances would provide that willful violations be punishable as misdemeanors or, at least, infractions.

Ad Hoc Committees
A serious commitment to opening up city government would include a mandate that all meetings of council ad hoc committees be conducted in full accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”), which would require advance public postings of agendas, public access to meetings, the public’s opportunity to be heard and publication of meeting minutes, excepting only for matters that can properly be considered in executive session under provisions of the Brown Act (such as actual or threatened litigation and personnel matters).

Requiring ad hoc chairs to just give an oral report on the substance of their closed-door meetings at the next council meeting is ineffectual. There is no way to determine if such reports are accurate or honest. The requirement is so vague that an oral report that merely states that “we had a robust discussion of X” would suffice to comply with the mandate. The council needs to give up its proclivity to use secretive ad hoc proceedings and bring all of their committees, standing and ad hoc, fully into the light by subjecting them to the Brown Act.

Policy on Public Records Management Policy and Retention Schedule
City policy on the availability to the public of city records is a major policy matter that should be set by the city’s highest policy-making body, the City Council. Instead, the proposed sunshine ordinance (in section 4.04.080) delegates the power to establish the city’s “records management policy, which …include[s] the city’s records retention schedule” to the city clerk. That must change. The city clerk performs ministerial duties and is not authorized by the city charter to set city policy.

The proposed sunshine ordinance does nothing to assure that specific city records will be available to the public. It fails to set retention schedules for critical records, including city e-mails that have become the primary communication method for city government. Due to the falling costs of electronic storage, city e-mails can be kept almost indefinitely for minimal costs. The city no longer faces old concerns over bulging file cabinets and pricey office space needed to store an ever expanding volume of physical documents. City e-mails should be stored for a minimum of 10 years, not the two years provided under the city’s obsolete policy. With modern search tools and ultra-low-cost storage devices, the volume of retained city e-mails has little impact on the city’s ability to identify e-mails sought by the public or the city’s cost burden of complying with such requests.

Similarly, the proposed sunshine ordinance utterly fails to address the growing problem of city officials using private e-mail accounts and servers to shroud and prevent public disclosure of e-mails involving city business, undermining the spirit California Public Records Act. We are mindful that California law is currently unsettled on the status of such e-mails, but there is no legal or policy reason why the city council cannot or should not adopt a provision in the sunshine ordinance that requires that all city business e-mails be received and transmitted using only city-issued e-mail accounts and mandate that all e-mails passing through such city-issued accounts be deemed city records.

Extensive Failure to Include Provisions Called for in the Framework
The proposed sunshine ordinance fails to include eight of the 12 provisions called for in the “Framework of Recommendations of Open Government” that was approved by the City Council in September of last year. It is inexplicable and, frankly, inconceivable how city staff, after Council approval of the Framework, could fail to include two-thirds of its terms. (We have included a copy of the September Framework in Attachment #1, with notations of the eight provisions that aren’t included in the proposed sunshine ordinance.)

Our comments also include two attachments and a hot link:

Attachment #1 – Draft Sunshine Ordinance, with sections labeled by us as either “New” or “Existing.” A provision marked “Existing” would merely codify existing law or city practice, as opposed to establishing a new rule. We also identify those provisions we consider “Vague” or “Ineffectual.”

Attachment #2 – EOS’s Table of 68 Proposed Sunshine Ordinance Reforms. The Table lists the transparency reform proposals that EOS and the Open Government Subgroup of the Sacramento Integrity Project crafted in response to a broad community conversation initiated and co-sponsored by EOS that included 10 well-attended public forums held in every council district in the city. Those EOS-proposed reforms which do not appear in the draft ordinance are identified as “Not Adopted.” Fully 59 of our 69 proposed reforms have been omitted.

Attachment #3 – Milpitis’ Sunshine Ordinance – Milpitas, a modest-sized South Bay city, is one of ten Bay Area cities that have adopted thoughtful, comprehensive and effective sunshine ordinances that are serving to significantly open up local governments to their citizenry. We include it so you can see first-hand the stark differences between what real transparency reform looks like as adopted by numerous California cities and the weak tea reforms that staff is proposing.

Conclusion
The proposed sunshine ordinance reflects a clear lack of commitment to the values of open and transparent government. The ordinances may hoodwink the public into believing that real reforms have been adopted – for a while.

