body,date,page,text,path
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid and Chair Tilos -
4. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
Vice Chair Shabazz - 1.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
Oral Communications
None.
Regular Agenda Items
3-A. Minutes of the July 19, 2021 and August 2, 2021 Meetings
Commissioner LoPilato proposed changes to the July 19 minutes; stated on Page 12, her
main point was that the percentage allocation for internal OGC structural issues should
be small and not a big chunk of the report; on Page 15, Vice Chair Shabazz talked about
a public ethics commission report and she does not know if the discussion was clear that
the report was from the City of Oakland; on Page 16, she was delineating things that
seemed right for inclusion which got lumped together; she will send brief language
corrections to the Clerk; on Page 19, there is a typo: Sacrament instead of Sacramento;
on Page 23, there should be more context regarding when the Chief Assistant City
Attorney sent an email instead of just stating she gave an overview.
Commissioner Reid stated she made comments at the last meeting and wants to reiterate
that her changes were noted properly.
Commissioner Chen moved approval of the July 19, 2021 minutes as amended.
Commissioner Reid seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent:
Vice Chair Shabazz - 1]
Commissioner Reid stated the minutes mention that she offered to work with the City
Clerk and it was followed through.
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of the August 2, 2021 minutes.
Commissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,2,"Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent:
Vice Chair Shabazz - 1]
3-B. Provide Input to the Subcommittee on Practical and Policy Problems Encountered
on Administration of the Sunshine Ordinance
Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the report was included in the packet,
to which the City Clerk and Commissioner Chen responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Chen continued her presentation.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she strongly believes the Commission should take the
internal issues in a very small subheading because the focus of the report should be on
external issues heard from the community; one issue that stood out to her was the
concerns over the Alameda Police Department (APD) not tracking Public Record Act
(PRA) denials; she has general concerns about the treatment of community members at
the informal resolution stage of Sunshine Ordinance complaints, specifically the
perception of a bullying dynamic; she is on board with the ad hoc language clarification;
of the complaints that have surfaced, these are the ones she would prioritize.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the new PRA system that was
launched, Next Request, is being used by all the City departments except for the Police;
the APD has extremely different reporting requirements and regulations, so the
Department is still handling requests directly; APD has received the feedback about the
tracking concerns which can be included in the report.
Commissioner Reid stated that she submitted correspondence and was hoping to get
more feedback from the public moving forward; if the issue is agendized for another
meeting, it would be great to get as much public feedback as possible; provided examples
of issues included in her correspondence, including agenda revisions; stated it would be
helpful if agenda subscribers receive notification when an agenda is revised; she noticed
another issue that sometimes attachments are not included in PRA requests.
The City Clerk clarified that the system automatically stores all emails and retains
attachments, but in very small instances, attachments are lost somehow and are not
included.
Commissioner Reid continued sharing comments from her correspondence, including
when exemptions should be used; suggested clarifying exemptions and creating a list of
exemptions used every month for OGC review; suggested links should indicate expiration
dates; stated other PRA issues include masking of information and calendars not
including dates and times of meetings.
Commissioner Chen stated it is obvious Commissioner Reid has run into many
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,3,"roadblocks with requests; the next step is to decide how to bring the issues back and
whether to separate the PRA and Open Government pieces; she would like to make sure
the discussions are productive and come up with good recommendations.
Chair Tilos stated that he is leaning towards staff make determinations about what is
feasible, then bringing it back to the meeting for the Commissioners to make a decision
about whether or not to pursue them.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees with Chair Tilos' approach; some of the
issues sound like they could be more easily resolved by simply asking staff and are not
broad scale community concerns; it seems more feasible for staff to provide a response
or clarification offline; the matter does not need to escalate to Council.
The City Clerk stated the exemptions, link expirations and masking issues are all going
to be addressed with the new system; staff could definitely follow-up on any question
about anything missed.
