2009_0413_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mayor Klausing responded that Councilmember Johnson's concerns were valid from a public policy standpoint, when elected officials should be encouraged to participate through public venues in expressing their viewpoints to their constituency; but opined that any policy should be consistent with state statute and the spirit of public discussions. City Attorney Anderson noted that this draft was a working draft, and encouraged Councilmember comment and input. Mayor Klausing concurred with Councilmember Pust's concerns for retention of items on home computers; whether retention was necessary if items had gone through staff at City Hall where they would naturally fall into record retention categories; and whether communication of advisory boards to the City fell within this framework and policy as well. City Manager Malinen advised that he needed to further consult with the City's Information Technology staff on record retention practices; and referenced comment received from Planning Commissioner Daniel Soerigter related to this matter and advisory commissions. Councilmember Pust opined that she didn't appreciate the tone or focus of the proposed policy, and the comment about trying not to put things on paper so they could be construed as public data; when it was the intent and interest of the City Council to transparently comply with the Open Meeting Law and Minnesota Data Practice Act. Further discussion included individual City Councilmember correspondence with citizens, and when it became public information; removal of liability issues for the City once a document was legally obtained from a government entity and came into the public domain; and interpretation of uses of such data or using citizens as surrogates in forging decisions privately and not in the public venue. Councilmember Ihlan addressed the purpose statement on Page 1, second paragraph; and suggested that the language mirror that of the Data Practices Act related to correspondence between elected officials and individuals. City Attorney Anderson so noted. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the disclaimer as addressed by City Manager Malinen, seemed confusing and unnecessary. Mayor Klausing concurred; and questioned if it actually served a good public policy purpose, and may actually make citizens less willing to correspond with their elected officials if they thought the information was going to be shared. City Attorney Anderson advised that his firm would work on the confidentiality concerns as discussed; noting that the most common privacy issue was personnel and/or discipline issues; and those would be the only practical things requiring a standard disclaimer.