San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations | Responses | Attachments Electronic Communication Among
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 5 findings
F1
Page 9
Issue official email accounts to its council members. The recommendation has been implemented. The City has had this in place for a number of years. 2) Adopt email policies that require council members to use such email accounts for all city or town business. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is considered impractical. City Council members are involved in a variety of activities prior to becoming elected officials. They have a need to communicate with friends, neighbors, business acquaintances, and groups they have affiliated themselves with. Email communications are common. This need does not end upon being elected to office. Short of cancelling all of their personal email accounts upon being elected to office it would not be possible to prevent people from sending them emails which bring up city business. Implementing the recommendation would also require that a policy defines the types of content that was considered city business. Our elected officials have an ongoing need to communicate with constituents and advisors on political matters. If a council member were running for reelection, would email communications with their campaign committee be considered city business? Clearly council members have a right to privacy in their efforts to develop political strategies. Trying to define what is political and what is business into an enforceable policy is impractical. 3) Consider providing official email accounts to planning commissioners and applying the policies adopted in #2 above. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is considered impractical. The City’s Planning Commissioners are unpaid volunteers. The City currently does not have the facilities to provide office space with computer access, and it is unreasonable to assume that every volunteer that is appointed comes equipped with a computer and internet access. The City does keep as public records any written communications to or from the City and its Planning Commissioners including email communications. 4) Develop and adopt appropriate record retention policies, including establishing appropriate document retention time periods. The recommendation has been implemented. The City has had this in place for a number of years. 5) Include updates on legal developments related to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act during training for officials as required under AB 1234 (Ethics Training for Local Officials). The recommendation will not be implemented because it is considered impractical. The City has fully implemented the requirements of AB 1234. It also went beyond the minimum requirements of the law by sending many of its senior staff members to the training. Since the law was passed, a number of qualified trainers have offered ethics training classes that comply with State requirements. The City found it efficient and convenient to use these outside training resources so classes could be offered at different times and dates. Adding content to the existing training program would preclude us from using outside resources unless a custom program was developed. The City does monitor legal developments with the Brown Act and Public Records Act through its City Attorney. Significant developments are already communicated to the City Council as written communications from the City Attorney. The City also provides training on these important public laws to new Council Members through an orientation process when they first take office. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject Grand Jury Report. If you have questions regarding the City’s responses, please contact me at 650-330-6610. Sincerely, Kent Steffens Interim City Manager Verdell Woods Secretary, City Manager's Office City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 650-330-6600 (phone) 650-328-7935 (fax) [email protected] CITY COUNCIL 2007 RICHARD A. GARBARINO, MAYOR PEDRO GONZALEZ, VICE MAYOR MARK N. ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER JOSEPH A. FERNEKES, COUNCILMEMBER KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER BARRY M. NAGEL, CITYMANAGER August 20, 2007 Honorable John L. Grandsaert Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 RE: Comments on the Findings and Recommendations of the Grand Jury Pertaining to Electronic Communications Among City Officials. Dear Judge Grandsaert, Please accept this as the formal response of the City of South San Francisco (“City”) to the June 21, 2007 letter from the Superior Court communicating the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations on “Electronic Communication Among City Officials.” The City has reviewed the Grand Jury comments and I would offer these responses on behalf of the City Council and the City of South San Francisco as the Mayor: Recommendation # 1 Issue official email accounts to City Council Members The City agrees with the finding, has implemented such a policy, and plans to continue doing so.
F2
Page 38
Adopt E-Mail Policies That Require Councilmembers to Use Such E-Mail Accounts for all City or Town Business. The Town’s e-mail internet and on-line service use policy applies to all Town on-line accounts which include those assigned to City Councilmembers. The Town policy makes clear that on-line accounts are to be used for Town business.
