{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY - - MARCH 5, 2018 7:00 P.M.\nChair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners\nForeman,\nHenneberry,\nLittle,\nSchwartz and Chair Dieter - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Review the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings\nChair Dieter made brief introductory comments and provided background information.\nIn response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, the City Clerk agreed that staff would not provide a\nreport and would raise questions as the Commission reviews the subcommittees\nproposed recommendations.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the subcommittee is proposing the current rules be\nrepealed, and Rosenberg's Rules of Order be adopted along with special rules; inquired\nwhether or not the subcommittee went through each individual section of the current\nrules.\nChair Dieter responded the subcommittee went through all the resolutions and pulled\nout all of the existing rules and reworded them, which are the nine special rules; stated\nthe subcommittee tabled two rules; if Commissioner Foreman found something that the\nsubcommittee forgot, the Commission can address it.\nCommissioner Foreman stated Council's charge was to review and update the rules;\ninstead, it looks like the Commission is writing its own set of rules without specific\nreference to the existing rules; for instance, there are six different items under public\ndiscussion under the old rules; under the supplemental rules, there are a lot less; the\nsame thing for Council deliberations; he has a problem with the structure; he anticipated\nthe subcommittee would be going through each of the existing sections.\nChair Dieter stated a lot of the existing rules are already in Rosenberg's Rules of Order;\nthe subcommittee did not want to duplicate the rule.\nVice Chair Little stated one of the subcommittee tasks was to go through the existing\nrules; she did a line by line comparison of the five different versions of the current rules\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 2, "text": "and Rosenberg's Rules; the only time the subcommittee added a supplemental rule was\nwhen Rosenberg's Rules were silent; the current rules of order required looking in five\ndifferent resolutions; after doing the comparison, Rosenberg's Rules are much more\naccessible to the average person to understand; items were accounted for by identifying\nand adding in special rules; she feels confident, the document is complete.\nStated the adjournment time should be switched back to midnight; three meetings per\nmonth could be held, but he does not know how the 10-day advance notice could be\ndone; if there are concerns over late meetings crimping public participation, the public\ncan submit a letter to the City Council starting 10 days before any meeting; letters can\nbe longer than what someone can say in three minutes; waiting until 11:00 p.m. to\nspeak is bad; sitting through a meeting and not having the item called is worse: Richard\nBangert, Alameda.\nStated Council meetings are painful; comments on matters is often not heard until 9:30\np.m.; it does not feel democratic; urged the Commission to do anything it can to guide\nthe Council; stated items should be moved to action or delayed for more study or\nadditional hearings; outlined her experience with an item not being heard; stated the\nCouncil should have to make motions to discuss and either approve or vote down;\nstated the Planning Board could also use the rules; suggested a training session be\nheld and there be guidance regarding referrals and hearing referrals faster: Pat\nLamborn, Alameda.\nChair Dieter suggested the Commission go through the nine special rules one at a time;\nstarted with Counting Votes.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired where Counting Votes is in the existing rules.\nChair Dieter responded it is not in the existing rules; stated it is in the City Charter.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether three affirmative votes are require for any\naction, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language is\nstraight from the Charter.\nCommissioner Foreman stated abstentions were discussed at the last meeting; inquired\nwhether abstentions count as a no vote, which cannot be changed.\nChair Dieter responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated that he could not agree more with Ms. Lamborn; he is\ngrateful to the subcommittee for coming up with the rules; making the City Council\nmeetings run better is enormously important and would be a major accomplishment for\nthe Commission; speaking should be limited, while preserving the public's right to be\nheard; it should be clear that the limit is three minutes per person; he supports not\nceding time; inquired whether or not people could subvert the rules and get extra time at\nsome other point in the proceeding.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 5, 2018\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little expressed that they could not think of such an\ninstance.\nThe City Clerk provided a scenario of someone speaking on the same topic under\nPublic Comment at the closed session and again under Oral Communications Non-\nAgenda on the regular meeting the same night.\nChair Dieter stated the subcommittee discussed the matter; non-agenda items are only\nfor matters not on an agenda, whether closed session or not; the subcommittee wanted\nto be clear.\nThe City Attorney provided a specific example prohibiting a speaker from commenting\nunder non-agenda items on the regular agenda after having an opportunity to comment\non the agenda item at a prior closed session meeting the same night; Council wants to\nhear from the Commission on the issue.\nChair Dieter stated the subcommittee's intent was to do so; questioned whether\nlanguage should be added to clarify speakers can comment once on a particular night.\nThere was consensus to add language.\nThe City Attorney stated limiting speakers would not be fair if the meetings were on\ndifferent nights.