We urge you to reject the proposed drafts and implement real reform. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (916) 718-3030 or EOS Policy Director Erik Smitt at (916) 215-2275. Erik also serves as chair of our Open Government Subgroup.

Very truly yours,

Craig

Craig Powell, President
Eye on Sacramento
Phone: (916) 718-3030
Street Address: 1620 35th Street, Suite K
Sacramento, CA 95822
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 22204
Sacramento, CA 95822
E-mail: craig@eyeonsacramento.org
Website: www.eyeonsacramento.org

Eye on Sacramento Special Board Meeting

We would like to extend a personal invitation to you to join Eye on Sacramento for a special Board Meeting this Friday, June 24, 2016 at Noon featuring a special guest speaker: Jorge Oseguera, the City Auditor for the City of Sacramento.

We will meet at the Perko’s Cafe located at 925 3rd Street, Sacramento at J Street & 3rd Street.

If you plan to attend, please R.S.V.P. to Anna Robertson at via email at anna@eyeonsacramento.org by Thursday June 23rd.

We hope to see you there!

Metropolitan Water District of Southern CA agreement with Greenberg Traurig LLP

Metropolitan Water District of Southern CA agreement with Greenberg Traurig LLP

Metropolitan Water District of Southern CA payments to Greenberg Traurig LLP

 

Review of Proposed City Sunshine Ordinance and Code of Ethics

November 10, 2015

Via E-Mail
Members of the Law & Legislation Committee,
Sacramento City Council
New City Hall
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Review of Proposed City Sunshine Ordinance and Code of Ethics

Dear Members of the Committee:

Eye on Sacramento (“EOS”) submits the following comments to the proposed sunshine ordinance and the proposed ethics code that were prepared by city staff and publicly released Thursday afternoon.  The proposals come before your committee today, November 10, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall.   Our comments include four attachments:

Sunshine Ordinance-Related

Attachment #1 – Draft Sunshine Ordinance, with sections labeled as either “New” or “Existing” (i.e.  meaning sections that would merely codify existing law or practice, rather than establish new rule), or are “Vague” or “Ineffectual.”

Included is aFramework of Recommendations on Open Government, with those Framework items that have been omitted from the draft ordinance identified as “Not Adopted.”

Attachment #2 – EOS’s Table of Proposed Sunshine Ordinance Reforms (69 reforms), with those reforms not included in the draft ordinance identified as “Not Adopted” (59 of 69).  The Table lists the sunshine reform proposals that EOS and the Open Government Subgroup of the Sacramento Integrity Project crafted in response to a broad community conversation initiated and co-sponsored by EOS and involving 10 well-attended forums throughout the city.

Attachment #3 –  Milpitas’ Sunshine Ordinance –  Milpitas, a modest-sized South Bay city, is one of ten Bay Area cities that have adopted thoughtful, comprehensive and effective sunshine ordinances that are serving to significantly open up local governments to their citizenry.

Ethics Code-Related

Attachment #4 – Draft Ethics Code, with notations of those sections that are “New,” “Existing,” “Vague” or “Ineffectual.”

Included is aFramework of Recommendations on Ethics Reform, with those Framework items that have been omitted from the draft ordinance identified as “Not Adopted.”

Attachment #5 – EOS’s Summary of Proposed Ethics Code, with those items not included in the draft ordinance identified as “Not Adopted.” The summary identifies the critical elements that an ethics code must include to restore diminished public trust in the administration of Sacramento city government.

The Frameworks in Attachments #1 and #4 set forth the terms of an agreement reached by Ad Hoc representatives and representatives of the League of Women Voters, California Common Cause and private attorney Gary Winuck following a series of closed-door meetings in early September.  The terms of the Framework were approved by the City Council at its meeting on September 15, 2015.

Overall Comment

The substantive provisions of each proposed ordinance comprise just a few pages of text that are in many instances vague, largely repetitious of existing law and city practice, ineffectual, minimalist, as well as unenforceable promises of future reviews and improvements, backed up by an enforcement clause that assures zero consequences for violations.  The staff proposals are not a serious effort to enact real transparency or ethics reform in Sacramento.  They are, in general, a restatement of existing practices, designed to offer the public the window dressing of reform but not the substance of it.  Such a minimalist approach fails to address the aspirations of the public for serious open government and ethics reform at City Hall.

