{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2016 7:00 P.M.\nActing Chair Foreman convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Dieter, Tuazon, and Acting Chair\nForeman - 3.\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the October 14, 2015 Meeting\nCommissioner Dieter moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]\n3-B. Consider Further Revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance Amendments\nActing Chair Foreman outlined the packet documents; inquired how the Commission\nshould review the items.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the City Council concurred with the changes that\nthe Commission made with the exception of the items identified in the staff report.\nActing Chair Foreman stated there are four items: 1) use of electronic communication\ndevices; 2) submitting comments when a policy body member is not present at a\nmeeting; City staff disagreed with the Commission's recommendations on said two\nitems; 3) requiring all City Council meetings to be live streamed; and 4) responding to\npublic records requests.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there is also an item about public comments by\nmembers of policy bodies and opinions of public concern; with respect to the use of\nelectronic communication devices, staff recommended a rule that the Council thought\nwould prevent use of any type of device except iPads or laptops when accessing\nagenda materials; the Commission felt the provision was too restrictive and thought that\nthere should be a little more leeway; the City Council agreed; staff has divided the item\ninto three parts: 1) when a policy body is considering a general legislative matter, the\nuse of devices would be strongly discouraged, but not prohibited; 2) when the policy\nbody is considering a quasi-judicial matter, electronic communication devices would be\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 2, "text": "prohibited except for accessing agenda materials; and 3) not withstanding those\nadmonitions, devices could be used for innocuous purposes, such as a calculator,\nlooking up a date or contacting a family member; the provision would be largely self-\npolicing.\nActing Chair Foreman provided a handout; stated after he reviewed the October Council\nstaff report, which rejected the Commission's more liberal approach, he took it upon\nhimself to attend the Council meeting and defend the Commission's language; he also\npresented his personal view that the language should be even broader, should not tie\ninto devices, and should address what is prohibited; suggested the language at the\nbottom of his handout; stated the language does not say what can be done, rather it\nsays what cannot be done with devices; the only thing that should be prohibited is\nreceiving or sending private communications about the meeting; outlined the City\nCouncil discussion from the minutes; stated the majority of the Council provided\ndirection to staff; however, staff has come up with something that is almost directly\ncontradictorily to what at least three Councilmembers want; he has drafted a paragraph\nin line with what a majority of Council requested; he talked with the Assistant City\nAttorney who raised the issue of quasi-judicial matters; provided the example of the\nCommissions' quasi-judicial complaint hearing; stated the complainant and public have\na right to see everything Commissioners consider in making a decision; suggested a\ntwo tier system: one for general legislative matters and one for quasi-judicial matters;\nstated his recommendation is much shorter and does not provide the rationale.\nCommissioner Dieter provided a handout; stated that she listened to the City Council\ndiscussion; everyone agrees the purpose of the provision is to prohibit communicating\nelectronically with others during meetings because of the appearance it gives; rather\nthan spelling out all of the different allowable scenarios, the provision should be kept\ngeneral and say what members should do; the language could be even shorter than\nActing Chair Foreman's suggestion; the first original sentence could be retained and\nrather than staff's proposed language, one sentence could cover everything; the\nsentence would be: \"therefore communicating electronically with others during meetings\nis prohibited;\" it is not necessary to tell anybody using a device is allowed if there is an\nemergency; the language can be streamlined a little bit more to achieve the purpose.\nIn response to Acting Chair Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated her\nunderstanding is the provision's purpose is to have members not communicate with\neach other; members should be paying attention to what's being done; using an\nelectronic device to look up a word is fine; communicating gives a bad appearance.\nThe City Clerk stated the Sunshine Task Force included the provision because they did\nnot want somebody to not go on record publicly and try to influence the decision makers\nduring the meeting; communication is what the Task Force honed in on.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Sunshine Ordinance just states do not communicate on\nelectronic devices while at the dais, which covers everything and is very simple.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Tuazon stated the matter is common sense; the public wants 100%\nattention; questioned why members would be communicating with someone else.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that is the whole point.\nActing Chair Foreman stated everyone agrees on said matter.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the language suggested by Acting Chair Foreman or\nCommissioner Dieter certainly works; the Mayor has asked on a couple occasions\nwhether or not she can use an electronic device calendar or calculator and is wondering\nwhether language should be added to indicate that there is an exception for innocuous\nuse, such as a calendar, calculator, or communicating with a family member; not\nallowing innocuous use would prohibit calling a spouse; language does not have to be\nadded; he could indicate to Council that it is understood and implicit, but he questions\nwhether it should be expressed.