Commissioner Reid stated that she thinks there is broad community support for as much
transparency as possible and for really understanding some of the details; the example
she gave regarding the masking is just one of possibly two dozen examples she could
personally give; inquired how the public will know about the new system.
The City Clerk responded that she announced the launch to the OGC at the last meeting;
staff wanted to do a soft launch to get the system working; a social media blast and press
releases would go out very soon.
Commissioner Chen inquired what the next step is moving forward.
Commissioner LoPilato suggested the deliverable be a two to three page report;
questioned whether the report would be written by the Commission or staff; stated it
should be presented at a future meeting to the full Commission.
Commissioner Reid stated suggested agendizing the item on the next meeting to provide
an opportunity for public feedback; stated there could be more examples from people who
have done PRA requests.
Chair Tilos stated the issue has been a topic of conversation over the last three meetings;
there has been public comment; he does not want to belabor the topic any longer;
something should be written up by the next meeting for a Commission vote.
Commissioner Chen stated there are some easy things that could be included in a two to
three page report, but the PRA issue is a little bit more nuanced and complicated; if the
Commission decides to hold a hearing at the next meeting on PRAs and invite the people
who have submitted PRAs, the Commission would get the feedback needed to move
forward.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,4,"Chair Tilos stated he would like to see how the new PRA system goes as it would address
many of the issues Commissioner Reid brought forward; after a few months, there can
be a check in with the public.
Commissioner LoPilato read the ordinance language; stated presenting an actual
recommendation for action is ideal; the Commission is safely within compliance with its
statutory duties by simply surfacing an issue as a heads-up; the Commission does not
need to spend a ton of time thinking of exactly how to solve every PRA bottleneck before
preparing the report.
Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Commissioner Chen; it would be great to
get feedback from the public; suggested a public survey.
Commissioner Chen stated the survey could be included in the recommendation as an
action item; she will meet with Vice Chair Shabazz to draft a memo as part of the report;
she appreciates all the feedback and realizes the City is launching the new system for
PRAs and there will be a sorting-out period to get the kinks out.
Commissioner Reid stated the Commission should try to shoot for the maximum possible
to be delivered to the public; encouraged Commissioner Chen to make a motion.
Commissioner Chen stated that she would get together with Vice Chair Shabazz and a
report would come to the Commission next month to go to Council as part of the annual
report.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the report that is prepared will go on the agenda; there will
be opportunity for public comment; suggested Commissioner Reid make the public aware
of the item as opposed to creating a survey since there already will be space for public
engagement.
3-C. Report from Subcommittee on Draft Bylaw Revisions
Commissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation.
The City Clerk stated the report was shared with the League of Women Voters (LWV)
along with a link to join the meeting; the LWV knows the item is being addressed tonight
and have access to the meeting.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she had
a discussion with Commissioner LoPilato at the beginning of her drafting process
regarding specific issues that could come up; in general, she feels comfortable with the
idea and concept of the Commission revising the rules that guide the meetings provided
that the rules being drafted are consistent with the Brown Act; it seems very appropriate
to spend time to ensure meetings are working well for both the Commission and the
public; the only clause that she would like to double check is the provision about the 15-
minute public comment period for non-agenda items.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,5,"In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the 15-minute public
comment period matches the City Council's practice; the non-agenda public comment
used to be at the end of the Council agenda and was moved to the top because people
were complaining about having to wait through the entire meeting to make comments; the
15-minute limit was imposed to prevent lots of speakers from delaying regular business.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her concerns regarding the 15-minute comment
period are now evaporated.
Commissioner Chen inquired whether the City Council rarely has speakers during the last
comment section of the agenda, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Chen stated that she did not know the two-part public comment section
was in the Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether the OGC was in violation of the
ordinance since they do not have a two-part comment section.
The City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the requirement is specific to the City
Council.
