HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Minutes - 04/02/2019
Approved
City Council Workshop
Workshop Regular Meeting
Minutes
April 2, 2019
Date: April 2, 2019
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Place: Chambers
I. PUBLIC PORTION
1. Public Records Requests/JLARC Reporting
City Clerk, Kim Komoto provided a brief overview of the presentation from
the Clerk's Office on public records requests and Joint Legislative Audit and
Review Committee (JLARC) reporting.
Deputy City Clerk, Katy McKee, indicated that in 2014 the City established
the Public Disclosure Administrator position that is responsible for managing
the flow of public records requests. The position is deadline driven and over
the years the Clerk's Office has taken steps to better automate the process.
In 2017, the City purchased the redaction module at $500/year/license. This
module has helped reduce the amount of staff time to redact records and
prepare the required exemption logs. Additionally, in 2017, the City also
purchased the reporting module that has helped streamline the gathering of
data regarding public records requests.
The use of the WebQA cloud-based application used for the processing of
public records requests has allowed the City to be "Green." Currently 95% of
records provided to requesters are sent electronically. Over the past two
years, the Clerk's Office has reduced the amount of paper records retained
from 50 boxes to less than 12.
McKee indicated that, in the future, with the recent deployment of the
Laserfiche electronic content management system, more City records will be
made available for the public to search the Laserfiche public portal.
Public Disclosure Administrator, Tiffany Alcorn walked the Council through
the City's website that the public uses to access information regarding public
records requests in addition to submitting a request.
Alcorn demonstrated the City’s internal WebQA portal and walked the Council
through the process staff follows to process the request, gather, review, and
provide records responsive to the requester.
Alcorn demonstrated the redaction tool and reviewed the reporting metrics
staff is required to enter before closing out the request. Alcorn provided an
City Council Workshop Workshop Regular
Meeting
Minutes
April 2, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 2 of 5
example of the weekly public records request report that details the status of
requests that were received and closed during the prior week and advised
that the report is also sent to records and management staff.
Records Management Administrator, Alyne Hansen provided an overview of
why the City is required to respond to public records requests. Hansen
advised of the 1957 legislature’s enactment of RCW 40.14 - the preservation
and destruction of public records; Pre-1971 - RCW 42.17 Public Disclosure
Act; and 1972’s recodification of RCW 42.17 to RCW 42.56 Public Records
Act.
Hansen reviewed the 2015-16 State Auditor’s Office study on the cost of
responding to public records requests as directed by Engrossed Substitute
Senate Bill 6052. In 2017, RCW 40.14.026 was enacted, and the Legislature
began requiring agencies subject to the Public Records Act to report
information on public records retention, management and disclosure. Only
data collected from 7/23/2017 - 12/31/2017 was required to be reported by
7/1/2018 to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee. 2018 will be
the first full year of data collection required and must be reported by
7/1/2019 to JLARC.
Hansen walked the Council through a few of the City’s JLARC reporting
metrics from the 2017 reporting period and review the metrics that would be
eliminated if HB 1667 passes in 2019.
2. Kent Youth: Call to Action
Lori Guilfoyle, Human Services Coordinator, provided a brief overview of the
Youth Initiative that included honoring the statement “Nothing about us
without us.” The group is committed to addressing the social inequities that
make disparities more likely in certain communities and/or groups of people.
The community must be involved in caring for its youth, and the success of a
community depends on including those most affected in defining the problem
and shaping priorities. The status quo is not acceptable if it is not improving
the lives of youth in Kent. Guilfoyle indicated that no one organization can
meet the needs of all members of the community or address all the changes
facing Kent. More can be achieved together than alone.
Guilfoyle provided details on the community input that was gathered through
focus groups, interviews, provider meetings and youth surveys.
Past efforts included Kent at Risk Community Council (became Kent
Communities in Schools), South King County Youth Violence Prevention
Committee, Lighthouse late night program, King County Youth Action Plan
and Kent Best Starts.
City Council Workshop Workshop Regular
Meeting
Minutes
April 2, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 3 of 5
Ted Dezember, with the King County Housing Authority and board member
for Eastside Pathways, presented the big picture approach that helps leaders
build the infrastructure to manage change in their communities. This
approach helps with aligning structures, goals and strategies; assuring
mutually reinforcing interventions; and assessing through shared
measurements. The recurring steps of Community Change Management
include taking shape, taking aim, taking stock, targeting action, and tracking
progress.
Dezember talked about the Collective Impact and how other communities are
using it to improve outcomes.
Guilfoyle indicated the City is utilizing the collective approach with a core
team that has members of the Police Department, the Courts, organizations,
and faith-based organizations - a cross sector approach. The team will look
at data and use to make informed decisions. Many approaches start with a
leadership team that includes high level community leaders.
Kendrick Glover, Founder and Executive Director of GEM, indicated the Youth
should be at the center of informing programs and policies that impact them.
If the youth is given the opportunity to be at the table, solutions will come.
Their voices need to be elevated.
