CC_Minutes_2012_0723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 23, 2012 Page 19 with data laws; reiterating that the presumption should be that all information is public. Councilmember Johnson, while understanding what was being addressed by the City Attorney, opined that the bigger problem is the ethics of electronic com- munications from the City's perspective. Councilmember Johnson opined that the public, himself included, is not aware of those Data Privacy Act rules and those particular ethics, especially with their private e-mails. Councilmember Johnson advised that he was aware of the ethical behavior under which he, as an elected municipal official, needed to operate; however, he admitted that he was not as aware of the situation with citizen e-mails. Councilmember Johnson ad- vised that the point that was of the most concern to him was the diminished trust in the City because of this situation. While understanding that people were un- aware of the rulings, he questioned how to move forward and keep people en- gaged in police alerts and other civic information to keep the dialogue open for information that is of importance to engage citizens while avoiding such a con- flict as this has created. Councilmember Johnson questioned if there was any way to circumvent such a similar situation in the future; and questioned if any further disclaimer really served of any benefit, since it was covered by State law. However, in order to avoid any future concerns for residents, Coun- cilmember Johnson opined that perhaps it was a good idea to put additional in- formation in the City's disclaimer; or any other positive steps to get back some level of confidence in communication among the City, its staff and elected offi- cials, and citizens. City Attorney Gaughan advised that there can be further additions or clarifica- tions to any disclaimers; and referencing his own Google search, he used the City of Hopkins' disclaimer as an example. City Attorney Gaughan advised that it put resident on notice, or reminded the City Council and residents, that the City served as a gatekeeper for determining what data was public or private, as dictated by the legislature; reiterating that everything was public data unless specifically addressed by the legislature. City Attorney Gaughan noted that the only other remedy open to the City was to seek amendment of current legisla- tion that eliminated e-mails from public data. Councilmember Pust opined that it was clear that the City needed to ensure its citizens had a clear understanding, further opining that now that this discussion has been held publically, there would probably be additional requests from other political candidates in this race and others, and selling the data to other candi- dates. While noting that the legislature could be lobbied to change the law, Councilmember Pust noted that they also run for office, and new technology had created an avenue for communication with voters electronically. Coun- cilmember Pust noted that this was the new reality for citizens and the City to admit; expressing her hope that citizens would sign back up, realizing that they