{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2012-05-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY-MAY 7,2012--7:00 P.M.\nThe meeting was convened at 7:07 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Jensen, Oddie, Peterson, Spanier,\nand Wong - 5.\n[Note: Commissioner Jensen arrived at 7:15 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve Commission By-Laws.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Spanier stated that she envisions the Commission as a body that would\nrespond to complaints; the purpose of the Commission would be to develop an\ninfrastructure that would include goals; that she would like to understand the\noverwhelming thrust of the Commission.\nThe City Clerk stated the Commission's purpose was taken from the Sunshine\nOrdinance; the Sunshine Ordinance established the role of the Commission.\nCommissioner Spanier stated the Commission has quite a few duties and\nresponsibilities; regular meetings will be held, goals will be set, and the Commission will\nbe somewhat involved in a lot of other committee work.\nThe City Clerk stated the Commission is required to meet semi-annually and as\ncomplaints are filed; the Commission would tally up complaints and report back to\nCouncil; the Commission would review how the ordinance is working.\nIn response to Commissioner Oddie's inquiry regarding review of notices, the City\nAttorney stated the Commission could look back in six months to ensure that staff\nis\nmeeting the Sunshine Ordinance requirements; review would not be needed after every\nmeeting.\nThe City Clerk stated a particular section of the Sunshine Ordinance addresses\nlanguage and timing of particular notices; the Commission would review the boiler plate\nformat.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nMay 7, 2012", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2012-05-07", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Peterson inquired whether the Commission would need to review a\ncomplaint the following Monday after a complaint has been brought to the Commission's\nattention, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the matter would\nneed to be reviewed within thirty days.\nCommissioner Peterson suggested providing some type of notice that the Open\nGovernment Commission exists.\nThe City Attorney stated that the Brown Act requires the Commission to discuss each\nitem as agendized; staff is requesting the Commission to adopt he By-laws; after\nadoption of the By-laws, a Chair needs to be assigned; then, the Commission would be\nable to have a complete discussion on complaint procedures.\nIn response to Commissioner Peterson's inquiry, the City Attorney stated special\nmeetings can be scheduled; regular meetings are part of the ordinance and would occur\ntwice a year; if additional meetings are necessary there is a provision for special\nmeetings.\nCommissioner Jensen inquired whether Commissioner Peterson is concerned about\nmeetings not being scheduled.\nCommissioner Peterson responded his intent is to make sure it is easy for people to be\ninvolved with the government.\nCommissioner Jensen inquired whether scheduling regular, semi-annual meetings\nshould be noted in the By-laws; suggested that the regular meetings be held in March\nand September; stated special meetings would be scheduled whenever a complaint is\nfiled.\nCommissioner Jenson moved approval of having regular meetings scheduled in March\nand September. [Note: September was changed to October due to the Labor Day\nholiday.]\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCommissioner Jensen moved approval of the Commission By-laws.\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCommissioner Spanier stated the Commission seems to have a passive and active role.\nCommissioner Peterson stated that he has a concern with the regular meeting\nschedule; the Commission is scheduled for two meetings unless there is an alleged\ncomplaint.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n2\nMay 7, 2012", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2012-05-07", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Spanier stated that she understood that the Commission would be\nmeeting once per month.\nThe City Clerk stated the Commission would meet the first Monday of the month semi-\nannually and as needed.\nIn response to Commissioner Oddie's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the public comment\nperiod is limited to three minutes.\n3-B. Select Chair and Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Wong moved approval of nominating Commissioner Oddie as Chair.\nCommissioner Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCommissioner Peterson moved approval of nominating Commissioner Jensen as Vice\nChair.\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n3-C. Review the Form and Process for Filing Sunshine Ordinance Complaints.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nThe City Attorney noted that she has provided a substitute page which is the last page\njust before the Frequently Asked Questions section; stated the last item regarding\nindividual complaints outlined in Item 3 has been changed to: \"a person who makes\nmore than two complaints in a twelve-month period determined by the Commission to\nbe unfounded is prohibited from making a complaint for the next five years;\" stated\neverything in the packet is part of the Ordinance.\nChair Oddie inquired whether the Commission has the authority to change the process.\nThe City Attorney responded the Commission cannot change what is in the ordinance\nbut can be more specific.\nCommissioner Peterson inquired whether Item G-3 is part of the Ordinance, to which\nthe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Jenson stated complaints would be filed with the City Clerk; inquired whether\nthe City Clerk would be responsible to meet the thirty-day deadline.\nThe City Clerk responded that she would count out thirty days upon receipt of a\ncomplaint to see whether the complaint could be heard on the first Monday with proper\nseven day noticing; if not, a special meeting could be scheduled.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n3\nMay 7, 2012", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2012-05-07", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Peterson stated a website [email address] would be set up in the future\nfor filing a complaint directly with Chair Oddie also.\nVice Chair Jensen inquired whether someone might file a complaint on the website and\nnot with the City Clerk's office.\nThe City Clerk responded a generic email address is being set up; stated the email\nwould go the Chair and staff; complaints can also be filed via FAX or walk-ins; she\nwould be happy to accept complaints in any format; the City Manager's office is in the\nprocess of setting up Boards and Commissions emails; the matter could be reviewed\nlater.\nChair Oddie stated that he thinks a complaint should be emailed to everyone [on the\nCommission].\nThe City Clerk stated that she could inform all Commissioners about complaints\nreceived and would contact the Commissioners to scheduling a meeting.\nVice Chair Jensen inquired about the Commission's responsibility to address Sunshine\nOrdinance complaints with a quick turnaround time.\nThe City Clerk noted a complaint could be filed before a City Council meeting even\noccurs because Council agendas are put out twelve days before a Council meeting is\nheld; that she would calculate the thirty days and try to have the complaint addressed\non the first Monday.\nChair Oddie stated having all Commissioners receive a copy of the complaint would\nwork better; other Commissioners might disagree that the Chair thinks that an issue is\nnot worth holding a meeting.\nCommissioner Peterson stated what one person might consider important, another\nmight not.\nThe City Attorney stated complaints cannot be discussed unless at a public meeting;\ncomplaints would be taken seriously.\nIn response to Commissioner Spanier, the City Attorney stated once a complaint is\nreceived, the City Clerk will set a meeting within the thirty day timeframe; there is no\nneed for the Commissioners to discuss the matter prior to the meeting.\nCommissioner Peterson inquired whether it would be the sole determination of the\nCommission to determine whether the complaint is a violation, to which the City Clerk\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Jensen stated perhaps the complaint process should include an explanation\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n4\nMay 7, 2012", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2012-05-07", "page": 5, "text": "that complaints the Commission determines have no merit would be determined to be\nunfounded and also what happens if a complaint is unfounded.\nThe City Attorney stated a determination is needed when a complaint comes before the\nCommission; the Commission determination is either the complaint is legitimate or the\ncomplaint is unfounded.\nVice Chair Jensen stated the determination should have some provision stating that the\ncomplaint, while not a violation, has been either unfounded or was a legitimate\ncomplaint.\nThe City Attorney stated that she would be happy to add said provision.\nChair Oddie stated if the Commission finds there is not violation, there has to be a way\nto indicate the Commission's finding.\nThe City Clerk noted there would be a learning curve.\nThe City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance complaint form requires picking an\nalleged violation of public records or a public meeting and the section of the Sunshine\nOrdinance violated.\nVice Chair Jensen moved approval of the form and process with the caveat to review\nissues at the next meeting.\nCommissioner Wong second the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n3-D. Set Next Meeting.\nSince the first Monday is Labor Day, Commissioner Jensen moved approval of setting\nOctober 1, 2012 as the next meeting date and amending the By-laws to October.\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Spanier reiterated the proactive role of the Commission.\nCommissioner Peterson discussed the need for open transparency and having key\nissues addressed at regular meetings.\nCommissioner Spanier stated any process has a certain structure to ensure that things\nhappen.\nCommissioner Peterson stated getting better feedback on what people want would\nresult in improvements.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n5\nMay 7, 2012", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2012-05-07", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Wong stated everyone wants open government and wants to be heard;\nhowever, the confines have to be right.\nChair Oddie noted the Commission's position is not to second guess a judge.\nCommissioner Peterson stated the Commission should do everything possible to\nensure the process is easy and simple.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Oddie adjourned the meeting at 8:19 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n6\nMay 7, 2012", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2012-10-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION\nMONDAY\nOCTOBER 1, 2012 - - -\n7:00 P.M.\nThe meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Jensen, Oddie, Peterson, Spanier,\nand Wong - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n2-A. Matthew James Fitzgerald, Alameda, introduced himself.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A.\nApprove the May 7, 2012 Meeting Minutes.\nCommission Jensen moved approval of the minutes with correction to the spelling of her\nlast name on page 3.\nFollowing Commissioner Spanier's comments, the City Clerk clarified that agendas\nneed to go out twelve days before a City Council meeting; stated a noticing complaint\ncould be filed before a meeting is held.\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n3-B. Receive a Status Update on the Public Records Index.\nThe City Clerk stated the Public Records Index is required by the Sunshine Ordinance\nand would be posted on the City's website to inform people about the types of\ndocuments maintained in each department; the Sunshine Ordinance requires that\ndocuments be labeled \"Open,' \"Partially Open,\" or \"Has been determined Exempt;\" the\nlist has been drafted and staff is finalizing the documents' open or exempt status; the\nIndex would be brought back to the Commission once the status has been finalized.\nCommissioner Jensen inquired whether current City website documents would need to\nbe categorized or just the new documents, to which the City Clerk responded all\ndocuments would be categorized.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\n4-A. Commissioner Peterson discussed the public's lack of awareness of the\nCommission; stated the Sunshine Ordinance should be added to the Open Government\nsection on the website; future meeting dates should be on the calendar now; that he is\nstill concerned with not having Commissioners' email addresses on the website; he\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nOctober 10, 2012", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2012-10-01", "page": 2, "text": "does not believe public correspondence should go through the City Clerk's office but\nshould go directly to the Commission; not having Commissioners' email addresses on\nthe website by now is inexcusable and unacceptable; that he has addressed said\nconcern with the Deputy City Manager.\nCommissioner Jensen concurred with Commissioner Peterson; urged adding\nCommissioner e-mail addresses and fax number on letterhead; stated Commissioner\nemail addresses should be unique rather than using the City Clerk's office email\naddress to ensure continuity and privacy.\nChair Oddie noted the Commission's meeting date and minutes are listed on the City's\nwebsite.\nCommissioner Petersen stated no one attended tonight's meeting; that he does not\nunderstand why Commission meeting dates are only calendared on the City's website\nshortly before a meeting.\nThe City Attorney stated Commissioner Petersen's concern [regarding email addresses]\nwould be restated to the Deputy City Manager; a major revamp of the City's website is\nunderway; domain names have been discussed; clarified that the City Clerk is the\nrepository of all City records and complaints need to go through the City Clerk's office.\nChair Oddie inquired whether any complaints have been filed, to which the City Clerk\nresponded in the negative; stated a meeting would have been scheduled if a complaint\nwas filed.\nCommissioner Jensen requested that the City Clerk's email address be placed on the\nnext agenda.\nThe City Clerk stated all agendas contain said contact information.\nADJOURNMENT\nCommissioner Wong moved approval of adjourning the meeting at 7:15 p.m.\nCommissioner Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n2\nOctober 10, 2012", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2013-02-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 4, 2013 7:00 P.M.\nThe meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Aguliar, Cambra, Spanier, Tilos,\nWong - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n1-A.\nSelect Chair and Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Spanier moved approval of nominating Commissioner Cambra as Chair.\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Commissioners Aguliar, Spanier, Tilos, and Wong - 4. Abstention: Commissioner\nCambra - 1.\nCommissioner Spanier moved approval of nominating Commissioner Aguliar as Vice\nChair.\nCommissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve the October 1, 2012 Meeting Minutes.\nCommissioner Wong moved approval of the Minutes.\nCommissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n3-B.\nReview the City of Alameda Public Records Index.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Tilos inquired about the City of Berkeley's numbering system.\nThe City Clerk responded Alameda would not use Berkeley's numbering system; the\nIndex would be customized for Alameda.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 4, 2013\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2013-02-04", "page": 2, "text": "Vice Chair Aguliar inquired whether the list presented tonight would be on the City's\nwebsite.\nThe City Clerk responded the list would be posted on the website following City Council\nreview.\nChair Cambra stated having an Index which the average citizen can understand is\nimportant; questioned whether the Index should be available in other languages; stated\nthere should be a brief explanation in layman's terms for why a document would be\n\"Exempt;\" some records, such as autopsies and real estate transactions, might require\na split status that changes from \"Exempt\" to \"Open;\" some documents are prevented\n[from disclosure] by operation of law, such as personnel records; however, the \"Exempt\"\nstatus of some records might be discretionary, which should be reviewed.\nVice Chair Aguliar stated citations to Code Sections should be included.\nThe City Clerk stated said citations are required by the Sunshine Ordinance.\nCommissioner Tilos suggested a hyperlink be created when the list is posted to the\nwebsite.\nChair Cambra inquired whether a hyperlink would incur increased costs, to which the\nCity Clerk responded additional staff time would be needed.\nChair Cambra stated everyone needs to be mindful of the possible burden of increased\nstaff time and costs.\nThe City Clerk stated there are going to be costs to develop a new Citywide digital\nrecords program; staff is identifying funding; records management is a Council priority.\nCommissioner Tilos noted translating the Index into other languages would be an extra\ncost.\nChair Cambra stated Google has a language conversion tool; however, the City would\nhave an obligation to ensure translation is accurate.\nVice Chair Aguliar inquired whether Chair Cambra is suggesting that only the\nexplanation of the Index be translated into different languages.\nChair Cambra responded that he would want to know what the expense would be to\ntranslate the entire Index.\nVice Chair Aguliar suggested only translating the explanation and not translating the\nentire Index.\nChair Cambra stated that he would like staff to explore translation benefits and burdens.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 4, 2013\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2013-02-04", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Tilos stated that he is leaning toward only having the Index in English.\nCommissioner Spainer stated that she is not opposed to the idea [of multiple\nlanguages], but she concurs with Commissioner Tilos.\nIn response to Commissioner Tilos's inquiry regarding documents with a split status, the\nCity Clerk stated one option would be to list a document as \"Partially Open\" since a\ndocument could change from \"Exempt\" to \"Open.\"\nChair Cambra questioned whether having two separate categories, such as: Real\nEstate Transactions - Under Negotiation and Real Estate Transactions - Completed\nmight be clearer; further stated records prevented by operation of law could be\ndiscussed at a later meeting.\nVice Chair Aguliar inquired whether Chair Cambra is suggesting that a record be\nexempt as a matter of law versus discretionary.\nChair Cambra responded State law allows cities to exempt certain documents; however,\nthe City could chose to disclose some of said documents.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated some cities keep arrest logs, some do not; normally,\nsome arrest related information is contemporaneous and would be subject to the Public\nRecords Act; only a certain amount of information would be released; however, health\nrelated information cannot be disclosed.\nChair Cambra stated once the final Index is created, documents could be reviewed to\ndetermine if the City wants to accept the \"Exempt\" status.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\n4-A. Chair Cambra stated former Commissioner Petersen addressed having email sent\nto someone other than City staff and staff was going to research the matter.\nThe\nCity\nClerk\nstated\nthe\nCommission's\nemail\naddress\nis\npengovcomm@alamedaca.gov; emails would automatically forward to the Chair and\nVice Chair so the Chair and Vice Chair would receive any complaints; noted the\ncomplaint form is on the website and a meeting has to be called within thirty days of\nreceiving a complaint.\nChair Cambra stated the concern was a complaint filed against the City Clerk's Office\nshould not go to the City Clerk only.\nThe City Clerk noted the Commission meets semi-annually; the next meeting will be in\nOctober unless a complaint is filed or if staff presents the Index to the Commission.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 4, 2013\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2013-02-04", "page": 4, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Commissioner Wong moved adjournment at 7:30 p.m.\nCommissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 4, 2013\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2013-10-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY OCTOBER 7, 2013 - - 7:00 P.M.\n[Note: Revisions made by Commissioner Dieter and approved by the Commission at the\nFebruary 2, 2015 meeting are reflected in bold and by strikethrough.]\nChair Cambra convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Aguilar, Spanier, Tilos, and Chair\nCambra - 4.\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Wong - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve the February 4, 2013 Meeting Minutes.\nVice Chair Aguilar noted a correction on page 2, paragraph 3: \"Vice Mayor Aguilar\"\nshould be \"Vice Chair Aguilar\". Assistant City Clerk Glidden noted the change.\nVice Chair Aguilar moved approval of the Minutes with the change.\nCommissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n3-B. Status Update on the Public Records Index.\nThe Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation that stated that Alameda follows\nBerkeley's Index; it has two parts; that everything will be kept for five years at a\nminimum; disclosures would be added at a later date and will go to Council for\napproval.\nAssistant City Attorney Cohen stated there may be minor changes to the retention\nschedule; the City Attorney's office will cross check the schedule to the Secretary of\nState and City of Berkeley general guidelines.\nChair Cambra inquired if a column which indicates the status of items would be added\nto the schedule, to which the Assistant City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Chair Cambra's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated that adding the\nstatutory references is a work in progress and may not be complete before the matter is\nbrought to Council.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 4, 2013\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2013-10-07", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Cambra inquired whether the Council would know what the document will look like\nbefore it is posted on the City's website.\nAssistant City Manager Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated the key goal is to\nhave the policy and schedule completed with an ongoing update of the reference\ncategories.\nThe Assistant City Attorney added that the Open Government Commission will see the\ndocument before it goes to Council.\nChair Cambra inquired if the schedule will include an index page, to which the Assistant\nCity Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the schedule will have a table of\ncontents.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted that Alameda's schedule is in line with other cities;\nthe key distinction is that Alamoda has decided to increase the minimum retention to\nfive years instead of the two years required by law.\n3-C. Discuss and Comment on City Council Agenda Titles.\nChair Cambra clarified that he requested this item be placed on the agenda as\ninformation to educate the public; stated it was not brought to the Commission as a\ncomplaint.\nThe Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation; stated that a meaningful description\nof the item should be included in plain English.\nThe Assistant City Attorney summarized the section in the Sunshine Ordinance\nregarding agenda title description.\nChair Cambra inquired where the summary caption would originate.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the summary would originate from the City\nAttorney's office.\nThe Assistant City Clerk clarified the summary caption would be included in layman's\nterms preceding the agenda title.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the goal is for agenda titles to be concise and\nunderstandable to the general public, but also include enough information so the public\nknows the precise actions Council will be taking.\nCommissioner Spanier stated a good editor could find middle ground.\nCommissioner Tilos stated with the popularity of Twitter, the City could develop a similar\nsystem using abbreviations.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 7, 2013\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2013-10-07", "page": 3, "text": "The Assistant City Clerk clarified titles are typically submitted in regular and\nunderstandable language; stated the issue being addressed is lengthy legislation\nlanguage.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the requirement is that titles be consistent with\nfederal securities disclosure laws.\nChair Cambra inquired if the new procedure would comport with State and federal laws,\nto which the Assistant City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nChair Cambra requested a recap of the Council's decision regarding agenda titles.\nThe Assistant City Clerk stated the Council decided to implement a new practice that if\na title is lengthy or contains a lot of legal terms, staff will include a summary sentence\nabove the title to describe the action in plain English.\nStated that she doos not agree with using lawyer catch-phrases that she felt the\nlawyer catch phrases, such as relating thereto and with respect thereto, are not\nneeded; they should not be used; and she supports making all agenda titles clear:\nJane Sullwold, Alameda.\nChair Cambra inquired if Council is limiting the summary sentences to legislative items\nonly.\nThe Assistant City Clerk responded the matter was discussed at the last Council\nmeeting, but there was no official vote or action taken.\nChair Cambra inquired how the Commission could make a recommendation to the\nCouncil to expand the practice to all titles.\nThe Assistant City Clerk responded the Commission could submit a referral to have the\nitem placed on the City Council agenda.\nCommissioner Spanier stated she supports the practice of writing titles less onerous for\nthe public.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated staff will continue to strive to make the agenda titles\nmore transparent.\nChair Cambra inquired if it makes sense to apply the practice of summary sentences to\nall titles, not just legislation.\nCommissioner Aguilar pointed out that non-legislative agenda items are already\nrequired to be short and clear, having a caption on non-legislative items would be\nredundant; it is the legislative titles that have less flexibility.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 4, 2013\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2013-10-07", "page": 4, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated it is the legislative titles that have less\nflexibility.\nChair Cambra concurred with Commissioner Aguilar; stated the Commission will meet\nagain next year, and any additional public concerns regarding agenda titles can be\nbrought to the Commission at that time.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Cambra adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nAssistant City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 7, 2013\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2014-02-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 3, 2014 7:00 P.M.\nThe meeting was cancelled.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 3, 2014\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2014-10-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY OCTOBER 6, 2014 - - 7:00 P.M.\n[Note: Revisions made by Commissioner Dieter and approved by the Commission at the\nFebruary 2, 2015 meeting are reflected in bold and by strikethrough.]\nChair Cambra convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Spanier, Tuazon, and Chair Cambra\n- 3.\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Aguilar and Wong - 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve the October 7, 2013 Meeting Minutes. Continued.\nIn response to Chair Cambra, City Clerk Weisiger stated the minutes could be\ncontinued to the next meeting.