Commissioner Reid stated the Commission should consider adding a specific role for the
Vice Chair; she is also concerned about the language added to the Bylaws to establish
one-member subcommittees; members should be working collaboratively; suggested
striking the clause that encourages one-member subcommittees; encouraged two-
member subcommittees instead; stated whatever is decided regarding public comment
time limits should be consistent across all Boards and Commissions; suggested
encouraging the public to engage with the Commission when only a few people, less than
five, are in attendance; stated that she feels there is room for a point- and counter-point
discussion; the OGC should be soliciting feedback from the public.
Chair Tilos stated exposed support for the changes.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether there are public speakers.
The City Clerk responded the one member of the public in attendance has not raised his
hand to speak.
Commissioner LoPilato provided clarification on subcommittees; stated the goal is to give
Commissioners flexibility; she would leave the language as-is, although noting there is a
preference for two people, instead of just one; she is open to thoughts on whether the
Vice Chair should have additional tasks, but is inclined to leave flexibility; requested
feedback from other Commissioners on using Public Comment versus Oral
Communications; stated otherwise, she is prepared to make a motion to adopt the revised
Bylaws; inquired whether additional review from the Chief Assistant City Attorney is
needed.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,6,"The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she would like the opportunity to run
through it one last time to verify there are no legal issues; overall she is supportive, legally,
of refining the Bylaws to reflect the practice and procedures the Commission would like
to follow.
Chair Tilos concurred with the Chief Assistant City Attorney; stated he would also like to
get comments from Vice Chair Shabazz; inquired Commissioner Chen's thoughts on
Commissioner Reid's concerns about one -member subcommittees.
Commissioner Chen responded the way in which Commissioner LoPilato wrote the
language makes it very clear; individuals can volunteer to get a task done; ideally, it would
be good if another person wants to help; requiring that every subcommittee has at least
two people is restrictive since there are only five members; it is really hard to require a
minimum of two members; leaving it open and encouraging more than one member
works; she understands Commissioner Reid's concern.
Commissioner Reid stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney mentioned in a previous
meeting a one-member subcommittee was a possible concern; requested feedback from
the Chief Assistant City Attorney on the issue and also regarding the spirit of establishing
a subcommittee.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated whether it is satisfactory to have a subcommittee
of one came up before; at that time, her view was a subcommittee of one is satisfactory
and acceptable; she does not have any legal issue with including language that states
either a subcommittee or designated individual can do outside research and advise the
Commission.
Chair Tilos stated the Commission should give staff time to review the revisions.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated the next step would be
to have the item on the next agenda, including the same materials and Commissioner
Reid's correspondence.
Commissioner Reid noted Commissioner LoPilato's summary of what happened in a prior
meeting did not properly indicate that she volunteered to work with the City Clerk;
cautioned against writing summaries in reports before minutes are approved.
3-D. Report from the Subcommittee on Proposed Complaint Procedure Revisions,
includes Draft Complaint Form
Complaint Process
Commissioner LoPilato suggested not using the term subcommittee when the item comes
back on the next agenda and gave a brief presentation.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated
that she had a chance to discuss the matter with her colleagues; as an overarching
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,7,"reminder, her office is tasked by the City Council to staff and advise the OGC; the details
and how it is done that is up to the City Attorney's Office, which wants to be responsive
to the Commission's concerns; the Office is prepared to commit to delivering written
guidance when appropriate; she does not think the Office would be comfortable with the
draft procedures as written being absolute, especially referring to her role in the complaint
process; the Office will commit to delivering the guidance mentioned in her July 19, 2021
email outlining the current staffing plan, which involves guidance to the OGC in its
adjudicatory capacity when deliberating over complaints and calling upon outside counsel
if necessary; she would be the one delivering guidance to the Commission; during the
complaint process, instances may need elaboration; it would not be wise for her to commit
to everything being in writing; guidance ahead of the hearing will be in writing; she does
not know if her position will always advise the Commission; another Attorney could fill the
position; concerns were raised about ethical walls or guardrails; attorneys are used to
walling themselves off from their colleagues in a variety of situations; OGC cases would
be no different; she does not have a formalized process; if a complaint is filed, she would
advise the OGC in a neutral capacity and would not discuss anything with the staff
representing the City.
