Not true. The CPRA requires the response to provide a notice of determination of disclosable public records and reasons thereof (CPRA Gov Code 6253(c)). His is NOT a lawful response. He states he *will respond* in 10 days and then does not. 1/2
-
-
Every agency in California thinks they are a PITA, and they are also the way the public gets to examine exactly what they do. Ordinance actually requires agencies who buy new computer systems to implement automatic segregation of disclosable info to make it easier; no one does.
3 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
The law does not allow Boudin to not provide a determination within the deadline. Examples given by SOTF's attorney about what is too big to ask for: all records in agency, all records mentioning "water." While there is a limit on what I can ask for, it is extraordinarily large.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Boudin has specific legal options given purportedly voluminous requests. He can provide what is "reasonable" within 10 & 24 days and then incrementally respond further. No matter what, he has to conduct the search and state whether there are records and if they are disclosable
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
I know you support him, so you should listen to his staff defending a complaint brought by someone else against him in a recent SOTF compliance committee. Chair LaHood asks pointed questions about their search, and his representative gives non-responsive answers. Not cool.
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @journo_anon @chesaboudin
TBH Sunshine should superceded my opinions. I also understand how onerous it could be for the office.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @batman_vc @chesaboudin
They could have straight forwardly told the truth that it was onerous (not an excuse, but truth). Boudin personally allegedly did not preserve Signal messages with his staff, but his staff may well have had them at the time of request. But they only searched him, and not staff
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @journo_anon @chesaboudin
I could also see DA and city attorney being more complex due to the nature of ongoing litigation. I gotta wonder if a ballot prop could fund / encourage a more streamlined process.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @batman_vc @chesaboudin
Some amendments I proposed: A requirement of a minimum retention of electronic public records for 1 year. That's not a funding thing: that's an officials don't WANT us to read their texts, so they delete em. Mayor Breed does it constantly.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @journo_anon @chesaboudin
It is probably a lot of different things. I wonder if you could use something like the dropbox api to image and tag local drives and then post them to the web in an opt out fashion.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
🦌 ☀️ Anonymoose 🔍 Retweeted 🦌 ☀️ Anonymoose 🔍
Opt out is exactly what it should be. And yes, law office agencies would have to mark more of their records privileged/confidential and opt out (which could always be appealed at SOTF and court). Here's my ideal situation:https://twitter.com/journo_anon/status/1410439233249021961 …
🦌 ☀️ Anonymoose 🔍 added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.