Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Of <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />Page 2 of M=nD <br /> <br />(a) (2) could be argued by the city. Had the ordinance been <br />worded differently the agreement would have been more likely <br />to succeed. As the ordinance is worded, there is no statement <br />expressly making the statement a part of the personnel file of <br />the employee. The city would also have to establish that the <br />disclosure "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of <br />personal privacy." <br /> <br />Section 4 of the Act states in pertinent part: <br /> <br />On application for public information to the custo- <br />dian of information in a governmental body by any <br />person, the custodian shall promptly produce such <br />information for inspection or duplication, or both, in <br />the offices of the governmental body. [emphasis <br />added] <br /> <br />Section 5(a) of the Act states in pertinent part: <br /> <br />It shall be the duty of the custodian of public <br />records subject to penalties provided in this <br />Act, to see that the public records are made <br />available for public inspection and copying~... <br />[emphasis added] <br /> <br />Section 5(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: <br /> <br />Neither the custodian nor his agent who controls <br />the use of public records shall make any inquiry <br />of any person who applies for inspection or copying <br />of public records beyond the purpose of establishing <br />proper identification and the public records beiny <br />requested~ [emphasis added] <br /> <br />The governmental body may promulgate reasonable rules of <br />procedure so that the records may be inspected "efficiently, <br />safely, and without delay" but may not withhold information or <br />limit the availability to the public except as expressly provided. <br /> <br />The prohibition of the ordinance with regard to the making <br />of copies is in contradiction to sections 4 and 5(a) of the act <br />in my opinion. The requirement as a sworn statement stating <br />"belief" in a conflict of interest is in contradiction to section <br />5(b) of the Act in my opinion. I express no opinion as to whether <br />the presence of the city manager, city secretary, mayor or mayor <br />pro tem and a member of the ethics review commission before a <br />statement could be examined is a reasonable rule of procedure or <br />whether in actual practice this proceoure would allow examination <br />"without delay" as required by section 5(b). <br /> <br />2) The section which stated: <br /> <br />All boards, commissions, departments,- officials and <br />employees of the city shall furnish to the ethics <br />review commission such data, information and state- <br />ments as may in the opinion of the commission be <br />