\n3-B. Consider potential revisions to the City's Sunshine Ordinance.\nChair Cambra stated two commissioners are missing and the commission membership\nmight change after the election; inquired whether the matter should be addressed.\nCommissioner Spanier stated the potential revisions seemed to be housekeeping;\nsuggested the Commission review the list and decide about table any controversial\nitems.\nCommissioner Tuazon inquired whether five members need to be present, to which\nChair Cambra responded the three members present represent a quorum.\nInterim Assistant City Attorney Roush gave a brief presentation about some\nhousekeeping and substantive changes to the Sunshine Ordinance were needed\nand to ask for direction to send to the City Council.\nIn response to Chair Cambra's inquiry about numbering issues, the Interim Assistant\nCity Attorney stated that he was using the on-line version, which differed.\nThe City Clerk stated the City's codifiers made an error, which is being corrected.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney clarified the numbers.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 6, 2014\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2014-10-06", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Cambra inquired whether the numbering has been corrected, to which the City\nClerk responded in the affirmative.\nChair Cambra suggested each item in the staff report be addressed individually; noted\nSection 2-91.1.d defines policy body, but policy body is referred to before the definition.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated clarification could be done.\nIn response to Chair Cambra's inquiry regarding Section 2-91.1.c. defining occasion,\nthe City Clerk stated the definition is to address what is not a meeting.\nChair Cambra stated \"passive meeting body\" should be a definition of the people that\nmake up the body, not the event; suggested ceremonial occasions be addressed under\nthe meeting section.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney responded the matter could be clarified to include\nadvisory committee or advisory body.\nThe City Clerk stated the definition ties into Section 2-91.2; noted the definition attempts\nto capture what is noticed and not noticed, does not require an agenda.\nChair Cambra stated the intent is understood, but the Section should be moved.\nThe City Clerk stated Section 2-91.2 would also have to be revised; \"passive meeting\nbody\" is social and does not require an agenda.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated staff could work on the language; reviewed\nthe first item in the staff report: use of electronic devices.\nIn response to Commissioner Spanier's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Council uses\niPads to view the packet.\nChair Cambra inquired whether a phone call could be made and whether the iPads\nhave internet access, to which the City Clerk responded the iPads do have internet\naccess and could be used to text or email.\nChair Cambra inquired whether the internet access could be disabled.\nThe City Clerk responded the packet is on the internet and one Councilmember uses a\ncomputer.\nCommissioner Tuazon inquired whether a phone call could be made, to which Chair\nCambra responded the device could be used to email and text.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 7, 2013\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2014-10-06", "page": 3, "text": "The City Clerk noted the application uses a wireless signal to view the packet unless the\nCouncilmember has downloaded the packet prior to the meeting.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated if the requirement is moved to the substantive\npart of the Ordinance, the assumption has to be that the officials are going to abide by\nit; there would be consequences for not following the requirement; suggested moving\nthe section and staff could come up with appropriate language.\nIn response to Chair Cambra's inquiry whether a vote is needed, the Interim Assistant\nCity Attorney stated only direction is needed; a redline version of the ordinance would\nbe brought to the Commission at the February meeting.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney reviewed the second item in the staff report: passive\nmeeting bodies.\nChair Cambra stated passive meeting body is defined as an advisory committee;\nsuggested changing the term passive meeting body to advisory committee.\nCommissioner Spanier stated changing it to advisory committee is very clear.\nChair Cambra stated there might be confusion when a policy body has a passive\nmeeting; inquired whether the Council tour of the estuary was a passive meeting.\nThe City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the meeting was noticed; a passive\nmeeting would be when the body is invited to a non-City event and the majority are\npresent but no City business is discussed.\nChair Cambra inquired whether said type of events are covered under Section 2-\n91.1.b.4.C, to which the Interim Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;\nnoted advisory committee is the more commonly used term; stated all references would\nhave to be changed and a better definition could be done; the City Clerk said the only\nfuture references to the advisory committee were on pages 4 and 5 so it would be\neasy to correct.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney outlined the third item: gatherings.\nChair Cambra stated the term \"gathering\" might have been used in order to not call\nsocial events a meeting; noted the Ordinance was created cutting and pasting multiple\nordinances together.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated staff would review the matter; reviewed\nchanging \"spectators\" to \"members of the public;\" inquired whether a passive meeting\nbody would ever meet in closed session.\nChair Cambra provided an example from his previous work at a city where he was\nonce called into a closed session to provide legal advice to an advisory body.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 6, 2014\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2014-10-06", "page": 4, "text": "The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the language should remain; noted Item 4\nfrom the staff report would be covered by addressing passive meeting bodies; reviewed\nItem 5: commissioners submitting written comments when absent.\nCommissioner Spanier stated that she does not think doing so is a good idea; the\nwritten comments could backfire or be awkward because the member is not present to\nrespond to questions or contentious issues; that she does not know whether there is a\nlegal issue.\nCommission Tuazon concurred; stated the comments could not be challenged or\nquestioned if the person is absent.\nChair Cambra requested a review of the deliberative process required before rendering\na decision.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the deliberative process drove his analysis; a\ndecision maker is supposed to hear the comments of other members and the public;\nstated the member could be pre-judging the issue and other board members might give\nthe comments more weight than those submitted by a member of the public; he\nsuggests having a rule that says not being able to attend is like having a financial\nconflict of interest and participation is not allowed.\nChair Cambra outlined a lawsuit that he recalled from law school.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney outlined the issue of first amendment rights versus\nviolating due process; noted the member could request the item be continued to another\ndate; if you are not present and have not requested a teleconference, written\ncomments are not entered into the record.\nThe City Clerk noted teleconferencing is another option.\nIn response to Chair Cambra's inquiry regarding agreeing with the staff\nrecommendation, the Commission concurred.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney reviewed Items 6: retention of video recordings.\nThe City Clerk provided background in regards to length of time audio recordings\nmust be retained; and that we have the capacity so that we keep everything and\nstarting in [August] 2006, everything has been posted on line.\nChair Cambra stated the ordinance says keep it permanently in one spot and keep it 10\nyears in another spot; inquired whether the records retention policy requires keeping\nanything forever.\nThe City Clerk responded some records are permanent, such as City Council minutes.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 7, 2013\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2014-10-06", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Spanier inquired whether only the Council videos would be retained.\nThe City Clerk responded all videos are retained, including tonight's meeting, and the\nmeetings of the Planning Board and Recreation and Parks Commission.\nCommissioner Spanier inquired whether there is a way to prioritize what is kept.\nThe City Clerk responded the current contract does not limit the number of videos which\ncan be kept.\nChair Cambra stated the matter could be deferred if there is no financial or storage\nburden.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney concurred; state the matter could be brought back if\nit becomes an issue; reviewed Item 7: public testimony on an item after being heard by\na subcommittee; the [Interim Assistant City Attorney explained that as written the\npublic could not comment on items after being heard by a subcommittee.\nChair Cambra provided an example of a Council subcommittee.\nCommissioner Spanier stated that she can see how the public would be not be happy\nwith the restriction.\nIn response to Chair Cambra's inquiry about the subcommittee reporting back to the\nCouncil, the City Clerk stated the matter was prior to the Sunshine Ordinance; public\ncomment was allowed when the subcommittee reported back to the Council.\nCommissioner Spanier expressed concern that the matter might seem like a backroom\ndeal.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the exception is rarely going to be applied;\nstated the language should be made clear so that the public can speak.\nThe Commission concurred.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney noted Item 8 addresses an absent member\ncommenting, which has already been resolved.\nRegarding Staff Report Item 9: public information requests, Chair Cambra inquired\nwhether the City has a timeframe to respond that the request has been received and\nthere is another timeframe to actually provide the information.\nThe City Clerk responded the Public Records Act includes the requirement mentioned;\nthe Sunshine Ordinance adopted stricter, faster timelines; stated response is to be\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 6, 2014\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2014-10-06", "page": 6, "text": "provided within ten days a few days; there are times the City cannot respond within 10\ndays.\nChair Cambra stated Section 2-92.2 C requires completion within 10 days; Section 2-\n92.2.d requires response in three days; there is no mechanism for extending the\ndeadline in Section 2-92.2.c.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the phrase \"paid or elected agent\" seems\nunclear.\nChair Cambra provided the example of a resident speaking to someone with apparent\nauthority; stated the language makes asking a Councilmember the same as telling staff.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney suggested the word agent be changed to employee.\nThe Commission concurred with changing the word.\nChair Cambra inquired whether the Commission would like to include language in case\nthe City cannot comply with a 10 day request.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated there has to be some rule of reason when\nthere is a voluminous request; language tracking the Public Records Act could be used\nto allow for reasonable extension within a specified timeframe.\nChair Cambra stated perhaps the term \"unreasonable delay\" sufficiently protects the\nCity.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated staff could come up with language; stated\nregarding Item 10, \"legislative body\" should be changed to \"policy body\" to be made\nconsistent; reviewed Item 11: moving the State of the City Address.\nChair Cambra stated the issue was included in the ordinance to give public notice.\nCommissioner Spanier stated the suggestion is to move the requirement of the State of\nthe City Address to a different Section of the Ordinance.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated staff would review the matter to see where it\nbelongs.\nChair Cambra concurred staff should review the matter to see if there is a better place.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney noted Item 12 regarding posting documents on the\nwebsite for four years could be addressed when storage becomes an issue.\nChair Cambra stated having the City documents on the website seems appropriate.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 7, 2013\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2014-10-06", "page": 7, "text": "The City Clerk noted \"four years\" could should be removed because the documents\nlisted would always be posted on the website.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 13 is regarding expressing personal\nopinions while not on duty; that he was not sure if the item was of concern when the\nordinance was drafted; provided an example of union members on duty being given\nleave to participate in collective bargaining.\nChair Cambra stated that he thought the requirement applies to employees on a break,\nfor example.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the Section has not been an issue and could\nbe left alone.\nCommissioner Spanier provided an example of working for a corporation not releasing\ninformation to the media.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney outlined public interest versus complaining about the\nwork environment.\nThe Commission concurred with leaving the Section as is.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 14 language could be easily cleaned up.\nThe Commission concurred.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 15 on Environmental Impact Reports\n(EIR) could be moved to another Section of the Ordinance.\nChair Cambra stated that he was not sure whether the requirement was to allow access\nto the document or to allow people to save on copy costs.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated most EIRs are posted on the City's website;\nthat he could review the matter and determine if it should be moved.\nThe City Clerk noted the language could be moved to Section 2-94.2.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 16 stated Section 2-92.15 should be\nmoved to Section 2-92.2.\nThe Commission concurred.\nThe Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 17 would change requiring the training to\nevery three years instead of every year; the training is videotaped; new employees can\nwatch the video; absent major revisions to the ordinance, training could be done every\nthree years.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 6, 2014\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2014-10-06", "page": 8, "text": "In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry regarding live training, the Interim Assistant City\nAttorney stated the training session took one hour; live training allows an opportunity to\nask questions; rather than mandating annual training, three years seems adequate.\nIn response to Commissioner Spanier's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Attorney\nresponded the live training could be done every three years and new hires could watch\nthe video.\nThe Commission concurred.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nBill Smith, on behalf of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, stated the Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee (RRAC) agenda does not have public comment; in the Spring, he\nsuggested publicizing what the RRAC does; nothing has happened; the City Attorney\ntold the RRAC not to do anything for a while; the RRAC does not have term limits;\nasked the Open Government Commission to review RRAC proceedings; stated the\nRRAC is effective at its core function; however, not enough people know about the\nfunction.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Cambra adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 7, 2013\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 2015 7:00 P.M.\nThe City Clerk convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Bonta, Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and\nChair Aguilar - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair\nCommissioner Dieter requested an explanation of the responsibilities of the Chair and\nVice Chair.\nCity Clerk Weisiger stated the Chair runs the meetings and the Vice Chair would run the\nmeetings in the Chair's absence.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether it [the Chair and Vice Chair responsibility] is only\nat the meetings, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Tuazon suggested that the Chair and Vice Chair be the representatives\nappointed by the Mayor and Vice Mayor.\nCommissioner Foreman noted that he was appointed by the Mayor; inquired who was\nappointed by the Vice Mayor.\nCommissioner Dieter responded that she was appointed by the Vice Mayor.\nCommissioner Bonta inquired how long Commissioner Aguilar has served on the\nCommission, to which Commissioner Aguilar responded one year.\nCommissioner Bonta inquired how long others have served, to which Commissioners\nForeman and Dieter noted they were newly appointed.\nCommissioner Bonta stated that she would like to have Commissioner Aguilar serve as\nthe Chair.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether the Commissioners suggested are interested in\nserving as the Chair.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Aguilar and Foreman both responded that they are interested.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she would be fine with being the Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Bonta moved approval of selecting Commissioner Aguilar as the Chair.\nCommissioner Tuazon seconded the motion since Commissioner Aguilar is more\nexperienced.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCommissioner Dieter moved approval of selecting Commissioner Foreman as the Vice\nChair since he was appointed by the Mayor.\nCommissioner Tuozon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n3-B. Approve the October 7, 2013 and the October 6, 2014 Meeting Minutes\nThe City Clerk noted that she asked Commissioners to view videos in order to weigh in\n[on the minutes] since there was change in the majority [of the Commission\nmembership]; stated hopefully, at least three members are prepared to vote on the\nminutes.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether everyone read the minutes and watched the\nvideo, to which the Commissioners responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she finds it disturbing for the Open Government\nCommission that one of the meetings was two years old; the Commission should not let\nthat happen; that she hopes this Commission tries to approve the minutes at the\nconsecutive meeting immediately following; plus, if it is close to an election cycle, she\nwould not mind having a special meeting just to approve the minutes so that the next\nCommissioners that take our place are not faced with trying to understand the intent\nbehind other people and what they were saying to approve the minutes.\nThe City Clerk stated unfortunately the meeting last February ended up being canceled\ndue to lack of a quorum; for the October meeting, two members ended up being absent\nand Commissioner Tuazon was new; staff did not anticipate that [absences] and did not\nrequest members to view [the video] ahead of time; apologized for the circumstance;\nstated that she appreciated the suggestion to hold a special meeting to approve the\nminutes in the future.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she has changes according the video she watched;\nshe would like the minutes to reflect who the members were in terms of the City Clerk\nand Assistant City Attorney so the Commission would know the names of who was\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 3, "text": "present; the minutes do not reflect that [staff names]; under Item 3-B: Status Update of\nthe Public Records Index, it says: \"The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation;\"\nshe thinks the minutes should stand on their own and a person should not be forced to\nhave to go look at a video to understand what took place at a meeting; she thinks the\nminutes should say what was said and should say something to the effect of: \"The\nAssistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation that stated that Alameda follows\nBerkeley's Index; it has two parts; everything will be kept for five years at a minimum;\"\nthis is what was said; and [it should say:] \"disclosure will be added at a later date and\nwill go to Council for approval;\" that way no one is forced to have to go look at the video.\nThe City Clerk suggested that she modify the minutes and bring them back to the\nCommission at the following meeting; she could capture the presentation, then, the\nCommissioners could read the minutes ahead of time.\nCommissioner Dieter stated if there are not enough changes, perhaps the minutes can\nbe approved tonight.\nVice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as corrected.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she is not finished; the very last line says: \"The\nAssistant City Manager noted that Alameda's schedule is in line with other cities;\" that\nshe suggests deleting the following clause: \"the key distinction is that Alameda has\ndecided to increase the minimum retention to five years instead of two years required by\nlaw;' actually, the [Assistant] City Manager talked about various requirements; some are\ntwo years, some are three years, and some are ten years, so she thinks it is\nunnecessary to include that [clause]; it is confusing; unless staff wants to change it to\nsay: \"two or three years or other time frames as required by law;\" those are the only two\nchanges she has for that meeting [October 7, 2013].\nVice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as corrected.\nChair Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nFollowing Agenda Item 3-C being called, Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission\nstill needs to approve the minutes of the next meeting [October 6, 2014].\nThe City Clerk and Chair Aguilar stated both sets were approved.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Commission has approved the first set of minutes\n[October 7, 2013]; for the second set of meeting minutes [October 6, 2014], [she has]\nthe same issue; it [the minutes] starts off by saying: \"The Assistant City Clerk gave a\nbrief presentation\" but does not say what the [Assistant] City Clerk said, so the only way\na person from the public would know would be to watch the video; that she thinks the\nmeeting minutes should reflect what was said; suggested adding the statement: \"The\nAssistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation, which included that titles go through an\napproval process in various departments, then it goes to the City Attorney's Office, then\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 4, "text": "it goes to the City Manager's Office, and, if by chance a title is legislative, it goes\nthrough only the City Attorney's office and it does not get changed; if by chance, a\nlegislative title is unclear, then a clarifying sentence will be added so that the public will\nunderstand the agenda meeting.\"\nThe City Clerk inquired which set of minutes Commissioner Dieter is addressing; noted\nthat she is having trouble finding it [the section being revised].\nChair Aguilar inquired what page.\nCommissioner Dieter responded page 2; stated it says Item 3-C Discussion and\nComment on City Council Titles.\nThe City Clerk stated the minutes being addressed are the October 7, 2013 set.\nCommissioner Dieter concurred; stated trying to decipher the minutes is very confusing;\nstated that she is still on the same set [October 7, 2013]; stated [the minutes state:]\n\"The Assistant City Attorney summarized a section of the Sunshine Ordinance\" but it\ndoes not say what the [Assistant] City Attorney said, so the Commission should add:\n\"stated that a meaningful description of the item should be included in plain English;\"\nthat way someone does not have to look at the video to find out what the [Assistant] City\nAttorney said; on the next page, there was a public speaker; it is a little unclear in these\nminutes that it was a public speaker; it is underlined; she [the public speaker] actually\nsaid: \"that she felt the lawyer catch phrases, such as relating thereto and with respect\nthereto, are not needed; they should not be used;\" considering there was only one\nspeaker, the Commission might as well get that [comment] right; that [comment] was by\nJane Sullwold; on the next page at the top, it says: \"Commissioner Aguilar pointed out\nthat non-legislative agenda items are already required, having a caption on non-\nlegislative items would be redundant; it is the legislative titles that have less flexibility;\"\nthe [Assistant] City Attorney actually said that [\"it is the legislative titles that have less\nflexibility\"], not Commissioner Aguilar; that those are her suggested changes for the\nOctober 7, 2013 meeting.\nCommissioner Bonta and Vice Chair Foreman noted the [October 7, 2013] minutes\nwere already approved.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that was a mistake.\nCommissioner Tuazon stated [the minutes should be approved] as correct.\nChair Aguilar stated the minutes continue to be approved as corrected.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter has something for the next\nmeeting [October 6, 2014], to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Dieter inquired whether no one else had any suggested changes [to the\nOctober 7, 2013 minutes], to which Chair Aguilar responded in the negative.