Codification of Existing Law or Practice

Consistent with the posture that the city has adopted towards transparency and ethics reform since the public conversation on these issues began earlier this year, we are not surprised to find that fully eight of the 26 provisions of the draft sunshine ordinance, and 13 of the 17 provisions of the draft ethics code are, in whole or in part, duplicative of existing state law, city code or existing city practice. The codification of existing practice would have some minimal value if the ordinance served to impose actual consequences for their violation.  But neither ordinance lays out any consequence for their violation and even includes declarations that violations will not constitute either a misdemeanor or an infraction.

No Consequences, No Reform

An ordinance is a law.  Adopting laws which explicitly state that there will be no legal consequences if they are violated – as is the case with these ordinances – renders such laws a dead letter and would only serve to undermine respect for the law.  The fact that the draft ordinances expressly disavow any penalty for their violation is clear evidence that the intent of these ordinances is to mislead the public into believing that meaningful transparency and ethics reforms are being enacted when, in fact, such ordinances amount to little more than glorified press releases.  If proponents were serious about reform, the ordinances would provide that willful violations be punishable as misdemeanors.

Ad Hoc Committees

 If proponents were serious about opening up city government to the public, they would require that all meetings of council ad hoc committees be conducted in full accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”), which would require advance public postings of agendas, public access to meetings, the public’s opportunity to be heard and publication of meeting minutes, excepting only for matters that can properly be considered in executive session under provisions of the  Brown Act (such as litigation and personnel matters).

Requiring ad hocs to just give an oral report on the substance of their closed-door meetings at the next council meeting is ineffectual.  There is no way to determine if such reports are accurate or honest.  The requirement is so vague that an oral report that merely states that “we had a robust discussion of X” would suffice to comply with the mandate.  The council needs to give up its proclivity to use secretive ad hoc proceedings and bring all of their committees fully into the light by subjecting them to the Brown Act.

Policy on Public Records Management Policy and Retention Schedule

City policy on the availability to the public of city records is a major policy matter that should be set by the city’s highest policy-making body, the City Council.  Instead, the proposed sunshine ordinance (in section 4.04.080) delegates the power to establish the city’s “records management policy, which …include[s] the city’s records retention schedule” to the city clerk.  That must change.  The city clerk performs ministerial duties and is not authorized by the city charter to set city policy.

Failure to Address Retention of City E-Mails, Use of Private E-mail Accounts

The proposed sunshine ordinance does nothing to assure that specific city records will be available to the public.  It fails to set retention schedules for critical records, including city e-mails that have become the primary communication method for city government.  Due to the falling costs of electronic storage, city e-mails can be kept almost indefinitely for minimal costs.  The city no longer faces old concerns over bulging file cabinets and pricey office space needed to store an ever expanding volume of physical documents.   City e-mails should be stored for a minimum of 10 years, not the two years provided under the city’s obsolete policy.  With modern search tools and storage devices, the volume of retained city e-mails has little impact on the city’s ability to identify e-mails sought by the public.

Similarly, the proposed sunshine ordinance utterly falls to address the growing problem of city officials using private e-mail accounts and servers to shroud and prevent public disclosure of e-mails involving city business, undermining the spirit California Public Records Act.   We are mindful that California courts are currently split on the status of such e-mails, but there is no legal or policy reason why the city council cannot or should not adopt a provision in the sunshine ordinance that requires that all city business e-mails be received and transmitted using only city-issued e-mail accounts and mandate that all e-mails passing through such city-issued accounts be deemed city records.

Proposed Ethics Code Lacks Critical Elements

The proposed ethics code is almost entirely a rehash of existing state law, city law and city practices.  It includes neither a general requirement that city employees act ethically, nor any specific standards of behavior or prohibitions of wrongful behavior.  It is a mere gloss of duplications, slightly expanded training requirements, and another unenforceable obligation to provide future recommendations for improvements.

The major provisions that are missing from the proposed ethics codes are:

  • It fails to give the ethics commission the authority to initiate removal proceedings in Superior Court against senior city officials in cases of corruption or egregious misconduct in office.
  • It fails to require council members to abstain from voting on matters that will financially benefit their major campaign contributors.
  • It fails to limit the out-sized behested payments that create the public appearance that donors are buying influence, particularly donors who give large sums to nonprofits controlled by the soliciting officeholder.
  • It fails to prohibit city officials from accepting post-city employment with firms that have financially benefitted from the decisions of such city officials.
  • It contains no requirement that city officials promise to testify truthfully before the council, with potential career consequences for failure to keep their promise.

Extensive Failure to Include Provisions Called for in the Framework

The proposed sunshine ordinance fails to include eight of the 12 provisions called for in the Framework, while the proposed ethics ordinance fails to include seven of the 12 provisions of the Framework.  It is inexplicable how city staff, after Council approval of the Framework, could fail to include over one-half of its terms.  The duty of city staff is to carry out to the will of the City Council, not to decide which Council edicts to follow and which they can ignore.

Conclusion

The proposed ordinances demonstrate a lack of commitment to the values of open government and accountability for the ethical conduct of city business.  The ordinances may hoodwink the public into believing that real reforms have been adopted – for a while.  But if these ordinances are adopted as proposed, it shouldn’t take long for the public to discover just how ineffectual they are in responding to the problems of opaque city government and unethical conduct by city officials.

We urge you to reject the proposed drafts and implement real reform.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (916) 718-3030.

Very truly yours,
Craig Powell, President

 

Enclosures
cc: City Council
John Shirey, City Manager
James Sanchez, City Attorney
Shirley Concolino, City Clerk
Media Distribution List
EOS Board of Directors
Open Government Subgroup

A bitter divorce on ethics reform

FOON RHEE

SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

Eye on Sacramento and League of Women Voters joined forces to push City Hall

But after holding 10 public forums, the two groups disagreed on policy and tactics

Now, league is backing city plan, while watchdog group is mulling ballot measure

BY FOON RHEE

Sacramento City Council ethics reform is a must

EDITORIALS  SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

HIGHLIGHTS

Watchdog group’s ethics recommendations should not be dismissed

Public accountability and access are properly the focus of recommendations

Ironically, City Council committee has been discussing ethics behind close doors

IMG_J_JV_051215_COUNCIL__2_1_MP4QAIUU_L126192555

Sacramento City Councilman Allen Warren was replaced as leader of the council’s ethics reform effort after news of a sexual harassment claim against him. Warren has denied his former aide’s allegations. José Luis Villegas jvillegas@sacbee.com

BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD

As Sacramento’s elected officials hem and haw, a local watchdog group has set the bar on transparency and ethics reform.

After holding public forums with the League of Women Voters, Eye on Sacramento is calling for four major changes at City Hall:

▪ An open government ordinance that guarantees and increases public access and accountability. It includes keeping all city emails for at least 10 years, requiring ad hoc City Council committees to meet in public and adding an independent city auditor, not one appointed by the council.

▪ A city ethics code, including strict rules on nepotism, conflicts of interest and sexual harassment, plus a cap on donations made to charities at the behest of elected officials. That would hamstring Mayor Kevin Johnson, who has persuaded donors to contribute huge sums to charities of his choice.

▪ An independent ethics commission, likely appointed by retired judges, to enforce the code and state ethics laws. It would have the power to subpoena records, compel witnesses to testify under oath and to fine and censure officials, or even seek to kick them out of office.

▪ An independent redistricting commission to draw City Council districts. There should be no doubt this is needed for the 2020 Census after the fiasco after the 2010 count. The council appointed a citizens committee, but ignored its maps and approved its own.

These are reasonable ideas deserving of serious consideration by a City Council committee, which was appointed by the mayor and is supposed to issue its report later this month.

We don’t know exactly what the council panel has in mind because it has been meeting in private – which is amazingly hypocritical.

The mayor’s spokesman assures us the council’s recommendations will reflect all citizens’ values, not just those of a special interest group. Eye on Sacramento’s proposals should not be dismissed lightly.