F3
Page 38
Consider Providing Official E-Mail Accounts to Planning Commissioners and Applying Policies Adopted in Number 2 above. The Town has not provided e-mail accounts to its Planning Commissioners. The Town of Atherton Planning Commission meets once per month. The principal business before the Planning Commission involves consideration of permits to remove heritage trees. Additional items involve conditional use permits related to accessory structures and property line setbacks. Two of the Planning Commissioners do not use e-mail at all. In Hon. John L. Grandsaert September 13, 2007 Judge of the Superior Court Page Two view of the fact that the Town’s Planning Commission does not have any design review function as is common in many communities, it is the Town’s position that concerns regarding serial meetings relative to Planning Commission actions here do not warrant provision of e-mail accounts to Planning Commissioners and/or requirements for use of these accounts as recommended by the Grand Jury.
F4
Page 39
Develop and Adopt Appropriate Record Retention Policies, Including Establishing Appropriate Document Retention Time Periods. The Town of Atherton has adopted records retention policies for electronic mail. This was done in December of 2005, and requires that backup copies of e-mails be retained on the network server for at least two years. Thereafter, e-mail messages over two years old which have not been stored electronically or printed as a hard copy may be deleted. This complies with state law requirements regarding retention/destruction of public records.
F5
Page 39
Include Updates on Legal Development Relating to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act During the Ethics Training for Officials as Required Under AB 1234 (Ethics Training) for Local Officials. The Town fully supports and complies with the training mandated by AB 1234 and will include updates on legal developments relating to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act during such training. Very truly yours, MARC G. HYNES City Attorney, Town of Atherton MGH:cwb C: Mayor and City Councilmembers, Town of Atherton John C. Fitton, Court Executive Officer [email protected] Michael Murphy, Chief Deputy County Counsel Acting City Clerk Interim City Manager John C. Fitton, Chief Executive Officer Superior Court of San Mateo County 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Michael P. Murphy, Chief Deputy County Counsel County of San Mateo Hall of Justice and Records 6th Floor 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1662 NOTES; Responses to be placed on file with Clerk of the Court Prepare original on letterhead, address and mail to Judge Grandsaert Judge of the Superior Court, Hall of Justice, 400 County Center, 2nd Floor, Redwood City CA 94063-1655 Copy response and send by e-mail to: [email protected] Insert agency name if it is not indicated at the top of your response. Copy John C. Fitton Court Executive Officer Superior Court of San Mateo County Responses to be placed with the clerk of your agency File a copy of the response directly with the clerk of your agency. Do not send this copy to the court. Mayor Barbara Pierce City Hall Vice Mayor Rosanne Foust 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94063 Council Members Voice (650) 780-7220 Alicia Aguirre Fax (650) 261-9102 Ian Bain [email protected] Jim Hartnett www.redwoodcity.org Diane Howard Jeff Ira September 11, 2007 The Honorable John L. Grandsaert Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice, 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report: “Electronic Communication Among City Officials” Dear Judge Grandsaert: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury report dated June 21, 2007, containing recommendations related to “Electronic Communication Among City Officials.” I want to assure you and the Civil Grand Jury that the members of the City Council of Redwood City strictly adhere to the Brown Act and all other relevant open meeting laws and regulations aimed at providing a transparent, visible, and understandable decision-making process on behalf of our community.