\nCommissioner Dieter stated in the next one [the October 6, 2014 minutes] on page 5\nunder 3-B [Consider potential revisions to the City's Sunshine Ordinance], the\nparagraph says: \"Commissioner Spanier stated that potential revisions seemed to be\nhousekeeping; suggested the Commission review the list and decide about\ncontroversial items;\" actually, what Commission Spanier said was: \"to table\ncontroversial items for the next Commissioners;' delete the words \"decide about\" and\nmake it \"table;\" down a couple of paragraphs it says: \"The Interim Assistant City\nAttorney gave a brief presentation;\" again it does not say what the presentation was;\nshe suggests adding a few words to explain what that [the presentation] was: \"gave a\nbrief presentation about some housekeeping and substantive changes to the Sunshine\nOrdinance were needed and to ask for direction to send to the City Council;\" down near\nthe bottom of the page it says: \"The Interim Assistant City Attorney responded the\nmatter could be clarified;\" that she thinks the Commission needs to clarify that sentence\nand add to the end of it: \"to include advisory committee or advisory body;\" stated that\nshe is not trying to be petty; she is just trying to shed some sunshine on the minutes for\nthe public; she thinks it is really important for this body to lead by example; the next to\nthe last paragraph \"and not noticed\" could include: \"does not require an agenda;' that\nshe is going to let a few things go; on the top of page 7 the last part of the end of the\nsecond paragraph, she thinks what needs to be added is: \"the City Clerk said the only\nfuture references to the advisory committee were on pages 4 and 5, so it would be easy\nto correct;\" longer [farther] down under Item 3 it says: \"The Interim Assistant City\nAttorney stated the language should remain;\" it is unclear about what language; that she\nwatched the video about three times and could not quite figure that [statement] out; but\nwhat happened before that [statement] was [former Chair] Cambra talked about an\nexample from his previous work when he worked for another city where he was once\ncalled into a closed session to later give legal advice to an advisory committee; \"Chair\nCambra provided an example from his previous work at a city\" does not tell the public\nany context; she thought it might be important to add that: \"where he was once called\ninto a closed session to later give legal advice to an advisory committee;\" she is willing\nto let this [language which reads: \"The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the\nlanguage should remain\"] stand for the ease of reference for the Commission; the\nCommission can still approve it [the October 6, 2014 minutes] even though it is unclear\nto her; it is fine, but she wanted to at least add why [former Chair] Cambra provided that\nexample; otherwise just delete the entire thing altogether; on page 8, the first sentence\nneeds to continue so that it is clear to the public what was actually decided upon; it ends\nby saying: \"noted the member could request the item be continued to another date;\"\nthen, what should be added is: \"if you are not present and have not requested a\nteleconference, written comments are not entered into the record;\" that is what was\ndecided but it was omitted from the minutes; down under Item 6, it says: \"The City Clerk\nprovided background;\" it does not say what background; for the purpose of making it\neasy on the public, she would like to add: \"in regards to length of time audio recordings\nmust be retained; and that we have the capacity so that we keep everything and starting\nin [August] 2006, everything has been posted online;\" that [statement] was the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 6, "text": "background the City Clerk provided; down closer to the end of the page [it states:]\n\"reviewed Item 7: public testimony on an item after being heard by a subcommittee;\"\nshe thinks this should be added: \"the [Interim Assistant] City Attorney explained that as\nwritten the public could not comment on items after being heard by a subcommittee;\"\nthat is why it was being brought before the Commission; he [the Interim Assistant City\nAttorney] did not think there was a reason to have that [sentence in Section 2-91.15a\nincluded]; that it should be repealed; at the top of page 9 the end of the first sentence\n[reads]: \"stated the language should be made clear\" [that she would like to add:] \"so that\nthe public can speak;\" \"stated the language should be made clear\" does not say what\nlanguage; again, you [the public] would have to watch the video to figure out what\nlanguage and it goes back to what was said previously about advisory committee\nmeetings so the public can speak; down to about the fifth paragraph [it reads:] \"The City\nClerk responded the Public Records Act includes the requirement mentioned; the\nSunshine Ordinance adopted stricter, faster timelines; stated response is to be provided\nwithin\" [the language should read:] \"a few days\", not \"ten days;' delete \"ten days\" and\nput \"a few days;\" [the minutes continue:] \"but there are times the City cannot respond\nwithin ten days;\" the City Clerk probably knows exactly what she meant by that\n[statement]; the City provides a response to whoever is requesting the record, but the\nCity has ten days in which to respond; the next page second line [states:]\n\"Commissioner Spanier stated that the suggestion is to move the requirement to a\ndifferent Section of the Ordinance\" does not say what requirement; [she would like to]\nadd the words: \"of the State of the City Address;\" [the language should read:] \"move the\nrequirement of the State of the City Address to a different Section of the Ordinance;\"\ndown to about the sixth paragraph [it says:] \"The City Clerk noted \"four years\" could be\nremoved\"; [should be changed to:] \"The City Clerk noted \"four years\" should be\nremoved\" not \"could be removed;\" a few more lines down [states]: \"Commissioner\nSpanier provided an example of working for a cooperation [corporation]\" but it does not\nsay anything about the example, so that example is not releasing information to the\nmedia, so that [\"not releasing information to the media\"] can be added to the end of the\nsentence; on page 11 under Oral Communications Non-Agenda, a member of the public\nspoke, Bill Smith; she thinks it should say: \"on behalf of Renewed Hope Housing\nAdvocates\" unless everybody understood that; those are all of her suggested changes.\nVice Chair Foreman moved approval of the October 6, 2014 minutes as corrected.\nChair Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n3-C. Potential revisions to the City's Sunshine Ordinance\nAssistant City Attorney Roush stated that he reviewed the Sunshine Ordinance to give\nthe most recent training and came across a number of items that he thought could be\nimproved upon; he found items in conflict; he brought the matter to the Commission in\nOctober 2014; the Commission gave direction and he put together the staff report\noutlining the substantive changes; he can walk through the changes with the\nCommission; given the membership changes, the Commission could have the matter\ncome back later or address it tonight.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Chair Foreman stated that he spent a lot of time on the matter today; the whole\nconstruct of the ordinance bothers him; he became really embroiled in the Sunshine\nOrdinance when he was working on the Mayor's campaign and the Del Monte\ndevelopment; he finds the ordinance to be very confusing and in some cases\ncontradictory, which the Assistant City Attorney pointed out in past meeting videos; the\nbasic law is the State law, which sets the minimum standards; the only thing the City of\nAlameda can do is expand public access; questioned why the approach is basically\nrestating the entire Government Code in the Municipal Code; stated if he had worked on\nthe ordinance when it was created, he would have suggested an ordinance to\nsupplement the [State] sunshine code, not completely restate it; a person has to read\nboth when doing research as he had to do; his suggestion would make it [the City's\nSunshine Ordinance] much shorter; that he would publish the Government Code on the\nCity's website and this [City Sunshine Ordinance] would be a supplement; in the notice\narea, one expansion is going from a three day notice to a 12 day notice; almost\neverything else is repetition of what is already in the Government Code; that [his\nproposal for a shorter ordinance] is one approach; the other approach is to do what has\nbeen done; using the City existing ordinance in its current form needs to use the same\nlanguage [as the Government Code]; for instance, the word \"policy body\" does not\nappear in the Government Code; the closest synonym for \"policy body\" is \"legislative\nbody;\" if State law, which provides the minimum standards, uses the term \"legislative\nbody,\" Alameda should not be using the word \"policy body\" because it leads one to the\nconclusion that they are two separate things and they are not; it would be very difficult\neven for an accomplished lawyer to try to figure out some of these inconsistencies;\nanother example would be \"passive body;\" there is no terminology \"passive body\" in the\nGovernment Code; that he understands why it is in the City's ordinance because the\nCity is expanding public access, which the City has a right to do; \"passive bodies\" have\nsome obligations of notice, not to the same level as legislative or policy bodies; he\nwould not call them \"passive bodies;' he would call them \"non-legislative bodies;\" a\nbody is either a legislative body which is covered by the State law or a non-legislative\nbody, which is not covered by State law; the City is expanding the [State] law; where it\n[the City's ordinance] really gets complicated is in the notice section using the terms\n\"advisory body\" and \"passive body\" interchangeably; the references keep changing and\nthey are two different things; \"advisory bodies\" are subject to the Sunshine Ordinance\nand the State law; non-passive bodies are not; it boils down to two things: 1) it would be\nhis preference to basically start all over again with the ordinance and have it only\nsupplementary; you talk about simplicity, this [City ordinance] is not simple; one has to\nbe a lawyer to understand it; the last law that should need a lawyer to understand\nshould be the Sunshine [Ordinance]; if that approach does not sit well, at least use the\nsame language in the State law; do not create something that is not there.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he was present when the ordinance was going\nthrough a year-long process; he would defer to the City Clerk who may have more\nbackground information; he does not disagree with what Vice Chair Foreman said in\nterms of having essentially different terms being used for the same thing; if the\nCommission feels it would be a better approach to have either a simpler ordinance or at\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 8, "text": "least have the ordinance track what is in State law, the Commission can make a\nrecommendation to go to the Council and get said direction.\nThe City Clerk stated that she could provide a little background; the year-long process\nwas comprised of a group just like the Open Government, one member put on by each\nCouncilmember; the group reviewed various sunshine ordinances from other cities and\ncomplied them together at public meetings with public input; a piecemeal approach was\nused; the group liked some things from some cities and liked some things from other\ncities, which was used to come up with an ordinance specifically catered for Alameda;\nlanguage could be different because it could have possibly been cut and pasted from\ndifferent cities; the group was supposed to create the Ordinance in three meetings, but\nended up meeting 11 times; then, they finalized the Ordinance and sent it to Council;\nthe process was lengthy.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether that is pretty much in place, to which the City\nClerk responded in the affirmative; stated that [process] is how the Ordinance was\nestablished.\nVice Chair Foreman stated it might be difficult to switch horses now, but the matter\nshould at least keep that in mind going through the Ordinance; for one more example,\nState law defines \"meeting;\" Alameda's law defines \"meeting;\" there is really no\ndifference between the two, but the same language is not used; if there is no difference,\nthe City should use exactly the same language, not a paraphrase; changing the\nlanguage creates risk; that he understands if the Commission wants to remain on the\ncurrent track and just try to be consistent with State law; the Ordinance has been\nthrough a process; the Commission cannot very well turn it upside down.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if the Commission's direction is to see that the\nlanguage in the Ordinance tracks what is in State law to the extent possible, staff can do\nthat; the matter could be brought back to the Commission; the task is a doable task, but\nwill take a little time.\nChair Aguilar stated the problem for her is that she does not know it well enough to\nknow whether the distinctions are substantive and big differences; somebody would\nneed to go through the Ordinance piece by piece to know that; stated she could not give\nsaid direction.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he spent a few hours on it; someone would have to look\nat each section and see if there are any real differences; if there are no real differences,\nthe exact language of the State law should be used so as not to confuse it; if there is a\ndifference, then point that out and try to use the same terminology throughout; how\n\"policy body\" got in the Ordinance is beyond him.\nCommissioner Bonta inquired whether the requirement of the local ordinance is that it\ndoes not controvert the [Government] Code, to which the Assistant City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative; stated it can allow for additional transparency; for example,\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 9, "text": "if the State law says the agenda has to be posted 72 hours before the meeting, the local\nordinance, even with a Charter City, probably could not say it only has to be 48 hours;\non the other hand, it could have 12 days rather, than three days for Council and 7 days\nfor commissions.\nCommissioner Bonta stated it is likely that a lot of these analogs that were created, such\nas the use of policy bodies in the ordinance, are largely driven by the fact that the local\ngovernment bodies are groupings working together at the City level; stated that she\nwould be inclined to not undo the work of an open process and the year of work to come\nto this Ordinance; the work would be undone by thinking that the State code language\ncould just be slapped on; that she agrees that there are some areas where the\nordinance could have some clarification; the idea of a policy body was probably\ngenerated because the City is a local government.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the State law is written for local government; it is not written\nfor the State legislator; it is written almost exclusively for local government; that he does\nnot know why policy body was put in there; when you read policy body and you read\nlegislative body it is exactly the same thing.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he can speculate that the thought might have\nwhen you read legislative bodies many people might think that is simply the City Council\nbecause Council makes final decision as opposed to a policy body which might sound\nbroader to a layperson; he does not know if that would enter the equation or not; that he\ncan see how that could have played a part in coming up with that term rather than\nlegislative body; that is just a guess on his part, but it sounds logical that may have\nbeen part of the reasoning process.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the Commission can just go through the Ordinance piece by\npiece and vote.\nCommissioner Bonta inquired whether staff recommends reviewing the Ordinance or\ntabling the questions until the Commission has had a clear opportunity for review.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded his concern is that three people have just been\nappointed; Commissioner Tuazon has only been on the Commission a short while; that\nhe did not know whether ample time had been provided to allow the Commission to\ndigest the relatively few changes staff is recommending; if more time is needed,\na\nspecial meeting could be set up in March or April to bring back the matter along with\nany other items that the Commission might feel would be appropriate to consider; if the\nCommission feels comfortable considering the matter tonight, that is fine too; staff would\nalways bring back further amendments if the Commissions so desires.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she spent hours on the staff report; she would like to\ngo over what is before the Commission; what works, what does not work, what needs to\ncome back and go from there; then, the Commission can always expand what is\ndiscussed at the next meeting if that sounds reasonable.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Tuazon stated that sounds reasonable.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the Commission can just work from the red lines.\nCommission Dieter stated the Commission can just go down [the redline]; inquired\nwhether anybody has input under findings or if the Commission is okay with the findings\nthe way that it has been edited.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he is okay with it.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she is okay with the first section.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated [on Section 11 staff is not deleting the section entirely\nfrom the ordinance; that he simply moved it to a substantive section where he thought it\nmade more sense.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the Commission will talk about that when the section is\naddressed.\nChair Aguilar inquired whether having the Assistant City Attorney identify the changes\nwould be easier, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he can walk through\nthe red line; stated for Section 1 on Findings, the concept was that the matter seemed\nto be more of a substantive issue rather than a finding; he moved the Section to Section\n2-91.4(h); similarly, Section 2 on Responsibility of the City Manager and Mayor were in\nother portions of the Ordinance but having the Sections standalone made more sense.\nChair Aguilar inquired whether there are any comments on Section 2, to which\nCommissioner Dieter responded in the negative; stated this is exactly what was decided\nupon by the former Commissioners; it was achieved and clear.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 3 on Definition of Passive Meeting Body,\ndescribed more of a passive meeting itself, not a body, so the Section was deleted.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he has a comment on Section 2-91.1; suggested\nSubsection B be revised to quote the Government Code definition of a meeting word for\nword; stated the definition should be word for word and in the same order, unless the\nterm meeting is being expanded and broader than the Government Code; otherwise,\nthe City is bound by a definition in the State Code and bound by a slightly different\ndefinition in this Code; it does not jive in his mind.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she has not read the State Code and does not know\nthe difference between the State Code and the Ordinance; she is assuming Vice Chair\nForeman has done so and it is pretty much the same thing.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 11, "text": "Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of directing the [Assistant] City Attorney to review\nthe definition of meeting in Section 2-91.1(B); if he determines it to be identical to the\nGovernment Code Section, he use the Government Code language; if he believes it not\nto be identical, he make whatever edits he believes are appropriate.\nChair Aguilar inquired whether the motion is to have the changes come back to the\nCommission for approval, to which Vice Chair Foreman concurred.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the direction is fine with her.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Chair Foreman stated his opinion is that the term passive meeting body, wherever\nit occurs in the Ordinance, be changed to non-legislative body.\nCommissioner Dieter stated before the Commission goes there [addresses said\nchange], the former Commissioners had a long discussion on the matter at the previous\nmeeting; everyone had a problem with the word \"passive body\" and \"passive meeting\nbody;\" what was agreed upon was that it would be changed to something that everyone\nwould understand: advisory committee or advisory body.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he recalls that; the problem with it is that advisory\nbodies formed by the Council as a whole, by ordinance or an official Council action, are\nnot passive meeting bodies as defined in the document; advisory bodies are subject to\nthe Sunshine Ordinance just as much as City Council with a few minor exceptions; the\nword \"advisory\" cannot be used interchangeably with passive or non-legislative; most\nadvisory bodies, such as the Open Government Commission, are not passive bodies;\nCommissioner Dieter is right the discussion did occur; that he is suggesting using the\nword \"non-legislative.\"\nCommissioner Dieter inquired the difference between a policy body and an advisory\nbody.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the difficulty is that as defined, advisory bodies,\nsuch as the Planning Board, Open Government Commission or Recreation and Park\nCommission, are advisory commissions and are also policy bodies [under the Sunshine\nOrdinance] or are legislative bodies under the Government Code; to address Vice Chair\nForeman's concern, he tried to limit passive meeting bodies to just one category of\nthings: an advisory committee created by a single member of a policy body, including\nthe Mayor or a department head; that is the only body that would qualify as a passing\nmeeting body; taking out the section subsection would limit the number.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he does not see a need for adding Item 3; a committee\nthat exists solely of City employees would fall under Item 1; inquired whether Item 3 is\nneeded and differs from Item 1.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 12, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated that he would surmise the thought was whenever a\ncommittee of only City employees met, it would not be subject to the requirements for\npassive meeting bodies.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he is not hung up on non-legislative; it is fine if other\nCommissioners want to leave passive meeting body, which is not in State law at all.\nIn response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry about the Assistant City Attorney not\nfollowing the previous Commission's suggestion to use advisory, the Assistant City\nAttorney stated the concern was using the term \"advisory\" would get confused with the\nterm \"policy bodies\" which are advisory bodies under the Government Code; that he\nthought it would be better to leave the terminology as is even if it is somewhat odd; the\ndefinition is not going to apply to many committees.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she is okay with the Section.\nVice Chair Foreman stated there is still Section D.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated he added \"as a whole\" to make it clear and less\nambiguous; read the Section.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that his personal problem with Section D is that he would\nlove to see the word \"policy body\" removed; things governed by State law are being\naddressed; the State law calls them legislative bodies and the City is calling the exact\nsame thing a policy body; one is talking Spanish and the other is talking Greek; the\nsame subject is being addressed but different labels are being given.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether the Commission could table the term until getting\nthrough the redline.\nVice Chair Foreman responded in the affirmative; stated the Assistant City Attorney can\nmake a note of it and decide what he wants to do with it.\nChair Aguilar inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney could take a look at it to see\nif\npolicy body and legislative body are the same, to which the Assistant City Attorney\nresponded if the Commission's direction is to make amendments to the Ordinance to\nhave legislative body appear instead of policy body, staff can do that.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired what is the Assistant City Attorney's opinion, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded his only reticence is that from a year-long process, a\ngroup of citizens decided that policy body better fits the Ordinance than legislative body;\nthat he does not have a strong feeling one way or the other; how to define it is a policy\ncall.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 13, "text": "Chair Aguilar inquired whether there are meeting minutes for the committee that created\nthe Ordinance which might shed some light on the matter, to which the City Clerk\nresponded the minutes were action minutes and were not detailed.\nChair Aguilar inquired whether the minutes will not necessarily be that helpful as to why\ncertain things were followed, to which the City Clerk responded that she does not know\nif policy body was heavily discussed; it might have just been the wording that was in that\nsection of what [City] the Task Force was cutting and pasting from; she can research\nthe history.\nCommissioner Dieter stated before moving on to the next section, at the last meeting\n[former] Chair Cambra noted that policy body is being defined at a later time then when\nit\nis used and suggested moving that definition up under definitions; that she still thinks\nthat is a good idea.\nVice Chair Foreman stated it is under definitions.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Assistant City Attorney indicated alphabetical order is\nthe reason for where the definition is; the term is used numerous times before defining\nit; there was talk about just not paying attention to alphabetical order; maybe that\ndefinition should be moved to B rather than keeping it D.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired where it is used before the Section, to which the Assistant\nCity Attorney responded in the definition of meeting under Section 2-91.1, the term\npolicy body shows up there and a number of different places and that was a little bit of a\nconcern but it is the definition section.\nVice Chair Foreman stated ordinarily definitions are put in alphabetical order because if\nsomeone is researching it, they are going to have a hard time finding it if it is not in\nalphabetical order.\nChair Aguilar stated that she agrees that it needs to stay in alphabetical order; even if it\nis above, someone would look in the definitions to see if it is defined.\nCommissioner Dieter stated other than that, she is fine with that section; the\nCommission can move onto the next one called passive meetings.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 4 on Section 2-91.2 on Passive Meetings\nnow references where the definition section shows up, rather than writing out what a\nmeeting means; the word \"gatherings\" has been deleted and changed to meetings; the\nchanges to the Section are fairly innocuous.\nChair Aguilar stated the section is clearer.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 2-91.4 on Conduct of Business is where the\nterm \"advisory bodies\" shows up; the term is not defined; the intent was policy bodies\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n13", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 14, "text": "must do something and passive meeting bodies may do something in terms of\nconducting business.\nVice Chair Forman stated that he has a problem with that; the State Code uses the term\n\"advisory bodies\" in the Section that matches this; what the State Code basically says is\nthat the City Council has to have regular meetings, but advisory bodies, such as the\nPlanning Board, do not have to have regular meetings; then, it goes on to talk about\nhow their [board/commission] meetings shall be considered like regular meetings; the\nOrdinance takes from a Section that has nothing to do with passive meeting bodies;\nadvisory bodies cannot be removed because unless the intent is to broaden the State\nlaw to say that not just City Council but advisory bodies also have to give all these\nnotices, then there is nothing wrong with taking out \"except for advisory bodies\" if that is\nthe intent.\nChair Aguilar inquired whether policy bodies as defined in the Ordinance include\nadvisory bodies, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated to address Vice Chair Foreman's concern, perhaps\nthe intent was the City Council must have regular meetings that advisory bodies as\nused in the Government Code do not; if that is the intent, staff would have to indicate\nthat it is only the City Council that must do this and other policy bodies do not; that\nwordsmithing can be done if that is where the Commission wants to go with not\nrequiring all bodies, other than City Council, to establish a time and place for holding\nregular meetings.\nVice Chair Foreman stated he gets the impression the intent was to mimic State law,\nexcept when you get over to F, which really starts getting confusing; F says special\nmeetings of any policy body, including advisory bodies, that may choose to establish\nregular meeting times may be called at any time by the presiding officer; then, it goes\nback to passive meeting bodies.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he is not clear whether the intent was advisory\nbodies referred to passive meeting bodies or whether the intent was to refer to passive\nmeeting bodies, such as the Planning Board, Open Government Commission and\nRecreation and Park Commission; that he is not certain of the intent.\nCommissioner Dieter stated there would not be any problems if they were called boards\nand commissions.\nChair Aguilar inquired whether there was not a definition for advisory bodies, which is\nwhy it was being taken out, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative; stated there was not a definition of advisory body.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the problem is that there are two different kinds of advisory\nbodies; there are advisory bodies that are established by formal action of the Council,\nwhich come under the State law and there are advisory bodies that are appointed by\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n14", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 15, "text": "one Councilmember that do not; the matter has been clarified; E also jumps around and\naddresses advisory bodies; that he does not know how passive body got mixed in with\nadvisory body because they are two different things; they are two different things even\nin the context of the section.