minr&o 10-7-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

reports and that Lakewood usually ranks in the top 3 municipalities in regard to delivery on public records requests.Turnaround time on requests is usually 3 days. Council members and Ms. Swallow then discussed the city’s duty under Ohio Revised Code to negotiate with a requestor to try and figure out what they’re looking for, in the event he or she provides a vague request.The negotiation process entails running an initial search through an online Barracuda system, which usually returns a lot of material, and the city asking the party to narrow or be more specific with his/her request. If the party refuses and the request remains overly vague, the city does not have to respond, which would be classified as a request denial. The requestor then has the option to make a complaint to the Ohio Attorney General’s office, who can then request both parties to participate in a mediation. Concerns were expressed regarding the language and measurement of speed and thoroughness required in the legislation when responding to a public records request. The Law Department needs time to redact personal information, which can take an in exorbitant amount of time to do depending on the depth of the request. It was determined that a municipality has a reasonable amount of time to respond to a request, and this timeframe is determined by case law. There was some discussion as to requiring a fee schedule for print pages requested and whether it would be necessary.It was noted that the Law Department educates new employees on public records law through orientation and trainings. Council President O’Leary expressed some concerns about section 110.80. He indicated that the notions of this section would be found in a records policy instead of city code. He argues that the terminologyused in the legislation should be broad enough to accommodate applicable exceptions to the law and factor in Ohio and federal records laws. Assistant Director Swallow also disagreed with the component of the law that does not require a requestor’s name orpurpose for the request. Both parties acknowledged that different rules apply to different types of requestors, such as commercial ones or individuals that are incarcerated. Members requested the Law Department update the ordinance, tracking the changes discussed in the committee meeting. It was affirmed that NextRequest software will be added to the city’s website and employees will receive training on it over the next couple months. The system has the ability to provide automated reminders to staff on outstanding requests. Councilman Rader provided the referral of NextRequest to the Law Department, having worked in the legal profession with the software previously. Council President O’Leary noted that the Counciloffice now has a portal that allows a public-facing response to a public records request. Chairwoman George stated that the committee will meet once more to implement changes to the legislation. ORDINANCE 25-19-AN ORDINANCE repealing 905.07 Animals, andenacting a new 905.07 Animals which require that all dogs in any park be registered with the County Fiscal Officer and wear a registration tag. (Placed on 1st reading and referred to Rules & nd Ordinances Committee 9/3/19; 2reading…) Councilman Anderson stated that he proposed Ordinance 25-19 to follow up on the public sentiment of supporting dogs and the animal shelter that was expressed when the city was updating its dog ordinances.He listed the many benefits that come with dog registration. It was