Office of Information Practices

S Memo 25-06
June 5, 2025
Anonymous Testimony

OIP found that based on (1) the Council’s prior interactions with Requester, (2) Requester’s lack of objection to being identified by his real name in previous meetings while using the same screen names, and (3) the absence of any advance notice that Requester wished to testify anonymously prior to the second time he was called on to testify during the meeting, that the Council acted reasonably in assuming that Requester did not intend to remain anonymous until Requester informed the Council otherwise.  OIP also found that once Requester informed the Council of his preference for anonymity, the Council accommodated that request.  OIP therefore concluded that the Council did not prevent Requester from providing testimony anonymously and did not violate the Sunshine Law.