body,date,page,text,path
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2016 7:00 P.M.
Acting Chair Foreman convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Dieter, Tuazon, and Acting Chair
Foreman - 3.
Absent:
Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Minutes of the October 14, 2015 Meeting
Commissioner Dieter moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]
3-B. Consider Further Revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance Amendments
Acting Chair Foreman outlined the packet documents; inquired how the Commission
should review the items.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the City Council concurred with the changes that
the Commission made with the exception of the items identified in the staff report.
Acting Chair Foreman stated there are four items: 1) use of electronic communication
devices; 2) submitting comments when a policy body member is not present at a
meeting; City staff disagreed with the Commission's recommendations on said two
items; 3) requiring all City Council meetings to be live streamed; and 4) responding to
public records requests.
The Assistant City Attorney stated there is also an item about public comments by
members of policy bodies and opinions of public concern; with respect to the use of
electronic communication devices, staff recommended a rule that the Council thought
would prevent use of any type of device except iPads or laptops when accessing
agenda materials; the Commission felt the provision was too restrictive and thought that
there should be a little more leeway; the City Council agreed; staff has divided the item
into three parts: 1) when a policy body is considering a general legislative matter, the
use of devices would be strongly discouraged, but not prohibited; 2) when the policy
body is considering a quasi-judicial matter, electronic communication devices would be
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 1, 2016
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,2,"prohibited except for accessing agenda materials; and 3) not withstanding those
admonitions, devices could be used for innocuous purposes, such as a calculator,
looking up a date or contacting a family member; the provision would be largely self-
policing.
Acting Chair Foreman provided a handout; stated after he reviewed the October Council
staff report, which rejected the Commission's more liberal approach, he took it upon
himself to attend the Council meeting and defend the Commission's language; he also
presented his personal view that the language should be even broader, should not tie
into devices, and should address what is prohibited; suggested the language at the
bottom of his handout; stated the language does not say what can be done, rather it
says what cannot be done with devices; the only thing that should be prohibited is
receiving or sending private communications about the meeting; outlined the City
Council discussion from the minutes; stated the majority of the Council provided
direction to staff; however, staff has come up with something that is almost directly
contradictorily to what at least three Councilmembers want; he has drafted a paragraph
in line with what a majority of Council requested; he talked with the Assistant City
Attorney who raised the issue of quasi-judicial matters; provided the example of the
Commissions' quasi-judicial complaint hearing; stated the complainant and public have
a right to see everything Commissioners consider in making a decision; suggested a
two tier system: one for general legislative matters and one for quasi-judicial matters;
stated his recommendation is much shorter and does not provide the rationale.
Commissioner Dieter provided a handout; stated that she listened to the City Council
discussion; everyone agrees the purpose of the provision is to prohibit communicating
electronically with others during meetings because of the appearance it gives; rather
than spelling out all of the different allowable scenarios, the provision should be kept
general and say what members should do; the language could be even shorter than
Acting Chair Foreman's suggestion; the first original sentence could be retained and
rather than staff's proposed language, one sentence could cover everything; the
sentence would be: ""therefore communicating electronically with others during meetings
is prohibited;"" it is not necessary to tell anybody using a device is allowed if there is an
emergency; the language can be streamlined a little bit more to achieve the purpose.
In response to Acting Chair Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated her
understanding is the provision's purpose is to have members not communicate with
each other; members should be paying attention to what's being done; using an
electronic device to look up a word is fine; communicating gives a bad appearance.
The City Clerk stated the Sunshine Task Force included the provision because they did
not want somebody to not go on record publicly and try to influence the decision makers
during the meeting; communication is what the Task Force honed in on.
Commissioner Dieter stated the Sunshine Ordinance just states do not communicate on
electronic devices while at the dais, which covers everything and is very simple.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 2, 2015
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,3,"Commissioner Tuazon stated the matter is common sense; the public wants 100%
attention; questioned why members would be communicating with someone else.
Commissioner Dieter stated that is the whole point.
Acting Chair Foreman stated everyone agrees on said matter.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the language suggested by Acting Chair Foreman or
Commissioner Dieter certainly works; the Mayor has asked on a couple occasions
whether or not she can use an electronic device calendar or calculator and is wondering
whether language should be added to indicate that there is an exception for innocuous
use, such as a calendar, calculator, or communicating with a family member; not
allowing innocuous use would prohibit calling a spouse; language does not have to be
added; he could indicate to Council that it is understood and implicit, but he questions
whether it should be expressed.
