August 31, 2007
"Substantial compliance" is not compliance
State Appeals Court rules in a recent Public Records Act decision (Zink v City of Mesa) that
We hold that "substantial compliance" is an incorrect standard by which to judge an agency's compliance with its statutory duties ... The PDA is a strongly worded mandate for full public access to information concerning the workings of government. It requires strict compliance with its provisions, not simply substantial compliance.
Sherril Huff, pay attention.
The Spokesman-Review has more.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 31, 2007
11:30 AM | Email This
1. Substantial Compliance"... was still better than the legal opinion that Ron Simms office offered up...."Kind'a Sort'a" disclosure.
2. I also favor strict compliance with campaign finance reporting laws, as well as traffic laws.
3. The Review isn't too interested in providing information either...unless of course you pay for it!
4. Richard,
Speaking of Traffic Violations, how did Darcy make out on her little lawsuit over that Kid she injured when she announced last time out? Did the Kid recover? Was she really on the Cell phone at the time of her wreck?
5. Stefan, yes, this is also why the people who say Iraq was "substantially complying" with UN Security Council resolutions were also wrong. Full and immediate compliance is compliance. Everything else is not.
6. I wish I could have accessed the spoksman review site which you linked to. I refuse to register with that rag.
7. I wish I could have accessed the spoksman review site which you linked to. I refuse to register with that rag.
8. Tom Carr is an Idiot