Glover indicated focus groups were convened and surveys were collected
from 132 youth in Kent. Glover reviewed some of the data that was collected
that included:
1. Having a safe place to hang out with friends
2. Having more after school activities/programs
Guilfoyle indicated we can no longer ignore the disproportionality in
outcomes for youth of color in the child welfare, juvenile justice, education,
mental-health and healthcare systems. There are too many youths in our
community that have limited access to high quality culturally relevant
programs and services. There is limited coordination between providers and
there are opportunities for increased partnerships. Finally, there are unstable
and underutilized resources.
Guilfoyle reviewed some of the core system challenges impacting youth,
including youth not centrally involved in developing policies and programs
that impact them; silos exist between key players impacting youth; mistrust
between some communities of color and the City of Kent and the Kent school
District; a lack of accessible youth-oriented spaces in Kent and lack of
accessible transportation to existing spaces and programs; the definition of
public safety is too narrow; there is not enough funding and support for
existing culturally responsive services and programs and a need to develop
City Council Workshop Workshop Regular
Meeting
Minutes
April 2, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 4 of 5
more.
Guilfoyle advised that the catalyst to changing the odds for youth in Kent
include the vision of all youth in Kent have what they need, when they need
it, to be empowered and engaged in their community. Priorities include
opportunities to learn and grow; a safe neighborhood to call home and a
healthy lifestyle and environment.
We should strive to improve health, academic, and economic outcomes for
youth and youth should be engaged and have a positive attachment to the
community.
Goals will include:
1. Build on and expanding existing partnerships, programs and
services for young people and coordinate public and private programs to
better serve our young people. Recommendations to build a sustainable
structure.
2. Children, youth and families access and actively participate in
high quality, culturally responsive, and engaging programs that promote
positive child, youth and family development.
3. Promote safe and supportive environments that foster healthy
youth and families.
4. Youth access and continue to utilize effective resources to
support their positive development and ability to fully participate on
community life.
Recommendations to build a sustainable structure include:
1. Establishing a leadership roundtable
2. Develop processes to ensure youth voice
3. Continue the work of the Core team
4. Promote effective city-school collaboration
5. Continue to expand the Youth Providers network.
Randy Heath, from the Kent School District, is on the core team and provided
information on the multitiered system of support for students.
Guilfoyle advised that the City’s role is:
1. Keeping the collaborative moving along, focus on systems level
work, and support aligned strategies.
2. Cultivating community engagement and ownership.
3. Connecting and brokering relationships between businesses and
cultural organizations.
4. Connecting to regional youth-focused efforts.
5. Providing staff support to the Core Team, youth Leadership
“Core Team, Provider Network and workgroups.
City Council Workshop Workshop Regular
Meeting
Minutes
April 2, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 5 of 5
6. Hosting the Youth Initiative on the City’s Website.
7. Strengthening internal relationships between departments
serving or engaged in improving youth outcomes.
Glover advised we should take the collective approach and that entities and
the City need to have open communications to come up with a solution-
focused idea centered around youth and adults - with their input.
Council expressed their concerns that the lack of access to transportation
needs to be addressed.
Guilfoyle indicated that there are lots of programs in Kent and there are lots
of kids not participating in anything. How do we address the gaps?
Council expressed concerns over regional equity and suggested there should
be a focus to support South King County rather than the wealthier eastside
cities.
Mayor Ralph advised of her work with Superintendent Watts and her work to
convene a joint City Council and Kent School District meeting.
Meeting ended at 6:15 p.m.
Kimberley A. Komoto
City Clerk
Website References
City of Kent Public Records Center
https : //www. kentwa. gov/govern m ent
/citv-clerk/pu bl ic-records-center
JLARC 2OI7 Public Records Reporting
- Briefing Report
http ://leg. wa. gov/j la rclreports/2019/
pu b RecordsDataCol lection/defa u lt. ht
ml
Washington State AG's Office
Model Rules - WAC Chapter 44-14
http : //www.atg.wa, qov/model-ru les-
public-disclosure
Preservation and Destruction of Public
Records - RCW 40.74
https : //a pp, leo.wa. gov/RCW/default.
aspx?cite=40, 14&fu I I =true
Injury to and Misappropriation of
Record - RCW 40.16.020
\\Adupfpp 1v\adpublic\City Clerk's
Office\Presentation to Citv Council
Flyer.docx
Preservation of Electronic Public
Records - WAC Chapter 434-662
https : //a pos, leq. wa. qov/wac/defau lt.