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether someone wanting to comment after the\nclosed session announcement is a legitimate non-agenda item.\nChair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the person is commenting on the closed\nsession item, which is on the agenda.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the speaker would not be given an opportunity to\ncomment after the Closed Session action is announced.\nThe City Attorney stated comments are given prior to Council going into closed session;\nprovided an example.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the public having to be present to comment at the start\nof the closed session is fine.\nVice Chair Little stated the language should be tightened up.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he is opposed to the restriction about ceding time;\nhe could support the Mayor getting assurance that the person ceding time is present;\nthere are better ways to shorten meetings; inquired why public comments not being a\ndebate has not been included.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n3\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Dieter responded the matter is addressed in Rosenberg's Rules of Order.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he has not seen it.\nVice Chair Little stated Rosenberg's Rules specifically talks about public comment not\nbeing a debate.\nChair Dieter concurred; stated Rosenberg's Rules address what is debatable and not\ndebatable.\nCommissioner Foreman stated it is not included the short version.\nChair Dieter concurred; stated it is in the long version.\nVice Chair Little stated the subcommittee thought it was reasonable.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he does not read Rosenberg's Rules as relating the\nissue to public comment; it relates to Council discussions.\nIn response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Commissioner Foreman stated language exists;\nhe does not like the language; under non-agenda comment, a sentence says City staff\nor members of the body may briefly respond, but no action or discussion follows at the\nmeeting; there is not a provision covering agenda items; public comment takes place\nbefore the motion; the language in Rosenberg's Rules relates to debate on a motion,\nwhich is not the same thing; there needs to be guidelines one way or another.\nChair Dieter stated a sentence could be added.\nCommissioner Foreman suggested adding the same language under public comment\nnon-agenda items: \"staff or members of the body may briefly respond;\" a clarifying\nquestion could be asked; Council typically does not respond to speakers; people want a\nresponse, not a debate; once in a while a response is appropriate.\nVice Chair Little expressed concern if 30 other people are waiting to speak.\nCommissioner Foreman stated public comment is not time for a debate; a clarifying\ncomment would be appropriate.\nVice Chair Little stated adding a sentence to clarify there is no debate during public\ncomment would be okay.\nCommissioner Foreman stated language has been included for non-agenda items;\ninquired why language would be included for one and not the other.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 5, 2018\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 5, "text": "The City Attorney responded a decision cannot be made about non-agenda items\nbecause the matter has not been publically noticed; stated the rule is that the Council\nand staff do not respond; provided an example of the City Manager indicating someone\nwould follow up with the speaker; questioned whether interrupting the speaker would\ncount towards the speaker's three minutes.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the situation is not easy; he is trying to make it more\ninteractive; he does not know how it should be done.\nVice Chair Little stated the rules are to set the public's expectation; allowing response\ndoes not provide a clear expectation.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated including the sentence about responding under non-\nagenda items opens the door for chaos without qualifying brief response; suggested\nmaking it clearer, such as a response of 60 seconds or less on logistical concerns.\nChair Dieter suggested removing the last sentence from Rule 3; stated both would\nmatch.\nCommissioner Foreman stated then there would be no guidelines at all.\nChair Dieter stated City staff rarely has to interrupt; questioned why something should\nbe written down that rarely ever happens; stated Rules 2 and 3 were addressed\ntogether.\nThe City Clerk clarified the first agenda section of non-agenda comment is limited to 15\nminutes; stated the additional section at the end of the meeting is for further comment.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether the second section of non-agenda comment\nis unlimited, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the Sunshine\nOrdinance moved non-agenda comments to the beginning of the agenda, but limited the\nfirst section to 15 minutes in order to get to business.\nChair Dieter stated that she did not know there was no time limit at the end of the\nmeeting; stated clarifying language be added.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether the Commission would like to address speakers only\nbeing able to speak under one section of Oral Communications, not both.\nCommissioner Foreman responded that is pretty much understood.\nCommissioners Schwartz and Little expressed support for clarifying the language.\nIn response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Vice Chair Little stated the question came up\nabout speaking multiple times; someone should not speaking under both non-agenda\nsections on the same topic.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n5\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Dieter stated that she has spoken under both sections on two different topics.\nThe matter was briefly discussed to clarify that a speaker could comment under each\nsection, but not on the same topic.\nThe City Clerk noted the non-agenda section could be moved after Council referrals to\naddress the concern about not getting to referrals.