If the council does not approve reforms, Eye on Sacramento is prepared to go to the ballot in 2016. It would be far better if council members and the group’s leaders can agree on a plan. Whether in office or outside City Hall, everyone should want a more open and ethical government.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article34326018.html

 

 

Watchdog group seeks ethics reforms at Sacramento City Hall

CITY BEAT

SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

HIGHLIGHTS

Eye on Sacramento says city has ‘tremendous vacuum of accountability’

Group wants city to adopt plan, but will go to ballot if needed

Ethics, redistricting commissions part of recommendations

Eye on Sacramento Releases Package of Proposed City Reforms

MEDIA RELEASE

For Immediate Release
Release Date/Time: September 2, 2015; 10:15 a.m.
Contact: Craig Powell, President, Eye on Sacramento
E-mail: craig@eyeonsacramento.org
Phone: (916) 718-3030

Erik Smitt, EOS Policy Director
E-mail: erik@eyeonsacramento.org
Phone: (916) 215-2275

Restoring Accountability:

Eye on Sacramento Releases Package of Proposed

City Ethics, Transparency and Redistricting Reforms

At a press conference this morning, local government watchdog group Eye on Sacramento (EOS) presented a package of ethics, transparency and redistricting reforms proposals for the City of Sacramento.

“The reform proposals we are releasing today are the culmination of ten very well-attended public forums held in every part of Sacramento earlier this year, followed by three months of extensive research and careful deliberation by our numerous volunteers and study groups, “said EOS president Craig Powell.  “These reforms are designed to make Sacramento the most open, transparent and ethically accountable municipal government in California and to help restore citizens’ trust in their city government.  It’s a package in which we, as citizens and residents of Sacramento, can take real pride,” Powell added.

The package includes summaries of each of the “Four Pillars of Reform:”

(1) A cutting edge Sunshine Ordinance that will make it easier for residents to participate, and have a more effective role, in City decision-making and will open up City government records and data to public review and media scrutiny to the greatest extent practicable;

(2) An Ethics Code that will set minimal standards of ethical conduct expected of our city officials;

(3) An independent and empowered Ethics Commission that will have the means and authority to hold public officials accountable for misconduct and to exonerate them whenever they’re subjected to unsubstantiated claims, through the application of rules that will provide strong due process protections; and

(4) An independent citizens Redistricting Commission that will, at long last, bring an end to the unhealthy and undemocratic practice of councilmembers drawing their own council district lines (aka picking their own voters) and shift that power to a panel of citizens who will have final authority to draw council district boundaries.

Also presented was a 12-page “Summary of Public Comment” (copy attached), that recaps the numerous comments received from the public at our Kick-Off Forum in February, our seven District Forums and our final Work Shop Forum at the Clunie Clubhouse on May 17th.  The forums were jointly sponsored by EOS and the League of Women Voters, as well as 23 co-sponsoring community organizations.

Public Disclosure of Proposals Before Closed-Door Negotiations With City Officials

“Representatives of our reform effort are expecting to meet within the next few days with city officials in closed door meetings to discuss our reform proposals in detail, to explore common ground and to, hopefully, reach agreement on the adoption/endorsement of a set of reforms that are mutually acceptable to all parties,” Powell said.

“Before our representatives go behind closed doors to negotiate these proposals, however, we feel we have an obligation to first release our reform proposals to our forum attendees, our supporters, the media and the public at large,” Powell added.  “The public deserves to know exactly where we stand at the beginning of these negotiations so that they can assess where we end up at the end of them,” Powell concluded.

Plan B: A Ballot Initiative

“We’re pursuing these reforms on two different, but parallel, tracks.  Given the significant time and effort it takes to qualify an initiative for the November 2016 general election ballot, we’re entering into negotiations with city officials in pursuit of a mutual agreement while we’re concurrently taking the steps necessary to qualify our reform proposals for the November 2016 ballot,” said Powell.  “It is our great preference that we reach an acceptable agreement with city officials, but we’re doing the necessary ground work to bring our reform proposals before Sacramento voters in November 2016,” Powell added.

“Given the growing number of claims asserted against councilmembers, the city auditor’s recent finding of nepotism in the Department of Utilities, the city’s efforts this year to mass delete 85 million e-mails, the alleged use of city staff and resources for political purposes and the shrouding of city e-mails via the use of private e-mail accounts, the need to establish accountability in city government through effective ethics, transparency and redistricting reforms is acute,” Powell concluded.