Commissioner LoPilato stated one of the components of the procedures is dependent on
whether there is a written statement; she wanted to create a timeline; inquired whether it
is beneficial to have the pre-hearing submission timeline include some kind of guidance.
The City Clerk responded that she had some concerns about the timeline; stated if the
Commission wants to hold meetings the first Monday of the month and a complaint is
submitted later in the previous month, the timeline could make it harder to get the hearing
on the agenda; expressed concern about coordinating special meetings.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the process is more like a motion hearing and
more formulaic; individuals filing complaints are most likely not attorneys; the process
should not be stifled too much; after someone has gone through the trouble and effort of
filing a complaint, they might feel boxed out if they do not understand Respondent
Statements; she thinks Commissioner LoPilato addressed the issue and provided enough
flexibility, but she is mindful there may be instances in which the Complainant would not
articulate their argument and her written guidance may not capture all arguments; there
needs to be some flexibility.
Commissioner Reid stated in a prior meeting, the City Clerk mentioned Complainants are
required to attend the hearing; inquired whether there would be any legal issues with
someone filing an anonymous complaint.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she is not aware of any legal issues;
stated that she would look into the matter more deeply in advance of the next meeting;
most of her concerns have to do with the practicalities; it seems odd to her having a quasi-
adjudicatory process where there are two sides and one side is anonymous; she is not
aware of any legal prohibition.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,8,"Commissioner Reid stated that she does not want to exclude members of the public who
wish to remain anonymous; the goal is to create a platform of transparency and allow the
public to come forward while still maintaining their privacy; it is a practice in San Francisco
and other places; she sent Commissioners case law which supports doing so; as an
inclusive city, Alameda should allow anyone to come forward anonymously.
Commissioner Chen stated that she has not thought about the issue enough; when talking
about transparency and openness, people should also be transparent and open; if
someone feels strongly that the government is not following the laws, they should be
public about it; she understands the need for privacy, but she is not sold on it; she would
like to look into what the benefit would be.
Chair Tilos stated it would be more of a con or detriment because it would open it up for
a lot more complaints, which could be frivolous.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she would not be supportive of an anonymous
complaint process because it is ripe for abuse; she does not want to change the process
or weaponize the concept of transparency to jam up City government or utilize staff
resources; on the one hand, the Commission wants to hear as much as it can about
issues people are encountering; on the other hand, the complaint process requires a
hearing, staff time and responding party statements; she does not want tax dollars spent
on these things a dozen times a month; if someone wants to privately express issues with
the Sunshine Ordinance, there is still a vehicle to do so; the complaint process is not the
only way to handle issues; if someone wants to raise an issue anonymously, they can
email the Commission via the City Clerk; there are lots of ways to raise a concern other
than the complaint process.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it would be hard to harmonize an anonymous
complaint procedure with the limit on unfounded complaints that currently exists in the
Sunshine Ordinance.
Commissioner Reid inquired why the language is not more streamlined to just include
denied and sustained; stated San Francisco and Oakland have only two options.
Chair Tilos stated that he asked the same questions two or three meetings ago; the
Commission wanted more options.
Commissioner Chen stated if the complaint is sustained, the Commission agrees the
complaint is valid; if a complaint is denied, it means the facts of the case did not uphold
the complaint; if it is unfounded, it falls into the rule about two unfounded cases in one
year; a person can file more complaints as long as their complaints is denied, rather than
unfounded.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the unfounded option should just be eliminated, to
which Commissioner Chen responded in the negative; stated unfounded captures cases
in which the process is being weaponized.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,9,"Chair Tilos stated if a person has two unfounded cases, they should not bring more
complaints.
Commissioner Reid stated the penalties are harsh.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the penalties are rooted in the Sunshine Ordinance, which
the Commission does not have the ability to revise, nor is it the topic of the agenda item;
she thinks it might be instructive to describe the different type of findings; listed examples.
