{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY - - AUGUST 28, 2012 - - 5:00 P.M.\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER: 5:00 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent:\nPresident Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Members\nDean Batchelor, Linda McHugh, Marguerite Malloy, Executive\nSecretary Holly Brock-Cohn and Randy Riddle (outside counsel for\nthe Board).\nStaff:\nCity Attorney Janet Kern, Assistant City Attorney II Stephanie Sierra,\nSenior Management Analysts Jill Kovacs and Chris Low, and HR\nAdministrative Technician Sharlene Jackson.\nAppellants:\nDave Gossman, Business Union Representative for Operating\nEngineers Local 3 for Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA)\nTrini Blumkin, former Alameda Recreation & Park Department (ARPD)\nRecreation Program Coordinator\nMarcia Tsang, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator\nAndy Wong, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator\nInvestigator: Karen Kramer, Esq., Kramer-Weise Business Management\nConsultants\n3.\nAGENDA ITEM:\nA.\nA Special Meeting has been called for the Civil Service Board Members to\nDiscuss, Consider, and Act on the Following:\n1. Results of the Personnel Investigation - City of Alameda Recreation\nServices Specialist Recruitment dated August 13, 2012 conducted by\nKaren Kramer, Esq.\nPresident Peeler stated that Ms. Karen Kramer, Esq. will be given ten- minutes to present\nher findings of the investigation and then Board members will have an opportunity to ask\nquestions. Then the Appellant's will have ten-minutes to speak and the public with be able\nto make comments. Comments from the public will be allowed three minutes per speaker.\nPresident Peeler invited Ms. Kramer to present her report to the Board. Ms. Kramer stated\nthat she had been asked to conduct the fact-finding investigation for the Recreation\nServices Specialist Recruitment and she had concluded her investigation on August 13,\n2012. The scope of the investigation was two-fold: 1) Involved the allegations of possible", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 2, "text": "Street\nracial discrimination by the three minority Appellants; and 2) Involved the fairness of the\nrecruitment process. As stated in the report, there is no evidence suggesting that racial\ndiscrimination played a role in the recruitment or selection process. Ms. Kramer stated that\nthe Appellants do agree on this finding.\nMs. Kramer also stated that as far as the fairness of the recruitment process is concerned,\nwhether Dale Lillard, then ARPD Director, had a predisposed plan to have his candidates\nselected, or that he in any way influenced the outcome of the recruitment there was no\nevidence indicating that the selection process was conducted in a biased or unfair manner.\nThe facts that were presented to Ms. Kramer did not corroborate with any of the\nallegations.\nMs. Kramer found that there were three parts to the recruitment process. The first part was\na written application in which all of the minimum qualifications were met by all of the\napplicants and to which the Appellants did not object.\nThere were two issues that were raised; 1) one applicant not having a degree and; 2)\nanother applicant not having enough number of years of experience required. Both\nallegations were also not corroborated and unsubstantiated.\nThe second part of the recruitment process involved the supplemental questions. During\nthe interviews, Appellants did acknowledge that there were no objections to the\nsupplemental questions. These questions were prepared by Chris Low, HR Management\nAnalyst. The questions were reviewed by Mr. Lillard, but no changes were made to the\nquestions prepared by Mr. Low. Completed supplemental questions were reviewed by\nsubject matter experts who were recommended by Mr. Lillard. Neither of the subject matter\nexperts communicated with Mr. Lillard regarding the questions. There was no indication\nthat he in any way had impacted the evaluation of the responses to the questions. There\nwas no evidence that the subject matter experts were in any way impacted in their\nevaluation of the responses and there was no evidence the subject matter experts were\nbiased to the applicants.\nThe third part of the process involved an oral interview panel. For the most part, none of\nthe Appellants objected to the members of the interview panel. Two of the Appellants were\nconcerned about the involvement of Ms. Lisa Goldman, City of Alameda Assistant City\nManager, since she is or was Mr. Lillard's immediate supervisor. The panel members were\nchosen by the City Manager and there is no evidence that shows any bias against any of\nthe applicants. The questions that were asked of the applicants during the oral interview\nwere created by Mr. Low and Ms. Goldman. Mr. Lillard was not involved in the creation of\nthose questions. There is no evidence that the questions were leaked prior to the\ninterviews.