\nCommissioner Dieter stated it is expressed in the first part.\nActing Chair Foreman stated he has a problem with the first sentence.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the first is not her language, which was already there.\nIn response to Acting Chair Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated that she is\nsuggesting a sentence in place of the language provided by staff.\nActing Chair Foreman stated he does not want the first sentence included.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether Acting Chair Foreman would like to eliminate the\nwhole provision and start from scratch.\nActing Chair Foreman responded the reason he is opposed is that he does not agree\nwith it at all; stated he made that point to Council and convinced three of them that in\nthis day and age, the use of electronic communication devices does not lead to the\npublic perception that a member is receiving information, everybody uses devices all the\ntime;\nCommissioner Dieter's language regarding prohibiting electronically\ncommunication with others during meetings creates the exact problem that the Assistant\nCity Attorney and the Mayor have referenced; his language includes that members are\nprohibited from sending or receiving business related emails, texts and instant\nmessages during the meeting; members would be allowed to email a spouse or family\nmember and could use electronic devices for anything other than communicating with\nothers regarding business related matters; said language is what is missing.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the language is not missing.\nActing Chair Foreman stated he does not like the first part.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated that she is open to scratching the entire thing and starting\nover; she tried to rewrite the provision; the language already addresses receiving\ninformation relative to the subject matter at hand.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the two suggestions could be combined;\nstated language could state: in order to ensure that all communications to policy board\nmembers presented in a public meeting are shared with the public, communicating\nelectronically with others during public meetings is prohibited when pertaining to the\nbusiness thereof.\nCommissioner Dieter and Acting Chair Foreman stated said language is fine.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the Commission agrees on the language except he still\nthinks separate language is needed for quasi-judicial proceedings.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she does not think that the general public will know\nwhat quasi-judicial means.\nActing Chair Foreman stated that he is not concerned about the general public not\nknowing; the term can be explained; the important thing is the City has to let\nCouncilmembers know that they cannot refer to anything that is not in public view at a\nquasi-judicial hearing.\nCommissioner Dieter stated she has no problem if someone wants to look up a word.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated a conditional use permit would be a good example; if\nsomebody applies to sell liquor at a gas station, a conditional use permit would be\nneeded and would come before the Planning Board; if the use is denied, the applicant\nwould have to appeal the matter to the City Council.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the applicant has no idea what the Councilmember is\nchecking; the applicant has the right to know everything being considered in a quasi-\njudicial proceeding.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the problem lies with communicating to outside people\nwhich is the intent behind the provision; anyone can be at home and look up anything\nso nothing would be hidden from the public; the main issue is not having people\ncommunicate with others.\nCommissioner Tuazon stated that he feels strongly about it; members need to give\n100% of their attention; outside communication should be prohibited; noted that he does\nnot have a cell phone or laptop.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether Commissioner Tuazon would have a problem\nwith a Councilmember looking something up on the Internet while at the dais to help in\nmaking a decision or become more informed.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 5, "text": "Acting Chair Foreman stated a Councilmember might want to look at a Google map\nregarding rezoning a piece of land.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether Commission Tuazon would be offended by said\nCouncilmember.\nCommissioner Tuazon responded in the affirmative; stated homework should be done in\nadvance.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired about the Assistant City Attorney's view on the quasi-\njudicial issue; further inquired whether he is being too legalistic.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he thinks the way the first sentence has\nbeen redrafted is probably broad enough to cover the quasi-judicial issue; in an\nabundance of caution, language could be added; however, in the staff report to Council,\nhe could indicate that implicit in the language is honoring the notion that quasi-judicial\nmatters have to be observed.\nThe Commissioners expressed consensus.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he understands the introductory non-substantive\nsentence would be deleted.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired what section the Assistant City Attorney is referring to.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded Section 2-91.4H; stated the sentence would\nstate: in order to ensure that all communications to policy board members presented in\na\npublic meeting are shared with the public, members are prohibited from\ncommunicating electronically with others during public meetings that pertain to the\nbusiness thereof.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether staff would go to the Commission or Council, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded based on the outcome tonight, he will\nprepare an agenda report that will go to Council that would reflect the Commission\ndirection.