body,date,page,text,path
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY MARCH 1, 2021
7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz, and
Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via
Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger; Transportation Planner Lisa Foster; and
Special Counsel James Harrison, Olson Remcho]
Oral Communications
None.
Regular Agenda Items
3-A. Minutes of the February 1, 2021 Meeting
Commissioner Reid stated noted there is missing information which should be added into
the minutes.
Commissioner Shabazz stated he sent an email to the City Clerk with clarifications to the
minutes regarding: a suggestion from Mr. Garfinkle regarding information in the Annual
Report, the selection of the Chair and Vice Chair, his statement about never having all-
nighters, Commissioner Communications and a point of order.
Commissioner Reid stated she would like public comments to be preceded with a ""Public
Comment"" heading to make it clear, to which the City Clerk stated the heading can be
added to the minute format.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding Commissioner Shabazz's
correspondence being in the minutes, the City Clerk stated the correspondence would
not be included in the minutes because it is already attached to the item as part of the
record.
Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes with the clarifications.
Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,2,"3-B. Recommendation to Provide Feedback on Draft Recommendations from the
Community-Led Committee on Police Reform & Racial Justice
Commissioner Chen recused herself and left the meeting.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Chen made the decision to recuse
herself after being advised by the City Attorney's office due to a common law conflict of
interest; further clarified that due to the virtual method of the meeting, members who
recuse themselves are not participating and are not ""in the room.""
The City Clerk confirmed she is able to move recused members into a waiting room where
they are unable to hear or participate in the meeting discussion.
Commissioner Shabazz stated at a previous meeting, there was concern about ad hoc
committees; he is concerned that tonight's discussion might later be claimed to be in
violation; he wants to make sure things are being done in order and requested input from
staff on the matter.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the only item agendized is the Subcommittee
presentation; the Commission should not go beyond said scope; the item is a presentation
from Subcommittee members and not a meeting of the Subcommittee.
Chair Tilos clarified that the presentation requires no action and is being presented as an
opportunity for Commissioners to provide feedback.
Steering Committee Members in attendance: Al Mance, Christine Chilcott, and Jolene
Wright
Subcommittee Members in attendance: Amy Gong Liu, Andrea Carlise, Ayse Sercan,
Bassy Obot, Beth Kenny, Debra Mendoza, Erin Fraser, Gavin Maxwell, Heather Reed,
Jennifer Rakowski, Jono Soglin, Madlen Saddik, Melodye Montgomery, and Venecio
""Vinnie"" Camarillo.
Christine Chilcott gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Chair Tilos thanked the Steering and Subcommittee members for the presentation and
for attending the meeting.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated Commissioner
questions should be done prior to public comment; then, Commissioner discussion is after
public comment.
Commissioner Shabazz stated that he wants to express solidarity with Mali Watkins,
George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and many others that catalyzed getting to this moment; he
appreciates everyone who put in the work and staff for getting the word out about tonight's
meeting and engaging people.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,3,"Ms. Chilcott stated Commissioner Shabazz's list of questions was forwarded and received
by the Steering and Subcommittee members prior to the meeting; if the answers cannot
be provided tonight, the information will be provided to him at a later date.
Commissioner Shabazz inquired how many people responded to the survey from the
mailer and what were the demographics.
The Transportation Planner responded 1,485 surveys were received; 70% of respondents
own their home, 30% are renters; 43% are white; below 20% preferred not to answer;
10% are Asian, and everything else was below 10%; neighborhoods were dispersed
regarding race and ethnicity; household income is: 5% under $40,000, 13% $40,000 to
$80,000, 17% $75,000 to $100,000, and the remaining have higher income.
Ms. Chilcott stated the survey was not just for Alameda residents; anyone who visits
Alameda to visit friends or family, to work, or anyone who touches Alameda were
encouraged to take the survey as well.
Jolene Wright discussed the Block-by-Block Program; stated it was a program that ran in
November and December of 2020 which had non-sworn officers or ""Ambassadors"" walk
the blocks on Park and Webster Streets doing outreach in support of homeless members
and businesses.
Ms. Chilcott stated the group referred homeless members to services and was a way to
take something out of the Police Department's purview and give it to a different group,
who can support the efforts.
Ms. Wright recommended Commissioner Shabazz to reach out to the apdreforms email
for more information on the input received.
Chair Tilos stated regarding the slide about defunding the Police, some of the current
Police tasks go beyond racial reform; there are other ways to reallocate funds and have
cost-savings; the Police are some of the most highly compensated employees of the City;
suggested that the burden be taken off the Police Department by having employees, other
than Police, monitor the tube closures and similar instances.
Ms. Chilcott concurred with Chair Tilos; stated the Committee looked into Alameda Police
Department (APD) calls; the research shows a lot of the calls did not have a racial
component; there were calls unrelated to Police work, which the Committee is reviewing.
Commissioner Reid thanked everyone for their work and for presenting to the public;
stated that she read the draft recommendation and was impressed with everything the
Committees have done.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding Commissioner questions, Commissioner
LoPilato stated she does not have a suggestion for the order of operations and deferred
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,4,"to the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Shabazz suggested Commissioner questions be asked within the five
areas of the draft recommendation to keep them organized and on topic.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she likes that approach; she has a couple of bigger-
picture questions; inquired whether it would be appropriate for her to lead with her over-
arching questions before jumping into the different Subcommittees, to which Chair Tilos
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired if the Committee could speak about the involvement and
efforts of the young people in the community; stated interactions with Police and youth
can really be impactful; she would like to hear how the young folks in the community were
engaged in the process.