\nChair Aguilar questioned whether defining advisory bodies would clarify the matter;\nstated passive meeting bodies have now been defined.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether advisory bodies formed by Council follow all these\nrules, such as the 12 day rule, to which the City Clerk responded they have a seven day\nrule; the Council is the only one with the 12 day [publication rule], all of the rest have 7\n[day publication requirements].\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether that is written in the Sunshine Ordinance, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Chair Foreman's inquiry where is the 12 and 7 day rule, the\nAssistant City Attorney stated said Section was not changed.\nCommissioner Dieter stated it is in F.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired where is the 7 days for the advisory board, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded probably in one of the sections that is not being\nchanged.\nThe City Clerk stated it is in Section 2-91.5 on agenda requirements for regular\nmeetings in the Sunshine Ordinance; there was no change, so it is not in the red line.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether all the bodies have regular meetings, to which the\nCity Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the fact of the matter is that they have all chosen to have\nregular meetings.\nThe City Clerk stated all standing boards and commissions, such as the Open\nGovernment Commission and Planning Board, have regular meeting dates that they\nhave established.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether there is no commission appointed by formal\naction that is appointed by the Council that does not have regular meetings, to which\nthe City Clerk responded it could happen; the deadline is the same for special or regular\nmeetings of boards and commissions; it is [always] 7 days; it does not matter if it is a\nregular or special meeting.\nVice Chair Foreman stated in effect, the way the City treats advisory bodies the same\nas the City Council with regard to having regular meetings; they do have regular\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n15", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 16, "text": "meetings; they are required to have regular meetings even though the Sunshine\nOrdinance says they are not; they have chosen to do it; that he is wondering if the\nSection should just be taken out altogether; leave the deletion so even advisory bodies\nhave to have regular meetings.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that is what he was trying to do; all advisory bodies\nseem to have regular meeting dates; so it seemed de facto that is what was going on.\nCommissioner Bonta inquired whether there is a big difference between shall versus\nmust.\nVice Chair Foreman responded shall is mandatory by law and really means the same as\nmust.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he is simply trying to indicate that passive\nmeeting bodies would not have to follow the same requirement.\nVice Chair Foreman stated maybe the way to write it is to scratch out advisory bodies;\ninquired whether the Assistant City Attorney has already taken advisory body out of this\naltogether, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that makes sense and means any commission or committee\ncreated by formal action has to have regular meetings and follow these rules; for\npassive meeting bodies, it is optional; that he is okay with it if everybody else is; he is\nnot sure that it was intended originally, but it makes sense in practice.\nChair Aguilar inquired whether everyone agrees and there were no objections.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section H on Use of Electronic Communication\nDevices was moved down from the findings.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he does not like it; his argument with it is not legalistic;\nthis is the modern age; the Section is to stop secret meetings during a meeting by text\nor email; all this stuff is done in secret whether it is done in front of the public; you have\nto catch somebody doing it; it is a violation for more than two people to have a\ndiscussion.\nThe City Clerk stated that she could provide some background information; the Section\nwas very important to the Sunshine Task Force; the intent was to prohibit\ncommunication, not within the members themselves, but from somebody outside who\ndid not want to get up and publically state their opinion from influencing the decision\nduring the public process; the concept was to keep from communications, not just\namongst themselves, but from private influences.\nVice Chair Foreman stated his concern was making them shut it down all together; if he\nis in a meeting and he has a question such as what the Del Monte project looks like, he\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n16", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 17, "text": "could look up overhead Google view or if there is a State Code provision that might\naffect the decision, questioned why he should not be able to reference something on his\niPad; that he wishes the Section was written in a way that does not require shutting it\ndown and simply tells you certain things that you cannot do that would be a violation;\nsome of them [Councilmembers] have computers; questioned whether members never\nrefer to their computers for anything on an agenda.\nCommissioner Tuazon stated this is about sending and receiving email or texts.\nCommissioner Bonta stated Vice Chair Foreman is responding to this second sentence,\nwhich says: \"the use of electronic communication devices other than the purpose of a\nmember accessing agenda material.'\nVice Chair Foreman stated \"use of electronic material other than the purpose of a\nmember accessing agenda materials shall be prohibited during meetings\" is what he\ndoes not like; there should be a little more leeway; it should not be limited to just agenda\nitems.\nCommissioner Bonta stated the thing trying to be prevented is specific communications;\nthat she agrees with Vice Chair Foreman.\nVice Chair Foreman stated there are so many things on the Internet that could be\nhelpful to any Councilmember; saying what members cannot do would make sense.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the concern would be that if a person is using a cell\nphone at all, how is the public going to know whether it is being used to access a State\nCode or if it is being used it to get information from an outside source.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired how the public is going to know that he does not call\nMayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and get them\ntogether on a conference call; you have to catch someone; that he does not see how\nthey would know that any more than they would know what is being viewed on a\ncomputer.\nChair Aguilar stated Councilmembers are given all the [agenda] information ahead of\ntime and do not have to look things up at the meeting.\nVice Chair Foreman stated a question could arise during a meeting; that he might want\nto look up a City record that is already on the website that is not on the agenda; his\nopinion is it is a little too restrictive.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she does not know what they were thinking exactly;\nperhaps at a City Council meeting, a consultant might speak; then, a member of the\naudience at that moment might email the Councilmember to say ask the person this and\nsay this.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n17", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Chair Foreman stated a Councilmember cannot respond to that; that he has no\nproblem with prohibiting that.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether what Vice Chair Foreman is saying is that he\ndoes not like the fact that the member cannot access material.\nVice Chair Foreman responded they cannot access any material other than agenda\nmaterial; stated Councilmember Daysog has a computer up at every meeting; no one\nknows what he is looking at; the law has been in effect, not that he is not accusing\nCouncilmember Daysog of anything.\nThe City Clerk stated the Section does not just apply to the Council, it applies to all\nboards and commissions.\nVice Chair Foreman stated it seems that language can be written that says a device\ncannot be used to communicate to another member of the board about any meeting\nsubject or to receive any communications; language can be drafted; something can be\ndrafted about what members are prohibited from doing with electronic devices.\nCommissioner Dieter stated Vice Chair Foreman's proposal is to delete the last\nsentence and include what, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded it is going to take\nsome drafting; that he cannot sit here and draft it by himself.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated essentially what he is hearing, if this is the direction\nof the Commission, is that the second sentence would essentially largely track what is in\nthat first sentence; the first sentence states the rule; the second sentence states the\nprohibition; that he could add language about communication with other policy board\nmembers as well as members of the public to avoid a Brown Act issue as well as the\noutside information; that would be more restrictive than what the second sentence\nreads; it can be written that way if it is the Commission's direction.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney would draft something\nthat the Commission could review, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative; stated the Commission seems okay with certain things and some other\nthings will be brought back; if the Commission wants to review the language, staff can\nprovide a draft.\nChair Aguilar stated that would be good.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the suggestion is fine with him.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 6 on Public Notice Requirements was\ndiscussed at the last Commission meeting; if a member of a policy body is unable to\nattend a meeting at which an item is going to be discussed, the Section would prohibit\nthe absent member from submitting written comments to be read into the record at that\nmeeting; the former Commission thought that was a good idea so it has been added.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n18", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 19, "text": "The Commissioners expressed support.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 7 on Video Recording has been revised to\nadd \"for at least 10 years\" to put the requirement in writing; the City Clerk indicated that\nvideos are probably held longer.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the previous Commissioners thought that the reference to\nyears should be left out altogether because it is not an issue; the matter could be\nbrought back if it ever becomes an issue; suggested leaving out the references to the\ntime frame at all because it is not a storage issue; questioned why even raise a flag that\nafter 10 years maybe the City will get rid of it.\nCommissioner Bonta stated the issue was that there was unlimited storage capacity but\nthere could be other reasons.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the City Clerk indicated everything is kept and capacity is\nnot an issue.\nCommissioner Bonta stated adding a timeframe makes sense to give guidance about\nwhat the limitations should be; there might be a different driver beyond storage capacity.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired how would the public know if they want to look at\nsomething over 10 years ago that the City might have decided to get rid of that\ninformation because the Sunshine Ordinance says that the City only had to keep it for at\nleast 10 years.\nCommissioner Bonta responded that is exactly what the City would want; stated the City\nwould want the public to have some indication about the requirements to store the\ninformation for at least 10 years; the fact that there is information beyond that available\nperhaps is another articulation; it does not make it lower.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired what is the purpose of including it, to which the Assistant\nCity Attorney responded that he recalled that there was a 10 year period.\nThe City Clerk stated 10 years was included and is being expanded to at least 10 years\nbecause the City is going beyond it; \"at least\" was clearing up that it was going to go\nbeyond; right now, the City currently has nine years of video posted on the web; starting\nnext year, the City will probably be going beyond [10 years].\nCommissioner Dieter inquired if something happened 12 years ago, will the public think\nit is no longer around until they ask the City Clerk, to which the City Clerk responded\nthis section only pertains to videos; stated the prior videos are VHS, which are old and\ndeteriorating; there is going to be a point where they are not going to play anymore; the\nCouncil direction in the past was to retain the VHS, but they are not being archived;\n2006 is when the City started having video available on the web.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n19", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 20, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated this is for the old VHS because for the new videos, the City\nhas a contract with no limit; the City could keep videos for 40 or 50 years.\nThe City Clerk stated the way technology and capacity are increasing, she would\nassume that the City would be able to keep that up; at this point, the City does not have\n10 years, but videos would be kept up once the City goes past the 10 years.\nVice Chair Foreman stated he is okay with leaving it the way it has been changed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the other part of Section 7 is that with the dissolving\nof redevelopment agencies, the Community Improvement Commission is now the\nSuccessor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission; a technicality in terms\nof the name of that particular policy body.\nCommissioner Dieter stated there are two references in the Sunshine Ordinance to the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) which has been disbanded; the\nCity does not even have that anymore.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated he asked the Community Development Director\nabout whether that should stay and she suggested that it stay in there.\nCommissioner Bonta stated if the City is keeping videos from the prior 10 years, the\nARRA did exist at that time; this is to make sure that the City keeps the ARRA videos.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 8 on Public Comment by Members of the\nPolicy Body has some language added at the end to make it clear that while members\nof policy bodies certainly have the right to voice their opinion, it is not intended to\nprohibit the City Council from removing members if the Council feels the member has\ngone beyond their assigned duties.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he is not sure why it is in there; if it is a constitutional\nright, it is a constitutional right; questioned why does it have to be codified; stated what\nbothers him about it is there are certain things that City Council members cannot\ncomment on as a matter of law if Councilmembers are playing a judicial role; for\ninstance the rules of procedure state that if there is a public hearing on a matter, such\nas a development plan, Section 1-C prohibits a Councilmember from discussing or\ncommenting on a public hearing issue outside of a Council meeting; certain proceedings\nare considered to be judicial in nature and Councilmembers are not allowed to make\ncomments until they vote.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether Vice Chair Foreman is commenting on the\naddition or the entire provision, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded the entire\nprovision; stated because Councilmembers do not have a full constitution right to\ncomment on these things if Council is going to be making a judicial type of decision;\nduring the campaign, certain candidates said they could not comment on a matter\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n20", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 21, "text": "because it is a judicial matter that they would have to act on; that was wrong because\nthere is an exception that if you are in a campaign, you can comment; but if you are not\nin a campaign, you cannot comment because you would be disqualifying yourself from\nmaking the decision; stated that he does not know why this language is included or\nneeded; stated that he does not need the Code to tell him that he has a constitutional\nright to say what he wants to say; in this particular case, it may lead a Councilmember\nto believe that they can make a comment on a zoning matter when they are specifically\nprohibited from doing so.\nCommissioner Dieter stated it makes no sense to say that the Council can remove a\nmember; that she is not sure why that is in the Sunshine Ordinance; they also cannot\nwrite a letter that contradicts a policy.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired why it is in the Sunshine Ordinance.\nCommissioner Dieter concurred; stated the entire Section could be removed;\nparticularly the addition; otherwise it should include that members of the City Council\ncan be removed by referendum and address how they could be removed.\nCommissioner Bonta stated the general structure is that the City Council appoints other\npolicy bodies that serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and Council; it might be ill placed;\nCouncil does have the ability to remove members of a policy body.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that does make sense but he does not know why it is in the\nSunshine Ordinance.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired what does the section have to do with accessing\ngovernment, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he thought that revising the\nordinance that members of policy bodies can make public comment, it should be clear\nsome right was not being created that would prevent the City Council from removing a\nmember; then, the person could turn around and sue the City under some right that has\nbeen now created in the Ordinance; the addition is a protective measure; Vice Chair\nForeman makes a good point that the statement is probably broader than what it really\nsays; the intent was to make sure a person still has a right as a citizen to make\ncomments, but it is not quite as black and white as the language would suggest.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether the City Charter includes that Council can\nremove a member of an appointed body, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded\nthat he does not recall it being included.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired if it is not in the City Charter why is it in the Sunshine\nOrdinance, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the ordinance indicates that\npolicy body members have a right to comment on governmental actions; that would not\nnecessarily preclude a majority of the City Council from being able to remove them; that\nhe does not want the Ordinance giving a person a right to sue the City on the grounds\nthat they were illegally removed.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n21", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 22, "text": "Vice Chair Foreman suggested that the Commission take the position that the matter is\noutside of its jurisdiction and refer it back to the City Council; this is not a public access\nissue.\nCommissioner Dieter concurred.\nVice Chair Foreman stated it has to do with Council's power to go over agencies they\ncreate; it has nothing to do with sunshine.\nCouncilmember Dieter stated if that is a motion, she seconds it.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that is a motion.\nCommissioner Bonta inquired whether Vice Chair Foreman is referring to the second or\nthird clause, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded that he is referring to the whole\nsection; stated it is not wrong, it is misplaced; it is outside of the Commission's purview.\nCommissioner Bonta stated every policy body member retaining the constitutional right\nto comment publically has relevance to how a member of a policy body might continue\nto speak in public; having something in full transparency and openly available that\nmembers are able to speak their mind, which is the intent, is a helpful thing to have in\nthe Sunshine Ordinance.\nCommissioner Dieter suggested a compromise: leaving in the first part of the provision\nthat was already there that goes with sunshine; the addition added by staff does not\nbelong in the Sunshine Ordinance and actually causes problems.\nCommissioner Bonta stated the intent is that the City would not have any future liability\nfrom exercising its right to remove members.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that should go somewhere else, such as the City Charter.\nCommissioner Bonta stated reading the section, people would understand they would\nbe able to speak their mind even sitting on a policy body; after choosing to speak their\nmind, if the City removed the member, it would not be because they choose to speak\ntheir mind; there is a relationship; that she would recommend the language be\nredrafted.\nVice Chair Foreman concurred the language needs to be redrafted; stated that he is\nworried about the first line; if the Planning Board has to approve a development plan,\nthe burden of proof is on the developer; it is something that is supposed to be\ndetermined after the hearing and is not something that can be prejudged; if a member of\nthe Planning Board is quoted in the paper a week before the meeting saying: \"the plan\nis lousy and I and not going to vote for it;\" that is illegal; yet the Ordinance is saying the\nmember has a full constitutional right to do it; somehow it has to be redrafted; it could be\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n22", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 23, "text": "redrafted pretty easily to say that members cannot comment on items they are going to\nmake a judicial decision on.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated this area of the law is murky; development plan in\nAlameda are legislative acts, not quasi-judicial, so the judicial rules would not apply;\nhowever, for a use permit, which is quasi-judicial, the point is well taken; on the other\nhand, courts recognize that elected and appointed officials are out in the community;\npart of being an elected official is listening to the community; the community wants to\nhear official's opinions on matters; there is a fine line between expressing interest and\nlistening to people, but not showing improper bias; the line can be difficult to draw;\ndrafting something may be difficult, but he will take a stab to try to address the issue\nmore clearly.\nCommissioner Dieter requested the Assistant City Attorney to explain the last sentence:\nappointed policies bodies moreover may not take formal action nor undertake activities\nsuch as writing a letter that contradicts a policy or a position that the City Council has\nadopted or expressed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he has seen situations were an advisory body\ntakes formal action, such as writing a letter, that is contradictory to what the City Council\nhas done; it cases the City and City Council some embarrassment; the idea is to put\ninto written form that advisory bodies are not to do that; it is a policy decision; the\nlanguage can be left or removed; he has seen it cause difficulty for a City Council in the\npast, so he put it in.\nIn response to Commissioner Bonta's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the line\nis not always bright; a commission can express reservation about a City Council policy\nor action; however, the commission communicating in a formal way is what this is\nintended to say should not be done.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether it has ever happened in Alameda, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded that he does not know if it has happened in Alameda;\nstated that he is aware of it happening in other jurisdictions.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether writing a letter means writing a letter to the City\nCouncil, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded it would mean writing a letter to\nan outside agency for example.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the language should definitely say \"to an outside agency. \"\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the Section is not intended to prevent\ncommunication between a commission and the City Council; the language could be\nclearer.\nVice Chair Foreman stated there should be something somewhere about how to\nremove people from commissions.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n23", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 24, "text": "The City Clerk stated by majority [Council] vote.\nVice Chair Foreman stated his compromise would be to leave in the first part and leave\nout the last part; the particular sentence is not sunshine and has to do with when you\ncan and cannot remove a member from a body.\nThe City Clerk stated the Section was added to inform a member of a body; since\nsunshine is about providing information, the Attorney's idea is to put more information\nout there and inform them if they have not read the other provisions that they could be\ntaken off because they might not be aware.\nVice Chair Foreman stated inform them in the right section of the law; inquired why it\nwould it be here.\nThe City Clerk responded every board and commission member is required to read the\nordinance; they are not required to read the other sections of the law; they are all\nannually required to read it.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he would redraft and bring back some language\nthat might be more acceptable to the Commission.\nCommissioner Dieter stated out of all of the Sections, this is the one that is being tabled\nall together; there is a problem with it.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 9 the first sentence under 2-92.2 has been\nmoved to the front of the ordinance; in October, the Commission talked about the fact\nthat sometimes the 10 day rule could not always be met and that there are\ncircumstances when additional time is needed; he pulled the language out of the Public\nRecords Act and put it into Subsection C to allow additional time for the custodian of\nrecords to respond as long as they gave the reasons for the extensions and the date on\nwhich the determination was supposed to be provided.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether there was a typo with the part that was added in\nSection D should it say employee \"or\" elected official rather than \"of,\" to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the new Subsection G has been moved up from a\ndifferent Section; Section 10 on Responsibilities of the Mayor, has been moved to a\ndifferent section in the front; Section 11 explains what is going to be available on the\nCity's website for a certain period of time and what would be on essentially forever.\nCommissioner Dieter stated she had a hard time understanding the additions to Section\n2-92.4: documents must be posted on the City's website, but these particular\ndocuments may be removed.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n24", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 25, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney continued the sentence: four years after they are filed or\nadopted; stated the items may be kept, but it is a matter of whether they should be kept\non the City's website all the time; it is not that they would not exist, but they would not\nbe on the City's website.\nCommissioner Dieter stated at the last meeting, discussion was that there is no problem\nwith keeping items on the City's website; space is not a problem; questioned whether\nagendas and minutes would be removed after four years, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded in terms of the website, correct.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired why it says agendas and minutes would be removed after\nfour years if there is no capacity problem, to which the Assistant City Attorney\nresponded information would be stale after said length of time.\nThe City Clerk stated some of the things that would change over time would be the\nExecutive Management Work Plans, Capital Improvement Plans and Environmental\nImpact Reports (EIR), which are very large and could be removed after the project has\nbeen approved and completed; said documents get updated so retaining them for a\nlong period might be harder; agendas and minutes are in a database; maybe agendas\nand minutes can be removed from the Section.\nVice Chair Foreman noted the Planning Board never post minutes; inquired if it is\nviolation of the Section, to which the City Clerk responded that she would follow up on\nthe matter.\nCommissioner Bonta stated there seem to be some things, such as the Alameda\nMunicipal Code, which have the current version, not the prior version for four years\npast, to which the City Clerk concurred.\nChair Aguilar stated the addition should be added at the bottom [of the Section].\nVice Chair Foreman and the Assistant City Attorney concurred.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the items could be asterisked with an explanation at\nthe bottom; agendas and minutes will not be asterisked; the rest will because they\nchange after four years.\nChair Aguilar inquired whether what would be posted is always going to be the most\nrecent version.\nThe City Clerks responded in the affirmative; stated the [Municipal] Code, in particular,\nis always up to date.\nCommissioner Tuazon stated that he understands removing from the website; inquired\nwhether the information completely deleted, to which the City Clerk responded in the\nnegative.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n25", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 26, "text": "Commissioner Tuazon stated it is still stored somewhere, just out of the website.\nCommissioner Dieter stated she is glad agendas and minutes are going to be removed;\nshe also has a problem with EIR's, which can take up a lot of space because they are\noften big; however, when a project is still being built, people may want to go back to\nthat, Alameda Point in particular, which was just passed last year; chances are the City\nwill not move forward with building anything for a couple more years; in four years when\nthe City is getting ready to start with one section, the EIR will already have been\nremoved from the website; it makes more sense to remove it from the City's website\nonce the project is final and has been built out.\nThe City Clerk stated the Alameda Point EIR would be an exception and would be left\nup; people are going to be referring to it during all the phases; the Section is addressing\nthe more typical EIR for a smaller project that would be completed within one year.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired could the language be that the EIR would be removed\n[from the website] when the project has been completed, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded staff can get terminology from Community Development to reflect\nthe concept, which is a valid point.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 12 on Public Records Index, struck language\nthat was supposed to happen within 12 months from the enactment of the ordinance\nhas been accomplished; there is no reason to keep it in the ordinance any longer;\nSection 13 on Matters of Public Concern, the attempt was to rework the language\nwithout changing the substance; the concern was it was not particularly clear; basically\nsaying that an employee or policy board member can express an opinion as long as it\ndoes not materially misrepresent the position of the City or the department or the policy\nby which a member belongs.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired if it is similar to the one that the Commission tabled, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded it is similar but goes to a little different\nissue; stated if he is speaking as a member of the public but he happens to be on the\nPlanning Board, he can indicate that he is a Planning Board member but he is only\nspeaking on behalf of himself and not the Planning Board; he should not represent that\nhe is representing the Planning Board, which is what this language is intending to\naddress and is fair and accurate.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he has a little bit of a problem with it; he is conflicted;\nprovided an example from last Council meeting when Karen Lucas spoke about the City\ntrying to make peace with East Bay Regional Park District and suggested the City\nManager be disqualified; stated that he can see a public employee making a public\nstatement that he has every right to make but that makes it difficult for the City to\nperform its business; he not saying this [Ms. Lucas's commenting] is an example.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n26", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 27, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated the City Manager might make a statement that does not\nnecessarily represent the City.\nVice Chair Foreman added or the Mayor or a Councilmember or a member of the\nPlanning Board; stated they have a right to state their opinion, but questioned not to be\ndisciplined or reprimanded for it; someone can state any opinion on anything and it can\nbe as out in left field and prejudicial to the City, but if you state it as an individual, not as\na member of the body, it is not disciplined; there is case law about statements that can\nbe made and not be disciplined under freedom of speech; however, the language is\nkind of carte blanche.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated similar to the previous section, the issue is very\ndifficult and contentious; the courts bound around about whether or not a person is\nbringing forth a matter that is of public concern, which one has the right to do,\nnotwithstanding the fact that the person is an employee, versus bringing forth something\nthat is really just complaining about one's job, which the person does not have the right\nto do in a public forum; he is just trying to clarify the existing language; that is the only\npurpose of making the amendments; he attempted to work with what was initially\nadopted rather than trying to write a very nuanced dissertation about when an employee\ncan and cannot be disciplined.\nVice Chair Foreman stated his thoughts would be to not have the Section at all; leave it\nto the courts to determine in individual situations because the cases are all over the\nplace.\nThe City Clerk stated the intent of the Sunshine Task Force adding the section was so\nthat employees or board and commission members would not feel like if they had an\nopinion on a project as an individual, they could not come to a Council meeting [to\nexpress the opinion]; people would be getting up as an individual and allowed to still\nhave an opinion on a specific project.\nVice Chair Foreman stated there is no such thing as the Mayor getting up in public and\nmaking a statement about a City matter, but saying she is not doing it as Mayor.\nThe City Clerk noted the language used to say City board, commission or committee,\nwhich could be changed back; specifying public employees, boards, commissions or\ncommittees excluded the Council in the past; perhaps staff can provide that distinction;\nstated just because a person on a City board does not want to feel like they are losing\ntheir right to come, as an individual, and comment, which is the intent.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the idea is that it would be applicable to public\nemployees and policy bodies, other than the elected officials.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the language he does not like is: \"shall not be disciplined\nfor;\" \"nothing in this section shall be construed to provide rights to public employees or\npolicy board members beyond those recognized by law or agreement or create a new\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n27", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 28, "text": "private cause of action or offense to disciplinary action\" is really good language, except\nit has been negated in the first sentence; the last sentence says an employee can be\ndisciplined and this first sentence says cannot.\nCommissioner Bonta stated the first sentence says an employee cannot be disciplined\nfor expression of personal opinions when not materially misrepresenting their position\nas an employee of the City.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated this area of the law is not clear; a person has certain\nconstitutional rights; the idea is that the ordinance should not create additional rights\nbeyond that which is already recognized by law; in other words, the ordinance would not\ngive a separate cause of action if someone expresses an opinion and is disciplined for\nit; the City does not want the fifth cause of action to be a violation of Section 2-92.6 of\nthe Alameda Municipal Code.\nCommissioner Bonta suggested the Section be redrafted perhaps adding the language\nprovides \"additional rights\" to the last clause.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 14 is just housekeeping, clarifying language;\nSection 15 has been moved to the Section on posting of information; Section 16 has\nbeen moved into a previous section dealing with providing records; Section 17 would\nchange the training from every year to every third year; the video is available to\nanybody elected, appointed or hired.\nCommissioner Bonta questioned whether Section 2-92.15 on requests by email stating\nan email has to be acknowledged by similar communication is limiting; stated there are\nprobably instances when calling would be helpful.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Section can be made broader; continued that\ncompletes [the review] all of the changes which were discussed in October; staff will\nredraft the ones the Commissions suggested be worked on; if there is anything else the\nCommission feels needs some fine tuning or wholesale changes, please let staff know.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired when it will be ready; stated there is no hurry but the\nCommission is going to have to have a special meeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded sometime in March or April.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether the Commission should schedule the meeting.\nThe City Clerk responded the bylaws set Mondays at 7:00 p.m. as the meeting date;\nstated March 2nd would require the packet to go out February 23rd, which is a little tight;\nfor April 6th, the Commission would receive the packet on March 30th.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated April 6th is doable.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n28", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 29, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission was provided a full copy of the Sunshine\nOrdinance; having the complete Sunshine Ordinance include redlines would be easier\nto follow versus going back and forth; when there is a redline suggested including a\nnotation, such as moved to versus deleted in its entirety; the City Council would also\nreally appreciate knowing what has been deleted and what has just been rearranged.\nIn response to Commissioner Bonta's inquiry regarding the meeting date, the City Clerk\nresponded the meeting could be held May 4th\nCommissioner Bonta inquired whether the meeting have to be held on the first Monday,\nto which the City Clerk responded the Council Chambers are available the first Monday;\nthat she could check availability for other dates.\nThe Commission agreed to hold the next meeting March 30th.\nCommissioner Dieter addressed the minutes; inquired whether new agenda items could\nbe on a new line; stated it was extremely difficult to read a new line item at the end of\nthe previous line on the current minutes; if the Commission is discussing a particular\nSection, have it start on a new line; even the agenda item itself could be listed; in this\nparticular one, there was no explanation for potential revisions; in the future, suggested\ncopying and pasting from the agenda into the minutes so the public would know what\nthe actual agenda item was.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether Commission Dieter is asking for example: \"3-C\nPotential Revisions to the City Sunshine Ordinance,\" to which Commissioner Dieter\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe City Clerk stated it [the agenda title] is always carried over.\nCommissioner Dieter stated on the minutes we just approved they were not there.\nThe City Clerk responded it was there.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she would show the City Clerk after the meeting.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired how Commissioners can add things to the agenda;\ninquired who does the agenda.\nThe City Clerk responded the City Attorney's Office and City Clerk's office staff the\nCommission and add agenda items; stated if Commissioners have items to bring\nforward, sometimes they have raised them during Commissioner Communications.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired what if a Commissioner wants to add an item before the\nagenda goes out, to which the City Clerk responded it could be added under\nCommissioner Communications; requested an example.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n29", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-02-02", "page": 30, "text": "Vice Chair Foreman provided an example: recommend to Council under that the\nCommission's jurisdiction should be expanded; stated the Commission is called Open\nGovernment but the actual grant of authority is Sunshine Ordinance; other aspects of\nthe law pertain to open government and the Commission's role should be expanded.\nThe City Clerk stated the Commissioners need to provide the item greater than the\nseven days ahead of [publication] time; that she would indicate that it is coming from the\nCommissioner so the other Commissioners understand it is not staff generated.\nCommissioner Dieter stated it is a little bit more free flowing than the City Council, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded the City Council has an extensive Council referral\nprocess but the Commission does not have that.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired when Commissioners have referrals, should it have a\nstaff report.\nThe City Clerk responded typically, staff would want to wait to get direction from the\nwhole Commission before putting too much work into the matter; if the rest of the\nCommission does not agree with going in that direction; stated it is easier for staff to get\ndirection from the whole Commission.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated it is similar to a referral; if a Commissioners wants to\nbring something forward, they would communicate it to the City Clerk; it would then\nappear under Commissioner Communications; the Commission would have a chance to\ntalk about it because it would be noticed; then if there is support to bring something\nback, staff would do it; if there is not support, it does not go anywhere.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Aguilar adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n30", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY MARCH 30, 2015 7:00 P.M.\nChair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Dieter, Foreman, and Chair Aguilar - 3.\nAbsent:\nCommissioners Bonta, Tuazon - 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the February 2, 2015 Meeting\nChair Aguilar stated there were a couple places in the meeting minutes said Vice Mayor\nwhich should say Commissioner and the Sunshine Ordinance should be capitalized,\nin\na few places.\nVice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as amended.\nCommissioner Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\n3-B. Potential Revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance\nAssistant City Attorney Roush gave a brief presentation outlining the changes in the\nredlined version of the Sunshine Ordinance.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he was the one who raised the issue; he is satisfied with\nthe changes.\nCommissioner Dieter thanked the Assistant City Attorney for the layout of the revisions;\nstated it is easier to follow.\nThe Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she has problems with Section 2-91.17; the title is:\n\"Public Comment by Members of Policy Bodies;\" in general, the Section is not about\npublic comment by policy bodies; it is about individuals, which led her to reread this\nclause again; she expressed concern at the last meeting and continues to have the\nsame concern; the issue is not a sunshine issue; the role and limitations of boards and\ncommissions is spelled out in the Charter; the last sentence which addresses appointed\npolicy bodies should be deleted.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 2, "text": "Vice Chair Foreman concurred; stated the Section should be deleted it in its entirety;\nthat he does not need to be told he has a constitutional right to speak out; he does not\nknow why the Section would be in the Sunshine Ordinance; everyone has the right to\nspeak out as individuals as long as long as speaking for themselves; boards and\ncommissions have the right to speak out as a body even if disagreeing with Council; the\nonly control Council should have is to relieve members of duties; the Section does not\nadd anything.\nChair Aguilar sated the Section is not just indicating members have a constitutional right\nto speak out; inquired if Vice Chair Foreman wants to remove the entire Section, to\nwhich Vice Chair Foreman responded in the affirmative.\nChair Aguilar inquired if Commissioner Dieter want to remove the last sentence, to\nwhich Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Foreman read the Section; stated if Council disagrees with a Commission on\nsomething the only right is what they have in the Charter, to relieve members of duties;\nthat he does not have any idea what the second sentence accomplishes; in the next\npart simply restates what is in the Charter; he does not see a purpose served by any of\nit.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she does not mind having everybody know that they\ncan speak out for themselves; she does not have a problem reminding folks that just\nbecause they are on a board or commission does not mean they do not have a voice in\nthe community; what she does have a problem with is telling policy bodies that they\ncannot take a position that contradicts a policy or decision of the City Council, which is\nthe opposite of the intent of Boards and Commissions that exist to advise Council; for\ninstance, if the City Council decides not to implement bus rapid transit on the West End\nand the Transportation Commission strongly opposes the position, they should have a\nright to address or send a letter to the City Council; the whole purpose of Boards and\nCommissions is to advise even if it against what the City Council deems fit.\nVice Chair Foreman stated as a compromise, he would not have any problem with\nleaving in the first sentence through \"Section 2-91-6(e)\" and leaving out the next\nsentence: \"Policy bodies shall not sanction, remove or deprive members of the rights;\"\nhe does not know what purpose the language serves; he does want to deprive the City\nCouncil from criticizing members any more than he wants to deprive any member from\ncriticizing the City Council; he would take the sentence out altogether and leave in the\npart about the City Charter even though it is just restated; he would take out the\nsentence prohibiting formal action; stated the first sentence should stay in, the second\nsentence should be deleted, the third underlined sentence should stay in, and the final\nsentence should be deleted.\nCommissioner Dieter stated she had no problem with the Vice Chair Foreman's\nrecommendation.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Aguilar stated that she is not sure why the second sentence is included; she\nhesitates because the ordinance has gone through a committee and was accepted by\nthe City Council; she is a hesitant to just start deleting things; stated she does not know\nthat she would necessarily take out the sentences.\nIn response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry about the last sentence, Chair Aguilar\nstated the language is new.\nIn response to Commissioner Dieter's further inquiry, Chair Aguilar responded the\nsecond sentence is being discussed.\nCommissioner Dieter stated in order to reach a compromise she does not mind keeping\nthe language in, as long as that last sentence about policy bodies is removed.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he does not have a problem with said suggestion; the\nsecond sentence is meaningless to him; drafters work can be respected; however, he\nquestions why is the ordinance being reviewed if so much respect is given that the\nCommission cannot improve it; he respects her view and would agree to keep\neverything except the new sentence.\nChair Aguilar inquired if the Assistant City Attorney added the last sentence for a\nreason.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; provided an example of the\nCity Council adopting a particular policy and a Commission writing a letter to an outside\nagency that not necessarily contradicted what the Council had done, but certainly raised\nan issue; there was some concern expressed at the Council meeting about whether or\nnot Commissions should do so; there is not an adopted Council policy concerning the\nmatter; the Section would address the matter, which does not have to be in the\nSunshine Ordinance; the City Council could adopt a standalone policy; the Sunshine\nOrdinance seems an appropriate place to put it, is not necessarily the only place it has\nto go; if the Commission feels the matter might be better addressed somewhere else\nthen staff will take that recommendation.\nCommissioner Dieter stated raising the matter with Council is a good idea; that she\nrecalls the letter was to the Mayor, not an outside agency; the City Council can address\nthe policy, but she would not want to make it part of the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he drafted the language so it would not apply to\na Commission writing to the Council; it is directed to an outside agency or organization.\nChair Aguilar stated that is what it says.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the language achieves prohibiting appointed policy bodies\nfrom writing letters to outside agencies or organizations that contradicts a Council policy\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 4, "text": "or position, but when broadened other formal actions and activities could be constituted\nas all different situations.\nVice Chair Foreman suggested taking the suggested position that it is an inappropriate\nrevision to the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Council could take up the matter as a separate item;\ninquired if the approach is acceptable, to which the Commissioners responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation.\nVice Chair Foreman stated his position last time about Section 2-92.6 was that it should\nnot be included; the more he reviews it, the stronger he feels that it should not be\nincluded; if it is going to be included, it should not be under Section 2-92.6 which has to\ndo with records; it should be moved to Section 2-91.18; he did research on the City\nemployee issue; the term City employee is better; public employee could be somebody\nwho works for the County, federal government or State; a City employee, under case\nlaw, can speak out on a matter of public concern other than his/her duties; speaking\npursuant to official duties does not allow first amendment protection; provided an\nexample: a Police Officer talking about the new fire station, which is not part of his\nduties, has protection; however, if what the Officer says is knowingly or recklessly false\nor if it makes it impossible for him to carry out his duties, he is not protected; inquired\nwhether the interpretation is generally right.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the difficulty is trying to\ndistinguish between is the person speaking within his or her official duties or if the\nmatter is really of public concern; it is a very slippery slope.\nVice Chair Foreman stated it is a very slippery slope, which is why he thinks the Section\nshould not be included; stated there should not be any reference to a City Board,\nCommission or Committee, which is already covered.\nChair Aguilar noted it does not [have any such reference].\nVice Chair Foreman read the first sentence; provided the argument he would use if he\nwere representing an employee; stated the employee can say anything he/she wants to\nsay and there is nothing the City can do about it; he knows that is not the intent; the\ninformation belongs in an employee handbook.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Section does piggyback on the other Section just\ndiscussed; roles and responsibilities of policy bodies or City employees do not seem\nappropriate for a Sunshine Ordinance because the whole purpose of the Sunshine\nOrdinance is to make government more transparent and give people access to their\ngovernment; to include what people are not allowed to do it is a fine line; the clause\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 5, "text": "says: \"so as long as an opinion does not materially misrepresent the position of the\nCity;\" inquired how the clause is tested.\nChair Aguilar responded there is case law.\nCommissioner Dieter provided an example of the City Clerk and City Manager giving\ndifferent information resulting in an employee being fired; stated understanding this part\nof the Sunshine Ordinance is a little difficult.\nVice Chair Foreman stated it is a balancing act, is very complicated and is based on the\nindividual facts in each case, which is another reason it is a bad idea; he does not have\na problem with including the Section for Commission members because they have an\nabsolute unfettered first amendment right subject to only being relieved of their duties;\nhowever, employee do not have the same right and he does not want to mislead\nemployees or put the City in a position of giving an employee more rights.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission is really dealing with policy issues;\ndealing with policy bodies could be moved; the Section on employees can be removed\nentirely or moved to Section 2-91.\nVice Chair Foreman moved approval of recommending that this provision be deleted.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired how does this clause make government more\ntransparent, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the City Clerk's recollection\nwas that the Section was included so that employees understand they have the ability to\nhave their voices heard in front of policy bodies without worrying about being\ndisciplined; Commissioners should be to so as well as long as they do not materially\nmisrepresent their body.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether when the public sees a Board or Commission\nmember speak, they are not doing anything wrong and it is their right, to which Vice\nChair Foreman responded Board members are not being discussed; the discussion is\nabout city employees.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there are two parts to Section 2-92.6: one deals with\npublic employees and the other deals with members of a policy body; there are reasons\nfor including both.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney deleted some of the\nSection, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated he\nseparated the two.\nChair Aguilar stated the first portion deals with city employees and the second portion\ndeals with policy bodies.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether policy bodies are being discussed, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded before, the Section dealt with both employees and\nadvisory policy bodies; stated that he was trying to be true to the previous work but\nseparate the Sections because different standards apply to employees and policy body\nmembers.\nVice Chair Foreman stated if the Section is moved after the Section that covers boards,\nit is totally confusing; there is one Section on policy bodies and another Section on\npolicy bodies and employees; the Section on policy bodies repeats the previous\nSection.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the matter should be in an employee handbook; as\nsomebody who has gathered signatures for petitions, she has often heard City\nemployees say they cannot sign; there is a misconception that employees do not have\nthe right to speak out; employees should be told what they can and cannot do when\nthey are hired; she understands what Vice Chair Foreman is saying.