\nThere was a concern raised by the Appellants that one of the applicants was interviewed\nby telephone, and a legitimate explanation for that has been provided.\nThere was concern about corroboration about the rating process which was found to be\nPage -2-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 3, "text": "to\nwithout merit.\nAnother issue raised was the weighing of the interview and supplemental questions. The\nranking would not have changed whether or not it was 40-60 or 50-50. The top three\napplicants were selected based upon the scoring conducted by Chris Low. None of the\napplicants objected. Also, there was no indication that Chris Low was biased in the\nselection of candidates.\nThere were several comments attributed to Dale Lillard, where one of the Appellants\nbelieves that there was bias in the recruitment process, that the selection of applicants was\na \"done deal,\" these comments were not corroborated. Recreation Supervisor Patrick\nRussi denied making comments attributed to him about being a pawn in the process.\nBased on her investigation Ms. Kramer concluded that the recruitment was a fair process,\nMr. Lillard's involvement was very limited, and did not impact the final outcome of the\nrecruitment.\nPresident Peeler thanked Ms. Kramer and asked Board Members for any questions.\nMember Malloy stated that Ms. Kramer had mentioned on a number of occasions that\ninformation was not corroborated. Ms. Kramer believed the person that comments had\nbeen made. Ms. Kramer further explained that she did not feel that anyone was\nintentionally deceitful. She thinks that it was more of a perception issue.\nPresident Peeler invited the Appellants an opportunity to address the report presented.\nDave Gossman, Business Union Representative for Operating Engineers Local 3 for\nAlameda City Employee Association (ACEA), stated that he is representing not only the\nAppellants but all union members applying to the City of Alameda. He did find that the\ninvestigation was thorough and complete and stated that there were facts brought up in the\nreport that the Appellants were not aware of and that there were also facts which show that\nthe examination should be overturned. Mr. Gossman provided the Board with a report\ncontaining comments regarding the results of the investigation and acknowledged the\nfindings that there was no issue of discrimination of race, creed, or marriage.\nMr. Gossman stated that their first issue was a preselection issue prior to the investigation\nand examination even taking place. He further stated that not only did the applicants know\nthat Mr. Lillard had a predisposed plan; but that Chris Low also knew that there were\nrumors of a predisposition and who the applicants were. Mr. Gossman stated that upon\nconfronting John Russo, City Manager, Mr. Russo stated that he already knew what was\nhappening and that he would take care of it.\nThe second issue was the selection of the test evaluators. Whether there was any\ncommunication between Mr. Lillard and the test evaluators, Mr. Gossman expressed that\nMr. Lillard knew who the test evaluators were due to a previous employment.\nPage -3-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 4, "text": "the\nMr. Gossman stated that Mr. Lillard had called Ms. Kassebaum and asked her to review\nwritten responses to the supplemental questions. Mr. Lillard also told Ms. Kassebaum that\nthe City would likely keep 3-5 employees. Ms. Kassebaum assumed Ms. Bailey was one of\nthe candidates since she was previously informed by Mr. Russi that Ms. Bailey's position\nwould likely be eliminated. Mr. Gossman stated that there was indeed communication\nbetween Mr. Lillard and Ms. Kassebaum as indicated in page 12 of the investigative report.\nMr. Gossman stated that the third issue was that there was no notice to applicants on how\nthe grading process would be conducted. The candidates did not know that the\nsupplemental examination was to be weighed and how much the oral examination would be\nweighed or that it was unknown. Mr. Gossman continued to compare the bulletins\npublished by the Human Resources Department pointing out the weighing of the\nexamination for the Senior Civil Engineer is clear and that the interview weighed as 100%\nversus the bulletin for the Recreation Services Specialist. Typically, jurisdictions utilize\nsupplemental questions to reduce the size of the applicants. Supplemental questions,\ntypically, are not used to score the application.\nMr. Gossman stated that another issue was why there were two panels interviewing for a\npromotional position. Also, the supplement questionnaire clearly and in bold black print\ndictated the examiner was to score the answer in the following scoring method: 0 - to\nindicate no experience, 1-4 to indicate minimal experience, 5-7 to indicate moderate\nexperience, or 8-10 for extensive/quality experience. Ms. Blumkin clearly answered the\nquestions and received no credit, pointing to Addendum #3 in the report he had provided.\nThis is clear evidence that shows one of the raters failed to follow the scoring matrix\nresulting in an inaccurate score for Ms. Blumkin.\nMr. Gossman stated that in Addendum #6, identifying discrepancies in the Oral Interview\nmatrix, there were seven questions to be answered during the oral interview and only six\ncategories to score the applicants. The specific scoring matrix did not have categories that\nmatched the questions. The matrix does not match and was not accurate; it is quite obvious\nthat the scoring matrix was used from another examination. In addition, the raters did not\neven comment on any of the questions; the questions were very complicated, and only 25\nminutes was given for candidates to answer the questions.\nThe real issue of this reclassification is a budget issue; the City is going to change the\nbudget by removing positions; and the individuals (applicants) are already being paid from\nthe Athletic Trust Fund. The City is trying to get rid of certain employees, even senior\nemployees. Mr. Gossman stated that the Appellants are just looking for fairness and\nequality. The recruitment process was flawed, inaccurate, and he wants to have this\nrectified.\nPresident Peeler invited Mr. Andy Wong to speak before the Board.\nMr. Wong, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, called attention to the report he\nprovided to the Board. He stated that an actual number should be used to determine the\noutcome of an average score and not a check mark. The checkmark was used to indicate\nPage -4-\nG:Personnel\\CSBV Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 5, "text": "She felt this created confusion. She recommended having guidelines and information\nspecific to conducting interviews be provided to candidates in the future.\nMr. Don Peterson, concerned Alameda resident and former member of Local 595 IBEW,\nstated that the whole recruitment looked to him like an inside job and thought the\ninvestigation was flawed. The investigator took the word of the people that had more\npower. Mr. Peterson claimed that Mr. Lillard is a disgrace and should not be working for\nthe City because he only hires people that he likes. Mr. Peterson expressed his concerns\nPage -5-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\ Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 6, "text": "San\nabout the minimum requirements stated in the bulletin for the Recreation Services\nSpecialist recruitment and explained that it should clearly state what the minimum\nrequirements are and whether it is only with a 4-year college degree from a university, or\nno degree with years of experience. The bulletin should clearly state what the\nrequirements are and be specific. Mr. Peterson also stated that Dale Lillard has fired people\nin the past and only hired people as he chooses.\nPresident Peeler asked the Board if they would accept or deny the investigator's finding.\nVice President Horikoshi and Members McHugh and Batchelor voted to accept the\ninvestigator's findings.\nMember Malloy stated she'd like to further discuss some finite specific areas with the\ninvestigator about some issues raised in the report.\nMember Malloy asked Ms. Kramer if at any point in the investigation had she checked the\nscores and if at any time she realized that Ms. Kassebaum had not provided the score to\none of the applicants in the areas that clearly address responses within the supplemental\nquestionnaire. Ms. Kramer replied that she did not check the scores and took the\nresponses provided as being accurate.\nMember Malloy asked Ms. Kramer whether or not she thought the selection process was\nfair in light of a scorer excluding scores in entire categories. Ms, Kramer replied that the\nprocess was fair due to that there was no intent and likely just an oversight and/or\nmathematical error. Member Malloy stated that the investigation clearly speaks for itself.\nPresident Peeler asked the Board for a motion. Member McHugh made a motion to\naccept the report prepared by Karen Kramer, Esq. Motion was seconded by Vice\nPresident Horikoshi. Motion passed by 5-0 vote.\n2. The Request of Claimants to Vacate the Results of the Recreation Services\nSpecialist Recruitment.\nPresident Peeler addressed the other issue at hand, whether or not the scoring would put\nsomeone else into position to get the job over the current position. She addressed the\nBoard on their opinion how to entertain that request.\nMember Malloy stated she wanted to ask Mr. Riddle, outside counsel for the Board, as to\nwhat the Board's role is and how they should continue and whether or not to order another\nexamination process solely based on the results of the current investigation. Or, should\nthey bring up a review of new items that came to light. Ms. Malloy asked if the Board\nneeds to determine and make a decision as to whether or not the scores are accurate.