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the next item is regarding submitting comments when a\npolicy body member is not present at a meeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission discussed the matter before and felt\ncomfortable that if a member was not present at a meeting, the member should not be\nable to submit comments on the item; the City Council did not agree and directed that\nthe prohibition be deleted; it has been deleted, but the Commission has the discretion\nto\nadd the item back.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated that she is fine with the City Council's recommendation;\nshe listened to their deliberation and it made sense to her.\nThe Commissioners expressed consensus.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the next item is requiring all City Council meetings to be\nlive streamed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated live steaming is a new issue that came up as a result\nof a rent control meeting; the matter became an issue regarding not being able to move\nthe meeting location because of the inability to live stream; the public safety issue\nneeded to be addressed; the idea was to bring some amendments to the Commission\nto allow for relocating a meeting even though the proceedings could not be live\nstreamed; hopefully, these situations will be few and far between; public safety has to\nbe paramount to live streaming; the audio and video would be recorded and available,\nbut the meeting would not be live streamed.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she read the matter over and had a question at the\nvery beginning; the ordinance states meetings shall be audio or video recorded; she\ndoes not know whether it should actually say live streamed recorded; it is fine the way it\nis; her recommendation to make it a little shorter has been provided to the Assistant City\nAttorney; rather than spelling out due to the nature of the item or items under\ndiscussion, one sentence should read: meetings held outside City Hall may not be\navailable via live streaming; instead of spelling out audio and video every time, it should\njust say all recordings will be archived; that she looked back at the minutes from a year\nago and understands why archiving for 10 years was used; when storage becomes an\nissue, the matter might come back to the Commission; right now, the matter is not an\nissue; 10 years should be changed to indefinitely.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired how the City Clerk feels about the recommended\nchanges, to which the City Clerk responded the way that technology and storage\ncapacity is going, videos will probably be kept indefinitely; stated the City is under\ncontract; all data is kept on a server; the City pays a fee; there are backups if anything\nhappens to the data; suggested adding: a minimum of 10 years and potentially\nindefinitely based on storage capacity.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that including both is confusing to the public; if the City is\ntrying to communicate that things would not be deleted, just say indefinitely, so the\npublic knows that they can check with the City Clerk to find something; if it becomes\na\nproblem, it can be addressed at that time; this is the City's history; it is important that the\npublic be able to view the archives in the future; that she feels very strongly about the\nmatter; no one knows how a historical reference could impact something down the road\nor whether someone might want to understand the history of something; it is important\nto strive for indefinitely until it becomes a problem.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 7, "text": "Acting Chair Foreman stated the only problem he has with the issue is that the matter\nwas brought up because of the problem of moving the meeting; nobody has asked the\nCommission to change the archive section; when the Commission went over the entire\nCode, the decision was to leave in 10 years; that he is not saying the issue should not\nbe reviewed; however, he questions whether this is the time to do so; a separate\nsection addresses keeping records; the Commission reviewed the matter and voted on\n10 years; some Commissioners might have voted against it but it was kept at 10 years;\nthe matter was sent back to the Commission because of the live streaming issue.\nThe City Clerk noted Section 2-91.4C reads for a period of at least 10 years.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired about the written record, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded the Commission talked about Section 2-92-4, which requires\ndocuments to be posted on the website for at least four years; stated some\nmodifications have been made.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired where the 10 years is coming from, to which the City\nClerk responded the original ordinance.\nActing Chair Foreman stated 10 years is underlined like it is new language, inquired\nwhether the current section says 10 years.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the section states: the City shall\nmake such audio or video recordings available via live streaming, as well as archived in\na digital form, in a centralized location on the City's website within 72 hours from the\ndate of the hearing and for a period of at least 10 years after the date of the meeting.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the language is not new.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the idea is that 10 years would be referenced in the\nfollowing sentence.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired why the matter is being raised.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the issue of allowing meetings to be held at\nplaces where live streaming is not available arose because of the hiccup when trying to\nlocate a meeting outside of City Hall.