\nCommissioners Foreman, Schwartz and Little expressed support for doing so.\nThe City Clerk noted the order of business of the meetings would have to be amended\nvia resolution.\nIn response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Vice Chair Little outlined the changes: 1) the last\nline under the Supplemental Rule 3 would be deleted, 2) language that specifies a\nspeaker can only speak for a maximum of three minutes on one topic would be added,\nand 3) the second section of oral communications is considered a continuation of the\nfirst.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether the Commission has an interest in limiting the speaker\ntime limit in the instances when there are many speakers.\nVice Chair Little responded the subcommittee discussed the issue.\nChair Dieter stated the subcommittee decided to leave the matter at the discretion of the\nChair; the Chair should be encouraged to make the judgement call; questioned whether\nthe Commission thinks a recommendation is needed to lower the time limit to two\nminutes for items with over 20 speakers.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he has seen Council vote to change the time limit.\nThe City Attorney stated Council can modify any of the rules; noted trying to decide to\nmake changes during the meeting takes time; a policy might make it simpler.\nChair Dieter stated any member could make a motion to suspend the rules to lower the\ntime limit; the Chair would be overruled if the super majority agrees.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated pre-establishing guidance would do the Chair a favor.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated when he was on the Planning Board, if there were\nmultiple items with lots of speakers, the limit would be two minutes; there was not a\nhard and fast rule; if there was only one item with many speakers, three minutes was\nallowed.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 5, 2018\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 7, "text": "In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Henneberry stated the\nPlanning Board would discuss the speaker time limit.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he thinks the Council should vote on the time limit.\nChair Dieter stated it can be voted on under the proposed rules.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired what if the Mayor makes a decision which the rest of\nthe Council does not like.\nChair Dieter responded the Mayor could be overruled; the super majority can suspend\nany rule.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he would prefer a vote be required.\nChair Dieter stated if discretion is not given to the Chair, the rules could still be\nsuspended by super majority; the language could be deleted.\nCommissioner Schwartz questioned whether the Chair's discretion is being taken away.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he could live with having to cut his comments to two\nminutes if four members of the Council vote on it, rather than just at the discretion of the\nMayor.\nChair Dieter stated the consensus is to take out the phrase: \"at the discretion of the\nChair.'\nIn response to Commissioner Schwartz's inquiry regarding the downside of limiting the\nspeakers over a certain threshold, Chair Dieter stated as Commissioner Henneberry\npointed out, an agenda might have only two items and there would be plenty of time.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated the super majority could vote to increase the time.\nChair Dieter stated doing so seems more complicated; stated that she hears there is a\nconsensus on everything except Commissioner Foreman does not like the idea about\neliminating ceding time; inquired whether anyone else has a problem.\nCommissioner Henneberry responded that he does not think ceding time should be\nallowed.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated that he agrees with the proposal as written.\nChair Dieter inquired whether anyone has issues with Rule 4.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n7\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Schwartz responded the amount of time is tremendous; he does not see\nwhy someone would need to speak three times for three minutes on one agenda item;\nthe amount is way too much.\nIn response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Commissioner Schwartz stated five minutes total\nis hefty.\nChair Dieter stated a Councilmember speaks for 10 minutes and the same person\ncomments on what others have said; time has to be allotted for deliberations to go back\nand forth.\nCommissioner Schwartz suggested the times be three minutes, two minutes and one\nminute.\nVice Chair Little stated meetings are the only time the Council can discuss a topic as a\ngroup; for a lot of the topics, such as rent control, the public needs to see time is being\ntaken to delve into, engage, interact and respond to some of the comments made; the\nsubcommittee went back and forth about the right amount of time; providing a\nframework will afford the opportunity to engage in conversation, but puts a limit; only\ngiving three chances to speak would already impact the process.\nCommissioner Foreman stated compared to what is in writing, a lot more time is being\ngiven; compared to what is actually happening at Council meetings, it is a lot less time;\nthe rule is reasonable if it can be enforced.\nChair Dieter stated part of why three minutes is being suggested is because the City\nClerk will have to enforce the rule.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether the Commission is suggesting a timing system to allow\nCouncilmembers to see the countdown.\nCommissioners Schwartz, Little and Foreman expressed support for doing so.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated speaking three times for three minutes each is still a lot.\nThe City Clerk noted staff would be able to execute the recommendation.\nVice Chair Little inquired whether the City Clerk would keep track.\nChair Dieter responded the timekeeper would have to do it.