\nMr. Riddle stated that the City staff should provide their statements on the matter.\nPresident Peeler asked members of the City staff if they had received copies of the\ndocumentation provided by the Appellants today. City staff stated they had not. Ms. Peeler\nPage -6-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 7, "text": "San\nasked City staff to review the documentation. A 30-minutes recess was given to them for\nreview.\nPresident Peeler called the meeting back to order at 6:30 p.m.\nCity Attorney Kern addressed President Peeler and the Board and stated that the City\nconcurred that there was a mathematical error in the scoring as stated. Ms. Kern thanked\neveryone for their time and hoped that there would have been a settlement.\nHR Director Brock-Cohn reminded the Board that the names on the list are selected by the\nInterview Panel and Department Head can select whomever she/he wanted on the list. The\nquestion still would remain as to whether she/he would have taken the top three or skipped\naround on the list and taken different candidates because of the new order. There is still\nthe question of whether the Department Head would have selected the exact same people\nsince there may have been a different order on the list.\nPresident Peeler asked if the selection was by the top three or rule of the list. HR Director\nBrock-Cohn stated that it is the rule of the list. The person making the selection can select\nwhomever they want off of the list.\nMr. Riddler asked for the difference between candidates three and four on the list.\nManagement Analyst Low stated that the difference would be that Mr. Wong would have\n72.6 points and Mr. McDaniel's would have 72.2 points. This results in Mr. Wong\nincreasing by 1.2 points, or .40 more than Mr. McDaniel on the published list.\nMr. Gossman stated the issue now is that the scoring was inaccurate. His recommendation\nis to have a new test for fairness and equality.\nMs. Kramer stated that the important point from her perspective was that with the scoring of\nthe supplemental questions there appeared to be some comment about applicants not\nbeing evaluated properly because they did have certain experience that was reflected on\ntheir applications. Ms. Kramer went back and reviewed the rating sheets prepared by the\nraters (Ms. Kassebaum and Ms. Ely) and they actually indicated that they wanted to give\nthe applicants a zero. These zeroes were not ignored and oversights on their part. In fact,\nMs. Ely wrote that in giving five different categories a zero rating, \"provided very few details\ndue to way in which questions were answered, unable to determine specifics of experience,\nno real length of time or other key information provided to score.\" Ms. Ely intentionally\ngave these applicants zero where it is indicated on the pieces of paper as opposed to\nmaking a mistake and not rating them a particular category.\nMs. Kramer also stated that just to clarify, the candidates or Mr. Gossman stating that\nmistakes were made in the scoring of the supplemental questions, while he might disagree\nwith the numbers given, those were the numbers given. There is no evidence/indication\nthat either Ms. Kassebaum or Ms. Ely had any sort of bias against any of the applicants or\nthis rumor of a predisposed plan by Mr. Lillard in any way impacted their subject matter\nevaluation of the supplemental questions.\nPage -7-\nG:Personnel\\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Peterson asked the Board if he could speak. He stated that he has a problem with\nsomeone getting a zero for experience that has 15-18 years of experience. How can that\nbe rated a zero. He does not care if someone does not like them or not, the experience\ncounts for what it is. A person who has been running the adult program for 18 years and\nshe got a zero is not right. Ms. Kramer stated that what the raters relied upon was the\nactual response to the supplemental questions, by giving a zero it was their perception that\nthe response to the supplemental questions did not evidence any experience.\nVice President Horikoshi asked Mr. Riddle what the options were for the Board. Mr. Riddle\nstated that there are three different Appellants. The Board has three different appeals; 1)\nat one point all three wanted the process to be redone; 2) to have an investigation which\nhas now happened; and, 3) to have the testing done over again and Mr. Wong is now,\nbased on the arithmetic, the third highest person.\nMr. Riddle stated that the Board can; 1) deny the appeal based on the investigation and the\nfindings; 2) based on the arithmetical mistake; grant Mr. Wong's appeal in which case he\nwould be considered the third ranked person. Again it is rule of the list, so there is no\nguarantee that he would have been picked; and, 3) grant the appeal for all three Appellants\nand direct that a new examination be given.\nPresident Peeler asked how the rule of the list is usually applied. Management Analyst\nLow stated that once an eligible list has been established the number of names certified to\nthe hiring authority is based upon the civil service rules. The appointing authority has the\nability to choose any of the names regardless of how they scored on the eligible list. There\nhave been incidents where higher scoring candidates have been passed over for promotion\nand were not selected for a variety of legitimate reasons. For instance, they did well in the\nselection process and the appointing authority knows that they tested very well but there\nare deficiencies that do not make them necessarily the best candidate for the job. For\nexample, in a number of our departments, Mr. Low can recall that certain\nemployees/candidates scored very well throughout the testing/selection process but were\npassed over for the promotion.\nMr. Gossman stated that in this investigation on the day of the exam they were determining\nwhether to use a 50-50 or 60-40 weighing and they did the calculations to see who the\nhighest three were. It was not about their discussing who they wanted to select, they had\npredetermined who they were going to take to the top three highest scores.\nPresident Peeler asked the Board for a motion.\nBoard Member Malloy stated that her challenge is that we have heard from the City that we\nselected the top three. She thinks there should be three separate motions. City Attorney\nKern stated that it is accurate that the top three were selected. The point that the City has\nmade is that it is not preordained in any and all recruitments. The appointing authority can\nselect from all eligible candidates. Member Malloy stated that she feels that there should\nbe separate motions because Mr. Wong's case is clearly different than the other two cases.\nPage -8-\nG:Personnel\\CSBV Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 9, "text": "things\nMr. Riddle stated that maybe someone should make a motion to grant Mr. Wong's appeal\nand then grant the other two candidates appeal. His understanding is that if there is not a\nmotion to grant any of the three appeals, the effect of that is to deny the appeal.\nPresident Peeler asked based on the City saying that the top three were chosen and Mr.\nWong is now in the top three can the Board move that he be appointed to the position.\nCity Attorney Kern stated that what is before the Board is whether or not the processes\nwere fair, not who should get the job. The Board is deciding if the process was fair. It is\nnot the Board's decision on who should get the job.\nMember McHugh moved that the Board grant the request of the Appellants, not for\nall of the reasons given, but as to what was brought out in Ms. Kramer's\ninvestigation; there was a need to rush, mistakes were made, lack of deciding what\nthe rating criteria would be in advance, and announcing the job posting. All are\nthings that normally do not happen. For those reasons the test should be redone.\nBatchelor seconded. Motion passed 4-1.\nPresident Peeler stated that the test will be redone.\n4.\nADJOURNMENT: 6:50 p.m.\nHolly Brock-Cohn\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board\nPage -9-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nTuesday, August 28, 2012 6:30 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:40 P.M.\nPresent: Chair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Harp, Commissioners Fort, Kirola, Warren,\nand Deutsch.\nAbsent: Commissioner Tam\n2.\nMINUTES\n2-A.\nThe minutes were approved with changes.\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nJohn Knox-White/Planning Board acknowledged Chair Lord-Hausman's attendance at\nthe August 27, 2012 Planning Board Meeting regarding the design construction at 1600\nPark Street Development. He noted that her recommendations were accepted by the\nPlanning Board.\nJoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko (guest), Alameda resident, noted that delivery trucks have parked\nin disabled parking spaces and wondered if others had that experience? Chair Lord-\nHausman indicated, \" Yes, she had, at Bridgeside \" and that the CDI would follow up.\nAnn Steiner (guest) requested inviting the APD Chief to a Commission Meeting.\n4.\nNEW BUSINESS\n4-A.\nCDI Restructuring (Alex Nguyen, Deputy City Manager)\nChair Lord-Hausman introduced the Deputy City Manager Nguyen regarding\nrestructuring. Deputy City Manager Nguyen stated that due to staff resources it is\nrecommended to hold four (4) formal meetings a year. The Commission can hold work\nsessions where no formal votes can be taken.\nDeputy City Manager agreed with nine (9) members\nCommissioner Kirola asked for clarification regarding the difference between the formal\nmeetings versus the working sessions, and Vice-Chair Harp asked if the working sessions\nwould conform to the Brown Act, to which the Deputy City Manager stated he would\nclarify in writing what the working session rules are.\n1", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 2, "text": "Ann Steiner asked if the work sessions would be staffed to which the Deputy City\nManager stated no staffing would be present, but notes would be available.\nChair Lord-Hausman suggested a \"January-April-July-October\" schedule as a\nframework. Secretary Akil stated she will hold the fourth Mondays for both the formal\nmeetings and work sessions.\nAnn Steiner stated she is extremely alarmed at the last CDI Meeting Minutes and staff's\nperception of the CDI overall and reducing the monthly meetings. Chair Lord-Hausman\nexpressed her appreciation and acknowledged that it will be different but that as Chair,\nshe has the ability to call a fifth meeting.\nVice-Chair Harp stated she would prefer six (6) to four (4) meetings\nCommissioner Warren appreciates the four (4) meetings and the ability to have work\nsessions.\nSecretary Akil discussed the elimination of the Assistant Risk Manager position, her\npromotion to Risk Manager and the very limited resources.\nCommissioner Fort expressed his appreciation for allowing the members to remain at\nnine (9) to which Secretary Akil stated Deputy City Manager Nguyen made that possible.\n4-B.\nPark Street Benches (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nChair Lord-Hausman stated she received a call from an elderly lady that there are no\nbenches or rest spots along Park Street. Deputy City Manager Nguyen and Chair Lord-\nHausman discussed. She has also reached out to the Park Street Business Association.\nDeputy City Manager stated he and Secretary Akil also walked up and down Park Street\nand the project will be led by the CDI. Deputy City Manager also recommends the CDI\nreach out to other businesses for buy-in.\nChair Lord-Hausman will think of some next steps, forming a sub-committee and\nreaching out to other businesses.\nJoanAnn suggested an \"adopt a bench\" for fundraising type of program.\nAnn Steiner stated she had park benches donated in memory of someone as a method of\nraising money.\nDeputy City Manager suggested focusing on getting the first few done on Park Street\nASAP and then focus on fundraising later.\n2", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 3, "text": "5.\nOLD BUSINESS\n5-A.\nGoals and Objectives 2012 (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nUniversal Design Ordinance.\n5-B.\nUniversal Design Work Group Update (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that things are going well.\nVice-Chair Harp stated that on July 3 and 17th the City Council discussed and passed the\nHousing Element with the suggested Universal Design language. The work group\ncontinues to meet regarding other cities' ordinances and proposed language\nJoanAnn asked where would the language apply to which the Chair and Vice-Chair\nresponded primarily housing.\nDeputy City Manager Nguyen stated that the City is being sued by the East Bay Regional\nPark District and it could severely slow the project but it should not affect the CDI work.\n5-C. Disability Awareness Month (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nBanner Dates:\nChair Lord-Hausman stated the banner hanging dates are reserved:\nSeptember 11-25- Webster Street\nOctober 2-16 Central/Oak Streets\nOctober 16-23 Park/Webb Streets\nGuest Editorial in \"The Sun\": Chair/Vice-Chair will write this together. Deputy City\nManager suggested making the Park Street benches a theme with Disability Awareness\nMonth.\nProclamation: Secretary Akil to follow up.\n5-D. City Council Meeting Report (Commissioner Fort)\nCommissioner Fort stated nothing to report other than Vice-Chair Harp's report out on\nthe Housing Element.\n5-E.\nPlanning Board Meeting Report (Chair Lord-Hausman)\nChair Lord-Hausman spoke at the August 27, 2012 Planning Board Meeting regarding\nthe Lincoln / Park Street Development. She pointed out the need for a safe redesign of the\nPark and Lincoln Street intersection in anticipation of increased pedestrian activity. She\nalso requested sidewalk benches be installed in front of the new development.\n3", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-08-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2012-08-28", "page": 4, "text": "6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nSecretary Akil announced that Public Works would like to use the CDI as a public\nmeeting for potential installation of pedestrian accessible audio sounds at nine (9)\nintersections.\n7.\nANNOUNCEMENTS\n7-A.\nNext meeting: October 29, 2012, followed by December 3, 2012 (1st Monday).\n7-B. Chair Lord-Hausman: Universal Design Committee - October 2, 2012 6:30 p.m.\nSecretary to find available public meeting room.\n7-C.\nCommissioner Fort: Bus Stops: Cars parking too close- Chair Lord-Hausman will follow\nup with Chief Noonan.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia Akil\nBoard Secretary\n4", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-08-28.pdf"}