Raquel Williams responded that she is a high school senior and was on the Systemic and
Community Racism Subcommittee; she was able to really be a part of the process and
being a young person gave her a different perspective; she has had her fair share of racist
encounters; she also has had standoffish and slightly scary encounters with the Police;
she was able to shed light on what she was feeling, especially how some language comes
off to someone who is young and at the beginning of her professional life; it definitely was
a process of learning and educating simultaneously; she was able to be a resource for
some people and, at the same time, use others as a resource for herself; there is
something different about a young person's encounter with the Police; it has been a
learning process as well as a ton of growth for her.
Ms. Wright stated from an overall perspective, it was important to engage the youth of
Alameda; the Committee did send engagement opportunities to the School District for
outreach in a newsletter; there were high hopes for every 12th grade government class in
Alameda to take the survey as extra credit; representation is super important.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she wishes she was live and in person so she could
give everyone a standing ovation for the incredible report and presentation, which is a
labor of love for the City; she noticed the thoroughness of the report and the level of data
and information received from the City in the process; inquired if anyone could speak to
their experiences in doing getting data; stated that she does not know if there has been
a collective push, which resulted in many record requests, what the process was like, and
whether they encountered any obstacles or resistance; inquired whether anything in their
experience might shed light on how the Commission could help make the process
smoother for other individuals or groups in the future seeking data.
Andrea Carlise responded the City was pretty responsive to the record requests, but that
it took several requests, especially specific requests to the Police Department; the
Transportation Planner and City staff were wonderful, but it felt like some of the initial
requests were put aside and it seemed as though they preferred not to respond directly
to questions asked, so she had to re-frame them; ultimately, the Subcommittees got the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,5,"information they wanted, on which their recommendations were based.
Erin Fraser stated that that he assembled many of the Subcommittee requests and the
City's responses; they set up a process to file information requests through a form, which
were prioritized in order to get a response; the Committee made many requests; his list
has 20 requests; the Committee also wanted to conduct substantive interviews with
members of City staff, particularly members of APD; they were able to get a ton of
information and City staff did their very best to provide the information as timely as
possible.
Erin Gong Liu stated as the Committee's work is coming to a close, one of the major
obstacles faced as a volunteer Committee and the deeper a person digs in this kind of
work, there is more substantive need to collect data; Commissioner Shabazz emailed the
Committee regarding the need for quality data, which the Committee has always echoed
since the beginning; they could browse through quantitative records that were made
public by the City and APD, but they would also like to code qualitative interactions and
get stories and information from folks in the City who maybe did not complete the survey,
did not have time to provide numbers, or perhaps were not represented in the numbers
that are seen online; one of the ultimate recommendations is the work needs to continue
with the help of a full time Analyst and financial resources are needed to continue this
type of work; many Committee members have done so much with their time volunteering
to be able to parse through the information to create reports and make it logistically clear
to everyone; if the work were to continue, it would need more statistical arms.
Ayse Sercan stated she was on the Accountability and Oversight Subcommittee; the City
simply did not have a lot of the data the Committee was hoping to get as it is just not
collected; in reading through the data and doing analysis, they also came to the
conclusion that there needs to be a Data Analyst who is deriving and analyzing what data
is collected to figure out what is going on; something cannot be reformed if that it is not
understood.
In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry regarding points of comparison in
residential demographics, Debra Mendoza stated there is insider knowledge within the
Committee; when a traffic stop is conducted, Police are required to report the race of the
individual whether they were an adult or juvenile and the disposition of the traffic stop;
basically, there are nuances within the data that they are not getting; they do not have
the information, which is available; the information is being captured and just not made
available, which is the case for a lot of the data; they did the best they could with analyzing
the calls for service that were non-criminal in nature; they met with members of Police
and Dispatch to try to understand the categories, but could only go so far.
Jono Soglin stated there is a real challenge correlating data; they could not correlate calls
for service with specific incidents; coding data to draw conclusions to establish and track
outcomes is a deep dive; the quantitative information is there, it just takes a deep dive
and someone to go in and correlate and track incidents along the different stages.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,6,"Jennifer Rakowski stated that she was on the Oversight Committee; they did correlate
the data to population to understand what the relative risk is for a particular community in
terms of being arrested or stopped; whatever race data the City collects is based on the
Officer's perception; there are limits to the data; in the coming years, there will be
additional requirements for race-based data for stops and arrests to analyze disparities
in terms of treatment; encouraged the community to push for immediate transparency as
opposed to waiting until the Police Department is required to provide it to the federal
government; not all of the data that needs to be collected is housed in the Police
Department; it is looking at what complaints went to the Police and which ones went to
other parts of the City about incidents with the Police; information is collected at the jail
about what restraints were used; said type of information is not retained at APD, but is
retained elsewhere; the City encourages having index markers at outside of APD that
inform what is happening in the City.
Commissioner Shabazz thanked the Committee members for their responses, and even
to questions he did not get to yet; stated there are different types of data: quantitative and
qualitative; he is interested in qualitative data, including what happened when a person
was pulled over, how the Officer interacted, and how it is that measured, i.e., a body
camera, cell phone, or Ring doorbell device; there are a lot of ways data can be captured
these days; he would like to know the location of the data since it can be housed in
different places; the quality of collection is an issue as well; in 2017, the Alameda
Democratic Club held an event about policing, particularly about immigration, since
Trump was coming into office; he spoke with the Police Chief at that time about the traffic
stops and shared data he felt was disproportionate comparing the number of Black people
who lived in Alameda with the number of people who lived in Alameda; Black people were
stopped more than their number; it was stated that 1) Alameda is next to Oakland and
Oakland being a proxy for Black people in some people's geographic imagination; and 2)
it was not a good to compare how many people live in a place versus how many people
are stopped; he is interested in what other points of comparison are being reviewed; he
would also like to know how if the current Police leadership acknowledges the traffic stop
disproportionality; the question is important for the incoming Police leadership.