a s px?cite = 434 -662&fu[=tru e
Public Records Act - RCW-42.56
Citv Clerk's Office
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Phon e: 253-856-5725
City Clerk
Kim Komoto
253-856- 5728
Deputy City Clerk
Katy McKee
253-856-s726
Records Management Administrator
Alyne Ha nsen
253-856- 5724
Public Disclosure Administrator
Tiffa ny Alcorn
253-856-s727
City of Kent
City Clerk's Office
Presentation to City Council
on
Public Records Process
and
JLARC Reporting
I(E}lT
tVdtxrro'i€r
asox?cite=42.56
April 2, 2079
Overview and
Operation
"Who, What, ..,"
Team: 4 employees in Clerk's Office, 15
records coordinators and 23 back-
ups/advisors across the CitY
2018 - 3,4OO requests for public records
Always working on innovation
o Less paper
o Quicker turnaround of records
o Communication tools
Future - Laserfiche
o Public Portal
o Improve visibility to residents
Public Records
Request Process
",..When, Where, Houf...t'
KentWA.Gov
o Public Records Requests
submitted electronicallY bY
the requestor
GovQA - City Clerk's Process
o Receiving a public records
req uest
o The process
o Reviewing and Redacting
Records
o Releasing Public Records to
the customer
o Completion and Closure of
Public Records Requests
o State RePorting
Public Records Act and
JLARC Reportinq
tt...and Why.tt
1957 - Legislature enacts RCW 40.14
Preservation and Destruction of Public
Records
Pre-I972 - RCW 42.77 Public Disclosure
Act
7972 - Recodification of RCW 42.17 to
RCW 42.56 Public Records Act
2075-2016 - State Auditor's Office
appointed to conduct a study on the
cost of responding to public records
requests as directed by Engrossed
Substitute Senate Bill 6052.
2017 - RCW 40.14.026 - Legislature
requires agencies subject to the PRA to
report information on public records
retention, management and disclosure.
Only data collected from 7/23/2OI7 to
72/31/2OL7 was required to be reported
bV 7/I/2078 to Joint Legislative Audit
and Review Committee (JLARC).
2018 - RCW 40.14.026 - First full year
of data collection required, and to be
reported by 7/1/2019 to JLARC.
a a
a
aa
a
a
o
o i istalive Audit an Review Commi LARC
Public Records Requests Report for Kent for 20L7
Baseline data ]1ffi,;:i:f',:T#liil:#ffi.!TiLffif,il"#l5i3lrl'ne30'2020 Uponpassase orHBr66T,theenddateis
The baseline data will be used by the reporting system to automate some of the calculations included in the metrics,
The reporting period for 2017 is July 23, 20!7 to December 3L, ZOl7.
The reporting periods beginning in 2018 and onward will encompass a complete calendar year (Ianuary 1st to December 31st). Click
here for guidance related to Baseline data.
Baseline data
Total number of open public records requests at the beginning of the reporting period
104
Total number of public records requests received during the reporting period
1400
Total number of public records requests closed during the reporting period
t465
MgtfiC L Upon passage of HB 1667, this metric will be etiminated,
Leading practices and processes for records management and retention implemented, including technological upgrades. Clirk hele for
guidance related to Metric 1.
Best practices
Responsibi lity Assig ned
M Agency has assignecl overall responsibility for managing and retaining records to someone (records officer)
M Agency has told Washington State Archives who their assigned person is
M Assigned person has the ability to influence the agency's policies, proce<1ures, and compliance
LJ Assigned person is parl of ihe agetlcy's information governance team
V Other, please explain
The City Cterk is in ihe process of reating a governance team.
Policies and Procedures Exist
[i Agency has policies or procedures governing the management of records
ij Policies and procedures are applicable to all record formats (inclucling emerging technologies such as social media)
lJ Policies and procedures are part of a larger information governance framework
I Other, please explain
The City's Records Adrninistrator is in the process of development policies and procedures, including the creation of a governance
team.
n
Tools Available
M Agency has appropriate softwarelsystems to manage and retain: email, social media, Word documents, spreadsheets, PowerPoints,
text messages, websites, etc.
M Software/systems include retention management functionality
M Agency has implemented or is in the process of inrplementing an enterprise content management system
Ll Other, please explain
Staff Trained
U Elected officials have completed open government training
M Records officers have completed open government training
i.-l All other staff have been trained to manage the records they creaie or receive
[-l Records and information management training is part of new employee orientation
iil Agency offers internal records and information management training on a regular basis
M Other, please explain
The City Clerk is in the process of creating a training as part of the City's new employee orientation.
Retention Requirernents Understood
M Key staff know how to locate all records retention schedules which are applicable to the agency,'how to apply retention, and what
records can be considered transitory
,7 All staff know how to apply retention to the records they create or receive and which records can be considered transitory
Ll Other, please explain
Records Are Inventoried
l) Paper records have been inventoried at least once within the last 10 years
l-l Electronic records have been inventoried at least once within the last 10 years
lJ Records are inventoried on a regular, systematic basis
M Other, please explain
Ttre City's Reeords Adnrirristrator is in the process of assisting departments with the inventory of thair rccords.
Records Are Organized
M Some coordinalion at the work group level regarding where records are stored and the naming conventions used
lJ Records are organized through agency-wide file plans and/or file naming conventions
ll Other, please explain
Records Are Kept for Required Time Period
M Electronic records are retained in electronic format
iZ
Paper records are either retained in paper format or scanned and retained in electronic format accordif lg to Washington State
Archives' scan & toss requirements
il Records remain accessible throughout the entirety of their retention periods
!* Electronic records are migrated to new formats as needed
ll Safeguards are in place to protect against acciderrtal or delil:erate destruction of records
i..i other please expiain
Records Are Destroyed or Transferred
l-.i Records are destroyed or transferred to the Washington State Archives at the end of their retention perioc{s
i-l Records are destroyed or transferred as part of a planned and systematic process
l; Other, please explain
The City's Records Administrator is coordinating the systematic process to destroy or transfer records at the end of their retention
periods.
Disaster Preparedness
l.l Essential records are identified
l.l Agencycreatesback-upsof essential recordsonaroutine,systematicbasis
l-l Ability to restore from back-up flles is tested/checked regulaily
Sl Other, please explain
The City's Records Administrator is in the process of identi{ying essential records, creating back-ups, and test;ng the ability to restore
from backups.
MgtfiC 2 Upon passage of HB 1667, this metric will be elimintated.
Average time to respond to public records requests. Ciigk here for guidance related to Metric 2.
Average time to respond
Total number of business days to respond to all requests
Lc476
Total number of requests for which a five-day acknowledgment letter was sent out after the five-day period expired
3
Average response time in days (calculated)
7.4
MgtfiC 3 Upon passage of HB !667, this metric will be eliminated.
Percent of requests completed within five days of receipt and the percent of requests where an estimated response time beyond five
days is provided. fliqk..hefe for guidance related to Metric 3.
Percent of requests completed within 5 days
Number of requests closed wlthin 5 days of request
1165
Number of requests where an estimated response time beyond 5 days was provided
184
Number of requerts fulfilled within 5 days but had lnsufficient delivery info
0
Percentage of requests completed within 5 days (calculated)
837
Percentage of requests for estimates greater than 5 days (calculated)
13%
MetfiC 4 Upon passage of HB 1667, this metric will be eliminated.
Average number of days from receipt of request to the date of final disposition of request. €lick here for guidance related to Metric 4.
Average number of days from receipt to final disposition
Number of requests with final disposition
1465
Number of days to final disposition
10476
Average number of days to flnal disposition {calculated)
7.2
Metric 5
Average time estimate provided for full disclosure compared to average actual time to provide full disclosure. eiigLlell! for guidance
related to Metric 5.
Average time estimate provided compared to average actual time
Number of requests where the agency's initial response provided an estimate of when full disclosurc would be provided
1400
Average days estimated for full disclosure
5
Average actual days to provlde full disclosure
Metric 6
Number of public records requests for which the agency formally sought additional clarification frorn the reguester. Cliqkiere for
guidance related to Metric 6.
,,|
Number of requests for which additional clarification was sought
Number of requests with additional clarification sought
159
Metric 7 Y,'I2"lEZ'fffrE ]3TiTnT#T#:.l,uu"
tn" ro'.wins
'ansuase
added:
Number of requests denied and the most common reasons for denying requests. Click here for guidance related to Metric 7
Number of requests denied
Number of closed requests that were denied in full
36
Number of closed reports that were partially denied or redacted
284
Please provide the 5 to 10 most common reasons for denying requests during this reporting period
Reason 1
Driver's License # or Registered Owner Info in Police File
Reason 2
Social Security Number
Reason 3
Juvenvile Offender
Reason 4
Child Victim of a Sex Crime
Reason 5
Child Victim or Witness to Any Crime
Reason 5
WACIC/N CIC Data base Information
Reason 7
AttorneylClient - Priviledged Communication
Reason 8
Attorney Work Product / Work Product Privilege
Reason 9
Medical Records within a Police File
Reason 10
Jail Records
Metric 8
Number of requests abandoned by requesters. Click here for guidance related to Metric 8.
Number of requests abandoned by requesters
Numberof neguests abandoned by requetters
L02
Click here for guidance related to Metric 9.
Number of requests, by type of requesters
Requester type Other (please explaln)
Individuals
Law firms
Organizations
lnsurers
Governments
Media
Total requests
733
L92
335
T2
111
15
for guidance
related to Metric 10.
Percent of requests fulfilled electronically compared to percent fulfilled by physical records
Number of rcquesE fulfilled electronically
1059
Number of requestr fulfllled by phyrlcal records
62
Number of requests fulfllled by electronlc and physlcal records
17
Numbor of r€quests closed wlth no reeponsive rccords
327
Percent of requests fulfilled olectronically (calculated)
72%
Percent of requests fulfllled by phyrlcal recordr (calculated)
4o/o
Percentofrequestsfulfllled byelectronicand physical records (calculated)
!o1o
Percent of requests closed with no responsive recolds (calculated)
22o/o
Metric LL
Number of requests where one or more physical records were scanned to create an electronic version to fulfill disclosure. Click_here for
guidance related to Metric 11.
Number of requests where records were scanned
Requests scanned
90
Metric L2
Average estimated stafftime spent on each public records request. Click here for guidance related to Metric L2
Average estimated staff time spent on each request
Estimated total staff time in hours
3151
Average estimated staff time in hours per request (calculated)
2
Metric l-3
Estimated total costs incurred by the agency in fulfilling records requests, including staff compensation and legal review and average
cost per request. Click herg for guidance related to Metric 13.
Estimated total costs incurred
Estimated total cost
$181,754
Average estimated cost per requeit (calculated)
$120.85
Metric 14
Number of claims filed alleging a violation of Chapter 42.56 or other public records statutes during the repofting period, categorized by
type and exemption at issue (if applicable), Click here for guidance related to Metric 14.