\nVice Chair Little stated Rosenberg's Rules include a rule of decorum and agreeing to a\nprocess, so it is on the members to know and stop.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated the proposal on the table is better than what is going\non; sometimes progress is incremental; he supports the subcommittee's proposal.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 5, 2018\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 9, "text": "Chair Dieter inquired whether anyone has issues with the rule on ceremonial\npresentations and proclamations.\nCommissioner Foreman responded 15 minutes is not doable.\nVice Chair Little stated the time can be extended.\nChair Dieter stated 15 minutes is the current rule; getting through proclamations the last\nfew meetings has taken one hour; she thinks the rule is important; inquired how\nproclamations are added to the agenda.\nThe City Clerk responded many proclamations are repeated annually; stated outside\ngroups make requests; work is currently being done to limit proclamations to three per\nmeeting; a suggestion has been made to only read part of the proclamation.\nThe City Attorney noted an excerpt could be read since the proclamations are included\nin the packet.\nVice Chair Little stated the following commentary often tends to go on for a long time.\nCommissioner Foreman stated no matter what rule is written, it will be ignored; it is very\ndifficult; provided an example.\nChair Dieter stated in all fairness to the City Council, she does not think people have\nbeen cognizant of the rules; this is a new starting point; she thinks there will be\nteamwork; the Chair is responsible for keeping the process going.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he would be more comfortable with limiting the\namount of time to 10 minutes per proclamation.\nVice Chair Little stated it is up to the Chair to get through the proclamations in 15\nminutes; if there are three, the Chair should explain each gets five minutes; if there is\none, it can have the full 15 minutes; creative scheduling might be in order as well.\nChair Dieter stated perhaps every person being honored might not speak;\nrecommended deleting the last clause that says the time can be extended by majority\nvote.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he has no problem with that.\nChair Dieter moved on to Rule 6 on consent items, which did not have any issues;\ninquired whether there are issues with Rule 7 regarding referrals.\nCommissioner Foreman responded referrals are not in the current rules.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n9\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 10, "text": "Chair Dieter stated referrals are not in the current rules and have never been adopted\nby resolution or ordinance.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether referrals have been adopted in any way.\nChair Dieter responded referrals were adopted by motion; stated since the issue is\nbeing visited, referrals should be codified; before the meeting, the subcommittee\ndecided to add one more element to the provision that is not included: Councilmembers\nwould be limited to three referrals per year, which is important because some items can\nbe done behind the scenes by working with the City Manager, City Attorney or the\ndepartment head; after a little behind the scenes, the City Manager could agendize the\nmatter if it is important.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he would go to the City Manager first if he was on\nthe Council; questioned whether the referral process is not used unless\nCouncilmembers cannot get cooperation.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired what are the current rules on referrals; inquired\nwhether there is any limit.\nChair Dieter responded there are no limits.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired where the limit of three came from, to which Chair\nDieter responded sticking with the three on all the rules; everything is three.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated that he thinks three is too limited.\nCommissioner Foreman concurred.\nChair Dieter stated three referrals per Councilmember is 15 referrals per year that would\nhave to come back 15 more times, which is more referrals than there are meetings per\nyear since there are 22 meetings.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired how many referrals are being made by each\nCouncilmember.\nThe City Clerk responded she could do a tally; stated some do more than three.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated the number would be useful; three seems low.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated the rule feels distinct from everything else being done,\nwhich are explicitly about time management in meetings; limiting referrals seems far\nafield; the matter could be addressed separately after further investigation; he would\nleave the amendments to addressing number of minutes, etc.\nVice Chair Little stated a little more research might be needed.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 5, 2018\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 11, "text": "Chair Dieter stated the start of the process has been geared toward the orderly conduct\nof meetings and nothing that goes on outside meetings; Commissioner Schwartz is right\nthat the subcommittee stepped over the line a little bit.\nCommissioner Foreman stated dealing with referrals altogether stepped over the line.\nChair Dieter stated not really because the public never knows what to expect from a\nCouncil referral; right now, a matter may come back or be decided on that night; the\nagenda title gives the impression that a decision could be made that night; provided an\nexample; stated that she thinks Council referrals are out of hand; a lot of time is spent\non the merits of an issue and whether the issue is important enough to bring back at\nanother meeting, which was the whole impetus of Council referrals; referrals come from\none person, rather than have it agenized, Council is supposed to decide if it is important\nand should come back with a staff report.\nThe City Clerk stated Council did not want to be limited and wanted to be able to take\naction under the Council referrals section of the agenda; the 2007 staff report, which\nwas provided, clearly states the Council can take dispositive action if sufficiently\nnoticed.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired what is sufficient information, to which the City Clerk\nresponded said determination is made by the City Attorney.\nThe City Attorney provided an example of supporting State legislation; stated Chair\nDieter's examples are something that would need analysis.\nThe City Clerk stated the current Council adopted a new referral form and reiterated the\nthree options at the top of the form: 1) take no action, 2) refer the matter to staff or 3)\ntake dipositive action; the current Council just reaffirmed that they want to take\ndispositive action; noted the Commission would be recommending something different\nthan the current Council has said they want.\nCommissioner Schwartz suggested tabling referrals for now; stated referrals seem to do\nless with time management and Rosenberg's Rules; the matter could come back in a\nmore comprehensive way.\nChair Dieter stated that she has a suggestion, which might solve the matter and allow it\nto be included; suggested each Councilmember indicate whether or not dispositive\naction is being requested; stated members of the public want to know whether the\nmatter would return.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated the issue seems more complicated than limiting time to\nthree minutes.\nChair Dieter stated that she is fine with that; inquired whether everyone else is okay.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n11\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Little concurred.\nChair Dieter stated the next item is meeting adjournment time.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether the proposal eliminates the requirement to add\nmeetings if three meetings in a row go past 11:00 p.m.\nCommissioner Foreman responded in the negative; stated the matter is in the Sunshine\nOrdinance.\nChair Dieter stated that she did not know whether the issue belongs in the orderly\nconduct of meetings and she thinks it is also a side issue.\nThe City Attorney stated concern was raised at the last Council meeting; the\nCommission does not have to make a recommendation.\nThe City Clerk stated having no new items heard after 11:30 p.m. goes past the 11:00\np.m. meeting deadline.\nChair Dieter stated under the proposal, a vote would not be done until 11:30 p.m.; the\nCouncil would know they are not going to address any more items and the matter would\nnot have to be discussed; the meeting would continue smoothly until 11:30 p.m.\nThe City Clerk stated the Sunshine ordinance would have to be modified to do so and a\ndecision needs to be made about the three times in a row requirement.\nChair Dieter stated the subcommittee is suggesting the current requirement be repealed\nand the rule be replaced.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired where is the requirement about three meetings in a\nrow, to which the City Clerk responded the Sunshine Ordinance.\nChair Dieter stated it is not currently in the rules; it is a separate ordinance.\nIn response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance\nhas to be amended by ordinance; the rules or order cannot modify an ordinance\nregulation; outlined the current ordinance; stated the requirement to add more meetings\nis unclear and has never been triggered; the rules of order saying there is only one vote\nand new items can be taken up to 11:30 p.m. modifies the ordinance; the question is if\nthe Commission is recommending the ordinance be modified.\nChair Dieter responded that she is only recommending changing the time.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 5, 2018\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 13, "text": "Commissioner Foreman stated the Commission was told to review the rules of order,\nnot rewrite the Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission rewrote the Sunshine Ordinance\nabout two years ago; they are two different things.\nChair Dieter stated not codifying the Sunshine Ordinance requirement in the rules of\norder was a mistake; lots of things in the Sunshine Ordinance do not apply to the rules\nof order.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the subject is clearly covered in the Sunshine\nOrdinance.\nChair Dieter stated the proposed rules allow the public to review one document to see\nthe whole rules of order.\nThe City Attorney stated if the Commission is not looking to modify the Sunshine\nOrdinance, then the rules should reflect the Sunshine Ordinance provision, which differs\nfrom what is being suggested; the Commission can suggest a modification to the\nordinance.\nChair Dieter and Vice Chair Little stated that is what they are suggesting.\nChair Dieter stated the subcommittee is suggesting modifying the ordinance; the\nCouncil might not like the rule; if the Council likes the rule, the Sunshine Ordinance will\nhave to change to reflect a different time frame.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the rules of order change would delete the 10:30\np.m. and 11:00 p.m. votes and the requirement to add a meeting if three go past 11:00\np.m.\nChair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the requirement to add the meeting is not\nbeing removed; inquired whether only the first two sentences could be amended.\nThe City Clerk read the ordinance language; stated the idea is to combine the vote to\none and keep the requirement for three meetings in a row.\nVice Chair Little responded in the affirmative.\nChair Dieter stated that she does not want any votes to happen until 11:30 p.m.\nVice Chair Little stated there is a conversation at 10:30 p.m. about whether or not to\naddress more agenda items, which takes 15 to 20 minutes; then, at 11:00 p.m., there is\nanother conversation about whether or not the meeting should continue; essentially 45\nminutes to an hour is spent on deliberation and meetings end up continuing until 3:00\na.m.; the subcommittee's thinking was to remove the question about whether or not the\nmeeting would continue; new items would not be taken after 11:30 p.m. without a vote\nto take other items, which would be decided by a supermajority vote.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n13\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 14, "text": "The City Clerk suggested removing the language since a supermajority vote is already\nrequired to suspend the rules and the vote would just be suspending the rules.\nChair Dieter stated the subcommittee did note that acceptance of the rule would require\nchanging the ordinance; the subcommittee was going to let staff figure out how to make\nthe change.\nThe City Clerk stated that she did not know what to tell the Council because the\nsubcommittee was silent on three meetings in a row.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he would make the matter not debatable, so the\nCouncil would just vote.\nCommissioner Schwartz concurred with removing the language requiring a\nsupermajority vote; inquired why 11:30 p.m. was selected; stated running a meeting\ndoes not have to take so long; suggested using the current time of 10:30 p.m.\nChair Dieter stated for almost two decades the rule set the time at midnight; the public\nknew the routine of the previous Council always voting to go past 11:00 p.m.; this\nCouncil is totally erratic; no one knows when meetings will continue; the proposal is fair\nto the public and Council, and is an effort to get through City business; the current\nproblem is the Council is not getting through City business, which representatives are\nelected to do; she can only imagine how the City Manager feels; she thinks the proposal\nreturns it to the way it was for two decades, which worked fine; with the accumulation of\nall of the changes, meetings might not go so late; the proposal prevents deliberating on\nthe actual agenda timing for 45 minutes.\nCommissioners Foreman and Little concurred.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the goal is to make meetings shorter; many things can\nbe done to shorten meetings; the time set is not going to shorten meetings; former\nCouncilmember deHaan informed him there were never long staff presentations in the\npast; time was limited; staff provides a detailed description two weeks before the\nmeeting and goes over everything again in a presentation at the meeting; he does not\nunderstand why the staff presentation cannot be limited to clarifying questions; there is\nno need for staff to repeat the entire staff report, which eats up all the time.\nChair Dieter stated the City Manager works at the behest of the City Council; the\nCouncil can ask the City Manager to shorten staff presentations; the rules of order just\naddress how to run City Council meetings.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated limiting the debate on adjournment should will\nshorten meetings; the conversation is 45 minutes and is a waste of time.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 5, 2018\n14", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 15, "text": "Commissioner Schwartz questioned why the proposal cannot be 10:30 p.m. instead of\n11:30 p.m.\nChair Dieter responded the Council is not getting through business; stated the City\nCouncil may decide to make it 10:30 p.m.; the public has plenty of time to submit letters\nand write op-ed pieces on any issue; representatives should make decisions and not\nworry about who can remain in the audience.\nCommissioner Foreman stated a very simple rule is being proposed; legal staff would\nhave to change the ordinance.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the Sunshine Ordinance should be changed to say\nno new items can be considered after 11:30 p.m., with the meeting continuing and not\ntriggering a need for additional meetings.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether the three meetings in a row rule would be eliminated, to\nwhich Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the Council would not stop in the middle of addressing\nsomething.\nIn response to Chair Dieter's inquiry about language, the City Attorney stated there is no\nset adjournment time; rather the Commission is saying no new business is taken up\nafter 11:30 p.m.\nVice Chair Little inquired whether the Commission should add if three meetings in a row\ngo past, then additional meetings would be needed.\nChair Dieter responded said language should not be added.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether the issue is addressed in the Brown Act, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded the matter is not a Brown Act issue.\nChair Dieter stated the more the issue is discussed, she would not require adding\nmeetings.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether the language should read: \"time after which no new\nbusiness is heard,' to which Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he can live with the recommendation; an item which\nstarts at 11:29 p.m. could continue.\nChair Dieter stated if the Council is tired and does not want to consider an item, a vote\ncould be taken to suspend the rules.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n15\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 16, "text": "The City Attorney stated the change will take an ordinance amendment; staff will pass\nthe recommendation along to Council.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired about the debate language.\nChair Dieter responded the language would be removed.\nIn response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, Chair Dieter stated Rosenberg's Rules\nincludes that there is no debate on a motion to suspend the rules.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated that he is the only member who thinks the time should\nbe 10:30 p.m.\nChair Dieter stated the time has been tried for a couple of years and has not worked;\nthe new rules might cause meetings to end earlier.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated perhaps 10:30 p.m. could be used a starting point.\nChair Dieter inquired whether there are any issues with suspension of the rules.