####

To view/download a copy of the Media Release click here
To view/download a copy of the Sunshine Ordinance Summary click here
To view/download a copy of the Ethics Code Summary click here
To view/download a copy of the Ethics Commission Summary click here
To view/download a copy of the Redistricting Commission Summary click here
To view/download a copy of the 12-page “Summary of Public Comment” click here

Press Conference On Suit to Halt City of Sacramento’s Mass Deletion of City E-mails

MEDIA RELEASE

Date/Time: July 23, 2015; 11:00 a.m.
Contacts: Erik Smitt, Policy Director,
Eye on Sacramento
E-mail: erik@eyeonsacramento.org
Phone: (916) 215-2275

Paul Nicholas Boylan, Attorney,
E-mail: PNBoylan@gmail.com
Phone: (530) 297-7184

Eye on Sacramento Holds Press Conference at County Courthouse

On Suit to Halt City of Sacramento’s Mass Deletion of City E-mails

At a press conference today, Eye On Sacramento, a member of the growing community coalition advocating for robust ethics, transparency and redistricting reform of City government, provided  updates on the lawsuit against the City of Sacramento to enforce the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to prevent the City from deleting over 50 million emails that form an irreplaceable part of the public record.

A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was granted by the Honorable Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang on July 7, which restrained the City from destroying these emails on Wednesday, July 8, as the City had planned.

The hearing for the Permanent Injunction will take place at the Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse, 720 9th Street, Sacramento, tomorrow, Friday, July 24, 2:30 pm, Department 24, the Honorable Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang presiding.

The Petitioners are asking Judge Chang to issue a Permanent Injunction preventing the City from erasing the public record and destroying the emails the petitioners want to access.  If the City destroys these emails, the public’s constitutional right to access these emails will be irrevocably injured and the City will be in violation of the California Public Records Act.

The Petitioners in the lawsuit are Richard Stevenson, a member of Eye on Sacramento, and Katy Grimes, Journalist.  Both Petitioners have filed formal requests to access emails the City intends on destroying and are suing the City under the CPRA to enforce their rights to gain access to these records.  The Petitioners, through attorney Paul Boylan, have made tireless efforts to reach an agreement with the City Attorney; those efforts have failed.

Since the TRO, Eye on Sacramento has contacted several City Council-members to resolve the issues through the enactment of new City policies that would mandate that City officials preserve City e-mails. Councilmembers will not speak with EOS on the advice of the City Attorney.

“It is clear that the City’s issues with e-mail storage space are a mere front for the objective of erasing history and covering up the past.” Erik Smitt, Policy Director.

“Eye on Sacramento is focused on transparency and citizen access to all mechanisms of government.  Deletion of public records is contrary to the principles of open government and the public’s right to know.” Erik Smitt, Policy Director.

Concurrently with the press conference, Paul Boylan, attorney for the petitioners in the case, issued the following statement: “The discussions I have had with the City have been productive, but only up to a point that is far short of resolving this conflict.  I am left with the impression that the City’s only goal is to destroy as many emails as possible and is gaming the system to achieve that goal.  The City’s goal should be preservation of public records. Thus far, the City has demonstrated no pressing need to destroy anything.”

Open Government … transparent, responsive, accountable!

###

Restraining Order Against City Of Sacramento Delays Email Deletion

Capital Public Radio

Capital Public Radio

 

A judge has issued a temporary restraining order barring the City of Sacramento from deleting its old emails for 22 days. The city had planned to begin deletions Wednesday.

Richard Stevenson filed a Public Records Act request to see all of the emails and sued to preserve them.

A Sacramento County Superior Court judge granted the restraining order but says Stevenson must narrow his request by 10 a.m. Wednesday.

Stevenson says he’s pleased with the restraining order and hopes it provides enough time for the city council to change the city’s email deletion policy.

“It gives a chance for the city council, which returns on the fourteenth,” says Stevenson. “See, this came up when the city clerk’s boss, the city council, was in recess, which means there was no chance to appeal to the council.”

Stevenson and a second plaintiff say they will attempt to provide the city with a gift of storage so that it can preserve all emails dating back to 1997.

The city attorney’s office could not say if there is no legal reason the city could not accept or use such a gift.

Bob Moffitt

Sacramento Region Reporter

Bob is the Sacramento Region Reporter. He has been at the forefront of the coverage of the Sacramento Kings’ saga and the effort to build a new arena in Sacramento. He also covers education, business, environment, and sports stories.