Q&A
Q&A on interpretation of 'NA' responses in Local Law 35 reports
1:31:46
·
92 sec
Council Member Jennifer Gutiérrez questions Alex Foard from OTI about the interpretation of 'NA' responses in Local Law 35 reports. They discuss the ambiguity of these responses and OTI's plans to improve reporting clarity.
- 'NA' could mean either no response or not applicable
- OTI is working on better standardization of response types to reduce ambiguity
- Agencies may not be legally able to disclose certain information due to other legal obligations
- 'NA' could potentially indicate an in-house created tool
- OTI is developing a 'style guide' to ensure clearer reporting in the future
Jennifer Gutiérrez
1:31:46
Thank you.
1:31:48
Local Lot 35 requires listing a list of vendors that developed ADS tools used by city agencies, and the reports, including in the 2022 report of a vendor in at least 1 or 2 occasion, is identified as as NA.
1:32:04
Can is that what Is that no answer?
Alex Foard
1:32:07
So NA could either mean that there was no response to that question, right, or that it was not applicable.
1:32:14
One of that's an example of where we're trying to include better standardization of response types so that we can make sure that there's no ambiguity about that.
1:32:22
But as I mentioned earlier, there are instances where agencies may not be legally able to disclose a piece of information.
1:32:28
I'm not saying it's just the vendor 1.
1:32:30
It could be a different piece of information about a tool that's governed by a different framework governs the disclosure of that information, and local law 35 does not ask agencies to violate any other legal obligations that they may have.
Jennifer Gutiérrez
1:32:43
Okay.
1:32:43
I can understand that.
1:32:44
Are there instances where if it's created in house that that would read as NA, or is it specifically
Alex Foard
1:32:51
That would be possible.
1:32:52
So, again, we're building out, I think, you would call it more like a style guide to make sure that there's no ambiguity in that reporting.
1:32:59
In previous years, it could have meant that there is either a no vendor or maybe they didn't have information.
Jennifer Gutiérrez
1:33:03
I think so.
1:33:04
I think the reporting for DOE, if I'm not mistaken, were it said NA.
1:33:08
I think it had that caveat, but I think in other instances.
Alex Foard
1:33:11
We're happy to take a look to
Jennifer Gutiérrez
1:33:13
make sure that it's made.
Alex Foard
1:33:13
Yeah.
1:33:13
That the information that's being reported is of as much value as it can be.