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the Commission reviewed the whole statue last year and\ndid not change the language; now the Commission is being asked to deal with one\nissue, which is being used as a device to change other language, which he does not\nnecessarily disagree with.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated it is incumbent on staff to bring proposed\namendments to the ordinance to the Commission's attention when issues are found;\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 8, "text": "staff felt that it was timely to bring the matter to the Commission's attention; the\nCommission can either revise the language to leave it.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Open Government Commission is here to make\nrevisions; nothing is ever set in stone; the Commission can always make changes;\nthings can always be made better; public records should be saved forever since they\ncontain historical information about how and why certain laws were enacted; money has\nbeen spent on holding meetings; money should be spent to preserve meetings; history\nmatters; the past is a valuable primary source for future generations, which the public\nwill be able to see historic events as they unfolded; no one knows which decisions will\nbe the most valuable; being able to see the Council and those who spoke connects\nfuture generations; that she feels very strongly that 10 years should not be used unless\nstorage becomes a problem for the City.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter is making a motion to\nchange the language, to which Commissioner Dieter responded the language should be\nto what she provided.\nActing Chair Foreman called for a vote on keeping the records indefinitely, which did not\nreceive three affirmative votes by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Dieter\nand Tauzon - 2. Abstentions: Acting Chair Foreman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner\nBonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the language would be brought to the Council with\nthe note that there was not a majority vote.\nActing Chair Foreman stated he would change his vote to aye, which caused the motion\nto carry by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar\n- 2.]\nActing Chair Foreman stated the next item is public comments by members of policy\nbodies and opinions of public concern.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission did not feel that there is a particular\nreason to include the two sections in the ordinance, but reluctantly went along with the\nlanguage recommended by staff; Council felt that neither section is really important or\ncritical to the Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission and Council recommendation is that\nthe sections be deleted; deletion is proposed unless the Commission feels differently.\nCommissioner Dieter moved approval of the City Council recommendation to delete the\nsections.\nCommissioner Tauzon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n3. [Absent: Commissioners Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]\nActing Chair Foreman stated the next item is responding to public records requests.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 9, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated the issue arose from Mr. Klein's complaint\nconcerning the time to respond to requests and the Sunshine Ordinance not mirroring\nthe timeframes under the Public Records Act (PRA) when a local agency needs longer\nthan 10 days; staff drafted language to delete the need to respond within three days and\nadded a provision to allow a reasonable extension not to exceed 14 days if the material\ncannot be readily accessed or made available to the requester.\nCommissioner Dieter stated she has no problem with the suggested edit.\nActing Chair Foreman stated that he thought the response period is 10 days.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated 10 days is for a typical situation, but staff added\nlanguage; when there are unusual circumstances, the time to respond can be extended\nwhich, is consistent with the PRA.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether it is under Section 2-92.2, to which the Assistant\nCity Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated it is Subsection C.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she has a slight aversion to citing the Government\nCode because the reader has to look up the Government Code to see the provision;\nshe is flexible; suggested adding a qualifier, such as the need to compile data from a\nvoluminous record; she is open if other commissioners want to have people read the\nGovernment Code.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether a lot of extra language would need to be added,\nto which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he was simply trying to not be\nwordy; stated the language could be added.\nActing Chair Foreman stated Commissioner Dieter has made him more conscience of\nthe issue; that he originally thought that the Sunshine Ordinance should be cut down\nand not include parts that are redundant; however, Commissioner Dieter has convinced\nhim this section pertains directly to members of the public and needs to be understood;\nthat he does not want the public to have to refer to the Government Code.\nThe City Clerk stated if the Government Code changes, the Sunshine Ordinance would\nbe out of sync which could cause a problem and is often why only the citation is given.\nCommissioner Dieter suggested including a qualifier, such as the need to compile data\nfrom a voluminous record.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated doing so is easy enough.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired if everyone is in favor.\nCommissioner Tauzon stated he is in favor of the Council recommendation.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Dieter inquired about an issue on the last page of the Sunshine\nOrdinance, which is not on the agenda, regarding providing training for City employees\nand officials.\nThe City Clerk responded training is recorded and available.