Number of claims filed alleging a violation of Chapter 42.56 RCW
There were no claims filed alleging a violation of Chapter 42.56 RCW.
Metric L5
Costs incurred by the agency litigating claims alleging a viotation of Chapter 42.56 RCW or other public records statutes during the
reporting period, including any penalties imposed on the agency. Qisk_hge for guidance related to Metric L5.
Costs incurred litigating claims alleging a violation of Chapter 42.56 RCW
Total litigation costs
$o
N/af rir 1 6 With passage of HB 1667, the following language will be eliminated from this metric: 'br
I Y rv Lr rv tv otherwise assifi in the fulfillment of the public records requests."
Estimated costs incurred by the agency with managing and retaining records, including staff compensation and purchases of equipment,
hardware, software, and ssryices to manage and retain public records or otherwise assist in the fulfillment of public records requests.
Qick here for guidance related to Metric 16.
Estimated costs incurred managing and retaining records
Cost of agency staff who managelretain records
s222,038
Cost of systems that manage,/retain records
$L27,77e
Cost of services purchased for managing/retaining records
$15,371
Cost of systems/services for fulfillment of records requests
$9,731
Total estimated cost for managing and retaining records (calculated)
$374,259
Metric 17
Expenses recovered by the agency from requesters for fulfilling public records requestt including any customized charges. Click here for
guidance related to Metric 17.
Expenses recovered from requesters
Total Expenses Recovered Customized Service Charges Description of Service Charges
$7s0
MgtfiC L8 Upon passage of HB 1667, this metric will be eliminated.
Measures of requester satisfaction with agency responses, communication, and process relating to the fulfillment of public records
requests, Cliek here for guidance related to Metric 18.
Requester satisfaction
Measures of Customer Satisfaction
By the complaints and compliments r€ceived.
Methods of Collecting Data
Responses received through the public disclosure portal.
RCW 42.56.O30
Construction,
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in
delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and
what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control
over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exem ns narrowly
construed to romote this blic policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully
[ 2OO7 c 197 $ 2; 2OO5 c 274 E 283; L992 c 139 g 2. Formerly RCW 42.17.251.]
RCW 42.56.010
Definitions,
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires
otherwise.
(1) "ngency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. "State agency" includes every state
office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency. "Local agency" includes every
county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district, or any office,
department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other locat public agency.
(2) "eerson in interest" means the person who is the subject of a record or any representative
designated by that person, except that if that person is under a legal disability, "person in interest" means and
includes the parent or duly appointed legal representative.
(3) "euOtic record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or
the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or
local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the
office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in
@alsomeansthefollowing:Allbudgetandfinancialrecords;personnellbave,travel,and
payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record
designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives. This definition
does not include records that are not otherwise required to be retained by the agency and are held by volunteers
who:
(a) Oo not serve in an administrative capacity;
(b) Have not been appointed by the agency to an agency board, commission, or internship; and
(C) Oo not have a supervisory role or delegated agency authority.
(4) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other
means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words,
pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes,
photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs,
drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which
information may be obtained or translated.
l2OL7 c 303 5 1; 2O1O c 204 $ 1OO5; 2OO7 c 197 5 1; 2OO5 c 274 5 101.1
RCW 40.14.100
Legislative records-Defined
As used in RCW 40.14.010 and 4O,14.1OO through 40.14.180, unless the context requires otherwise,
"legislative records" shall be defined as correspondence, amendments, reports, and minutes of meetings made by
or submitted to legislative committees or subcommittees and transcripts or other records of.hearings or
supplementary written testimony or data thereof filed with committees or subcommittees in connection with the
exercise of legislative or investigatory functions,n official act of the
legislature kept by the secretary of state, bills and their copies, published materials, digests, or multi-copied
matter which are routinely retained and otherwise available at the state library or in a public
, \1 l:rl.l:,:'.,1,:i .. r r iii.ri II
1, i ,l 'l'
I L97L ex.s. c 1O2 5 2.1
A''City of Kent
JLARC Reporting Jor 2OL7 - Metric 7
ITEM #Most Common Reasons for Denying Requests or Portions of Requests
l.a DOL - Driver's License Number - Police. This document contains a driver's license number that was provided to law
enforcement in the course of its investigation, which has been redacted under RCW 42.56,240(L), RCW 42.56.050, and
RCW 42.56.230(5). Nondisclosure of this information is essential to protect the subject person's right to privacy. A
person's right to privacy is violated if disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate
concern to the public. By producing all other records and redacting only the subject person's driver's license number
from the identified document, any legitimate public concern that exists is satisfied, while the person's right to privacy and
protection from identity theft is preserved.
1.b Vehicle - Individual Reoistered or Leoal Owner. RCW 46.12.635 and 18 USC 9272L, applicable to public records
requests through RCW 42.56.070, provide that the name or address of an individual vehicle owner when obtained from
state motor vehicle records is exempt from public disclosure. The identified document contains this protected information,
which has been redacted or withheld as indicated.
2.Social SecuriW Number. This document contains a person's social security number, which is exempt from public
disclosure under RCW 42.56.230(5), RCW 42.56.070, and 42 USC 5 405. Social security numbers have therefore been
redacted from the identified document.
3.Child - Criminal Offender - Juvenile Offense - Reouester Not Victim. Together RCW 42.56.070 and RCW
13.50.050 provide that juvenile offender information may be released only when that information could not reasonably
be expected to identify the juvenile offender or the juvenile offender's family. This exemption applies even when the
parent of the juvenile offender requests the record. There is an exception when the information is requested by the
juvenile offender's victim. Because the requestor is not identified in the police report as the victim or the victim's
immediate family, the identifying information of the juvenile offender and his/her family has been redacted from the
identified document. The City will release the records in full upon the receipt of a properly issued Subpoena Duces Tecum.
4.Child - Victim of Sexual Assault Crime. RCW 42.56.240(5) provides that information revealing the identity of child
victims of sexual assault is exempt from disclosure. "Identifying information" is defined as the child victim's name,
address, location, photograph, and in cases in which the child victim is a relative or stepchild of the alleged perpetrator,
identification of the relationship between the child and the alleged perpetrator. This protected information has therefore
been redacted from the identified documents.
5 Child - Victim or Witness to a General Crime. Together, RCW 42.56.070 and RCW 7.69A.030(4) provide that the
names, addresses, and photographs of a living child victim or witness to a crime are exempt from disclosure unless the
child's parent or guardian consents to disclosure, and such information has been redacted from the identified documents.
If the requester can obtain the necessary consent, please provide clarification and the Public Records Administrator will
reconsider application of this exemption.
6.a WA Access Database-Non-Conviction Data-Requester is NOT the Subiect of the Data.
(ACCESS/NCIC/III/WACIC/ WASIS/DOL - See also "DOL - Driving Abstracts'l. Collectively, RCW 42.56.070, RCW
10.97.050, RCW 10.97.030, RCW 10.97.080, RCW 43.43.710, 5 USC g 552a(b), 28 USC 5 534, 28 CFR 5 16.96, 28 CFR
s 20.30, 28 CFR 5 20.33, 28 CFR 520.34, RCW 46.12.635, RCW 42.56.24O(L), RCW 46.20.118(1), 18 USC S 272L, L8
USC 5 2725, provide that non-conviction data contained on a criminal history record, and other information law
enforcement obtains from the Washington State Patrol's ACCESS database, which links data from various states'
Departments of Licensing (DOL), state and federal law enforcement agencies, and the federal NCIC (National Crime
Information Center) system (including data from III (Interstate Identification Index)), cannot be released to third-parties.
In addition, RCW 42.56.240(1) provides that specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled
by law enforcement are also exempt from disclosure to the extent nondisclosure is essential to effective law enforcement
or to protect any person's right to privacy. Disclosure of information law enforcement obtained from the Washington
State Patrol's ACCESS database in violation of federal or state law will result in the Kent Police Department losing its
database access and violates the privacy of the subject of the record. The nondisclosure of this information, and
compliance with state and federal law, is essential to effective law enforcement and to preserve the subject person's right
to privacy. For atl of these reasons, and because the requestor is not the subject of the record, Washington state non-
conviction data, and information obtained from the ACCESS database, including data from the federal NCIC system and
personal information from various states' DOL systems (DOL photos, social security numbers, drivers' license numbers,
names, addresses (but not zip codes), phone numbers, and disability information), has either been redacted or withheld
as indicated.
6.b WA Access Database-Non-Conviction Data-Requester IS Subiect of the Data.
(ACCESS/NCIC/III/WACIC/WASIS/DOL-See also "DOL - Drivino Abstracts"). Collectively, RCW 42.56.070, RCW
10.97.050, RCW 10.97.030, RCW 10.97.080, RCW 43.43.7tO,28 USC S 534, 28 CFR 5 16.96, 28 CFR 20.30, 28 CFR
20.33, 28 CFR 20.34, and RCW 42.56.240(t) provide that the subject of a criminal history record maintained by an
agency may have access to both conviction and non-conviction data maintained by that agency. A complete copy of the
subject's Washington criminal history record can only be obtained through the Washington State Patrol, which will require
submission of the subject's fingerprints. However, information obtained from the federal NCIC (National Crime
Information Center) system, including data from the III (Interstate Identification Index), is exempt from production,
including to the subject of the record. To obtain records from this federal system, the subject of the record must follow
the procedures available under federal law, for example, the process provided for by 28 CFR 5 20.34 and 28 CFR 5 16.30
- L6.34. In addition, RCW 42.56.240(1) provides that specific intelligence information and specific investigative records
compiled by law enforcement are also exempt from disclosure to the extent nondisclosure is essential to effective law
enforcement. RCW 43.43.710 prohibits agencies from disclosing information they obtained from the Washington State
Patrol's ACCESS database. Disclosinq such information in violation of federal or state law can result in the Kent Police
1
./x\/ KENT
City of Kent
JTARC Reporting for 2OI7 - Metric 7
ITEM #Most Common Reasons for Denying Requests or Poftions of Requests
6.b
(continued)
Department losing its database access, which access is essential and necessary for police officers to perform their duties.
The nondisclosure of this information, and compliance with state and federal law, is essential to effective law enforcement
to preserve the department's access to this vital information. For all of these reasons, the City has produced to the
requester, who is the subject of the identified record: (1) the requester's conviction data for the State of Washington, (2)
the requester's non-conviction data that is maintained and updated by the Kent Police Department, but (3) redacted all
information obtained from the federal NCIC system concerning the requester, including records from the III, and all non-
conviction data and out of state conviction information that is obtained from ACCESS and not maintained by Kent. The
requester must seek this information through the Washington State Patrol, upon verification of his identity, which may
include the submission of fingerprints.
7 Attornev-Client Privileoed Communication. RCW 42.56.290, RCW 42.56.070, and RCW 5.60.060(2), collectively
provide that attorney-client privileged communications are exempt from public disclosure. This document is protected
attorney-client privileged communication because it is communication between clients, legal counsel , and/or agents for
the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. Such privileged communication has therefore been redacted or
withheld as indicated. The document was withheld in its entirety if redaction would not sufficiently protect the privilege,
such as if a document was emailed and exchanged in the course of such privileged communication.
I Attornev Work Product/Work Product Privileoe. RCW 42.56.290 provides that records relevant to a controversy
are exempt from public disclosure if they would not be disclosable to an opposing party under the civil rules of discovery.
"Work product", created during litigation or in reasonable anticipation of litigation, is not subject to disclosure under the
rules of discovery. The identified documents are "work product" and may consist of communication, drafts, notes,
memoranda, research, or other documents that contain factual information, mental impressions, research, legal theories,
opinions, and conclusions; were not prepared in the ordinary course of business; and were prepared, collected, or
assembled by an attorney, the client, or an agent of the attorney or client for litigation or in reasonable anticipation of
litigation. As work product, these documents are exempt from public disclosure because they would not be disclosable
to an opposing party under the civil rules of discovery. Accordingly, privileged work product has been redacted or withheld
as indicated. If redaction would not sufficiently protect the privilege, the entire record was withheld.
9 Medical Records - Police. This document is a medical record or contains medical information that was obtained by law
enforcement in its investigation and is exempt from disclosure to protect the subject person's right to privacy as provided
for by RCW 42.56.240(L); RCW 42.56.050; RCW 42.56.O7O; RCW 70.02.005(4); and RCW 70.02.020. A person's right
to privacy is violated if disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the
public. The state legislature has provided that the public policy of this state is that a patient's interest in the privacy of
their medical information survives even when that information is held by persons other than health care providers. By
producing all other records and withholding only the subject person's medical records, identified treatment provider, or
other medical information, any legitimate public concern that may exist is satisfied, while the subject person's right to
privacy is preserved.
10.Jail Records - EXCLUDING Jail Reoister. RCW 42.56.070 and RCW 70.48.100 provide that jail records may only be
released in limited circumstances (consent of subject person, order of the court). The identified documents are records
of a person confined in jail, and absent receipt of the subject person's consent or court order issued under RCW 70.48.100,
they have been withheld from disclosure. If the requester is one of the persons to whom the subject inmate's jail records
are authorized to be released to under RCW 70.48.100, please provide clarification and the Public Records Administrator
will reconsider application of this exemption.
2
Youth Update 2019
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC
1/31/2019
“We have a powerful potential in our youth, and we must have
the courage to change old ideas and practices so that we may
direct their power toward good ends.”
-Mary Mcleod Bethune
1/31/2019
Community Input
•130 youth survey responses
•3 youth forums
•11 key informant interviews
•21 organization survey responses
•1 Safety Forum
•160 individuals participated in Kent
Service Providers Network meetings
•19 Core team members met monthly
1/31/2019
A look at past efforts
•Kent At Risk Community Council
(became Kent Communities in
Schools)
•South King County Youth Violence
Prevention Committee, led by
former Chief of Police Ed Crawford
•Lighthouse –Late Night Program
•King County Youth Action Plan
•Kent Best Starts
1/31/2019
National to Local
•Conducted a review of national,
regional and local reports
•Utilized national and local research in
what works to improve youth outcomes
1/31/2019
Big Picture Approach
Works at multiple levels –from top leadership groups to neighborhood coalitions
Aligning structures, goals and strategies.
Assuring mutually reinforcing interventions.
Assessing through shared measurements.
1/31/2019
The Big Picture Approach
Guides leaders through the steps while adhering to these guidelines:
Take a whole person or whole family perspective.
Promote alignment with other community actors, across silos.
Focus on local diagnoses of root causes and on broad
systems change.
Address immediate problems as part of an aspirational
strategy for long-term well-being.
1/31/2019
“Youth should be at the center of informing programs and policies that impact them.” (Stakeholder interviews and focus groups)
Glover Empowered Mentoring held 3 forums to hear directly from Youth about their experiences in Kent.