Commissioner Dieter stated it is expressed in the first part.
Acting Chair Foreman stated he has a problem with the first sentence.
Commissioner Dieter stated the first is not her language, which was already there.
In response to Acting Chair Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated that she is
suggesting a sentence in place of the language provided by staff.
Acting Chair Foreman stated he does not want the first sentence included.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether Acting Chair Foreman would like to eliminate the
whole provision and start from scratch.
Acting Chair Foreman responded the reason he is opposed is that he does not agree
with it at all; stated he made that point to Council and convinced three of them that in
this day and age, the use of electronic communication devices does not lead to the
public perception that a member is receiving information, everybody uses devices all the
time;
Commissioner Dieter's language regarding prohibiting electronically
communication with others during meetings creates the exact problem that the Assistant
City Attorney and the Mayor have referenced; his language includes that members are
prohibited from sending or receiving business related emails, texts and instant
messages during the meeting; members would be allowed to email a spouse or family
member and could use electronic devices for anything other than communicating with
others regarding business related matters; said language is what is missing.
Commissioner Dieter stated the language is not missing.
Acting Chair Foreman stated he does not like the first part.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 1, 2016
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,4,"Commissioner Dieter stated that she is open to scratching the entire thing and starting
over; she tried to rewrite the provision; the language already addresses receiving
information relative to the subject matter at hand.
The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the two suggestions could be combined;
stated language could state: in order to ensure that all communications to policy board
members presented in a public meeting are shared with the public, communicating
electronically with others during public meetings is prohibited when pertaining to the
business thereof.
Commissioner Dieter and Acting Chair Foreman stated said language is fine.
Acting Chair Foreman stated the Commission agrees on the language except he still
thinks separate language is needed for quasi-judicial proceedings.
Commissioner Dieter stated that she does not think that the general public will know
what quasi-judicial means.
Acting Chair Foreman stated that he is not concerned about the general public not
knowing; the term can be explained; the important thing is the City has to let
Councilmembers know that they cannot refer to anything that is not in public view at a
quasi-judicial hearing.
Commissioner Dieter stated she has no problem if someone wants to look up a word.
The Assistant City Attorney stated a conditional use permit would be a good example; if
somebody applies to sell liquor at a gas station, a conditional use permit would be
needed and would come before the Planning Board; if the use is denied, the applicant
would have to appeal the matter to the City Council.
Acting Chair Foreman stated the applicant has no idea what the Councilmember is
checking; the applicant has the right to know everything being considered in a quasi-
judicial proceeding.
Commissioner Dieter stated the problem lies with communicating to outside people
which is the intent behind the provision; anyone can be at home and look up anything
so nothing would be hidden from the public; the main issue is not having people
communicate with others.
Commissioner Tuazon stated that he feels strongly about it; members need to give
100% of their attention; outside communication should be prohibited; noted that he does
not have a cell phone or laptop.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether Commissioner Tuazon would have a problem
with a Councilmember looking something up on the Internet while at the dais to help in
making a decision or become more informed.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 2, 2015
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,5,"Acting Chair Foreman stated a Councilmember might want to look at a Google map
regarding rezoning a piece of land.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether Commission Tuazon would be offended by said
Councilmember.
Commissioner Tuazon responded in the affirmative; stated homework should be done in
advance.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired about the Assistant City Attorney's view on the quasi-
judicial issue; further inquired whether he is being too legalistic.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that he thinks the way the first sentence has
been redrafted is probably broad enough to cover the quasi-judicial issue; in an
abundance of caution, language could be added; however, in the staff report to Council,
he could indicate that implicit in the language is honoring the notion that quasi-judicial
matters have to be observed.
The Commissioners expressed consensus.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he understands the introductory non-substantive
sentence would be deleted.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired what section the Assistant City Attorney is referring to.
The Assistant City Attorney responded Section 2-91.4H; stated the sentence would
state: in order to ensure that all communications to policy board members presented in
a
public meeting are shared with the public, members are prohibited from
communicating electronically with others during public meetings that pertain to the
business thereof.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether staff would go to the Commission or Council, to
which the Assistant City Attorney responded based on the outcome tonight, he will
prepare an agenda report that will go to Council that would reflect the Commission
direction.
Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is regarding submitting comments when a
policy body member is not present at a meeting.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission discussed the matter before and felt
comfortable that if a member was not present at a meeting, the member should not be
able to submit comments on the item; the City Council did not agree and directed that
the prohibition be deleted; it has been deleted, but the Commission has the discretion
to
add the item back.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 1, 2016
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,6,"Commissioner Dieter stated that she is fine with the City Council's recommendation;
she listened to their deliberation and it made sense to her.
The Commissioners expressed consensus.
Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is requiring all City Council meetings to be
live streamed.
The Assistant City Attorney stated live steaming is a new issue that came up as a result
of a rent control meeting; the matter became an issue regarding not being able to move
the meeting location because of the inability to live stream; the public safety issue
needed to be addressed; the idea was to bring some amendments to the Commission
to allow for relocating a meeting even though the proceedings could not be live
streamed; hopefully, these situations will be few and far between; public safety has to
be paramount to live streaming; the audio and video would be recorded and available,
but the meeting would not be live streamed.
Commissioner Dieter stated that she read the matter over and had a question at the
very beginning; the ordinance states meetings shall be audio or video recorded; she
does not know whether it should actually say live streamed recorded; it is fine the way it
is; her recommendation to make it a little shorter has been provided to the Assistant City
Attorney; rather than spelling out due to the nature of the item or items under
discussion, one sentence should read: meetings held outside City Hall may not be
available via live streaming; instead of spelling out audio and video every time, it should
just say all recordings will be archived; that she looked back at the minutes from a year
ago and understands why archiving for 10 years was used; when storage becomes an
issue, the matter might come back to the Commission; right now, the matter is not an
issue; 10 years should be changed to indefinitely.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired how the City Clerk feels about the recommended
changes, to which the City Clerk responded the way that technology and storage
capacity is going, videos will probably be kept indefinitely; stated the City is under
contract; all data is kept on a server; the City pays a fee; there are backups if anything
happens to the data; suggested adding: a minimum of 10 years and potentially
indefinitely based on storage capacity.
Commissioner Dieter stated that including both is confusing to the public; if the City is
trying to communicate that things would not be deleted, just say indefinitely, so the
public knows that they can check with the City Clerk to find something; if it becomes
a
problem, it can be addressed at that time; this is the City's history; it is important that the
public be able to view the archives in the future; that she feels very strongly about the
matter; no one knows how a historical reference could impact something down the road
or whether someone might want to understand the history of something; it is important
to strive for indefinitely until it becomes a problem.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 2, 2015
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,7,"Acting Chair Foreman stated the only problem he has with the issue is that the matter
was brought up because of the problem of moving the meeting; nobody has asked the
Commission to change the archive section; when the Commission went over the entire
Code, the decision was to leave in 10 years; that he is not saying the issue should not
be reviewed; however, he questions whether this is the time to do so; a separate
section addresses keeping records; the Commission reviewed the matter and voted on
10 years; some Commissioners might have voted against it but it was kept at 10 years;
the matter was sent back to the Commission because of the live streaming issue.
The City Clerk noted Section 2-91.4C reads for a period of at least 10 years.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired about the written record, to which the Assistant City
Attorney responded the Commission talked about Section 2-92-4, which requires
documents to be posted on the website for at least four years; stated some
modifications have been made.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired where the 10 years is coming from, to which the City
Clerk responded the original ordinance.
Acting Chair Foreman stated 10 years is underlined like it is new language, inquired
whether the current section says 10 years.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the section states: the City shall
make such audio or video recordings available via live streaming, as well as archived in
a digital form, in a centralized location on the City's website within 72 hours from the
date of the hearing and for a period of at least 10 years after the date of the meeting.
Acting Chair Foreman stated the language is not new.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the idea is that 10 years would be referenced in the
following sentence.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired why the matter is being raised.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the issue of allowing meetings to be held at
places where live streaming is not available arose because of the hiccup when trying to
locate a meeting outside of City Hall.
Acting Chair Foreman stated the Commission reviewed the whole statue last year and
did not change the language; now the Commission is being asked to deal with one
issue, which is being used as a device to change other language, which he does not
necessarily disagree with.
The Assistant City Attorney stated it is incumbent on staff to bring proposed
amendments to the ordinance to the Commission's attention when issues are found;
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 1, 2016
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,8,"staff felt that it was timely to bring the matter to the Commission's attention; the
Commission can either revise the language to leave it.
Commissioner Dieter stated the Open Government Commission is here to make
revisions; nothing is ever set in stone; the Commission can always make changes;
things can always be made better; public records should be saved forever since they
contain historical information about how and why certain laws were enacted; money has
been spent on holding meetings; money should be spent to preserve meetings; history
matters; the past is a valuable primary source for future generations, which the public
will be able to see historic events as they unfolded; no one knows which decisions will
be the most valuable; being able to see the Council and those who spoke connects
future generations; that she feels very strongly that 10 years should not be used unless
storage becomes a problem for the City.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter is making a motion to
change the language, to which Commissioner Dieter responded the language should be
to what she provided.
Acting Chair Foreman called for a vote on keeping the records indefinitely, which did not
receive three affirmative votes by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Dieter
and Tauzon - 2. Abstentions: Acting Chair Foreman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner
Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]
The Assistant City Attorney stated the language would be brought to the Council with
the note that there was not a majority vote.
Acting Chair Foreman stated he would change his vote to aye, which caused the motion
to carry by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar
- 2.]
Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is public comments by members of policy
bodies and opinions of public concern.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission did not feel that there is a particular
reason to include the two sections in the ordinance, but reluctantly went along with the
language recommended by staff; Council felt that neither section is really important or
critical to the Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission and Council recommendation is that
the sections be deleted; deletion is proposed unless the Commission feels differently.
Commissioner Dieter moved approval of the City Council recommendation to delete the
sections.
Commissioner Tauzon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Commissioners Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]
Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is responding to public records requests.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 2, 2015
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,9,"The Assistant City Attorney stated the issue arose from Mr. Klein's complaint
concerning the time to respond to requests and the Sunshine Ordinance not mirroring
the timeframes under the Public Records Act (PRA) when a local agency needs longer
than 10 days; staff drafted language to delete the need to respond within three days and
added a provision to allow a reasonable extension not to exceed 14 days if the material
cannot be readily accessed or made available to the requester.
Commissioner Dieter stated she has no problem with the suggested edit.
Acting Chair Foreman stated that he thought the response period is 10 days.
The Assistant City Attorney stated 10 days is for a typical situation, but staff added
language; when there are unusual circumstances, the time to respond can be extended
which, is consistent with the PRA.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether it is under Section 2-92.2, to which the Assistant
City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated it is Subsection C.
Commissioner Dieter stated that she has a slight aversion to citing the Government
Code because the reader has to look up the Government Code to see the provision;
she is flexible; suggested adding a qualifier, such as the need to compile data from a
voluminous record; she is open if other commissioners want to have people read the
Government Code.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether a lot of extra language would need to be added,
to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he was simply trying to not be
wordy; stated the language could be added.
Acting Chair Foreman stated Commissioner Dieter has made him more conscience of
the issue; that he originally thought that the Sunshine Ordinance should be cut down
and not include parts that are redundant; however, Commissioner Dieter has convinced
him this section pertains directly to members of the public and needs to be understood;
that he does not want the public to have to refer to the Government Code.
The City Clerk stated if the Government Code changes, the Sunshine Ordinance would
be out of sync which could cause a problem and is often why only the citation is given.
Commissioner Dieter suggested including a qualifier, such as the need to compile data
from a voluminous record.
The Assistant City Attorney stated doing so is easy enough.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired if everyone is in favor.
Commissioner Tauzon stated he is in favor of the Council recommendation.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 1, 2016
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,10,"Commissioner Dieter inquired about an issue on the last page of the Sunshine
Ordinance, which is not on the agenda, regarding providing training for City employees
and officials.
The City Clerk responded training is recorded and available.
Commissioner Tauzon inquired whether every employee has to go through the training,
to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
3-C. Adopt the Annual Public Report
Acting Chair Foreman stated the Annual Public Report is posted on the City's website;
the report addresses alleged violations brought to the Commission's attention during the
previous calendar year; inquired what Commissioners think about the wording.