\nCommissioner Tauzon inquired whether every employee has to go through the training,\nto which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\n3-C. Adopt the Annual Public Report\nActing Chair Foreman stated the Annual Public Report is posted on the City's website;\nthe report addresses alleged violations brought to the Commission's attention during the\nprevious calendar year; inquired what Commissioners think about the wording.\nCommissioner Dieter responded the wording is fine; suggested adding reference to\nSunshine Ordinance Section 2-93.6.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether the Commission concurred.\nCommissioner Tauzon inquired whether a report would need to be filed if there is\nnothing to report, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the public wants to know whether or not complaints have\nbeen filed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he wanted to ensure the item is responsive to\nwhat Commissioner Dieter is looking for.\n3-D. Informational Report Concerning Disclosure of Documents that have been\nDetermined to be Public After Previously Determined as Unavailable to the Public\nCommissioner Dieter stated two relevant sections deal with City Attorney reports:\nSections 2-91.8 and 2-91.12E inquired whether a report would be presented to Council\non the Consent Calendar as a public report.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the report, which makes reference to a list of\nvarious litigation, claims etc., goes to Council twice a year.\nCommissioner Dieter stated Section 2-91.8 addresses making a determination about\nwhether documents can be disclosed; inquired whether the matter would also go to\nCouncil on the Consent Calendar.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he does not know; stated he would bring the\nmatter to the City Attorney's attention.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 11, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated the public would realize nothing has been declassified even\nthough it is required semiannually.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated said matter can easily be included with the report.\nCommissioner Dieter stated at least once annually, the Commission also needs to\nreport to the Council, in writing, any practical or policy problems encountered in the\nadministration of the Sunshine Ordinance; that she is wondering if the issue of\ndeclassifying documents should be reported to the City Council; it is difficult for the\nOpen Government Commission to weigh in on documents being declassified because\nthe provision is not clear; things need to be spelled out and perhaps included in the\nSunshine Ordinance, which the Council can discuss; clarification is needed on the\ncriteria for disclosure, the process to determine the risk of disclosing documents, who\ndecides to take the risk--the Council or City Attorney, and who decides when something\ncan be disclosed; a mechanism needs to be put in place for community members to\nrequest classified documents to be declassified; a Commissioner or Councilmember\nmight want something to be declassified; a mechanism needs to be in place for the\npublic to ask for something and get a response about why something may or may not\nbe able to be disclosed.\nThe City Clerk stated in the past on several occasions, the Council has voted to allow\nclosed session information to be disclosed; when a request is made from a member of\nthe public, staff will provide the legal reasoning why the information is not being\ndisclosed; provided an example of the recent hiring of the City Manager; stated an\nexplanation is given to the requestor.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Commission does not know the criteria used to judge\nthe matter; something should be added to the Sunshine Ordinance to make things more\ntransparent so that the Commission can handle complaints.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the sentence in question says: the Commission shall\nreport, in writing, to the City Council at least once annually about any practical or policy\nproblems encountered in the administration of this chapter; if the Commission wants to\nidentify what it sees as practical or policy problems, it is within the Commission's\njurisdiction; that he is not sure whether staff can do so; the Commission might want to\nappoint an ad hoc committee to address the matter and return back to the Commission.\nActing Chair Foreman stated Commissioner Dieter has already laid out the issue;\nrequested that the matter be put in writing and considered at the next meeting;\nquestioned if spelled out in State law; stated real property transactions, contracts, and\nlabor agreements that take place in closed session typically end up in open session;\noutlined an example of closed session information being requested on the\nsubcommittees set up to help Council select the new City Manager; questioned whether\nthere is a way to challenge the issue.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Dieter added another example of when the Del Monte project was\naddressed, the Council indicated the City would open itself up to litigation if the\nordinance was repealed; the ordinance was not repealed; seeing the legal reasoning\nbehind the matter would be interesting; it is important that the City Attorney include the\nmatter regarding closed session minutes in the report on the Council's Consent\nCalendar.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter would draw something up\nto review in October.\nCommissioner Dieter responded the first thing is to have the Assistant City Attorney talk\nto the City Attorney to ensure that the report on documents that are determined to be\nundisclosed will be added to the Consent Calendar.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Section 2-91.8A refers to any closed session minutes\nbeing exempt from disclosure based on whether the disclosure would be detrimental to\nthe City and a report should be provided to Council.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the report should be on the Consent Calendar for the\npublic; that she would provide ideas to incorporate in a staff report for the Commission\nto figure out 1) criteria for disclosure, 2) the process to determine risk, 3) who decides\nthe risk, and 4) a mechanism for the public.