132 Surveys from Youth in Kent were collected.
Research shows that involvement in youth organizing contributes to the social-emotional and academic development of young people in powerful ways, while also promoting their civic engagement. (Transforming Young People and Communities, Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing)
Youth Voice
1/31/2019
Why Us and Why Now?
The data trendspaintarichandcomplexpictureofevolvingchildandyouthwell-being in Kent.
We can no longer ignore the
disproportionality in outcomes for youth of
color in the child welfare, juvenile justice,
education, mental-health, and health-care
systems;
There are too many youth in our community
that have limited access to high quality
culturally relevant programs and services;
There are too many youth who are
disconnected from school, work and their
community, which maybe contribute to
some youth engaging in risky behaviors;
There is limited coordination between
providers and there are opportunities for
increased partnerships; and
There are unstable and underutilized
resources.1/31/2019
Core system challenges impacting youth
•Youth are not centrally involved in
developing policies and programs that
impact them.
•Silos exist between key players impacting youth.
•Mistrust exists between some communities of color and the City of Kent and the Kent School District.
•There is a lack of accessible youth-oriented
spaces in Kent and lack of accessible
transportation to existing spaces and
programs.
•The definition of public safety is too narrow.
•There is not enough funding and support for existing culturally responsive services and programs and a need to develop more.
1/31/2019
VISION
All youth in Kent have what they
need, when they need it, to be
empowered and engaged in their
community.
Priorities:
Opportunities to learn and grow
A safe neighborhood to call home
A healthy lifestyle and environment
Catalyst
to
changing
the odds
for youth
in Kent
1/31/2019
RESULTSImprove
health,
academic,
and economic
outcomes for
youth.
Youth are
engaged in
and have
positive
attachment to
community.
1/31/2019
GOALS
1/31/2019
Build on and
expand existing
partnerships,
programs and
services for
young people
and coordinate
public and
private programs
to better serve
our young
people.
Children, youth
and families
access and
actively
participate in high
quality, culturally
responsive, and
engaging
programs that
promote positive
child, youth and
family
development.
Promote safe and
supportive
environments that
foster healthy
youth and families.
Youth access and
continue to utilize
effective resources
to support their
positive
development and
ability to fully
participate in
community life.
Recommendations to build a sustainable structure
Establish a Leadership Roundtable Establish
Develop processes to ensure Youth Voice Develop
Continue the work of the Core Team Continue
Promote effective city-school collaboration Promote
Continue to expand the Youth Providers NetworkContinue
1/31/2019
•Keeping the collaborative moving along, focus on systems level work, and support aligned strategies;
•Cultivating community engagement and ownership;
•Connecting and brokering relationships between business and cultural organizations;
•Connecting to regional youth-focused efforts;
•Providing staff support to the Core Team, Youth Leadership Core Team, Provider Network and workgroups;
•Hosting the Youth Initiative on the City’s website; and
•Strengthening internal relationships between departments serving or engaged in improving youth outcomes. An internal team including Police, Human Services, Recreation, Human Resources and the Mayor’s Office has been meeting.
City Role
1/31/2019
“We have a powerful potential in our youth, and we must have
the courage to change old ideas and practices so that we may
direct their power toward good ends.”
-Mary Mcleod Bethune
QUESTIONS and Discussion
1/31/2019
1/31/2019
Data and other information
1/31/2019 Source: OSPI, 2018
Graduation rate - 80.5%
Youth of Color - 65%
Free/Reduced Price Meals - 48%
Transitional Bilingual - 20%
Special Education - 11%
Experiencing Homeless -2%
27,916 Students
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
American Indian
Asian and Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White
Black
Referrals to PAO-480 Youth
SOURCE: 2016 JUVENILE JUSTICE REFERRALS. KING COUNTY OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE, WA.
1/31/2019
Youth In Foster Care
Youth in foster care drop out of school at alarmedly high rates: fewer than half of youth in foster care graduate on time.
Nearly 25% of those living in foster care will
become homeless as adults;
33% lie below the poverty line; and they will
receive public benefits at five times the
national rate
During the last 15 years, 82% of all Kent youth
who entered foster care were removed from
their families and community and placed
outside of Kent.
1/31/2019
Youth in Gangs
•Self-reports of gang membership among 8th grade youth was higher than the state average in all LINC districts except for Renton and Tukwila, with the highest rate reported in Kent.
•Among 10th grade youth statewide, 5 percent of youth self-identified as a gang-member (in 2016), with this percentage higher in both Federal Way and Kent.
•In Kent, more than one-in-ten 10th grade youth admitted to being in a gang.
*Data from the 2016 Healthy Youth Survey
LINC –a program of Center for Children and Youth Justice, focus in Highline, Tukwila, Renton, Federal Way, Auburn, Kent, Bellevue and Seattle.
1/31/2019
Investments
City of Kent
•City Human Services General Fund $140,000 Early Childhood and $192,500
Youth Programming
•Youth Board –Game of Life and other public events
•Recreation Programs
•Space for King County Programs like FIRS or other programs –Youth LINC
King County –Best Starts
Partnerships –Credible Messenger –located in Kent and training
1/31/2019