\nThere were none.\nChair Dieter stated the subcommittee rejected the existing rules on appeals and written\ncommunications, but wanted to address them; the focus should be on the orderly\nconduct of meetings and nothing outside of meetings; the appeals might be pertinent if\nthere are time limits; anything in place should be included in the rules of order.\nThe City Attorney stated the various Code sections on appeals address when the matter\nmust be heard on an agenda; there is no rule on how an item is handled at the meeting.\nChair Dieter inquired whether there is enough of an issue that a rule should be included.\nThe City Attorney provided an example of a recent appeal.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the Commission wishes to address the matter.\nCommissioner Foreman responded the problem is there are various kinds of appeals;\nstated one time limit might not work for all appeals; the matter could remain under the\nCouncil's discretion; perhaps notice could be given to the parties before the meeting.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated that he concurs with the proposal to table the matter.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether there are matters, other than appeals, that\nare quasi-judicial and whether public hearings might qualify, to which the City Attorney\nresponded anytime the Council gives entitlements and rights.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 5, 2018\n16", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 17, "text": "Commissioner Foreman stated Councilmembers are familiar with items that are quasi-\njudicial and know not to speak about the matter.\nThere was consensus to drop the matter.\nChair Dieter stated the existing rule on written communications seems to be separate.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated that he agrees with the proposal to omit it.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether the rules include things such as a\nCouncilmembers requesting comments to be put in the record.\nVice Chair Little responded the suggestion is not to include anything.\nChair Dieter stated the matter has nothing to do with the orderly conduct of meetings.\nIn response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, Chair Dieter stated a statement that is\nread can be submitted to the City Clerk for the record.\nThe City Clerk noted it never happens.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired why it should be eliminated.\nChair Dieter stated the Commission needs to decide; she is hearing a consensus to\nomit it.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired whether a Councilmember who wants a verbatim\nstatement put in the record could still give it to the City Clerk, to which Chair Dieter\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Forman inquired where the language comes from, to which Chair Dieter\nresponded Resolution 12567.\nCommissioner Schwartz moved approval of adopting the subcommittee's proposal with\nthe amendments offered.\nCommissioner Henneberry seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Chair Dieter recommended that the subcommittee incorporate the\nchanges and provide the document to the City Clerk.\nThe City Clerk stated the recommendation will go back to the Council subcommittee,\nwhich requested a report back.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n17\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 18, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCommissioners Henneberry, Little, Schwartz and Chair Dieter - 4. Abstention:\nCommissioner Foreman - 1.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Dieter stated when a member of public writes to the public on an agenda item,\nsometimes the correspondence is attached and sometimes it is not; inquired how it\nhappens and how the public knows.\nThe City Clerk responded if the person copies her, the correspondence is included;\nstated that she will also include the correspondence if staff or Councilmember forwards\nit to her; anything she receives she includes; if she is not included in the loop, the\ncorrespondence does not get included.\nCommissioner Foreman stated sometimes it is not received in time.\nThe City Clerk stated that she attempts to include anything received before the meeting\nbegins.\nChair Dieter stated the public is not aware; suggested the Councilmembers' website\npages include: \"Any correspondence regarding an agenda item that you would like\nattached to the staff report, please send to the City Clerk,' or something similar.\nThe City Clerk stated that she would work with the City's website coordinator.\nCommissioner Schwartz suggested a button be added: \"To contact a Councilmember\nabout an agenda item, click here;' then, it will go to the Council and copy the City Clerk.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the letter would remain attached if an item is continued to\nanother meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nChair Dieter suggested the adopted rules of order be posted to the website with a link to\na meeting guide with the order of business.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 5, 2018\n18", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 19, "text": "The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n19\nMarch 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 5, 2018\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, March 5, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Members\nGriffiths and Friedman\nAbsent:\nMember Murray\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be\nheard, as they resolved prior to the hearing.\n3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\na. No public comment.\n4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff welcomed the attendees and participants, and informed them of the process\nfor participating in the meeting.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the February 5, 2018 Regular Meeting, with\namendments from Chair Cambra.\nMotion and second to approve minutes, as amended (Friedman and Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Griffiths abstaining.