Commissioner Dieter responded the wording is fine; suggested adding reference to
Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-93.6.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether the Commission concurred.
Commissioner Tauzon inquired whether a report would need to be filed if there is
nothing to report, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative.
Acting Chair Foreman stated the public wants to know whether or not complaints have
been filed.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he wanted to ensure the item is responsive to
what Commissioner Dieter is looking for.
3-D. Informational Report Concerning Disclosure of Documents that have been
Determined to be Public After Previously Determined as Unavailable to the Public
Commissioner Dieter stated two relevant sections deal with City Attorney reports:
Sections 2-91.8 and 2-91.12E inquired whether a report would be presented to Council
on the Consent Calendar as a public report.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the report, which makes reference to a list of
various litigation, claims etc., goes to Council twice a year.
Commissioner Dieter stated Section 2-91.8 addresses making a determination about
whether documents can be disclosed; inquired whether the matter would also go to
Council on the Consent Calendar.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that he does not know; stated he would bring the
matter to the City Attorney's attention.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 2, 2015
10",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,11,"Commissioner Dieter stated the public would realize nothing has been declassified even
though it is required semiannually.
The Assistant City Attorney stated said matter can easily be included with the report.
Commissioner Dieter stated at least once annually, the Commission also needs to
report to the Council, in writing, any practical or policy problems encountered in the
administration of the Sunshine Ordinance; that she is wondering if the issue of
declassifying documents should be reported to the City Council; it is difficult for the
Open Government Commission to weigh in on documents being declassified because
the provision is not clear; things need to be spelled out and perhaps included in the
Sunshine Ordinance, which the Council can discuss; clarification is needed on the
criteria for disclosure, the process to determine the risk of disclosing documents, who
decides to take the risk--the Council or City Attorney, and who decides when something
can be disclosed; a mechanism needs to be put in place for community members to
request classified documents to be declassified; a Commissioner or Councilmember
might want something to be declassified; a mechanism needs to be in place for the
public to ask for something and get a response about why something may or may not
be able to be disclosed.
The City Clerk stated in the past on several occasions, the Council has voted to allow
closed session information to be disclosed; when a request is made from a member of
the public, staff will provide the legal reasoning why the information is not being
disclosed; provided an example of the recent hiring of the City Manager; stated an
explanation is given to the requestor.
Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission does not know the criteria used to judge
the matter; something should be added to the Sunshine Ordinance to make things more
transparent so that the Commission can handle complaints.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the sentence in question says: the Commission shall
report, in writing, to the City Council at least once annually about any practical or policy
problems encountered in the administration of this chapter; if the Commission wants to
identify what it sees as practical or policy problems, it is within the Commission's
jurisdiction; that he is not sure whether staff can do so; the Commission might want to
appoint an ad hoc committee to address the matter and return back to the Commission.
Acting Chair Foreman stated Commissioner Dieter has already laid out the issue;
requested that the matter be put in writing and considered at the next meeting;
questioned if spelled out in State law; stated real property transactions, contracts, and
labor agreements that take place in closed session typically end up in open session;
outlined an example of closed session information being requested on the
subcommittees set up to help Council select the new City Manager; questioned whether
there is a way to challenge the issue.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 1, 2016
11",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,12,"Commissioner Dieter added another example of when the Del Monte project was
addressed, the Council indicated the City would open itself up to litigation if the
ordinance was repealed; the ordinance was not repealed; seeing the legal reasoning
behind the matter would be interesting; it is important that the City Attorney include the
matter regarding closed session minutes in the report on the Council's Consent
Calendar.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter would draw something up
to review in October.
Commissioner Dieter responded the first thing is to have the Assistant City Attorney talk
to the City Attorney to ensure that the report on documents that are determined to be
undisclosed will be added to the Consent Calendar.
The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 2-91.8A refers to any closed session minutes
being exempt from disclosure based on whether the disclosure would be detrimental to
the City and a report should be provided to Council.
Commissioner Dieter stated the report should be on the Consent Calendar for the
public; that she would provide ideas to incorporate in a staff report for the Commission
to figure out 1) criteria for disclosure, 2) the process to determine risk, 3) who decides
the risk, and 4) a mechanism for the public.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter had a chance to talk to
the Assistant City Attorney about the fact that the Sunshine Ordinance requires that
there be a new Chair every year; stated the matter is not on the agenda; inquired how to
handle the matter.
The Assistant City Attorney responded it would probably be best to place the item on
the October agenda.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether it would be okay to wait until October to work on
the other part [disclosing documents].
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a special meeting could
be held assuming there is Commission interest and space availability.
Commissioner Dieter stated City staff has to prepare a report; disclosing documents is a
big deal in the community right now; the matter can be put on the shelf until October or
could be discussed at an earlier date.
The City Clerk stated a meeting has to be held if a complaint is filed and the item could
be added.
Commissioner Dieter stated that she hopes that a complaint is not filed.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 2, 2015
12",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,13,"The Commission agreed to wait until October.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if the report is prepared earlier and ready to go, a
meeting could take place after being noticing.
Acting Chair Foreman stated the Chair could be addressed then too.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Dieter stated part of the Commission's responsibility is to review public
notices to confirm that they conform to the requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance and
to work to improve public accessible information.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the gist is to ensure that public notices adequately
communicate what is being considered; a person off the street who may not otherwise
be interested should be able to understand the agenda.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired what should be done if something on an agenda is
ambiguous.
The City Clerk responded a Commissioner can let her know; stated summary titles have
been added as a result of people pointing out ambiguity at a past Open Government
Commission meeting; a summary title is used when a title seems legalistic and lengthy,
including multiple resolutions or actions; the summary title is in plain English; staff has
been very careful and diligent with titles.
Acting Chair Foreman stated people can get detail of by clicking on the number to the
left online; perhaps stock language should be added to the agenda item providing
instruction on how to locate details.
The City Clerk stated instructions are available in a separate document online.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 8:26
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 1, 2016
13",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2016-02-01,1,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Social Service Human Relations Board, February 1,
2016
1.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Biggs called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Present were Vice-President Williams,
and members Hyman, Sorensen, and Davenport. Absent were members Blake and Radding.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES NONE
3.
AGENDA ITEMS
3.- A ALAMEDANS TOGETHER AGAINST HATE (ATAH) WORKGROUP PLANNING MEETING
Staff provided a history of the ATAH workgroup, including activities such as members joining APD
for a trip to the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles in 2000, and playing a
leadership role in organizing a city-wide No Room for Hate in Alameda campaign in 2001. The
campaign included the City Council passing a resolution declaring Alameda ""A Hate Free City"", a
Pledge for a Hate-Free Alameda, and No Room for Hate in Alameda posters for display in
businesses, schools, City of Alameda buildings, and homes. In 2002, ATAH created a preventing
bias-motivated hate and intolerance in Alameda ""Guide to Community Action"".
Staff added that in subsequent years, the workgroup helped organize Not In Our Town screenings
at the College of Alameda, Annual Alameda Harvey Milk Day celebrations, Season For
Nonviolence activities in Alameda schools, and free screenings of BULLY, MILK, and Facing Fear,
at the Alameda Theatre & Cineplex.
The discussion that followed included considering updating the 2002 Guide to Community Action,
and looking for other opportunities to sponsor events and activities consistent with its mission.
ATAH is currently co-sponsoring Alameda's Everyone Belongs Here campaign.
Also discussed was reports of APD plans to ""evict"" homeless individuals living in encampments
near the Fruitvale Bridge and at Jean Sweeney Park, and American / Islamic relations in Alameda
following the window-breaking incident across the street from the Islamic Center. Vice-President
Williams requested staff to schedule a meeting between ATAH members and APD Chief Rolleri to
discuss these two issues.
It was agreed that ATAH should continue to support ongoing activities, and continue to meet and
discuss future plans,
A Motion was made that the SSHRB Alamedans Together Against Hate workgroup co-sponsor and
support the City of Alameda Season For Nonviolence Campaign and Alameda Harvey Milk Day
Celebration, and have a presence on the AUSD LGBTQ Roundtable, on an on-going basis.
M/S Williams/Blake Unanimous
1",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-02-01.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2016-02-01,2,"4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
NONE
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 PM.
M\S Williams / Hyman Unanimous
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz, Secretary
2",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-02-01.pdf