Alphonso Mance stated Commissioner Shabazz's questions are very important issues;
one of the Committee's recommendations is to have the Crime Analyst and software the
Police use make information gathering less subjective; there were certain things APD did
not keep; the City has not had a Crime Analyst in a while; he has the same concerns as
Commissioner Shabazz with regard to where the information is kept and how reliable it
is; he is hoping that having a Crime Analyst keep the information will be more reliable,
especially since the data would be input into software which asks specific questions;
another recommendation is additional reporting to the FBI, which has pretty strict
requirements and will also be more reliable; one of the more critical responses from the
survey was that disproportionality does not necessarily indicate bias; one of the things he
likes to look at is the number of stops versus the number of citations given; how many
were just given a warning provides more information; if an Officer is stopping people and
just letting them go, is the Officer just friendly to a certain group of people or because
there was not a basis for the stop; there are other figures that could be gathered and
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,7,"analyzed; the FBI and Crime Analyst is key; when talking to the Interim Police Chief about
gathering better statistics, he was the one who actually suggested adding a Crime Analyst
and purchasing the related software; the Committee is hoping the new Chief will be in
favor of keeping statistics; one of the Steering Committee members will be participating
in the new Police Chief interview, so the questions will be asked of the incoming
candidates.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether it would be possible for the public to review the
research documents related to the draft recommendation.
Mr. Mance asked for clarification about which specific documents Commissioner Reid is
referring to as the Committee has put about 3,000 hours into looking at a lot of different
sources; he personally did not keep a list of the sources, but is happy to share what some
of them; he has been a lawyer for a while and a lot of his knowledge of California law is
based on his work; he can research issues pretty effectively; if there is interest, each
Committee could probably compile a list of sources used for the City to publish on the
website.
Commissioner Reid stated that would be great; requested that the Committees indicate
where they received the information to give the public an idea of how to be able to
research information; transparency is helpful to the public.
Mr. Mance stated regarding the information specific to the APD, the Committee had three
meetings with APD leadership which were all announced on the City's website and other
social media and were open to the public; the meetings are still up for viewing on the
City's website; the other information is available on Google Docs and all the requests for
information are public.
Mr. Fraser stated every Subcommittee's requests to the City is posted on the City's
website with a link from the website; all the information is available to the public and is
organized in a way to be efficient for City staff to be able to respond to requests; in the
final recommendations, outside research is footnoted.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Mr. Fraser stated any data the Committee
requested and received from the City is on the website.
The Transportation Planner stated the City sent 80 documents from various Departments,
mostly APD; not all 80 documents have been posted online, but there is a list of the
requests.
Commissioner Reid inquired how many years of data did was requested and researched,
to which Mr. Fraser responded the Committee requested data from 2018 through 2020.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the Subcommittee meetings were recorded and if
the public could go back and watch the meetings, to which Mr. Fraser responded in the
negative; stated none of the Unbundling Subcommittee meetings were recorded.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,8,"Commissioner Reid inquired whether the Committee is recommending mental health
professionals, in lieu of Police and Fire, or recommending additional training in the mental
health area or both.
Mr. Soglin stated the Unbundling Subcommittee was not looking at training, but another
Committee recommended mental health training for Officers; the recommendation from
the Unbundling Subcommittee was that when there is call for mental health services, like
the CAHOOTS model, mental health professionals respond to the call; when needed,
they can call and bring in law enforcement; in the CAHOOTS system, the number of calls
needing law enforcement was tiny; law enforcement would always be available, but the
idea is to have the professional with the training and skills respond to a mental health call;
if the call is mental health, but also involves a crime or weapon, then law enforcement
would respond.
Mr. Fraser recommended Commissioner Reid review the CAHOOTS model from Eugene,
Oregon; stated there were roughly 24,000 CAHOOTS calls with only 0.6% requiring an
armed Officer to support the CAHOOTS team.
Commissioner Reid inquired, from an example given in the draft recommendation, who
would determine whether a person shoplifting from a pharmacy was acting out of dire
necessity and not profit-seeking.
Mr. Mance responded by giving an example of diversion programs most of the Police
agencies use in the juvenile system; stated the Police agencies have developed policies
for determining whether it is appropriate to divert a youth; a similar system can be
employed; the Committee recommendations have not figured out the nuts and bolts yet;
the next stage is for the City to determine what works for Alameda and how to implement
the recommendations; there are situations where Police Officers make the determination;
Officers have a great deal of time and experience seeing these things in person; the City
can lay out standards and the Police Officers have limited discretion within the standards;
this is one model currently in place.
Commissioner Reid stated the report indicated juvenile offenses declined in Alameda;
inquired whether the numbers are just dropping or if juveniles are diverted elsewhere.
Mr. Mance responded that he could not answer definitively; stated juvenile filings across
the County are down by about 70% as juvenile crime is decreasing; there are a lot of
diversion programs; the vast majority of cases that do occur were filed prior to diversion
programs; his understanding is that the diversion programs are successful and youth who
have completed the program are not re-offending.
Commissioner Reid suggested perhaps said level of detail and information could be
added to the draft recommendation.
Chair Tilos stated he would like the Commissioners to rotate questions three at a time to
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,9,"progress through the meeting more efficiently and get to public comment.
Commissioner Shabazz stated that he will transform his questions into comments; since
he already submitted his questions in advance of the meeting, he will prioritize his
questions and not ask all of them; he has two questions but will yield back his time for
now.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the racial statistics could be classified to be
consistent with the census; i.e., should Hispanic be treated separately as an ethnicity
rather than as race; and whether the Committee is recommending hiring a professional
consultant from the Police sector, the non-profit sector, or other.
In response to Commissioner Reid's second inquiry regarding hiring, Amy Gong Liu
stated the Committee recognizes that the initial recommendations are drafts but did
everything to make them as clear as possible; in the final set of recommendations, the
Committee will be taking and compiling all of the suggestions to produce the most clearest
and logical path; with regard to the third party analysis, the recommendation came from
a meeting with Interim Police Chief and several APD Captains; the Interim Police Chief
stated APD is interested in starting a partnership with an organization called COMPSTAT
for Justice and the Center for Policing Equity; due to the current situation, many Police
Departments were driven to reach out to third party organizations that offer consulting
services for free; they maintain a temporary and short working relationship with Police
Departments, produce documents for the Departments and the public; the Committee
wants to encourage APD to continue this kind of relationship; the Center for Policing
Equity are inundated with requests, but stated is working towards creating the possibility
to partner with APD; the Committee will continue to check in with the APD about feasibility.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether community members or the Police would be on the
Board for internal accountability and oversight, to which Ms. Sercan responded the
Accountability Board would be strictly a civilian board; stated there would be no sworn
Police Officers, Police Department or City employees; the idea is specifically for
community oversight because the Police already have Internal Affairs and their own
internal management structure.
Commissioner Reid inquired how group affiliation would be determined for the General
Conduct Affirmative Code, social media likes or membership in a group; and whether the
five districts are based on census tracts.
Mr. Mance responded the APD informed the Committee that for policing purposes, the
City is broken up into five districts; the districts are a policing designation and he does not
think there is any significance outside of that.
Commissioner Reid stated she would like the public to have clarification about the
districts; stated she has a few more questions but does not want to take up all the time.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Reid could submit her questions via email.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,10,"Commissioner Reid made her last questions: 1) whether the Police Chief or the City
Manager would implement the recommendations, 2) whether the authority to investigate
complaints would require a Boardmember to take a Police oath; 3) whether the purpose
of the Subcommittee is to conduct investigations, amplify complaints or both.
Ms. Rakowski responded some of the Committee's recommendations are intentionally
not fully fleshed out because it is the beginning of the process; issues are being identified
that staff and the City Attorney will need to make further recommendations on; ultimately,
the public would need to weigh in on a Charter commission; the Committee is flagging
questions and concerns that need to be addressed for a well-functioning, thoughtful, clear
and transparent process; answers cannot be provided at this early stage in the process.
Commissioner Reid stated her questions are concluded and she is happy to submit her
remaining questions and comments for the Committee's review.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated he will make
comments, rather than ask questions; he would like to hear public comment.
Public Comment:
Inquired the purpose of tonight's presentation since all of the reports have been published
and presented to the City Council and Planning Board; stated that he was hoping the
presentation would be focused on how everything relates to the OGC: Jay Garfinkle,
Alameda.
Stated Alameda Police should be allowed to hire who they need based on the current
fiscal year budget; when staffing needs to be increased at a later time, it would be too late
to select and train appropriate sworn and non-sworn people to meet the demand;
Alameda has a lot of growing issues, including traffic, crime, and homelessness; it is going
to be difficult to play catch-up when the hiring freeze is lifted: David Lee, Alameda.
Stated that she was speaking on behalf of her elderly Korean-America mother; she would
like to know how much outreach and research has gone into the experience of racism for
Asian Americans, especially immigrants who were unable to take part in the survey due
to the language barrier; there is a dramatic rise in hate crimes against Asians: Sang Shim,
Alameda.
Stated that he experienced racism in Alameda; there needs to be a balance between the
protections and fairness in situations, like George Floyd and the dancing in the street
incident; he would like to participate in more discussion; he wants Alameda to become
a
better place to live and work: David Chu, Alameda
Stated one of the items in the Code of Conduct is that an Alameda Police Officer should
not be a member of an organization that is out of bounds; there are concerns about an
affiliation between Police and the D.C. insurrectionists; the issue is defining membership
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
10",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,11,"in those groups, what types of conduct would be expected and how it would be
documented to ensure Officers know boundaries; the key question is what is the
authoritative power; encouraged the Commission to think about how to present the work
streams to the public and its impact on policing in Alameda : Matt Reid, Alameda.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is impressed by the amount of volunteer work,
collaboration and thoughtfulness that has gone into all the reports; she is deeply humbled
by the valuable volunteer service the Committees have given to the City; she appreciated
the level of attention given to both proposed policy changes and the implementation and
accountability angles; everyone here cares about the access to information through the
Public Records Act; she is very interested in the idea of hiring a full time Crime Analyst,
which would improve data collection and transparency, while still having someone in a
professional capacity to be sure privacy issues are respected; she thought there were a
lot of interesting recommendations regarding the Police Oversight Board; there can be
some rough roads at the intersection between board transparency and the privacy
doctrines around Police employee records; if the Oversight Board moves forward, she
hopes there can be an ongoing dialogue with the OGC to collaboratively and proactively
work out kinks with respect to the Sunshine Ordinance; the focus on the Code of Conduct
in the Policies and Practices Subcommittee report and the note about the social contract
reason is spot on; she would like to ensure that compliance with the Code of Conduct is
included in the accountability process as well as all the general performance
assessments, evaluations for promotion, and other steps in the personnel life cycle;
Officers who exemplify excellent compliance should be positively recognized; she urges
the Subcommittees and staff to keep an eye on the rapidly developing State law, i.e.,
Assembly Bill (AB) 1506 from last year creates independent investigations into certain
Police use of force; AB 998 deals a lot with a mobile mental health crisis team.