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she would second the motion as long as the\nCommission is clear that City employees should be made aware what they can and\ncannot do when they are hired.\nVice Chair Foreman amended his motion to recommend that the Section be deleted\nfrom the Sunshine Ordinance and that the employee handbook include a Section which\nexplains to employees under what circumstances they are allowed to speak out on\nmatters.\nCommissioner Dieter seconded the motion.\nChair Aguilar agreed with the motion.\nThe Assistant City Attorney noted the sentence dealing with appointed policy bodies\nhas already been adequately covered in the previous Section.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent:\nCommissioners Bonta and Tuazon - 2.]\nThe Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation on the definition of meeting.\nVice Chair Foreman discussed the prior Commission unanimous vote on adopting the\nBrown Act language; stated even though the structure of the ordinance's definition of\nmeeting is different than the structure of the Brown Act, it basically says the same thing;\nthe only real substantive exception being the last sentence of 2-91.1(b)(4)(C), which is\nmore restrictive as to what meetings would not be subject to the Brown Act.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the Section does not specifically track the Brown\nAct; if anything the Sunshine Ordinance is slightly more restrictive than the Brown Act.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether [the Sunshine Ordinance is more restrictive]\nsimply on the issue on you a meeting cannot be held in a place charging admission, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Foreman stated Section 2-91.1(b)(4)(C) is not in the Brown Act; in respect to\nwhat Chair Aguilar said about not wanting to turn the language inside out, he would say\nto use the existing language; at the same time, he is very concerned about using\ndifferent language because using different language there is always the possibility that\nsome word splitting lawyer is going to say there is a difference; suggested adding a\nparenthetical after \"meeting shall mean anything of the following\" which reads: \"this\ndefinition is intended to be synonymous with meeting as defined in the Brown Act,\nexcept for Section 2-91.1(b)(4)(C) which is intended to be more restrictive than the\nBrown Act:\" then it would be crystal clear that the same thing is meant.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the language can be added if it is the direction of the\nCommission.\nChair Aguilar inquired if it is meant to be synonymous; stated it is very similar\nVice Chair Foreman responded the Assistant City Attorney stated it is synonymous.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Brown Act covers more things that are not\nconsidered meetings; there are a couple of additional items; the fact that the Sunshine\nOrdinance does not cover everything does not mean the City does not have to observe\nboth the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive; all the\nexceptions to meetings are not covered; it is okay to indicate that there is a particular\nSubsection that, while it intended to paraphrase what is in the Brown Act, is more\nrestrictive; a parenthetical can be added.\nVice Chair Foreman moved that the parenthetical be added at the beginning of the\ndefinition of the term meeting.\nCommissioner Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3\nThe Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation\nVice Chair Foreman stated he has the same issue with regard to policy body which is in\nthe same Section.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he assumes Vice Chair would want to add a\nparenthetical that policy bodies shall mean legislative bodies.\nThe Vice Chair stated that he would add a parenthetical that the definition of the term\npolicy body tends to be synonymous with the term legislative body in the Brown Act; the\npurpose is that policy body is thought to be more descriptive.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 8, "text": "Chair Aguilar stated she does not have the Brown Act in front of her so she does not\nknow if legislative body and policy body are synonymous.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded they are; stated that he is surmising that if the\nterm legislative body had been used, people might be confused that it is just the City\nCouncil and not advisory bodies, so policy bodies was used instead; if agreeable to the\nCommission, a definition of policy bodies could be added because he is not sure if it is\ndefined.\nVice Chair Foreman stated it is defined.\nChair Aguilar stated it is Subsection 2-91.1(b)(3).\nVice Chair Foreman stated all it would say is the term is intended to be synonymous\nwith the term legislative body as defined in the Brown Act; stated using policy bodies\nwas a good idea; all bodies are not legislative bodies; policy bodies is smarter.\nVice Chair Foreman moved approval of the change stated.\nCommissioner Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the Commission wants to make a motion\nto adopt all the changes, including the changes made tonight; stated an overall motion\nshould be made to take forward to the Council.\nCommissioner Dieter moved approval of recommending to City Council the adoption of\nthe changes that have been approved tonight and previously.\nVice Chair Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Commission is supposed to report to the City Council at\nleast once a year in writing on any practical or policy problems encountered; read the\nSection of the Ordinance; inquired how the Commission plans on doing so; stated\nperhaps staff wants to bring back a proposal on how to accomplish doing so; the\nCommission only meets twice a year; she is not sure if it is possible for the Commission\nto write an annual report; the Sunshine Ordinance says that the Open Government\nCommission shall review public notices to ensure that they conform to the requirements\nof this article and work to improve publicly accessible information; under said clause,\nthe Commission is not only supposed to be a reactive body, but is supposed to be\nproactive to make sure that government is achieving its goal of transparency; it is up to\nthe Commission to monitor said sorts of things and come back and report if anything\ncould be improved upon; the City Council deserves to know the Commission is doing\nright and where improvements can be made, which requires the Commissioners to work\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 9, "text": "independently outside of meetings; perhaps the City Attorney can help out; inquired if\nCommissioners should raise issues under Communications or do as agenda items;\nfurther inquired does it have to be formal or can it be informal; stated it is something for\nthe Commissioners to think about; if the Commission really want to do its job well,\nCommissioners have to do something while not here sitting at the dais.\nIn response to Vice Chair Foreman inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated the\nCommissioners would look at City Council and Planning Board agendas and see if titles\ndo not meet the muster of what people can understand.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he understands the suggestion; questioned how do to\ndo so as a Commission; do members take turns reviewing agendas or review them as a\ngroup; stated he does not know how to do it; stated the next Council meeting could be\nassigned to a Commissioner.\nChair Aguilar inquired in perpetuity, to which Commissioner Dieter responded the\nOrdinance says the Open Government Commission shall review public notices.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he can see doing it reactivity when a complaint is\nreceived from someone who says an item was not properly noticed.\nChair Aguilar stated that is what has been done in the past; when there is a complaint,\nthe Commission addresses it; that she does not know if there has been any formal\ncomplaints; one came up and was withdrawn; the Commission has to think about what\nthe Section means because the Commission only meets twice a year; both the bylaws\nand the Sunshine Ordinance require meeting twice a year.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she did not set up meeting twice a year so she does\nnot know how that happened; the requirement is in the Sunshine Ordinance so the\nCommission needs to know how to accomplish it; that she tends to look at City Council\nagendas anyway so for her it is no big deal; however, when all the Commissioners\nsigned on, this is what the Ordinance includes as a duty.\nVice Chair Foreman stated Commissioners can informally review agendas; inquired\nwhat a Commissioner would do if an agenda is reviewed and there is a problem.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she does not know; inquired if the matter should be\nbrought back under Communications.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if Commissioners see items which do not provide the\nkind of information that would be most helpful to the public to understand what is being\ndiscussed, the item could be noted to find whether there is a pattern; the Chair could\nwork with the City Clerk and the matter could added as an agenda item; the item could\nbe addressed by the Commission to determine whether or not there is a need to make a\nrecommendation to the Council that there needs to be some direction to clean up the\nmatter; the City Attorney's office strives to make sure that what is on the agenda\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 10, "text": "translates to the public; Commissioner could review agenda and making notes if there is\nan issue that needs to be addressed.\nChair Aguilar stated Commissioners should save examples and inform her and the City\nClerk to have the matter agendized for the next meeting.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired get what agendized, to which Chair Aguilar responded the\nissue; whatever the issue is that comes up.\nThe Assistant City Attorney provided an example of half a dozen items occurring\nbetween now and December; when Commissioners discover items, they should notify\nthe Chair and the City Clerk to create a running tab and get a scope of the problem.\nChair Aguilar stated the Commission would see whether there is just one item or\nseveral, if it global or something particular; the discussion is just hypothetical.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Ordinance says to work to improve publically\naccessible information; inquired whether that is another thing or part of this.\nChair Aguilar responded it would be a part of the matter.\nCommissioner Dieter stated she talked to the Assistant City Attorney; on the website,\nwhen a meeting is canceled giving the reason would be nice, such as lack of a quorum\nor lack of business; for example, that would be helpful to the public; another issue is it is\nhard to find Rent Review Advisory Committee agendas on the City website.\nVice Chair Foreman stated maybe said matters ought to be included in the annual\nreport.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Commission has to meet to create the annual report.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the annual report is a good idea.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Ordinance amendments could be included as\npart of the annual report; if other items come to Commissioners' attention that should be\nincluded in the report, the City Clerk and City Attorney know; a report will be drafted for\nthe Commission to review and make changes or additions; something can be presented\nin October that can then be put into final form and sent to the City Council.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired if the Commissioners would individually do so, to which\nthe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Commission can\ndecide whether or not items should be included in the annual report.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the suggestion sounds like a great plan.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-03-30", "page": 11, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated staff can put something together and the\nCommission can review it to decide what to include.\nCommissioner Dieter stated there are two clauses in the Sunshine Ordinance that she\ndoes not know if it has ever been adhered to or enforced: 1) the City Attorney shall\nsemi-annually make a determination about whether any closed session minutes should\ncontinue to be exempt from disclosure based on whether the disclosure would be\ndetrimental to the City; 2) the City Attorney's office shall prepare and present on the City\nCouncil Consent Calendar a list of documents which have determined to be public after\npreviously being determined to be unavailable; the Commission should hear whether or\nnot documents have been declassified at the next meeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he would find out and bring back a report.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Aguilar adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nAssistant City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 30, 2015\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-06-27", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY JUNE 28, 2015 - 2:00 P.M.\nA Special meeting was called to allow the Commission to attend a Small Group\nDiscussion is being conducted by the League of Women Voters concerning the\nGovernmental Transparency.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 27, 2015\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-10-14", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nWEDNESDAY OCTOBER 14, 2015 - - 7:00 P.M.\nChair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Bonta, Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and\nChair Aguilar - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the March 30, 2015 Meeting\nCommissioner Bonta stated she would pass on a few typos to the City Clerk.\nCommissioner Dieter moved approval of the minutes as corrected.\nVice Chair Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n3-B. Hearing of Sunshine Ordinance Complaints filed September 15, 2015\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nJohn Klein stated he is embarrassed about needing to be present and thought about\nwithdrawing the complaint because it seems trivial; however, it is not trivial; through the\nwhole process, which has been skeletal, the response has not been as it should be; he\nsubmitted five individual records requests directly to the Mayor and each\nCouncilmember because that is the way he wanted to do it; if the City Attorney wanted\nto consolidate the response, it would have been fine; however, the City Attorney's\nresponse on the 11th does not even say who he is responding for; the City Clerk is the\ncustodian of records; that he did not know why he was getting an email from the City\nAttorney; he thought maybe it is on behalf of the Mayor, but did not know; while the\nresponse was timely, it did not include the information the rule requires, which is: when\nthe documents will be ready, how the documents will be delivered and by whom; said\ninformation is not in the City Attorney's September 11th response; he did not know who\nthe Attorney was responding for and the required information was not included in the\nthree day response; the Attorney said he needed clarification; the City Attorney inquired\nif they could talk Wednesday; when they did talk Wednesday, the clarification the\nAssistant City Attorney needed was the timeframe of the requested documents;\nquestioned why the City Attorney did not simply ask in the original email; by that time,\nthe response was getting really late and he was feeling that the City's response was\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 14, 2016\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-10-14", "page": 2, "text": "disingenuous; he did not need to deal with a particular Attorney; if an Attorney is out of\nthe office for three days, the City should assign someone else to be responsible for a\nresponse; eight days into the ten day period after the conversation with the Attorney, a\n14 day extension was requested because the request was voluminous; the conversation\nwas at 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon, by 5:30 p.m., the Attorney knew that the response\nwas voluminous; questioned how he learned so much so quickly; following the emails\nprovided, the Attorney was asked about the definition of voluminous and never replied;\nthe September 11th response was inadequate because it did not include when, how and\nby whom; if the City's position is that the complaint is frivolous, he suggests timelines\nmean something under the rule; provided an example of timeliness involved with\nreceiving a parking ticket; timeliness should mean something in this instance and should\nbe more meaningful for the City Attorney; the responsibility to timelines does not\ndecrease as it goes up, but rather includes all of the responsibilities and assumes a\nmuch higher standard; that he is a consumer of public records; he has done a number\nof public record requests with the City Clerk; it is never an issue; rather than getting an\nemail in three days telling him when he will receive the documents, he gets the\ndocuments; he is never told the documents will be provided next week; by the end of\nthree days, he has the documents; he submitted a records request this week; 12\nminutes later, he received an email from the City Clerk telling when, by whom and how;\ntimelines matter; the complaint is not trivial given all the other incidentals of the\ninteraction and the disingenuous nature of how the request was handled by the\nAttorney.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired if Mr. Klein has received the documents, to which Mr. Klein\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired if he received the documents on October 2nd, to which Mr.\nKlein responded that he received them on October 1st\nVice Chair Foreman inquired how voluminous were the documents, to which Mr. Klein\nresponded 475 pages, which is not voluminous.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired how many emails [were provided in response to the\nrequest], to which Mr. Klein responded that he has not been through or counted the\nemails; stated there are a lot of repetitive emails.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he apologies he does not have the documentation;\nhowever, he has read it all; inquired whether there was a statement by the City Attorney\nin one of his emails to Mr. Klein that the documents had to be reviewed before they\ncould be released because there might be privileged material.\nMr. Klein responded that he does not have his copy; it was voluminous; eight days into\nthe request, it seems disingenuous to suddenly ask for an extension because the\ndocuments are voluminous.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he is looking at an email sent by Attorney Alan Cohen.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 14, 2015\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-10-14", "page": 3, "text": "Attorney to do so during the phone call.\nVice Chair Foreman stated to understand the complaint, what Mr. Klein is saying now is\nthat he is not objecting to an Attorney responding as opposed to a Councilmember;\ninquired whether Mr. Klein is objecting to the Attorney not disclosing who he was\nrepresenting.\nMr. Klein responded in the negative; stated when, how and who within three days; the\nAttorney gave no information and left the office for three days; his request was on ice for\neight days; the issue is the response was not adequate with regard to the rule of three\ndays of giving who, when and how, which may seem trivial; however, it is the behavior\naround it; the Attorney could have said sorry he was late and that he would do his best\nto get the documents but might need a few more days; it was not like that; the\nAttorney's response was defensive; he has had a lot of success of rapid turnaround\ncustomer service with the City Clerk's office.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired if Mr. Klein had ever requested emails before, to which Mr.\nKlein responded not specifically.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he does not think anyone from his office or the\nCity has indicated that the complaint is trivial or frivolous; looking at Mr. Cohen's\nresponse, it says he would like to obtain some clarification on the request and it would\nbe helpful to discuss it; Mr. Cohen stated he would be out of the office until Wednesday\nmorning; that he does not read the email as defensive; it seems reasonable for a\nperson trying to respond to a public record act request to want to better understand\nwhat is being requested; when something comes to the Council, there is a responsibility\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 14, 2016\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-10-14", "page": 4, "text": "for the City Attorney's office to check with the Councilmembers about their individual\nemails; more time is involved when making a records request of a public official as\nopposed to walking into the City Clerk's office where documents can be obtained\nimmediately; there were reasons why it took longer than what otherwise would be\nallowed; the email speaks for itself; that he does not find it to be offensive; Mr. Cohen\nwas trying to get some clarification; it is true the email does not say it is on behalf of the\nfive Councilmembers; however, since all of the requests came in on September 7th, if he\nwere the recipient, he would think it would be reasonable to assume it is in response to\nthe requests from that date.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he does not see a problem; the Attorney should have\nindicated who he was representing; however, he thinks it is obvious; when he read all of\nthe emails, he assumed that the Attorney was responding for everybody; Mr. Klein does\nhave a point that the Attorney said he wanted clarification and what he wanted to know\nwas the timeframe; he understands how Mr. Klein could assume there was something\nambiguous in his request; the very simple clarification could have been stated in the\nAttorney's email.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the point of clarification was about the beginning\ntimeframe; correspondence relative to rent control issues have been before the City\nCouncil since September, 2014; Mr. Cohen was simply asking how far back in time to\ngo; after a telephone conversation, the email Mr. Cohen sent to Mr. Klein on September\n16th indicates that the time frame is June 1st through September 1st; that [timeline]\nseems to be the point of clarification; there were emails and other material relative to\nrent control that predated September 2015; that he does not disagree the email could\nhave been more artfully written; however, eventually Mr. Klein received the documents\nwithin a reasonable time and within the 14 day extension.\nCommissioner Bonta stated there is one way to look at the email from Mr. Cohen; \"by\nwhom\" is Attorney Cohen; \"how\" is by having a conversation to seek clarification;\n\"when\" was Wednesday morning to schedule a time; it is very clear that Mr. Klein was\nfrustrated by the engagement; she agrees there could have been more clarity in the\ninitial email response; however, it does seem like there was intention to be responsive\nin the areas that Mr. Klein is primarily concerned with: when, how and whom, within the\nthree day timeframe.\nCommissioner Dieter thanked Mr. Klein for bringing the matter before the Commission;\neven if there was not a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance, the Commission strives to\nmake government more transparent and more accessible to individuals; Mr. Klein's\nfeedback may actually improve a couple of things.\nMr. Klein stated the Attorney's response sounds a lot like someone trying to talk their\nway out of a parking ticket.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether the City did respond within three business days;\nand whether then, within ten days, the City stated that the request was voluminous so it\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 14, 2015\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-10-14", "page": 5, "text": "would take a little bit more time; stated the criteria in Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-\n92.9 was met.\nMr. Klein responded the language specifies the response has to address by whom,\nwhen and how the request will be fulfilled.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she is reading Section 2-92.9, which states a request\nto inspect or obtain copies of public records that is submitted to any department or\nanybody shall be satisfied no later than 10 business days unless the requester is\nadvised in writing within three business days that additional time is needed to determine\nwhether the request for records is likely to comprise a voluminous amount of separate\nand distinct writings.\nCommissioner Bonta inquired if Section 2-92.5 is being referenced, which indicates a\nrequest for information to any agent of the City requires the agent to respond to said\nrequest within three business days by providing or explaining how, when and by whom.\nMr. Klein responded in the affirmation; stated said Section is the one in his complaint.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he thought the issue was frivolous when he first looked\nat it; however, the more he reviews it, the more he is a little bit concerned; he\nunderstand Mr. Klein received the documents in time; Mr. Klein is not complaining about\nthat; he is putting himself in Mr. Klein's shoes; a response was due in three days; the\nresponse came in on the third day, which is perfectly okay; the response is clarification\nis needed; Mr. Klein wrote back less than two hours later asking the Attorney to tell him\nwhat is unclear; in hindsight from the 16th, Attorney Cohen could have very easily met\nthe three day requirement and still could have asked for the extension; that he does not\nhave a problem with staff asking for the extension; these are emails and over 400\npages, which might include privileged material; he has no problem whatsoever with the\nextension; if he were in Mr. Klein's shoes, he would say the Attorney is dragging his\nfeet; he does not know why the Attorney was dragging his feet; it may be totally\ninnocent; maybe he was just going away for the weekend, but he is dragging his feet;\nthat he does not want the public or anyone asking for documents to feel like they have\nto drag the documents out of the City; he is concerned because clearly the three day\ntimeline could have been met.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated when a complaint has been filed under the\nordinance, the Commission hears the evidence and arguments and has to render a\nformal written decision on the matter; staff needs the Commissions direction.\nCommissioner Tuazon stated the way everyone communicates now with text and email\nis so easy to just write something that causes more questions; if he asks somebody a\nquestion through email, the response comes back with more questions or creates more\nproblems instead of addressing the issue; people need to be very careful when\nanswering an email; he is not saying that Mr. Cohen was reckless here; however, he did\nnot address the whom, when and how.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 14, 2016\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-10-14", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Bonta stated Mr. Cohen did respond via email within the three day time\nperiod and followed up with a phone call to get clarifying information; the height of\ncustomer service is to actually speak to someone directly and try to get the information.\nMr. Klein stated it is difficult to understand said reasoning when the rule clearly states\nwithin three days the requester will get a response with regarding to when, how and by\nwhom the request will be fulfilled.\nVice Chairman Foreman stated that is the issue; Mr. Klein is not complaining about not\ngetting the documents; his formal complaint is limited to the three day rule; that he leans\ntoward the three day rule was violated; what bothers him is that Attorney Cohen may\nhave a perfectly good explanation, but is not here; Attorney Cohen is the one who wrote\nthe email and the Commission is supposed to be having a hearing about the email.\nMr. Klein inquired whether the other party is supposed to present, to which the Assistant\nAttorney responded he is present on Mr. Cohen's behalf because the documents speak\nfor themselves; the Commission has enough information to determine whether or not\nthere was or was not a violation of the ordinance; that he does not think intent, except\nas read through the email, is relevant.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that is a good point; it is not a question of intent.\nVice Chair Foreman moved approval of finding that there was a violation of the three\nday rule and [staff] did not comply with the requirements thereof; the needed\nclarification could have easily been satisfied in three days.\nChair Aguilar stated the City met \"by whom:\" the City Attorney would be responding on\nbehalf of the Councilmembers; \"when\" was going to be discussed; the Attorney could\nnot answer \"when\" because he needed information on the timeframe; he needed to\nknow where to start and stop gathering information; maybe the Attorney could have put\nthe timeframe of the documents in the email or maybe he could not have; maybe he\nthought it was going to take a lot more back and forth discussion; the Attorney needing\nclarification on \"when\" then it is \"how;\" as far as she is concerned \"how\" is the only\noutstanding thing.\nVice Chair Foreman stated the Attorney could not really answer \"how\" until \"when\" was\nanswered.\nChair Aguilar stated the Attorney needed information; maybe in his judgement a phone\ncall was the best way to get to the bottom of what Mr. Klein wanted without having 16\nemails go back and forth; the Attorney was out of the office and said he was not going\nto be available; she is having a hard time saying that the Attorney violated the Sunshine\nOrdinance because the email has whom and when; how was the problem because the\nAttorney needed clarification and could not address how without when.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 14, 2015\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-10-14", "page": 7, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated the original motion failed and there needs to be\nanother motion or some decision made.\nChair Aguilar moved approval that the Sunshine Ordinance was not violated.\nCommissioner Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Commissioners Bonta, Dieter, Tauzon and Chair Aguilar - 4. Noes: Vice Chair\nForeman - 1.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he draft the decision and provide it to the\nCommission.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the [Sunshine Ordinance] amendments were heard\nby the City Council in October; the Council has a very lively hour and a half discussion;\nCouncil agreed with most of the non-substantive issues that the Commission agreed\nwith; the Council did not accept or wanted further clarification on the more difficult\nissues that the Commission struggled with; the Council also raised some other issues;\nhe intends to bring a report back to the Commission in January or February for further\nconsideration of the items that the Council had concerns about, plus some new items\nthat have risen in the interim.\nVice Chair Foreman inquired if Commissioners could comment on the matter now, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded the matter is not on the agenda; he was\nproviding information about what transpired.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he took it upon himself to defend the Commission's\nviews; he very carefully limited himself defending the Commission's statements; he also\nvery carefully stated his personal opinion but did comment on other issues; the Council\nhad a problem with whether a Commission can write a letter.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the matter will be brought back.\nCommissioner Dieter stated she does not mind meeting in January.\nThe City Clerk stated the next regular meeting is February 1st\nChair Aguilar stated maybe the matter should be addressed February 1st\nCommissioner Dieter inquired if the Commission would be discussing the other two\npending issues from the last Commissioner Communication: the Commission is\nsupposed to issue an annual report and needs to figure out how to do so, and the City\nAttorney's office is supposed to issue a report about whether or not any documents\nhave been declassified.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 14, 2016\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-10-14", "page": 8, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded both matters will be placed on the agenda.\nThe City Clerk noted Vice Mayor Matarrese requested clarification on the annual report\nas part of the Sunshine Ordinance discussion.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Aguilar adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 14, 2015\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2016 7:00 P.M.\nActing Chair Foreman convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Dieter, Tuazon, and Acting Chair\nForeman - 3.\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the October 14, 2015 Meeting\nCommissioner Dieter moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]\n3-B. Consider Further Revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance Amendments\nActing Chair Foreman outlined the packet documents; inquired how the Commission\nshould review the items.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the City Council concurred with the changes that\nthe Commission made with the exception of the items identified in the staff report.\nActing Chair Foreman stated there are four items: 1) use of electronic communication\ndevices; 2) submitting comments when a policy body member is not present at a\nmeeting; City staff disagreed with the Commission's recommendations on said two\nitems; 3) requiring all City Council meetings to be live streamed; and 4) responding to\npublic records requests.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there is also an item about public comments by\nmembers of policy bodies and opinions of public concern; with respect to the use of\nelectronic communication devices, staff recommended a rule that the Council thought\nwould prevent use of any type of device except iPads or laptops when accessing\nagenda materials; the Commission felt the provision was too restrictive and thought that\nthere should be a little more leeway; the City Council agreed; staff has divided the item\ninto three parts: 1) when a policy body is considering a general legislative matter, the\nuse of devices would be strongly discouraged, but not prohibited; 2) when the policy\nbody is considering a quasi-judicial matter, electronic communication devices would be\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 2, "text": "prohibited except for accessing agenda materials; and 3) not withstanding those\nadmonitions, devices could be used for innocuous purposes, such as a calculator,\nlooking up a date or contacting a family member; the provision would be largely self-\npolicing.\nActing Chair Foreman provided a handout; stated after he reviewed the October Council\nstaff report, which rejected the Commission's more liberal approach, he took it upon\nhimself to attend the Council meeting and defend the Commission's language; he also\npresented his personal view that the language should be even broader, should not tie\ninto devices, and should address what is prohibited; suggested the language at the\nbottom of his handout; stated the language does not say what can be done, rather it\nsays what cannot be done with devices; the only thing that should be prohibited is\nreceiving or sending private communications about the meeting; outlined the City\nCouncil discussion from the minutes; stated the majority of the Council provided\ndirection to staff; however, staff has come up with something that is almost directly\ncontradictorily to what at least three Councilmembers want; he has drafted a paragraph\nin line with what a majority of Council requested; he talked with the Assistant City\nAttorney who raised the issue of quasi-judicial matters; provided the example of the\nCommissions' quasi-judicial complaint hearing; stated the complainant and public have\na right to see everything Commissioners consider in making a decision; suggested a\ntwo tier system: one for general legislative matters and one for quasi-judicial matters;\nstated his recommendation is much shorter and does not provide the rationale.\nCommissioner Dieter provided a handout; stated that she listened to the City Council\ndiscussion; everyone agrees the purpose of the provision is to prohibit communicating\nelectronically with others during meetings because of the appearance it gives; rather\nthan spelling out all of the different allowable scenarios, the provision should be kept\ngeneral and say what members should do; the language could be even shorter than\nActing Chair Foreman's suggestion; the first original sentence could be retained and\nrather than staff's proposed language, one sentence could cover everything; the\nsentence would be: \"therefore communicating electronically with others during meetings\nis prohibited;\" it is not necessary to tell anybody using a device is allowed if there is an\nemergency; the language can be streamlined a little bit more to achieve the purpose.\nIn response to Acting Chair Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated her\nunderstanding is the provision's purpose is to have members not communicate with\neach other; members should be paying attention to what's being done; using an\nelectronic device to look up a word is fine; communicating gives a bad appearance.\nThe City Clerk stated the Sunshine Task Force included the provision because they did\nnot want somebody to not go on record publicly and try to influence the decision makers\nduring the meeting; communication is what the Task Force honed in on.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Sunshine Ordinance just states do not communicate on\nelectronic devices while at the dais, which covers everything and is very simple.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Tuazon stated the matter is common sense; the public wants 100%\nattention; questioned why members would be communicating with someone else.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that is the whole point.\nActing Chair Foreman stated everyone agrees on said matter.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the language suggested by Acting Chair Foreman or\nCommissioner Dieter certainly works; the Mayor has asked on a couple occasions\nwhether or not she can use an electronic device calendar or calculator and is wondering\nwhether language should be added to indicate that there is an exception for innocuous\nuse, such as a calendar, calculator, or communicating with a family member; not\nallowing innocuous use would prohibit calling a spouse; language does not have to be\nadded; he could indicate to Council that it is understood and implicit, but he questions\nwhether it should be expressed.\nCommissioner Dieter stated it is expressed in the first part.\nActing Chair Foreman stated he has a problem with the first sentence.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the first is not her language, which was already there.\nIn response to Acting Chair Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated that she is\nsuggesting a sentence in place of the language provided by staff.\nActing Chair Foreman stated he does not want the first sentence included.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether Acting Chair Foreman would like to eliminate the\nwhole provision and start from scratch.\nActing Chair Foreman responded the reason he is opposed is that he does not agree\nwith it at all; stated he made that point to Council and convinced three of them that in\nthis day and age, the use of electronic communication devices does not lead to the\npublic perception that a member is receiving information, everybody uses devices all the\ntime;\nCommissioner Dieter's language regarding prohibiting electronically\ncommunication with others during meetings creates the exact problem that the Assistant\nCity Attorney and the Mayor have referenced; his language includes that members are\nprohibited from sending or receiving business related emails, texts and instant\nmessages during the meeting; members would be allowed to email a spouse or family\nmember and could use electronic devices for anything other than communicating with\nothers regarding business related matters; said language is what is missing.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the language is not missing.\nActing Chair Foreman stated he does not like the first part.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated that she is open to scratching the entire thing and starting\nover; she tried to rewrite the provision; the language already addresses receiving\ninformation relative to the subject matter at hand.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the two suggestions could be combined;\nstated language could state: in order to ensure that all communications to policy board\nmembers presented in a public meeting are shared with the public, communicating\nelectronically with others during public meetings is prohibited when pertaining to the\nbusiness thereof.\nCommissioner Dieter and Acting Chair Foreman stated said language is fine.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the Commission agrees on the language except he still\nthinks separate language is needed for quasi-judicial proceedings.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she does not think that the general public will know\nwhat quasi-judicial means.\nActing Chair Foreman stated that he is not concerned about the general public not\nknowing; the term can be explained; the important thing is the City has to let\nCouncilmembers know that they cannot refer to anything that is not in public view at a\nquasi-judicial hearing.\nCommissioner Dieter stated she has no problem if someone wants to look up a word.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated a conditional use permit would be a good example; if\nsomebody applies to sell liquor at a gas station, a conditional use permit would be\nneeded and would come before the Planning Board; if the use is denied, the applicant\nwould have to appeal the matter to the City Council.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the applicant has no idea what the Councilmember is\nchecking; the applicant has the right to know everything being considered in a quasi-\njudicial proceeding.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the problem lies with communicating to outside people\nwhich is the intent behind the provision; anyone can be at home and look up anything\nso nothing would be hidden from the public; the main issue is not having people\ncommunicate with others.\nCommissioner Tuazon stated that he feels strongly about it; members need to give\n100% of their attention; outside communication should be prohibited; noted that he does\nnot have a cell phone or laptop.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether Commissioner Tuazon would have a problem\nwith a Councilmember looking something up on the Internet while at the dais to help in\nmaking a decision or become more informed.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 5, "text": "Acting Chair Foreman stated a Councilmember might want to look at a Google map\nregarding rezoning a piece of land.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether Commission Tuazon would be offended by said\nCouncilmember.\nCommissioner Tuazon responded in the affirmative; stated homework should be done in\nadvance.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired about the Assistant City Attorney's view on the quasi-\njudicial issue; further inquired whether he is being too legalistic.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he thinks the way the first sentence has\nbeen redrafted is probably broad enough to cover the quasi-judicial issue; in an\nabundance of caution, language could be added; however, in the staff report to Council,\nhe could indicate that implicit in the language is honoring the notion that quasi-judicial\nmatters have to be observed.\nThe Commissioners expressed consensus.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he understands the introductory non-substantive\nsentence would be deleted.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired what section the Assistant City Attorney is referring to.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded Section 2-91.4H; stated the sentence would\nstate: in order to ensure that all communications to policy board members presented in\na\npublic meeting are shared with the public, members are prohibited from\ncommunicating electronically with others during public meetings that pertain to the\nbusiness thereof.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether staff would go to the Commission or Council, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded based on the outcome tonight, he will\nprepare an agenda report that will go to Council that would reflect the Commission\ndirection.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the next item is regarding submitting comments when a\npolicy body member is not present at a meeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission discussed the matter before and felt\ncomfortable that if a member was not present at a meeting, the member should not be\nable to submit comments on the item; the City Council did not agree and directed that\nthe prohibition be deleted; it has been deleted, but the Commission has the discretion\nto\nadd the item back.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated that she is fine with the City Council's recommendation;\nshe listened to their deliberation and it made sense to her.\nThe Commissioners expressed consensus.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the next item is requiring all City Council meetings to be\nlive streamed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated live steaming is a new issue that came up as a result\nof a rent control meeting; the matter became an issue regarding not being able to move\nthe meeting location because of the inability to live stream; the public safety issue\nneeded to be addressed; the idea was to bring some amendments to the Commission\nto allow for relocating a meeting even though the proceedings could not be live\nstreamed; hopefully, these situations will be few and far between; public safety has to\nbe paramount to live streaming; the audio and video would be recorded and available,\nbut the meeting would not be live streamed.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she read the matter over and had a question at the\nvery beginning; the ordinance states meetings shall be audio or video recorded; she\ndoes not know whether it should actually say live streamed recorded; it is fine the way it\nis; her recommendation to make it a little shorter has been provided to the Assistant City\nAttorney; rather than spelling out due to the nature of the item or items under\ndiscussion, one sentence should read: meetings held outside City Hall may not be\navailable via live streaming; instead of spelling out audio and video every time, it should\njust say all recordings will be archived; that she looked back at the minutes from a year\nago and understands why archiving for 10 years was used; when storage becomes an\nissue, the matter might come back to the Commission; right now, the matter is not an\nissue; 10 years should be changed to indefinitely.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired how the City Clerk feels about the recommended\nchanges, to which the City Clerk responded the way that technology and storage\ncapacity is going, videos will probably be kept indefinitely; stated the City is under\ncontract; all data is kept on a server; the City pays a fee; there are backups if anything\nhappens to the data; suggested adding: a minimum of 10 years and potentially\nindefinitely based on storage capacity.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that including both is confusing to the public; if the City is\ntrying to communicate that things would not be deleted, just say indefinitely, so the\npublic knows that they can check with the City Clerk to find something; if it becomes\na\nproblem, it can be addressed at that time; this is the City's history; it is important that the\npublic be able to view the archives in the future; that she feels very strongly about the\nmatter; no one knows how a historical reference could impact something down the road\nor whether someone might want to understand the history of something; it is important\nto strive for indefinitely until it becomes a problem.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 7, "text": "Acting Chair Foreman stated the only problem he has with the issue is that the matter\nwas brought up because of the problem of moving the meeting; nobody has asked the\nCommission to change the archive section; when the Commission went over the entire\nCode, the decision was to leave in 10 years; that he is not saying the issue should not\nbe reviewed; however, he questions whether this is the time to do so; a separate\nsection addresses keeping records; the Commission reviewed the matter and voted on\n10 years; some Commissioners might have voted against it but it was kept at 10 years;\nthe matter was sent back to the Commission because of the live streaming issue.\nThe City Clerk noted Section 2-91.4C reads for a period of at least 10 years.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired about the written record, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded the Commission talked about Section 2-92-4, which requires\ndocuments to be posted on the website for at least four years; stated some\nmodifications have been made.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired where the 10 years is coming from, to which the City\nClerk responded the original ordinance.\nActing Chair Foreman stated 10 years is underlined like it is new language, inquired\nwhether the current section says 10 years.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the section states: the City shall\nmake such audio or video recordings available via live streaming, as well as archived in\na digital form, in a centralized location on the City's website within 72 hours from the\ndate of the hearing and for a period of at least 10 years after the date of the meeting.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the language is not new.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the idea is that 10 years would be referenced in the\nfollowing sentence.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired why the matter is being raised.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the issue of allowing meetings to be held at\nplaces where live streaming is not available arose because of the hiccup when trying to\nlocate a meeting outside of City Hall.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the Commission reviewed the whole statue last year and\ndid not change the language; now the Commission is being asked to deal with one\nissue, which is being used as a device to change other language, which he does not\nnecessarily disagree with.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated it is incumbent on staff to bring proposed\namendments to the ordinance to the Commission's attention when issues are found;\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 8, "text": "staff felt that it was timely to bring the matter to the Commission's attention; the\nCommission can either revise the language to leave it.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Open Government Commission is here to make\nrevisions; nothing is ever set in stone; the Commission can always make changes;\nthings can always be made better; public records should be saved forever since they\ncontain historical information about how and why certain laws were enacted; money has\nbeen spent on holding meetings; money should be spent to preserve meetings; history\nmatters; the past is a valuable primary source for future generations, which the public\nwill be able to see historic events as they unfolded; no one knows which decisions will\nbe the most valuable; being able to see the Council and those who spoke connects\nfuture generations; that she feels very strongly that 10 years should not be used unless\nstorage becomes a problem for the City.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter is making a motion to\nchange the language, to which Commissioner Dieter responded the language should be\nto what she provided.\nActing Chair Foreman called for a vote on keeping the records indefinitely, which did not\nreceive three affirmative votes by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Dieter\nand Tauzon - 2. Abstentions: Acting Chair Foreman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner\nBonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the language would be brought to the Council with\nthe note that there was not a majority vote.\nActing Chair Foreman stated he would change his vote to aye, which caused the motion\nto carry by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar\n- 2.]\nActing Chair Foreman stated the next item is public comments by members of policy\nbodies and opinions of public concern.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission did not feel that there is a particular\nreason to include the two sections in the ordinance, but reluctantly went along with the\nlanguage recommended by staff; Council felt that neither section is really important or\ncritical to the Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission and Council recommendation is that\nthe sections be deleted; deletion is proposed unless the Commission feels differently.\nCommissioner Dieter moved approval of the City Council recommendation to delete the\nsections.\nCommissioner Tauzon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n3. [Absent: Commissioners Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]\nActing Chair Foreman stated the next item is responding to public records requests.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 9, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated the issue arose from Mr. Klein's complaint\nconcerning the time to respond to requests and the Sunshine Ordinance not mirroring\nthe timeframes under the Public Records Act (PRA) when a local agency needs longer\nthan 10 days; staff drafted language to delete the need to respond within three days and\nadded a provision to allow a reasonable extension not to exceed 14 days if the material\ncannot be readily accessed or made available to the requester.\nCommissioner Dieter stated she has no problem with the suggested edit.\nActing Chair Foreman stated that he thought the response period is 10 days.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated 10 days is for a typical situation, but staff added\nlanguage; when there are unusual circumstances, the time to respond can be extended\nwhich, is consistent with the PRA.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether it is under Section 2-92.2, to which the Assistant\nCity Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated it is Subsection C.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she has a slight aversion to citing the Government\nCode because the reader has to look up the Government Code to see the provision;\nshe is flexible; suggested adding a qualifier, such as the need to compile data from a\nvoluminous record; she is open if other commissioners want to have people read the\nGovernment Code.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether a lot of extra language would need to be added,\nto which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he was simply trying to not be\nwordy; stated the language could be added.\nActing Chair Foreman stated Commissioner Dieter has made him more conscience of\nthe issue; that he originally thought that the Sunshine Ordinance should be cut down\nand not include parts that are redundant; however, Commissioner Dieter has convinced\nhim this section pertains directly to members of the public and needs to be understood;\nthat he does not want the public to have to refer to the Government Code.\nThe City Clerk stated if the Government Code changes, the Sunshine Ordinance would\nbe out of sync which could cause a problem and is often why only the citation is given.\nCommissioner Dieter suggested including a qualifier, such as the need to compile data\nfrom a voluminous record.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated doing so is easy enough.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired if everyone is in favor.\nCommissioner Tauzon stated he is in favor of the Council recommendation.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Dieter inquired about an issue on the last page of the Sunshine\nOrdinance, which is not on the agenda, regarding providing training for City employees\nand officials.\nThe City Clerk responded training is recorded and available.\nCommissioner Tauzon inquired whether every employee has to go through the training,\nto which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\n3-C. Adopt the Annual Public Report\nActing Chair Foreman stated the Annual Public Report is posted on the City's website;\nthe report addresses alleged violations brought to the Commission's attention during the\nprevious calendar year; inquired what Commissioners think about the wording.\nCommissioner Dieter responded the wording is fine; suggested adding reference to\nSunshine Ordinance Section 2-93.6.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether the Commission concurred.\nCommissioner Tauzon inquired whether a report would need to be filed if there is\nnothing to report, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the public wants to know whether or not complaints have\nbeen filed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he wanted to ensure the item is responsive to\nwhat Commissioner Dieter is looking for.\n3-D. Informational Report Concerning Disclosure of Documents that have been\nDetermined to be Public After Previously Determined as Unavailable to the Public\nCommissioner Dieter stated two relevant sections deal with City Attorney reports:\nSections 2-91.8 and 2-91.12E inquired whether a report would be presented to Council\non the Consent Calendar as a public report.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the report, which makes reference to a list of\nvarious litigation, claims etc., goes to Council twice a year.\nCommissioner Dieter stated Section 2-91.8 addresses making a determination about\nwhether documents can be disclosed; inquired whether the matter would also go to\nCouncil on the Consent Calendar.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he does not know; stated he would bring the\nmatter to the City Attorney's attention.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 11, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated the public would realize nothing has been declassified even\nthough it is required semiannually.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated said matter can easily be included with the report.\nCommissioner Dieter stated at least once annually, the Commission also needs to\nreport to the Council, in writing, any practical or policy problems encountered in the\nadministration of the Sunshine Ordinance; that she is wondering if the issue of\ndeclassifying documents should be reported to the City Council; it is difficult for the\nOpen Government Commission to weigh in on documents being declassified because\nthe provision is not clear; things need to be spelled out and perhaps included in the\nSunshine Ordinance, which the Council can discuss; clarification is needed on the\ncriteria for disclosure, the process to determine the risk of disclosing documents, who\ndecides to take the risk--the Council or City Attorney, and who decides when something\ncan be disclosed; a mechanism needs to be put in place for community members to\nrequest classified documents to be declassified; a Commissioner or Councilmember\nmight want something to be declassified; a mechanism needs to be in place for the\npublic to ask for something and get a response about why something may or may not\nbe able to be disclosed.\nThe City Clerk stated in the past on several occasions, the Council has voted to allow\nclosed session information to be disclosed; when a request is made from a member of\nthe public, staff will provide the legal reasoning why the information is not being\ndisclosed; provided an example of the recent hiring of the City Manager; stated an\nexplanation is given to the requestor.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Commission does not know the criteria used to judge\nthe matter; something should be added to the Sunshine Ordinance to make things more\ntransparent so that the Commission can handle complaints.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the sentence in question says: the Commission shall\nreport, in writing, to the City Council at least once annually about any practical or policy\nproblems encountered in the administration of this chapter; if the Commission wants to\nidentify what it sees as practical or policy problems, it is within the Commission's\njurisdiction; that he is not sure whether staff can do so; the Commission might want to\nappoint an ad hoc committee to address the matter and return back to the Commission.\nActing Chair Foreman stated Commissioner Dieter has already laid out the issue;\nrequested that the matter be put in writing and considered at the next meeting;\nquestioned if spelled out in State law; stated real property transactions, contracts, and\nlabor agreements that take place in closed session typically end up in open session;\noutlined an example of closed session information being requested on the\nsubcommittees set up to help Council select the new City Manager; questioned whether\nthere is a way to challenge the issue.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Dieter added another example of when the Del Monte project was\naddressed, the Council indicated the City would open itself up to litigation if the\nordinance was repealed; the ordinance was not repealed; seeing the legal reasoning\nbehind the matter would be interesting; it is important that the City Attorney include the\nmatter regarding closed session minutes in the report on the Council's Consent\nCalendar.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter would draw something up\nto review in October.\nCommissioner Dieter responded the first thing is to have the Assistant City Attorney talk\nto the City Attorney to ensure that the report on documents that are determined to be\nundisclosed will be added to the Consent Calendar.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 2-91.8A refers to any closed session minutes\nbeing exempt from disclosure based on whether the disclosure would be detrimental to\nthe City and a report should be provided to Council.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the report should be on the Consent Calendar for the\npublic; that she would provide ideas to incorporate in a staff report for the Commission\nto figure out 1) criteria for disclosure, 2) the process to determine risk, 3) who decides\nthe risk, and 4) a mechanism for the public.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter had a chance to talk to\nthe Assistant City Attorney about the fact that the Sunshine Ordinance requires that\nthere be a new Chair every year; stated the matter is not on the agenda; inquired how to\nhandle the matter.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded it would probably be best to place the item on\nthe October agenda.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether it would be okay to wait until October to work on\nthe other part [disclosing documents].\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a special meeting could\nbe held assuming there is Commission interest and space availability.\nCommissioner Dieter stated City staff has to prepare a report; disclosing documents is a\nbig deal in the community right now; the matter can be put on the shelf until October or\ncould be discussed at an earlier date.\nThe City Clerk stated a meeting has to be held if a complaint is filed and the item could\nbe added.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she hopes that a complaint is not filed.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 13, "text": "The Commission agreed to wait until October.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if the report is prepared earlier and ready to go, a\nmeeting could take place after being noticing.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the Chair could be addressed then too.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Dieter stated part of the Commission's responsibility is to review public\nnotices to confirm that they conform to the requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance and\nto work to improve public accessible information.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the gist is to ensure that public notices adequately\ncommunicate what is being considered; a person off the street who may not otherwise\nbe interested should be able to understand the agenda.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired what should be done if something on an agenda is\nambiguous.\nThe City Clerk responded a Commissioner can let her know; stated summary titles have\nbeen added as a result of people pointing out ambiguity at a past Open Government\nCommission meeting; a summary title is used when a title seems legalistic and lengthy,\nincluding multiple resolutions or actions; the summary title is in plain English; staff has\nbeen very careful and diligent with titles.\nActing Chair Foreman stated people can get detail of by clicking on the number to the\nleft online; perhaps stock language should be added to the agenda item providing\ninstruction on how to locate details.\nThe City Clerk stated instructions are available in a separate document online.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 8:26\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n13", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-07-14", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTHURSDAY JULY 14, 2016 10:00 A.M.\nA Special meeting was called to allow the Commission to attend Sunshine Ordinance\nTraining.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJuly 14, 2016\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY OCTOBER 3, 2016 - - 7:00 P.M.\np\nChair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and Chair\nAguilar - 4.\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Henneberry - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair\nCommissioner Dieter moved approval of nominating Commissioner Foreman as Chair.\nCommissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]\nChair Foreman moved approval of nominating Commissioner Dieter as Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]\n3-B. Minutes of the February 1, 2016 Meeting\nCommissioner Dieter noted that she provided some corrections to the February 1\nminutes to the Assistant City Clerk.\nCommissioner Aguilar moved approval of the minutes with the corrections.\nCommissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]\n3-C. City Attorney Semi-Annual Reports to the City Council\nThe City Attorney stated her office complied with the Sunshine Ordinance requirement\nand is showing evidence of the same in the staff report.\nVice Chair Dieter inquired whether the discussion about the closed session minutes\nremaining exempt from disclosure is included under the background or discussion\nsection of the staff report.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 3, 2016\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 2, "text": "The City Attorney responded the Sunshine Ordinance requires a semi-annual report to\ndetermine whether items that were not previously disclosed publicly could be made\navailable for public disclosure or should remain exempt from public disclosure; stated\nitems that are determined not to be disclosed could be made available later.\nVice Chair Dieter stated the determination of the items should be placed under the\ndiscussion section of the staff report so as not to confuse the public; placing it under the\nbackground section implies that items previously not disclosed publicly are forever more\nundisclosable.\nThe City Attorney stated her office will comply with Vice Chair Dieter's request to place\nitems under the Discussion section.\nVice Chair Dieter suggested different language for the title of the semi-annual report:\n\"Recommendation to Accept a List of Documents Which Have been Determined to be\nmade public after being determined not being made available to the public\" instead of\n\"\nLitigation and Liability Claim Settlements.\n\"\nThe City Attorney stated that she is willing to modify language to satisfy the\nCommission's concerns; it is not necessarily that items are being disclosed that were\nnot previously disclosed, but even before the Sunshine Ordinance, the City Attorney's\noffice was required to submit a semi-annual report on litigation and liability claim\nsettlements; the report also includes settlements; the report has two parts.\nCommissioner Aguilar stated it may be easier for the public to understand if the report\ntitle distinguishes the two parts; suggested the title include numeration i.e., 1) the\nsettlements, and 2) documents disclosable to the public.\nVice Chair Dieter concurred with Commissioner Aguilar's suggestion; inquired whether\nthe word \"declassified\" could be used instead of \"disclosed\" in terms of the documents.\nThe City Attorney responded the City does not have secret, classified documents, so\nthe term does not apply.\nVice Chair Dieter stated that she is concerned that when did an online search of the\nCity's website using the general search bar, no results would come up; inquired whether\nthere is an easier way to find documents using the search feature.\nThe Assistant City Clerk responded documents are not housed on the main website;\nsuggested searching under Key Documents.\nCommissioner Aguilar inquired whether Vice Chair Dieter was searching for the reports\nstating which documents were disclosable, instead of for the documents themselves, to\nwhich Vice Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 3, 2016\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 3, "text": "Vice Chair Dieter stated that she could not find the report online on the City's website;\npart of the Commission's responsibility is to peruse the database; if she could not find\nthe document, the public would not be able to find it; the report is routinely prepared\nevery six months; she would like to be able to search to find past documents.\nThe Assistant City Clerk stated that whenever a meeting packet is distributed, it is also\npublished online, archived, and should be searchable; stated she would find out how\nVice Chair Dieter was conducting her search and help her with the search feature.\nCommissioner Tuazon stated that he has not had any problems finding documents he\nsearches for on the City website.\nIn response to Vice Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding how to address a complaint from\nthe public regarding why documents are not disclosable to the public, the City Attorney\nstated a Commissioner making a judgment on legal judgments would be going beyond\nwhat the Commission is impaneled to do; the City Attorney's office gives legal advice to\nthe City Council and the Council makes the determination; it is not the charge of the\nCommission to be second-guessing the legal advice.\nIn response to Chair Foreman's inquiry, the City Attorney stated it is not this\nCommission's role to be a substitute for legal judgment.\nIn response to Vice Chair Dieter's inquiry, the City Attorney stated if someone wants to\ncomplain about why documents are not being disclosed, there is no known avenue for\nrecourse, short of filing a lawsuit where they felt they have the right to see documents\nwere pertinent to their case.\nVice Chair Dieter inquired what is the recourse if a Councilmember wants to have a\ndocument disclosed to the public, to which the City Attorney responded the\nCouncilmember would have to make the request in Closed Session and the issue would\nbe voted on; a single Councilmember cannot decide to waive attorney-client privilege, it\nhas to be approved by the Council as a whole.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether there is a specific reason why the matter has\nbecome a concern for the Commission, or if there is an issue the Commission feels the\nCity is not addressing appropriately.\nVice Chair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the issue has been discussed on a\nfew blogs; she wanted to hear the information and provide background to anyone\nlistening.\nCommissioner Aguilar stated, in her experience, closed session minutes are not\ndisclosed.\nThe City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Aguilar; stated there has never been a\nprocess of disclosing closed session minutes in her experience with three different\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 3, 2016\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 4, "text": "cities, including Alameda; the Council does, however, report on claim settlements\npreviously discussed in closed session after an agreement has been signed; there are\nmany other issues discussed in closed session, including personnel issues, legal\nstrategies, legal advice, etc., which would be detrimental to the City if disclosed to the\npublic.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nVice Chair Dieter stated it is that time again for the Commission to provide their annual\nreport; recommended combining two issues into one report, including policy problems\nand alleged violations.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the Commission's annual report would be presented\nto the Council, or just fulfilling a requirement of the Commission.\nVice Chair Dieter responded the annual report is a requirement the Commission needs\nto fulfill under Section 2-93.6, the section also states that the Commission could\nrequest, with advanced notice, a tally of the number of records requests made of the\nCity Clerk's office; stated she thinks the public would find it fascinating to know how\nmany public records requests the clerk's office has to process.\nChair Foreman stated the items should be included on the agenda for the next meeting.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nAssistant City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 3, 2016\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 6, 2017 7:00 P.M.\nChair Foreman convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Aguilar, Dieter, Little, and Chair\nForeman - 4.\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Henneberry - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the October 3, 2016 Meeting\nVice Chair Dieter moved approval of the October 3, 2016 Minutes.\nCommissioner Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]\n3-B. Accept the Annual Public Report\nVice Chair Dieter stated she thinks the agenda title, \"Accept the Annual Public Report\"\nis unclear; she suggested adding the words \"on alleged violations of the Sunshine\nOrdinance and the Number of Public Records Requests\" to the title the next time the\nreport is on the agenda, so that the public will know exactly what the report is when\nreading the agenda title.\nThe Assistant City Attorney took note of Vice Chair Dieter's comments.\nCommissioner Aguilar moved approval of accepting the annual report.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nVice Chair Dieter inquired the time frame of the Semi-Annual and Annual Reports, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded she does not know at the moment, but will\nprovide the answer at the next meeting.\nVice Chair Dieter requested a copy of the revised Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 6, 2017", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 2, "text": "The Assistant City Clerk stated she would provide copies to all Commissioners.\nIn response to Chair Foreman's inquiry about when he was elected Chair, the Assistant\nCity Attorney stated the Commission meets twice a year and he was elected in October\n2016.\nChair Foreman stated he thought the election of officers takes place at the first meeting\nin February.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated she will check on the practice, review the by-laws,\nand inform the Commission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nAssistant City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 6, 2017\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY\nOCTOBER 2, 2017 - - - 7:00 P.M.\nVice Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Henneberry, Little, Schwartz, and\nVice Chair Dieter - 4.\nAbsent:\nChair Foreman - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the February 6, 2017 Meeting\nVice Chair Dieter stated the minutes should reflect a minor change to correct her\nsuggested title to \"Accept the Annual Public Report on Alleged Violations of the\nSunshine Ordinance and the Number of Public Records Requests.\"\nThe Assistant City Clerk took note of Vice Chair Dieter's comments.\nCommissioner Schwartz moved approval of the February 6, 2017 Minutes.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.]\n3-B. Select Chair and Vice Chair\nCommissioner Little inquired what the discussion was at the February 6 meeting\nregarding the election of officers.\nThe Assistant City Clerk responded that in response to an inquiry by Chair Foreman\nabout when the election of officers took place, it was determined that the election takes\nplace in February, according to the by-laws; however, the last election was in October,\n2016; the Commission could do the election tonight or wait until February 2018.\nVice Chair Dieter stated that she recommends doing the election tonight since there are\nno other agenda items.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated that on most of the Boards and Commissions he has\nserved, the Vice Chair steps up to the Chair, and then another member, usually the\nmost senior person on the Board, fills the Vice Chair seat; stated he is prepared to\nmake a motion.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 2, 2017", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Henneberry nominated Vice Chair Dieter as Chair and Commissioner\nLittle as Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.]\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Schwartz stated there was a recent California Supreme Court case that\ndirectly addresses the California Public Records Request Act; inquired whether the\nAssistant City Attorney could share more information on the case.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the California Supreme Court ruled on whether or not\nan email on a personal electronic device is considered public record; the California\nSupreme Court stated public records requests need to involve factual findings and\nmaterials from a personal device may be reviewed so long as it is relevant to the\ninquiry; further stated that Alameda has not had such a request since the Supreme\nCourt ruling.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated a balancing test would eventually be developed so\nrequests are not overly invasive, especially for public officials and volunteer\ncommissioners/board members.\nChair Dieter inquired the time frame of the annual report, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded the report will be provided at the next meeting.\nChair Dieter stated the City Council discussed bringing its Rules of Order to the Open\nGovernment Commission for feedback; inquired the status.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded a Council subcommittee will review the Rules of\nOrder and plans to do so in conjunction with the Open Government Commission; stated\nit has not happened due to the current Council workload; the City Manager placed the\nitem on the referral status spreadsheet; he will provide a status update to the\nCommission.\nIn response to Commissioner Schwartz inquiry on the time frame, the Assistant City\nAttorney stated he will have a better idea of the time frame once the Council is able to\nbegin addressing the items on the spreadsheet; hopefully, it will be reviewed and placed\non the next Open Government Commission meeting agenda in February.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. in\nhonor of the Las Vegas shooting victims.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 6, 2017\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 3, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nAssistant City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 2, 2017", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 5, 2018 7:00 P.M.\nChair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Foreman, Henneberry, Little, and\nChair Dieter - 4.\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Schwartz - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the October 2, 2017 Meeting\nCommissioner Henneberry moved approval of the minutes with a comment; noted that\nhe made comments about his experience on the Planning Board prior to the nomination\nof Chair and Vice Chair; requested the comment be included in the October 2, 2017\nminutes.\nVice Chair Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCommissioners Henneberry, Little and Chair Dieter - 3. Abstention: Commissioner\nForeman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]\n3-B. Presentation on Repairing Alameda's Aging Infrastructure and Related Survey\nThe Public Information Officer gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Vice Chair Little's inquiry regarding local funding options, the Public\nInformation Officer stated nothing has been proposed at this point; a question was\nincluded in the telephone survey.\nVice Chair Little stated infrastructure improvements are dependent on development;\ninquired whether there are alterative ideas if development, such as the Del Monte or\nAlameda Point projects, are not able to acquire funding.\nThe Public Information Officer responded that she is not sure, but she would ask the\nPublic Works Director and provide a response.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired whether Alameda really has the third oldest park\nsystem in the nation, to which the Public Information Officer responded that she is sure\nit is true; stated the City should have more information about it online, which she would\nadd to the City's website.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nFebruary 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 2, "text": "Vice Chair Little noted Jean Sweeney Park will be one of the largest inner City Parks,\nwhich should also be honored as part of the process.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired why the survey is posted at two different online locations.\nThe Public Information Officer responded the survey is posted in a number of places;\nstated there are several versions of the Survey Monkey survey and links to the main\nsurvey have been posted on social media; outlined other users who have received\nsurveys, such as See Click Fix and Peak Democracy; stated a mailer was sent to\npeople across Alameda; the survey has also been publicized in the newspaper; the City\nhas tried to give access to as many people as possible and did not want to limit it to just\npeople who would take a survey on Survey Monkey; over 3,500 responses have been\nreceived.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired about the outreach online; stated the City's website\nsurvey has been discussed verbally, but there have only been tweets about Peak\nDemocracy.\nThe Public Information Officer responded some people like Peak Democracy and others\ndo not; stated whether people want to fill out the survey on Survey Monkey, Peak\nDemocracy or via the mail is a personal choice; the data is being collected in the exact\nsame way for everyone who responds.\nCommissioner Dieter stated there is also a telephone survey for an infrastructure parcel\ntax that would cost $23 per month per $100,000 of assessed valuation; inquired\nwhether the surveys are related.\nThe Public Information Officer responded in the affirmative; stated the telephone survey\njust started.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether the City is doing the survey in order to move\nforward in a campaign, to which the Public Information Officer responded not\nnecessarily; stated the City is trying to figure out options to pay for infrastructure needs;\nonce the City has collected the data from all of the surveys, the City will present the\nresults to Council for Council to decide if and how to move forward.\nCommissioner Dieter stated thoughts on infrastructure immediately go to sidewalks and\nstreets; when she took the survey, there was an option for affordable housing; inquired\nabout affordable housing being included in an infrastructure survey.\nThe Public Information Officer responded that she would have to talk to the Public\nWorks Director to specifically answer the question; stated that she thinks it has to do\nwith the original phone survey, which included housing and traffic; she believes it was\nincluded to see the public's priorities in total; she would want to provide a response after\nasking the Public Works Director.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 5, 2018\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}