Commissioner Reid stated it is overdone and should be much more simplified and fair for
the public.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Reid's comments are noted.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the Commission needs to deal with the pre-hearing
submission timeline.
Chair Tilos concurred; stated the decision to have monthly meetings is all new and the
timing need to be hashed out.
The City Clerk discussed scheduling.
Commissioner LoPilato stated she could work with the City Clerk and Chief Assistant City
Attorney between now and the next meeting to streamline a solution; the individual from
the City Attorney's office supporting the OGC needs sufficient time to review the materials
and prepare something for the Commission, while also working to prevent off-cycle
meetings; the goal is to give everybody a clear and transparent process and timeline; the
language could be a little more vague to say: ""based on the complaint submission timing,
the City Clerk will advise all parties of when written submissions will be due. ""
or
something along those lines.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated there are timing requirements for
scheduling a complaint hearing; prior to setting the monthly Mondays, staff always tried
to schedule the hearing for the next meeting; it was quicker because all that was needed
was the complaint and staff report; hearings sometimes had to be set on a different date
based on the schedules of the Commissioners and/or Complainant.
Chair Tilos inquired whether bringing the item back on October 4th is a reasonable
timeframe, to which Commissioner LoPilato responded that she could potentially have it
ready; stated the complaint procedures might require more legal review; deferred to the
Chief Assistant City Attorney.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated she is fine to do the review on one or both items
by the October 4th meeting.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,10,"Commissioner LoPilato stated getting the Bylaws done by the October meeting might
make sense; the complaint procedures could move to November, but the Commission
could attempt to get it on the next agenda.
Complaint Form
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Reid stated the City Clerk's form is an online form and hers is the paper
version; the forms are modeled after San Francisco's form; her revision includes a
worksheet to help people indicate which section of the Sunshine Ordinance may have
been violated; a hyperlink to the Sunshine Ordinance could be included in the online form;
references could also be posted on the City's webpage; requested the Chief Assistant
City Attorney sure all the references are correct; suggested cleaning up the forms for the
next meeting.
Commissioner Chen stated the revised form may actually reduce the amount of
complaints; in answering the questions on the form, the person may realize that they are
answering ""no"" to most of the questions and what they really should do is come to the
meeting to speak under public comment.
Commissioner Reid concurred with Commissioner Chen's comments; stated it is another
way to educate the public.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the worksheet reminds her of the self-help legal access
center of the court system; the specific breakdown of the sections assists individuals in
articulating claims, which is also helpful for the decision-makers it is definitely a nice
option to consider; she would like to hear from the City Attorney's office to make sure
there are accurate statements of the law and requirements; in the spirit of encouraging
public comment during the meeting, it may be beneficial to include a statement at the end
of the worksheet that people are welcome to share their concerns with the OGC if they
are no longer interested in filing a complaint.
Commissioner Chen concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the form should lead
with encouraging public attendance and comment during the OGC meetings; she feels
two of the complaints the OGC heard this year have a place in the public comment section
due to the Bylaw revisions.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated the Commission could guide
people towards public comment before going down the road of filing a complaint; the
complaint process takes a lot of resources on both sides; issues raised during public could
be placed a future agenda.
Commissioner Chen stated that she would have probably addressed the Commission
under public comment before filing a complaint if she has known it was a possibility,
although her timeline would have run out.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
10",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,11,"Commissioner Reid inquired whether the timeline should be extended to 30 days.
Commissioner Chen stated the timeline would have to be changed in the Sunshine
Ordinance.
Commissioner LoPilato stated there should be language regarding the 15-day filing
requirement; people should be aware they may need to file their complaint while going
through the informal process.
Commissioner Reid stated perhaps the 15 calendar days could be changed to 15 working
days to be more accommodating.
The City Clerk stated a revision would need to be approved by Council because the 15-
day requirement is in the Sunshine Ordinance.