Commissioner Shabazz stated that he has a lot of questions, but will try to keep his
comments succinct; he worked as a journalist and has written extensively about Police in
Oakland, Berkeley, BART, and even University of California Berkeley Police (UCBP); as
an urban planner, he is very interested in policing as a form of social control; he has
written about how civilian oversight is formed, including how Oakland's Police
Commission was formed after the murder of Melvin Black; after Oscar Grant's murder,
BART's hybrid model of an oversight board and auditor was formed; paraphrasing a
comment by Dave Chappelle, the reason why he is an expert in policing is because he is
a Black man in America; he had some early positive experiences with APD growing up in
Alameda, but as he got older, his experiences were not as positive; he is grateful to not
have had negative Police contact for a long time; he comes to the question about open
government from a different position than other people who may have experienced
policing differently; discussed a 1992 incident which became known as the ""Mobile Digital
Terminals"" (MDT) incident where Alameda Police Officers were sending messages to
each other about wearing Black face, dressing up as members of the Ku Klux Klan and
going out and shooting Black people; in response to the incident, there was the Mayor's
report on cultural diversity; he encourages folks to read the report because he already
sees some parallels with some of the work the Committees have been doing; there are
some unfinished efforts; under criminalizing survival, he is concerned about what
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
11",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,12,"happens when people see unhoused people in public and how APD may respond to a
call, how it is dealt with, and how it is coded; he made comments on the prosecutors
docket and is making it public so people can see what the focus is on; perhaps it may
come back to the OGC with some regularity and could be part of the annual report;
expressed concern about mental health of those who work in law enforcement, not just
Officers, but Dispatch, and other non-sworn positions; under policies and practices, last
year, the Police Chief announced a change in how calls would be prioritized, which
received a lot of negative reactions; in general, he is concerned about Police Chief
policies and recommends review either by the City Manager or Council; he has observed
unhoused people picked up and taken over the bridge so that they are no longer in
Alameda; he is grateful that is no longer a practice; regarding fees, fine, and revenue, it
would be beneficial to look at the data to see if there is some form of reparation or amnesty
for people who have been targeted to a higher extent; he appreciates having all
community voices heard under the policies and practices Subcommittees; since people
are impacted differently, it is important to recognize getting more people to participate
than just one segment of the community; expressed concern about retaliation; in 2015
and 2018, he interviewed many people while in the process of working on a story; nearly
three dozen people he interviewed were Black people who asked to remain anonymous
for fear of retaliation; more recently a City Councilmember put Committee member's
names on a NextDoor thread regarding crime as if it was somehow related; he is
concerned about how people can participate publicly without potential threats to their well-
being; in the next phase of this process, he would like to identify ways for people who
have been impacted by policing in Alameda to tell their stories without the potential of
being harmed or invalidating their experience; regarding the social media protocol, there
was an incident in August 2017 involving a group of young people who had weapons
drawn on them at the Target store; a video was posted on the APD social media that one
of the youths was suspected of stealing a car; after Commissioner Shabazz's first PRA
request for related information was denied, he was able to get pertinent information with
the new State law AB 1421; after tracking down the case to the District Attorney, he found
out the person was not even charged for the crime; incidents are posted publicly on social
media in a society where a person is innocent until proven guilty; there is no retraction
after a mug shot is posted; this type of action re-affirms race crime association and re-
enforces pre-existing stereotypes; urged the Committees to share their concerns, which
perhaps could result in an audit; he hopes going forward that there could be a truth and
reconciliation process to deal with some of the systemic racism; he is hoping the OGC
could be a place where there will not be challenges when trying to obtain data from the
City and some oversight conversation could return as the Committees consider models
to put before the voters; he would like the community to build together so someone's
safety is not predicated on someone else being over-policed.
Chair Tilos thanked all the Committee members for the presentation, attending and
answering questions; praised their efforts and expertise.
Ms. Wright expressed appreciation to the City and staff for making the event possible.
Commissioner Reid thanked Ms. Chilcott for her presentation and expressed appreciation
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
12",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,13,"to all Committee members.
Commissioner Shabazz raised a point of order proposing that, based on time and the
timing of receipt of Commissioner LoPilato's proposal for item 3-D, that Commissioner
LoPilato's proposal regarding the null and void remedy could be addressed at a later date.
Commissioner LoPilato said yes, stated that she anticipated that; stated the long-range
solution, while it can be packaged with Item 3-D's discussion regarding replacement of
the null and void remedy, was an addition to other topics being discussed, so she is okay
with re-agendizing it or handling it at a different meeting.
***
Chair Tilos called a recess at 9:23 p.m. and reconvened at 9:26 p.m.
***
3-C. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed February 2, 2021
Commissioner Shabazz recused himself since he was on the Jackson Park Renaoming
Committee and left the meeting.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney clarified that Commissioner Shabazz's recusal is based
on a common law conflict of interest.
Commissioner Reid stated that she will also recuse herself based on the common law
conflict of interest and left the meeting.
Complainant Paul Foreman gave a brief presentation.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the discussion structure, Chair
Tilos stated outside counsel will present next, followed by Commissioner questions and
public comment.
James Harrison, Olson Remcho, gave a brief presentation.
Mr. Foreman stated there are no issues that he needs to rebut.
Commissioner LoPilato requested clarification on the delineation between Mr. Harrison's
role and the Chief Assistant City Attorney's role tonight.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that Mr. Harrison has been appointed as
Special Counsel and is representing the interests of the City and the Alameda Recreation
and Parks Department (ARPD); her role, as it would be in all meetings, is an advisory role
in a legal capacity when questions come up from the OGC; she is not here in an advocacy
role this evening; the two advocates are Mr. Foreman, on behalf of himself, and Mr.
Harrison, on behalf of the City.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired what are the long-range impacts of a Commission
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
13",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,14,"decision if a complainant comes to the OGC and seeks a remedy beyond what they
received, such that they proceed with a private right of action; further inquired whether a
Commission decision would become evidence in that type of litigation; stated knowing
what the record could be used for would be helpful before deliberating.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded after tonight's hearing, if either party is
displeased with the results and wants to pursue appeal remedies, that party would have
the right to file a private right of action as a private lawsuit; the record that is created
tonight would all become part of the underlying record; a reviewing Court would look at
all of the evidence put before the OGC to determine whether or not the evidence used
met the legal standard of the decision made by the OGC.
