Two steps forward...
....one step back.
.jpg)
.jpg)
I'll comment later.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Rough Draft of the First Draft of History
Blog Archive
Blogs I Read
DextraMontana
About Me
- GeeGuy
- Obviously, I need to get a life.
Labels
- Coal Plant (132)
- Debate (14)
- Environment (5)
- Health care (1)
- Mayoral Forum (14)
- New Media (7)
4 comments:
Here’s my shot at the prize (Coors Light is my preferred brand). Gliko relies on the draft documents being defined as reference only documents that the city has position of. He then goes on to compare them to National Honor records that the Butte school district was found to not be required to produce in Becky v. Butte. In that case the School district would have had no controlling input into the creation of the documents; was not a party to their content; was not bound by any requirements of the documents and they were not relevant to any current or future government action. In a word they were reference documents. In the SME draft documents the city will be bound by the document and is principle as to its content. They are the written trail of evidence laying out how the final “Public Document” was created and part of the public conversation in creating the final form of the public document.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis, it is not what I had in mind with my question.
Here's a hint: Our City Attorney operates from an incorrect, and unstated, premise.
Your argument is correct that the draft documents are pretty clearly public under the Becky analysis.
By the way, I'm happy to buy you one even if you don't win!
Here's my last attempt. Gliko states:
"Court may look beyond the Constitution's specific language”
Isn't this wrong? Shouldn’t the court look to legislation for additional guidance only when the language isn't specific? Sorry for posting the answer in the wrong post.
If it is going to be released to the public then why attempt to define it as irrelevant and lacking substance.
I am curious why he feels the City is "obliged" to deny access to the information, without stating any significant reason for opposition to it's disclosure.
Post a Comment