{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-28", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING\nTUESDAY - - -JUNE 28, 2005- - -6:45 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:22 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioner/Board Member Daysog, deHaan,\nGilmore, and Chair Johnson - 4.\nAbsent :\nCommissioner/Board Member Matarrese - 1.\nNote: Chair Johnson announced that Commissioner/Board Member\nMatarrese would not be teleconferencing from El Salvador because\nthe phone connection was not working.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(05-034CIC) Discussion/review of the City Charter and related\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) policy, procedures, and management\npractices.\nChair Johnson stated that the City Attorney was requested to\nprovide thoughts on emergency spending for outside counsel: noted\nthat the hiring of outside counsel is approved by the Council and\nthat some slight revisions need to be made to the CIC and ARRA By-\nlaws, etc. in order to provide consistency between the City\nCouncil, CIC and ARRA.\nCommissioner/Boare Member Daysog inquired whether the issue of\nhiring outside counsel was related to determining what the\nthreshold would be.\nChair Johnson responded that the City Attorney was to provide\ninformation on how much would be required to cover the interim\nperiod before the matter was brought back to the Council.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she understood that\nthe matter would be addressed at a meeting in July.\nChair Johnson stated that a memo was received stating that an\noutside attorney had been hired; the City Attorney indicated that\nthe issue regarding hiring of outside counsel applied to the\nCouncil, not the CIC or ARRA.\nThe City Attorney distributed the minutes of the June 7, 2005\nCouncil Meeting stated the Council requested a proposal from the\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n1\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-28", "page": 2, "text": "City Attorney's office for a future meeting noted the hiring of\noutside counsel was not part of the budget adoption.\nChair Johnson stated the matter could be brought back at the July 5\nCity Council Meeting if the Council action is not clear.\nThe City Attorney stated the matter is on the July 5 Council agenda\nper Council's request for discussion in closed session; noted that\nshe was requested to provide a proposal at the last performance\nevaluation.\nChair Johnson stated different interpretations of the Council's\nactions at the June 7 Council Meeting are not necessary; the\nCouncil can place the matter on the July 5 Council Meeting in open\nsession; that she does not believe the matter is a closed session\nitem.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she distinctly\nremembers that there was a certain amount of concern in discussing\nauthorized amounts in open session because of litigation\nstrategies.\nChair Johnson stated that the concept needs to be adopted in open\nsession.\nThe City Attorney stated that she is proceeding to provide a\nproposal at the July 5 Closed Session Meeting in order to not\nreveal litigation strategies and to respond to the Council's\nrequest for additional oversight and threshold identification; any\nbudget amendments should subsequently be placed on an open session\nagenda; at the last performance evaluation, the Council requested\nthat the matter initially be addressed in closed session.\nChair Johnson stated there is also direction that action has to be\nconsistent with the Charter.\nThe City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson.\nChair Johnson stated that the Charter provides that the Council\nconsent to the hiring of outside counsel.\nThe City Attorney distributed an opinion by Robert Logan which\naddressed budget appropriations and authorizations; stated that it\nis appropriate for the Council to follow the pattern and practice\nthat has been in place for over 16 years and which was adopted at\nno less than five public meetings where a budget appropriation for\nthe City Attorney was authorized; stated that she did understand\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n2\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-28", "page": 3, "text": "the Mayor's request and would return with an oversight proposal.\nChair Johnson stated that the direction to operate consistently\nwith what the Charter provides has already been given to the City\nAttorney.\nThe City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson; stated that the\nattorney retained by the Council in 1989 provided an analysis of\nthe direction regarding retention of outside counsel.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council also gave direction regarding\nthe Charter stating that the Council consent is required to hire\noutside attorneys.\nThe City Attorney stated that the consent has been given through\nthe budget in the past 16 years; the policy can be changed and\nwould be discussed on July 5th.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the budget enables the\nCity Manager and department heads to hire individuals; the Council\ndoes not need to be involved in the actual hiring but might want to\nbe involved in instances above or below certain thresholds; stated\nthat the Council is moving in the right direction.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the initial clarification\nwould be with the Charter; noted there is dispute between the City\nAttorney and the Council; the Council feels that they have the\nauthority to consent to the hiring of outside legal counsel.\nChair Johnson stated that there is no need to hire an attorney to\nprovide an opinion on the language of the Charter; the language of\nthe Charter is very plain and clear.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council could move\nforward if the language of the Charter has been determined.\nChair Johnson stated that there is a $470,000 litigation\ncontingency in Risk Management and an additional $350,000 for\nAlameda Power & Telecom; noted that the City Attorney is stating\nthat the Council has consented to the hiring of outside counsel by\napproving the line items in the budget over the past 16 years; the\nCouncil has given a blanket authorization to the City Attorney to\nhire outside counsel and that is not the level of oversight that\nthe Charter intends ; the Charter was drafted to provide needed\nchecks and balances; the City Attorney's office has five attorneys\nand also spends a significant amount of money on outside counsel ;\nstated that the Council should have more of a role in the hiring of\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n3\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-28", "page": 4, "text": "outside counsel and needs to be more in line with the intention of\nthe Charter; changes can be made as time goes on and when the\nCouncil feels more comfortable a lot of money is being spent on\noutside attorneys and the Council has an obligation to be more\naware of outside attorney costs.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that defining the\nparameters of discretion and how the discretion relates to Section\n8-5 of the Charter is the issue; the Council is in the process of\ndefining discretionary parameters of \"may empower\" the City\nAttorney or any other City office meets Council expectations\nthrough the establishment of the budget i threshold parameters need\nto be established; the Council is moving in the direction that will\nwork for both sides but will not be established tonight.\nChair Johnson stated that clear direction was given to the City\nAttorney to bring the matter of hiring of outside counsel back to\nthe Council at the last Closed Session Meeting.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that his interpretation of\nthe Charter is that because there was no specific ordinance or\nresolution defining \"may empower\" the past practice is still in\neffect.\nChair Johnson stated that is not what she heard at the last\nmeeting.\nThe City Attorney stated that she is working on a proposal to be\npresented to the City Council on July 5; that she hears what the\nCouncil is saying and understands that there is a desire for\nadditional oversight the proposal will provide additional Council\ninvolvement and discretion, and provide significantly less\ndiscretion on the City Attorney's part.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council is not asking for less\ndiscretion on the City Attorney's part; stated that Council should\ndo what the Charter says; the interpretation of the Charter could\nbe that the Council gives consent to the City Attorney to spend\nmoney on outside attorneys by putting a line item in the budget or\nthe interpretation of the Charter can be that the Council is not\ngoing to give consent by a line item; the latter was made clear at\nthe June 7 Joint City Council, CIC, ARRA Meeting the Council is\nallocating $470,000 but the City Attorney does not have the\ndiscretion to spend it without the Council's consent.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that the [June 7] action of the\nCouncil was to adopt the budget ; Chair Johnson requested the City\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n4\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-28", "page": 5, "text": "Attorney to bring the hiring of outside counsel to Council but the\nmatter was not part of the motion; that he is not sure how many\nother Councilmembers gave the direction to the City Attorney; staff\nfollows direction given by the Council ; it is not necessary to have\na motion and vote; the City Attorney would provide a proposal to\ndetermine the extent of Council overview; that he questions whether\nthe City Attorney should hire outside counsel or come to the\nCouncil voluntarily to request consent of hiring outside counsel.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney could come to\nCouncil when the hiring of outside counsel was necessary in the\ninterim, to which the City Attorney responded that she would not\nhire outside counsel until July 5; noted that there are existing\ncounsel, bills and litigation.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council is not addressing attorneys\nthat are already working for the City.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney\nintended to hire new outside counsel in the next ten days, to which\nthe City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council requested\na\nsummary of existing litigation and hopes to have the information\nprovided at the next meeting ARRA has a substantial amount of\nlitigation; noted there are fixed and variable portions of the\nbudget Council would like to keep control of outside counsel\nspending the oversight philosophy is important.\nChair Johnson stated that all the Council agreed that there was a\nneed to provide some authority for emergency spending.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that that it is important\nto establish a policy that is consistent across all governing\nbodies.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the Council requested\nto be involved in interim decisions and hopes to be receiving said\ninformation.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council requested a list of\nattorneys, including scope of service; the information should be\npresented before the next Council meeting; inquired whether the\nCity Attorney's proposal would be in the agenda packet or presented\nin advance; stated she would prefer that the proposal was not\ndistributed to the Council on the night of the meeting.\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n5\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-28", "page": 6, "text": "The City Attorney stated the information would be provided to the\nCouncil before the City Council Meeting; stated that she would\nbring the proposal to the July 5 Closed Session Meeting with the\nadvanced copy of all information requested; she hears the Council\ndirection in terms of a desire for policy direction to provide the\nadditional thresholds and Council involvement and oversight for all\ngoverning bodies matters would be discussed and direction taken\nfrom the Council.\nChair Johnson stated that she does not expect that any outside\ncounsel would need to be hired within the next week, inquired what\nwas decided on the interim.\nThe City Attorney responded that she would like the Council to keep\na reasonable, fair and equitable approach; all department heads are\nauthorized to spend monies when the budget is adopted $75,000 or\nless is the current amount without Council authorization.\nChair Johnson stated that no one else in the City has authorization\nto spend over $800,000.\nThe City Attorney reiterated her request for a reasonable approach.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council is always fair and\nreasonable; stated that she made it clear at the budget meeting\nthat the Council is not changing the amount of the City Attorney'\nbudget but is exercising Council responsibility.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the direction for\nother City departments might change also; the City is in\nextraordinary times in reviewing the budget, controlling staffing,\nand developing needed services.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council does not\nwant to make it significantly more difficult for the City Attorney\nto be able to do her job.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that delivery of successful\nservices to the residents is ultimately the end responsibility; the\nquestion of reasonableness is not incidental; rapid responses are\nnecessary for the legal team; the City is shooting itself in the\nfoot if rules do not allow for rapid responses.\nThe City Attorney stated that she is fully confident that the\nproposal submitted on July 5 will be adequate for all purposes.\nChair Johnson requested that the City Attorney summarize her\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n6\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-28", "page": 7, "text": "understanding of the Council's direction.\nThe City Attorney stated that the direction from the Council was to\nprovide a proposal that addresses issues regarding the Charter,\nCouncil oversight in order to provide a threshold to limitation of\nthe City Attorney's current budgeting authority, and to address\nother issues discussed, i.e., an RFQ panel of attorneys.\nChair Johnson stated the Council does not intend to limit the\ndollar amount; the Council could spend $800,000 on one case; the\nfocus is on hiring outside counsel.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that sometimes it is not known how\nmuch money will be necessary for hiring outside attorneys in cases\nwhere the City gets sued; usually there is a proposal from a\nconsultant advising what the cost will be when other departments\nhire consultants; the Council would like to be advised who the\noutside counsel would be.\nChair Johnson stated it is not necessary to have a dollar amount in\ncontracts; the Council needs to be advised who the attorney is that\nwould handle the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that it is not in the interest of the\npublic for the Council to be involved in every single hiring\ndecision; there should be a threshold.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to be\ninvolved in every single hiring decision.\nChair Johnson stated there would be a greater awareness and\nsensitivity to hiring outside counsel; there have been instances\nwhere the Council has questioned why outside counsel was hired; the\nissue is not a dollar limit; stated the Council could discuss the\ntype of issues that should involve the Council; the City Attorney\ncould address the matter in her proposal.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested a summary of litigation and the\nestimates for finalization; requested that the Council receive\nadvanced notice when the amount of a consultant's contract is\nanticipated to increase.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that all managers should be able to\nprovide the Council with an on-going ledger.\nChair Johnson stated that the task of providing the ledger to the\nCouncil should not be burdensome; requested that the City Attorney\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n7\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-28", "page": 8, "text": "advise the Council if the task would be burdensome.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council would\nrather have the City Attorney perform legal work than\nadministrative work; stated the City Attorney is obviously more\nvalued as a lawyer.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, Secretary\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n8\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf"}