In response to Mr. Foreman's request to comment, the City Clerk stated the process that
the complainant gets to present their case; the only other time the complainant should
speak is if a Commissioner asks them a specific question.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the OGC would be able to issue an oral tentative
decision tonight with the opportunity for further clarification for finalization of the written
decision; asked for clarification about the draft decision attached to the agenda.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the draft decision was generated and
prepared by Mr. Harrison on behalf of the City in the capacity as an advocate for one side
or the other; it was prepared by one side with the hopes that the Commission would reach
that decision, although not obligated to do so; the OGC can reach some aspects of the
decision if not the entire thing; to address the first question, pursuant to the Sunshine
Ordinance, the OGC could reach an oral or written decision tonight; if an oral decision is
made, there is 30 days to capture it into a written decision; she advises that whatever oral
decision is reached, it needs to be complete; the OGC should not make a partial decision
tonight and plan to add to it afterwards.
The City Clerk stated that the practice has been that every time the OGC made a decision,
it was completed during the meeting; only one time was there direction for staff to come
back with more information; the written decision could be executed after without violating
the Brown Act.
Commissioner Chen inquired what is within the purview of the OGC and whether the
ARPD violated the Sunshine Ordinance when they established the subcommittee; since
the Ordinance was changed to exempt ad hoc committees, it seems like, according to the
Sunshine Ordinance at the time the ARPD decision was made, they were not de facto
violating the Sunshine Ordinance; although there is a gray area in her mind whether they
violated the Brown Act.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner discussion will take place after clarifying questions and
public comment.
Commissioner LoPilato thanked Mr. Foreman for being here and sharing the information
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
14",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,15,"and materials he prepared; inquired in what ways, and when, has he shared his concerns
with City Council and staff and what was the response.
Mr. Foreman responded the reason he shared his concerns was because he very much
did not want to be here tonight; stated he wanted to get the issue resolved and thought it
was very clear; he thought he should bring it to the attention of the Council and also made
a
call and wrote a couple emails to the City Manager with copies to the City Attorney; he
received no answer from Council and received a phone call back from the City Manager;
the City Manager was sympathetic; the letters he wrote to the City Manager were targeted
to the City Attorney in the hopes the issue could be resolved; the response was zero; he
wrote to the City Attorney again with questions regarding the issue and the response from
the City Attorney was that he will find out when he reads the report written by Special
Counsel; he is here tonight because he received zero response from the City.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the case law, Mr. Foreman
stated he did not find or research the cases he cited; the cases were researched by a
good friend of his who is a California attorney and Alameda resident; he did not ask if the
cases were shepardized as he has done work for him before and he is fully competent;
Mr. Harrison would have brought that to their attention if it were the case.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether Mr. Foreman feels he has suffered some type
of harm from the actions of the Renaming Committee or is it truly more just raising a
question of legal interpretation.
Mr. Foreman responded that everyone has suffered harm; stated the harm is not caused
by the Renaming Committee, they are hardworking people who did what they were asked
to do; the harm is that the ad hoc exception has been exercised and it is clearly and
unequivocally a violation of the Brown Act; he is afraid that next week, next month or next
year there will be a citizens committee for the budget or shutting-down-the-pools these
committees violate the law; anytime a law which provides for public access is not abided,
it harms the citizens and is a future harm; the committees and the Recreation and Parks
Director did good work; he is not retracting from their hard work and efforts one iota.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired what Mr. Harrison's position is on whether the complaint
is timely under Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-93.2 A; stated it seems the challenged
action is the formation of the Renaming Committee; the actions happened back in the
summer of 2020; she wonders if there is some type of relation back doctrine or continuing
violation doctrine that applies to complaints under the Sunshine Ordinance; she is not
aware of any case law; inquired whether the City is asserting a position regarding
timeliness.
Mr. Harrison responded that the City has not asserted as a defense that the complaint is
untimely, largely because Mr. Foreman framed his complaint through allegations that
there was a continuing violation because the Recreation and Park Commission (RPC),
followed by the City Council, considered the recommendations of the Renaming
Committee, and therefore, furthered the violation via a fruits of the forbidden tree theory;
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
15",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,16,"the City did not contest the timeliness of Mr. Foreman's complaint for that reason.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding when the creation of the
Committee occurred, Mr. Harrison stated what the RPC did, which was consistent with
the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, was to designate a less than a quorum of
its members to act as a temporary advisory body; if the RPC stopped there, Mr. Foreman
would not be here tonight; the RPC went further by directing the two-member ad hoc
committee to work with the Recreation and Parks Director to facilitate public input; that
involved the appointment of individuals to serve on the Renaming Committee, which is
what led to the concern about that body having come into existence through some action
of the Commission itself even though the Recreation and Parks Director appointed the
members because the Commission had appointed two of its members to serve as an
advisory body to work with the Recreation and Parks Director; the merging of the two is
where the issue arose.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Chair and Vice Chair of the RPC participated
substantively in the actual preparation of the process, including application for
membership, outreach, interviews and appointments.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she met with the Chair and Vice Chair
initially to discuss where outreach could be done, but she was the one who led the
process, received the applications, did the outreach, conducted the interviews and made
the appointments.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Recreation and Parks Director notified a
group of Jackson Park neighbors via email about a July 9, 2020 RPC meeting including
discussion of the park renaming.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative, stated there is an email
group of neighbors of the park; whenever there is anything related to the park, she lets
the group know.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it was a very proactive method for ensuring accessibility
and transparency at an important stage in the process.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated she also reached out to the Jackson Park
neighbors group to see if they wanted to have representation on the committee as well.
Public Comment:
Acknowledged the work of all the Commissions; stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney's
predecessors took every opportunity to stifle any attempt to open City activities to the
public; thanked Mr. Foreman for raising the issue; stated that he does not agree with
Commissioner Reid being excluded from the discussion; expressed concerned about the
Commission deferring to the City Clerk for past practices: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
16",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,17,"Stated that she is confused regarding what the ad hoc group exclusion means; it seems
there is a huge loophole which is not clearly defined: Imi Lee. Alameda.
Stated as part of the effort to keep the Committee accountable to the community, he filed
PRAs, mobilized people to participate in surveys, and attended PRC and Council
meetings; ad hoc committees are not a new development; it was only after the Committee
published the top four names, which did not include specific name choices that complaints
began; he theorizes that Mr. Foreman and Councilmember Herrera Spencer view the ad
hoc committees as permitting a radical break from the status quo or that they correctly
perceive the work of the committees as a challenge to Alameda's prevailing racial
hierarchy: Josh Geyer, Rename Jackson Park Committee.
Reminded the Commission that they could propose to Council to authorize time for the
City Attorney's office to look more closely at the issue; a document from the City of Los
Angeles on neighborhood council formation cited the Brown Act regarding an exempt
subcommittee ""must be comprised solely of members of the governing body;"" when
members of the public are invited, the subcommittee then becomes subject to the Brown
Act: Matt Reid, Alameda.
Stated that she lives near Chochenyo Park and felt very well-informed throughout the
renaming process; she received immediate responses to her inquiries from the
Recreation and Parks Director and Rasheed Shabazz; it is hard to understand why there
is an issue with this ad hoc committee, particularly because it was community-led and
centered on Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) voices; the renaming process
demonstrated how great work can get done through the ad hoc process: Meredith
Hoskins, Alameda.
Stated when the ad hoc committee was set up, there was a pause to really engage the
community; there was plenty of encouragement for people to submit names; the youth
came up with new technology methods to engage the community; it was clear what was
being asked and how the public was being engaged: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated there seems to be nitpicking over specific words of the Brown Act and Sunshine
Ordinance surrounding this Committee in particular; the timing and ongoing framing
seems interesting; he completely agrees with the Special Counsel's assessment that if
there was any kind of issue, they were cured; urged the Commission to follow the Special
Counsel's recommendation: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission to use the terms ""founded"" or
""unfounded"" when discussing the issue; stated that the decision on the item needs to be
approve by a majority of all members, which is three.
Mr. Foreman stated he objects to the use of the word because it does not mean the same
thing as whether the appeal is sustained or not; if his claim is unfounded and he files
a
second claim that is unfounded, he would be precluded from filing claims for a number of
years.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
17",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,18,"Chair Tilos and Commissioner LoPilato suggested talking in terms of ""sustained"" and
""unsustained.'
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that Mr. Foreman is correct; there is a provision
in the Sunshine Ordinance that if a person files two complaints in a 12-month period that
are ""unfounded,"" they would be prohibited from filing a complaint for five years; he is
incorrect in that there is no definition of ""unfounded"" in the Sunshine Ordinance that would
give it a different definition than ""unsubstantiated"" or ""denied;"" there is a penalty for having
two unfounded complaints, but there is no requirement that the OGC reaches some
special finding to declare it unfounded.
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of determining the complaint to be unfounded on
the basis that it is not a question properly before the Commission because it requires
legal analysis and requests a remedy beyond the scope of the Commission's authority
for resolving Sunshine Ordinance complaints and because it is untimely; even if the
complaint was properly before the Commission and timely, there was substantial
compliance with the Brown Act and any alleged violation was cured by the multiple
noticed, properly agendized meetings.
Chair Tilos requested the motion be re-stated more concisely.
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of finding the complaint unfounded primarily on
procedural grounds.
Commissioner Chen seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair Tilos stated there is gray line between ad hoc and legislative
body; the ad hoc committee had one clearly defined mission and was reporting to the
legislative body; at the end of the day, it is the legislative body that has the final say; the
ad hoc committee does the research and helps out; the OGC formed an ad hoc committee
to deal with the null and void issue and he sees the Renaming Committee as a similar
situation; the spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance is to bring more people into the discussion;
clearly, there was already a renaming policy and ARPD or the RPC could have just
renamed the park without public input and it still would have been in the scope of their
powers; they chose to create an ad hoc committee to make the process more open to the
community, which is the whole point of open government.
Commissioner Chen stated that she submitted a page from the League of California Cities
guidebook on the Brown Act, which lists ""what is not a legislative body;"" it is very useful;
there are two sections: 1) a temporary advisory committee composed solely of less than
a quorum, and 2) groups advisory to a single decision maker or appointed by staff; she
concurs with Mr. Harrison's statement that the RPC combined both groups to form a
committee, which falls into a gray area; it will always be a gray area until the City actually
defines what is not a legislative body or what is not a policy body; the term ""ad hoc
committee"" is not defined in the ordinance; it should be defined for clarity; there are valid
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
18",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,19,"arguments on each side.
Commissioner LoPilato stated Commissioner Chen's phrase ""outside the scope of the
OGC"" is spot on; that is the primary place she lands on the issue; all the facts inform the
decision, but looking at the scope is very important; one of the significant things is there
is nothing in the ordinance that gives the Commission power to re-write the ordinance or
recommend re-writing the ordinance in response to a Sunshine Ordinance complaint; this
seems more like a request to avoid future harm rather than a complaint about an action
that was taken; the request has gone to staff and City Council where it belongs; she
concurs with Commissioner Chen that perhaps, in some separate capacity outside of the
complaint, if there ever is a collaborative review of the ordinance, the OGC could be the
institutional knowledge about the definition of ad hoc; as it is right now, there is an ad hoc
exception in the ordinance, that is what the OGC is charged to review; she wants to be
careful not to overstep the authority granted to the Commission by delving into case law
and legal analysis; it is not appropriate for the Commission to research case law,
particularly since at the outset, the Commission does not have access to the ability to do
their own research; cautioned against having legal citations in any written decision; stated
the OGC is allowed to be the regulatory body of the Sunshine Ordinance; when looking
at the ordinance, not just the academic question of whether it is in conflict with the Brown
Act, there is the ad hoc exception; there is no dispute that this was an ad hoc committee;
when the language in the Brown Act is looked at separately, the choice to find the
complaint unfounded still holds up; she does not think the Commission even needs to get
there; she worries that engaging in discussion that involve interpreting case law or
complaints that involve lengthy legal analysis would create a chilling effect on those willing
to serve on the OGC; a person should not have to be an attorney to be on the
Commission; the practical lived experience of having gone through the processes is very
relevant; she does not see a way to go forward under the Sunshine Ordinance with
anything other than dismissing the claim as unfounded given the timeliness and scope
issues and the lack of authority the OGC has to opining on inconsistencies with the Brown
Act.
***
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
Chair Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3 - Absent: 2
(Commissioners Reid and Shabazz).
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner LoPilato that a person should not have to be a
lawyer to serve on the OGC.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the implication of nefarious or malicious intent by the
volunteers that are serving on the committees is very harmful to the community and the
argument about openness has been weaponized; she wants to acknowledge and
appreciate that Mr. Foreman has been very clear throughout all of this and does not seek
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
19",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,20,"to undo the work of the Renaming Committee.
Commissioner Chen stated that she really enjoyed reading the packet; she was
impressed about how much work the committee put into the renaming; it made three
dimensional the whole discussion about inclusion and bringing back hidden history; she
is ready to move forward with a vote.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated he appreciates all the hard work
of the ARPD and RPC for including everyone in the community in the decisions; he is
ready to vote on the issue.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3. [Absent:
Commissioners Reid and Shabazz].
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the OGC is able to issue a decision that the
complaint was found to be unfounded.
Chair Tilos stated they used the term ""sustained"" when issuing a decision on past
complaints; deferred to the Chief Assistant City Attorney.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that based on her recollection of the motion, it
was slightly more involved; it is more appropriate and complete to have to vote match in
the written decision.
The City Clerk clarified that Commissioner LoPilato's initial motion included more detail,
but was then simplified to find the complaint unfounded primarily on procedural grounds.
Commissioner LoPilato stated there was alignment in the deliberations that there was
good public engagement in the process; inquired whether there was also alignment on a
finding that there was substantial compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance; stated, if so,
it should be part of the ultimate decision; another way to state it is that the issue was
cured and corrected by the public meetings.
Chair Tilos stated he did not want to go that route to show that the Commission was
talking about the ad hoc committees and not the methods used to cure it; it seems
redundant.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission to create the most complete
record possible; stated if the consensus or unanimity of the voting Commissioners is that
the decision was based on three factors, all the factors should be in the final, written
decision; it should be reflective of all the reasons the decisions was made.
Chair Tilos stated that he would be in agreement to include all Commissioner LoPilato's
reasons for reaching the decision.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
20",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,21,"Commissioner Chen stated that she was going with Commissioner LoPilato's initial long
list as it puts in the public record why the OGC made the decision; under the Brown Act,
there is an assumption that government moves so quickly and is so intricate that there
will be violations of certain aspects, but if they turn around and correct the violations, they
do a self-cure and correct, the Brown Act has that kind of elasticity in it to allow that to
happen; even if it is found that the RPC violated the Brown Act, they already cured and
corrected it and there is no case.
Commissioner LoPilato restated her original motion with the following basis: 1) the
complaint was not properly before the Commission on a procedural level, 2) it requires
legal analysis outside the scope of the Commission's authority, 3) it requested a remedy
beyond the Commission's authority to resolve a Sunshine Ordinance complaint, and 4) if
analysis is limited to actions that occurred and whether they violated the Sunshine
Ordinance, the complaint itself is untimely under Section 2-93.2a; separately, despite all
these factors, there are various indications in the record that the Sunshine Ordinance was
complied with in full and any alleged violation was cured.
Chair Tilos and Commissioner Chen indicated their consensus with Commissioner
LoPilato's comments.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated once the document is compiled,
the three voting members will sign it.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated a renewed motion should be made to make it
abundantly clear that all Commissioners voted on that basis.
Commissioner LoPilato moved for a renewed motion on the basis as just set forth.
Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3 - Absent: 2
(Commissioners Reid and Shabazz).
3-D. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to
Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal
Code, as Amended, to Replace ""Null and Void"" Remedy. [Not Heard]
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Shabazz stated the OGC is a really energetic and enthusiastic group with
different strengths; he hopes they could all build on those strengths to come together with
a longer term plan; he sent staff an outline of areas and questions that could be
considered for the plan over the next couple of months; announced that he will be hosting
a Public Records Workshop on March 15th
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated Item 3-D was continued to the next meeting.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
21",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,22,"Commissioner Chen stated regarding the null and void topic, she saw a marriage between
Commissioner LoPilato and Councilmember John Knox White's suggestions and would
like to see it in one document for the OGC to review; having fresh eyes on it is of great
benefit.
Commissioner Reid noted that she submitted a null and void remedy.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the City Clerk stated she would caution the
Commission that the public was told that the null and void topic was not going to be heard,
so any further discussion or suggestions should be submitted for the next meeting.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with the City Clerk.
Adjournment
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:23 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
March 1, 2021
22",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf