Item B - Ind. External Auditor - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

law, every document in the possession of a State agency or local government was a public record, but some were exempt from disclosure. Mr. Lidz believed that most people, using a common sense interpretation of the term "public record," would read the sentence and believe that they had access to those exempted records. He suggested that the sentence in question could be deleted, or alternatively, the text included in Appendix W of the council's notebook regarding the amendments could be used. Mr. Carlson reported that the City Council formerly had an Audit Committee composed of councilors that oversaw the details of the City's financial audit. The council discontinued the committee because of a lack of interest. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to refer the proposed new section creating the position of a city performance auditor to the ballot in the November 2002 election. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by revising the sentence that read "All audit reports are public records" to read "All audit reports are public records and are subject to disclosures required by and in accordance with State law pertaining to disclosure of public records." Mr. Kelly called for council comments and questions. Ms. Nathanson preferred the City Manager's approach, which was to adopt text parallel to that used for the City Attorney position, as opposed to the more detailed recommendation of the CCRC. Mr. Farr indicated support for the amendment but said he did not favor the main motion because of the complexity of the text being proposed. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Lidz said that the amendment ensured that audits were subject to State law regarding public records. It did not add substance in that the requirements for disclosure would be the same under State law, but it did provide assurance to a member of the public reading the charter that the reports would be treated like other public records, and not placed where they could not be reviewed. He believed that it would be a rare instance in which a report was exempt from disclosure. Mr. Pap~ opposed the amendment, saying he preferred the charter remain simple. Ms. Taylor thought the amendment accomplished the simplicity Mr. Pap~ was seeking. Mr. Lidz concurred. Mr. Kelly believed the amendment was responsive to the legal counsel's concerns. He also believed it provided philosophical assurance related to the public nature of the audit reports. Mr. Carlson said that the amendment was actually a restatement of State law. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Farr indicated opposition to the amended motion, saying the audit process currently in place was sufficient and met the needs of the citizens. He said that if something was to be placed on the ballot, it should be simple.