{"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"}