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter had a chance to talk to\nthe Assistant City Attorney about the fact that the Sunshine Ordinance requires that\nthere be a new Chair every year; stated the matter is not on the agenda; inquired how to\nhandle the matter.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded it would probably be best to place the item on\nthe October agenda.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether it would be okay to wait until October to work on\nthe other part [disclosing documents].\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a special meeting could\nbe held assuming there is Commission interest and space availability.\nCommissioner Dieter stated City staff has to prepare a report; disclosing documents is a\nbig deal in the community right now; the matter can be put on the shelf until October or\ncould be discussed at an earlier date.\nThe City Clerk stated a meeting has to be held if a complaint is filed and the item could\nbe added.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she hopes that a complaint is not filed.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2015\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 13, "text": "The Commission agreed to wait until October.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if the report is prepared earlier and ready to go, a\nmeeting could take place after being noticing.\nActing Chair Foreman stated the Chair could be addressed then too.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Dieter stated part of the Commission's responsibility is to review public\nnotices to confirm that they conform to the requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance and\nto work to improve public accessible information.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the gist is to ensure that public notices adequately\ncommunicate what is being considered; a person off the street who may not otherwise\nbe interested should be able to understand the agenda.\nActing Chair Foreman inquired what should be done if something on an agenda is\nambiguous.\nThe City Clerk responded a Commissioner can let her know; stated summary titles have\nbeen added as a result of people pointing out ambiguity at a past Open Government\nCommission meeting; a summary title is used when a title seems legalistic and lengthy,\nincluding multiple resolutions or actions; the summary title is in plain English; staff has\nbeen very careful and diligent with titles.\nActing Chair Foreman stated people can get detail of by clicking on the number to the\nleft online; perhaps stock language should be added to the agenda item providing\ninstruction on how to locate details.\nThe City Clerk stated instructions are available in a separate document online.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 8:26\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 1, 2016\n13", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 1, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Special Meeting of the Social Service Human Relations Board, February 1,\n2016\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nPresident Biggs called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Present were Vice-President Williams,\nand members Hyman, Sorensen, and Davenport. Absent were members Blake and Radding.\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES NONE\n3.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3.- A ALAMEDANS TOGETHER AGAINST HATE (ATAH) WORKGROUP PLANNING MEETING\nStaff provided a history of the ATAH workgroup, including activities such as members joining APD\nfor a trip to the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles in 2000, and playing a\nleadership role in organizing a city-wide No Room for Hate in Alameda campaign in 2001. The\ncampaign included the City Council passing a resolution declaring Alameda \"A Hate Free City\", a\nPledge for a Hate-Free Alameda, and No Room for Hate in Alameda posters for display in\nbusinesses, schools, City of Alameda buildings, and homes. In 2002, ATAH created a preventing\nbias-motivated hate and intolerance in Alameda \"Guide to Community Action\".\nStaff added that in subsequent years, the workgroup helped organize Not In Our Town screenings\nat the College of Alameda, Annual Alameda Harvey Milk Day celebrations, Season For\nNonviolence activities in Alameda schools, and free screenings of BULLY, MILK, and Facing Fear,\nat the Alameda Theatre & Cineplex.\nThe discussion that followed included considering updating the 2002 Guide to Community Action,\nand looking for other opportunities to sponsor events and activities consistent with its mission.\nATAH is currently co-sponsoring Alameda's Everyone Belongs Here campaign.\nAlso discussed was reports of APD plans to \"evict\" homeless individuals living in encampments\nnear the Fruitvale Bridge and at Jean Sweeney Park, and American / Islamic relations in Alameda\nfollowing the window-breaking incident across the street from the Islamic Center. Vice-President\nWilliams requested staff to schedule a meeting between ATAH members and APD Chief Rolleri to\ndiscuss these two issues.\nIt was agreed that ATAH should continue to support ongoing activities, and continue to meet and\ndiscuss future plans,\nA Motion was made that the SSHRB Alamedans Together Against Hate workgroup co-sponsor and\nsupport the City of Alameda Season For Nonviolence Campaign and Alameda Harvey Milk Day\nCelebration, and have a presence on the AUSD LGBTQ Roundtable, on an on-going basis.\nM/S Williams/Blake Unanimous\n1", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2016-02-01", "page": 2, "text": "4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNONE\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNONE\n6. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 6:00 PM.\nM\\S Williams / Hyman Unanimous\nRespectfully submitted by:\nJim Franz, Secretary\n2", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-02-01.pdf"}