Commissioner Reid stated the comments could be suggested to the City Council by the
Commission.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the issue of timing has come up historically, including in
the prior iteration of the Commission's attempt to revise the Sunshine Ordinance; rather
than proposing a lot of revisions to the timing, it might be appropriate to flag during the
revision of the complaint procedure; the 15-day requirement is there for a reason.
In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry regarding revising a complaint, the City Clerk
stated even if the person outlines the issues vaguely in the complaint, specifics and details
can be raised at the hearing.
Commissioner Reid stated the issue was also one of her concerns; allowing additional
flexibility for an individual to make modifications or additions does not create such a tight
box for people and is more open.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she could take a stab at changing some of the
language to inform Complainants it is in their best interest to give the Commission as
much information as possible, but the Commission also understands the Complainant
may gain information over time or may need to revise or add to their complaint, all of
which will be considered up until the hearing.
Commissioner Reid stated that she is ready to finish her collaboration with the City Clerk
and submit a more polished version of the complaint form documents for the next meeting.
The City Clerk stated she is happy to have it ready for the next meeting; suggested the
complaint form and procedure be addressed together.
Chair Tilos stated the October meeting should tackle the Bylaws and the complaint
procedure should be in November.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
11",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,12,"Commissioner LoPilato stated if there are other items on the October agenda, the
Commission could proactively put the complaint procedures on a future agenda; if both
items can go in October, there may not be a need for a November meeting.
The City Clerk stated Commissioner Chen and Vice Chair Shabazz's subcommittee
report would return in October.
Commissioner Reid stated that she would be happy to bifurcate the procedures and the
form; they do not need to be on the same agenda item; suggested having the item done
in October.
Chair Tilos summarized that agenda items for the October meeting: the Bylaws and the
Sunshine Ordinance practical and policy problems, with the complaint procedures and
form on the November agenda.
Commissioner Reid stated that she is fine with the schedule.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
4-A Consider Communication regarding Informational Report on Disclosure of
Documents (Vice Chair Shabazz)
The City Clerk stated Vice Chair Shabazz requested that she pass on his intention: he
thinks the report should come back before the Commission again as an agenda item; the
report went to the Commission on February 1, 2016 in response to a Commissioner
raising questions at the time; the City Attorney reported back on the issue; the subject
has not changed and an identical report would come back; Vice Chair Shabazz thought
it would be good to have the report on another agenda.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her understanding of the communication is that
Vice Chair Shabazz is asking for the same information the City Attorney's Office provides
in the twice yearly report to the City Council, which has already been done once this year.
Commissioner LoPilato stated Vice Chair Shabazz's email includes a request for
information about how State laws like Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748 have
changed City requirements for disclosure and let the Commission know where the
information is available on the website.
Chair Tilos stated since there are some clarifying questions from the Chief Assistant City
Attorney, perhaps Vice Chair Shabazz should just present the item to the Commission in
October; at the Commission's discretion, it could be placed on the November agenda.
Commissioner Chen stated it is a good idea that the Commission is copied on the report
that City Council receives since it directly impacts open government.
Chair Tilos stated he would like to hear more from Vice Chair Shabazz at the October
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
September 20, 2021
12",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-09-20,13,"meeting.
Commissioner Reid stated that she would also like to hear from Vice Chair Shabazz as
well.
The City Clerk stated she add the item to the October agenda.
4-B Consider Communication regarding Draft Sunshine Charter Article (Commissioner
Reid)
Commissioner Reid made a brief presentation.
Chair Tilos stated getting more teeth has been a two year ordeal; the Commission is close
to a happy compromise; his position is he would like to focus on the Bylaws and making
the OGC meetings more efficient.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it makes sense to see what other jurisdictions are doing,
but the Commission should stay mindful of the impacts on staff bandwidth; comparing
San Francisco and Alameda is like apples and oranges; it is important to stay aware when
looking at things that would actually impact procedure.
Chair Tilos stated the discussion of tonight's meeting was very robust and a good organic
conversation; thanked the Commission for always continuing to bring their thoughts and
perspectives to the meetings.
Adjournment
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 9:30 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
September 20, 2021
13",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf