{"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"}