Recommendations 5
-
R1Page 1Issue official email accounts to its council members. The recommendation has been implemented. The City has had this in place for a number of years. 2) Adopt email policies that require council members to use such email accounts for all city or town business. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is considered impractical. City Council members are involved in a variety of activities prior to becoming elected officials. They have a need to communicate with friends, neighbors, business acquaintances, and groups they have affiliated themselves with. Email communications are common. This need does not end upon being elected to office. Short of cancelling all of their personal email accounts upon being elected to office it would not be possible to prevent people from sending them emails which bring up city business. Implementing the recommendation would also require that a policy defines the types of content that was considered city business. Our elected officials have an ongoing need to communicate with constituents and advisors on political matters. If a council member were running for reelection, would email communications with their campaign committee be considered city business? Clearly council members have a right to privacy in their efforts to develop political strategies. Trying to define what is political and what is business into an enforceable policy is impractical. 3) Consider providing official email accounts to planning commissioners and applying the policies adopted in #2 above. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is considered impractical. The City’s Planning Commissioners are unpaid volunteers. The City currently does not have the facilities to provide office space with computer access, and it is unreasonable to assume that every volunteer that is appointed comes equipped with a computer and internet access. The City does keep as public records any written communications to or from the City and its Planning Commissioners including email communications. 4) Develop and adopt appropriate record retention policies, including establishing appropriate document retention time periods. The recommendation has been implemented. The City has had this in place for a number of years. 5) Include updates on legal developments related to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act during training for officials as required under AB 1234 (Ethics Training for Local Officials). The recommendation will not be implemented because it is considered impractical. The City has fully implemented the requirements of AB
-
R2Page 17Adopt E-Mail Policies That Require Councilmembers to Use Such E-Mail Accounts for all City or Town Business. The Town’s e-mail internet and on-line service use policy applies to all Town on-line accounts which include those assigned to City Councilmembers. The Town policy makes clear that on-line accounts are to be used for Town business.
-
R3Page 17Consider Providing Official E-Mail Accounts to Planning Commissioners and Applying Policies Adopted in Number 2 above. The Town has not provided e-mail accounts to its Planning Commissioners. The Town of Atherton Planning Commission meets once per month. The principal business before the Planning Commission involves consideration of permits to remove heritage trees. Additional items involve conditional use permits related to accessory structures and property line setbacks. Two of the Planning Commissioners do not use e-mail at all. In Hon. John L. Grandsaert September 13, 2007 Judge of the Superior Court Page Two view of the fact that the Town’s Planning Commission does not have any design review function as is common in many communities, it is the Town’s position that concerns regarding serial meetings relative to Planning Commission actions here do not warrant provision of e-mail accounts to Planning Commissioners and/or requirements for use of these accounts as recommended by the Grand Jury.
-
R4Page 18Develop and Adopt Appropriate Record Retention Policies, Including Establishing Appropriate Document Retention Time Periods. The Town of Atherton has adopted records retention policies for electronic mail. This was done in December of 2005, and requires that backup copies of e-mails be retained on the network server for at least two years. Thereafter, e-mail messages over two years old which have not been stored electronically or printed as a hard copy may be deleted. This complies with state law requirements regarding retention/destruction of public records.
-
R5Page 18Include Updates on Legal Development Relating to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act During the Ethics Training for Officials as Required Under AB 1234 (Ethics Training) for Local Officials. The Town fully supports and complies with the training mandated by AB 1234 and will include updates on legal developments relating to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act during such training. Very truly yours, MARC G. HYNES City Attorney, Town of Atherton MGH:cwb C: Mayor and City Councilmembers, Town of Atherton John C. Fitton, Court Executive Officer [email protected] Michael Murphy, Chief Deputy County Counsel Acting City Clerk Interim City Manager John C. Fitton, Chief Executive Officer Superior Court of San Mateo County 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Michael P. Murphy, Chief Deputy County Counsel County of San Mateo Hall of Justice and Records 6th Floor 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1662 NOTES; Responses to be placed on file with Clerk of the Court Prepare original on letterhead, address and mail to Judge Grandsaert Judge of the Superior Court, Hall of Justice, 400 County Center, 2nd Floor, Redwood City CA 94063-1655 Copy response and send by e-mail to: [email protected] Insert agency name if it is not indicated at the top of your response. Copy John C. Fitton Court Executive Officer Superior Court of San Mateo County Responses to be placed with the clerk of your agency File a copy of the response directly with the clerk of your agency. Do not send this copy to the court. Mayor Barbara Pierce City Hall Vice Mayor Rosanne Foust 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94063 Council Members Voice (650) 780-7220 Alicia Aguirre Fax (650) 261-9102 Ian Bain [email protected] Jim Hartnett www.redwoodcity.org Diane Howard Jeff Ira September 11, 2007 The Honorable John L. Grandsaert Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice, 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report: “Electronic Communication Among City Officials” Dear Judge Grandsaert: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury report dated June 21, 2007, containing recommendations related to “Electronic Communication Among City Officials.” I want to assure you and the Civil Grand Jury that the members of the City Council of Redwood City strictly adhere to the Brown Act and all other relevant open meeting laws and regulations aimed at providing a transparent, visible, and understandable decision-making process on behalf of our community. Recommendation #1: Issue official email accounts to council members. Response: Each City Council member has an official City email account. This has been in place for many years. Recommendation #2: Adopt email policies that require council members to use such email accounts for all city or town business. Response: The City will not implement this recommendation, believing it to be unfeasible and impractical. As elected officials, who are also involved in many other civic, social, non-profit, and advisory activities, City Council members are in frequent communication with a wide variety of individuals and organizations, very often via email. Many of these communications channels were well-established long before they were elected to office, and it is impractical to expect all of those communications to cease and be re-established via official city email accounts. Further, it is not reasonable to expect that there is any way to prevent members of the public from using a council member’s previously-established or alternate email address and bringing up issues related to city business. Recommendation #3: Consider providing official email accounts to planning commissioners and applying the policies adopted in #2 above. Response: The City disagrees with this recommendation and it will not be implemented. The City’s planning commissioners are volunteers, without office space or direct access to the City’s email network, and ownership of a computer and Internet access is not a prerequisite for appointment to this or any City commission. Further, if this recommendation is applied to the planning commission, it would be logical to apply it to all City boards, commissions, and committees, which would be highly impractical. September 11, 2007 The Honorable John L. Grandsaert Page ~2~ Recommendation #4: Develop and adopt appropriate record retention policies, including establishing appropriate document retention time periods. Response: For many years, the City has a Records Management Program and Record Retention Schedule. Recommendation #5: Include updates on legal developments relating to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act during ethics training for officials as required under AB 1234. Response: The City already complies fully with the elements of AB 1234, and will incorporate the recommended updates into its required ethics training. Again, and on behalf of the City Council, thank you for the opportunity to respond on these issues. Sincerely, Barbara Pierce Mayor cc: Members, City Council Ed Everett, City Manager September 28, 2007 Honorable John L. Grandsaert Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Dear Judge Grandsaert, Please accept this as the City of Millbrae’s formal response to the June 21, 2007 letter from the Superior Court forwarding comments made by the Civil Grand Jury about “Electronic Communication Among City Officials.” The City has reviewed the Grand Jury comments and we offer these responses on behalf of the City Council and the City of Millbrae as the Mayor of Millbrae: Recommendation #1 Issue official email accounts to City Councilmembers The City of Millbrae has made official email accounts available to all members of the City Council since the City began using email accounts. We plan to continue that practice. Recommendation #2 Adopt email policies that require Councilmembers to use such email accounts for all city or town business I am providing copies of the Grand Jury’s report to all members of the City Council in order to inform them of your recommendation in this area. Recommendation #3 Consider providing official email accounts to Planning Commissioners and applying the policies recommended in Item #2 To date, the City has not heard requests for the ability to send email messages to Planning Commissioners. We will research the cost of providing email accounts to the Planning Commissioners and examine whether there is interest in including the Planning Commissioners in the City email program. 1360050.1 Recommendation #4 Develop and adopt appropriate record retention policies, including establishing appropriate document retention time periods. The City of Millbrae has long established record retention policies and programs for all City records and documents that include email retention. Recommendation #5 Include updates on legal developments relating to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act during the ethics training for officials as required under AB 1234 (Ethics Training for Local Officials). Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and designated City staff have taken the AB1234 training. This training includes applicable updates to the Brown Act and Public Records Act. Copies of their certificates of completion are available in the Office of the City Clerk. Thank you for this opportunity to share with the Civil Grand Jury Millbrae’s policies in the areas of Council email accounts and records management and retention. Sincerely, Marc Hershman Mayor C: City Council City Attorney City Manager 1360050.1 CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO OFFiCE OF T"E CITY MANAGER October 18, 2007 Hon. John L. Grandsaert Judge ofthe Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: East Palo Alto's response to 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury Report Dear Judge Grandsaert: Attached is East Palo Alto's response to the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury Report, in the following format: • October 16, 2007 administrative report to the East Palo Alto City Council, containing the Grand Jury reports and the City's proposed responses to each report. Please be advised that on October 16, 2007, the City Council reviewed and approved the responses to the reports. An electronic version of the City's responses is being sent directly to the Grand Jury at [email protected]. Very truly yours, Alvin D. James, Attachment: as indicated cc: City Council City Attorney 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone 650.853.3100, Fax 650.853.3115 CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO OFFIC~ OF TH~ CITY MANAG~R AdDrln~U3«veReport Date: October 16, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and Members ofthe City Council Manager~ From: Alvin D. James, City Re: 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury Report: Proposed Responses from East Palo Alto Recommendation: Review and accept the proposed responses to the 2006-2007 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report The 2006-2007 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued three reports related to East Palo Alto: I. Electronic Communication Among City Officiili: A valuable Tool in Need ofCareful Guidance
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 680 sud. ..;.w Advanc"; in eOJ;DJnunicalion uaii>g electronic media as have made o 0 commUnication among elected officials convenient and efficient.Certain fonDS of such o C:On,,"lWicaliciJJ. bowever, can be consIdeRd a prohibited scri~ meeting (as opposed 10 on aIlowahle serial meeting) and l!ws vioiale tho Brown.Ad. It is ilworlallt for elected officials to Uli.dcntandthe potential pilfil1ls as wail as th. beo«ils ofemail . cortmnmication. . .'
-
CL2 Page 3All California cities face a complicated set of issues when attempting to balance the benefits of electronic communication and storage against the pitfalls of Brown Act constraints and Public Records Act obligations. In the case of Brown Act violations, officials who engage in prohibited serial meetings face the possibility of criminal prosecution or other damaging consequences. The point at which a serial meeting becomes illegal, however, is not clear and as case law evolves ongoing legal guidance should be sought. The California Public Records Act mandates citizen access to records including all communications related to public business “regardless of physical form or characteristics, including any writing, picture, sound, or symbol, whether paper, magnetic or other media”. Government Code Section 6252(e) The Public Records Act, while praiseworthy in its goals, can constitute a significant burden on staff time (the cost of which is not recoverable), document duplication cost (partially recoverable), and legal costs (not recoverable) to determine which information is public record and whether any Public Record Act exemptions apply. Additionally, litigation discovery trends specifically address the production of electronic documents, including the specific formats in which such document must be produced. This burden is, or should be, a strong motivation for enacting record retention policies that address redundancy issues and establish legally required document retention time periods. Responding to a Public Records Request usually includes the production of email sent or received relating to the requested subject matter. Consequently, council members or their legal representatives must review their email files to sort out personal communication versus public communication. If the Council member uses his or her personal email account for city matters, such searching is more time consuming and potentially intrusive. While the issuance of official email addresses for City Council members is a rapidly increasing practice, policies for using such accounts are not as common. Planning commissioners are subject to the Brown Act, and their deliberations could be a problem if care is not taken. 3 The financial downside to cities faced with burdensome requests and aggressive litigation is substantial and merits focused, proactive attention. Most San Mateo County cities are, generally speaking, moving in the right direction by adopting separate email accounts for elected officials and by developing and adopting electronic records retention policies. Interpretation of the Brown Act is subject to change due to evolving case law, making it difficult to recommend a one-size-fits-all solution for all cities. Each city should monitor legal developments concerning the Brown Act. Advances in communication using electronic media such as email have made communication among elected officials convenient and efficient. Certain forms of such communication, however, can be considered a prohibited serial meeting (as opposed to an allowable serial meeting) and thus violate the Brown Act. It is important for elected officials to understand the potential pitfalls as well as the benefits of email communication.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Daly City
City