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. CASE 984 - 753 Lincoln Ave., Apt. B\nTenants: Srijana and Uma Devi Kandel\nLandlord: Malcolm Lee\nProposed rent increase: $368.00 (21.3%) to a total rent of $2,100.00, effective\nMarch 1, 2018\nLandlord Malcolm Lee opened the discussion saying that he was requesting the increase\ndue to increased costs of running the property. He cited costs incurred from his\nneighbor's trees causing problems, the Rent Program fee, and water damage in the\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 5, 2018\nsubject unit, which caused him to have to remodel the bathroom. He stated that he\nbelieved market rate rent for the unit was $2,300-$2,500 based on his review of\nCraigslist ads for similar units. He added that the repairs the property needed would\nrequire a bank loan, the payment of which will require increased rental income from\neach unit.\nTenant Srijana Kandel replied that she did not ask Mr. Lee to remodel the bathroom,\nbut that he had to do it due to water damage. She added that the rest of the units in\nthe property were remodeled, but no other part of their unit except the bathroom had\nbeen renovated. She said she believes that because their apartment is unimproved, it\ncould not fetch market-rate rent. She informed the Committee that she is the only\nperson living at the unit who brings in income, and that paying the increased amount\nrequested by Mr. Lee would create a financial hardship.\nMr. Lee added that he voluntarily changed the carpet in the unit upon the tenants'\ninitial move-in, put in a new stove and fridge, and rented it below market to them at\nthe time because he sympathized with them as they shared the experience of being\nimmigrants. He said he also prefers to rent to families rather than roommates and liked\nthat a family would be living there.\nMs. Kandel replied that the stove had not been working for 3-6 months and Mr. Lee had\nnot yet fixed it, despite being notified it was broken. She said that her father lives in\nJapan where he runs a restaurant and takes care of his elderly father.\nChair Cambra asked if Mr. Lee learned anything new from the discussion thus far. Mr.\nLee replied that he did not know that the tenant's father was taking care of his father.\nMr. Lee added that the tenants were subleasing the apartment, and he believed they\ncould pass on some of the cost to the subtenants.\nChair Cambra asked Ms. Kandel if she had learned something new thus far. She replied\nthat she did not know Mr. Lee had new expenses on the property.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana asked Mr. Lee if he had approached the neighbor about\npaying for some of the costs incurred by the neighbor's trees falling on his property. Mr.\nLee said that he had but that the neighbor was not responsive and it was easier for him\nto take care of the damage himself than wait for his neighbor to act.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana asked about whether there was a sub-tenancy and Ms.\nKandel replied that her uncle came to visit often but was not subleasing or helping pay\nthe rent.\nMember Friedman asked Ms. Kandel how much of her income goes to pay the rent. She\nreplied that more than half of her income went toward rent and that she must ask her\nfather for financial support frequently.\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 5, 2018\nMember Friedman asked Mr. Lee what his monthly costs relating to the unit were, and\nMr. Lee replied that they were $2,250 per month. Mr. Lee distributed a list of income\nand costs that had not been previously submitted. It stated that the rent required to\nbreak even for the unit in 2017 was $1,557.01, and the cost to break even in 2018 is\n$1,814.08.\nMember Griffiths asked Ms. Kandel what the maximum she could pay was, and she\nreplied $1,850 (a 7% increase).\nChair Cambra asked and Mr. Lee replied that he had owned the building for 13 years.\nChair Cambra noted that the rental amount Mr. Lee was requesting was $100 more\nthan the cost of the unit, including vacancy costs. Chair Cambra advised Mr. Lee to\ncontinue to work with neighbors to have them fix trees that were causing problems. He\nnoted that Mr. Lee's previous rent increases were reasonable and gradual, and\ncommented how going from those smaller, more gradual increases to a 21% increase\npresented a difficulty for the tenant and the Committee in allowing the jump. He asked\nMr. Lee if other units in the building were at market rate. Mr. Lee said they were. Chair\nCambra asked for the gross monthly rent at the complex, and Mr. Lee replied it was\n$23,100 per month, and total expenses were $19,667 per month.\nMr. Lee said he could come down from asking for $2,100 to $2,000 total rent, a $268\n(15.5%) increase.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana asked Mr. Lee when he anticipated having his vacant unit\nready for rental and Mr. Lee said it's available now, but that he was having trouble\nfinding a good tenant with the right credentials, stating that many applicants have\n\"challenging credit.\" He said he was asking $2,350 for the vacant unit.\nMember Friedman noted that he believed the landlord's proposed cost for retrofitting\nthe roof may be on the high end, and that he may be able to do the work for less than\nthe proposed $200,000. Mr. Lee briefly replied explaining his reasons for coming to that\nnumber.\nChair Cambra and Member Griffiths asked if Mr. Lee would be open to a stepped\nincrease. Mr. Lee replied that he would be open to receiving a lower increased amount\nfor the first three months of the following year, then $2,000 total rent per month for\nrest of the year.\nMs. Kandel stated that her unit is on the ground floor and is not remodeled like others\nin the building that can fetch market rate. She said the unit was dark all the time due to\nlittle natural light exposure, and they had to keep the lights on all the time.\nMr. Lee replied that not all other units are remodeled. He added that Unit C is also on\nthe ground floor and was currently renting for $1,950.\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 5, 2018\nThe parties returned to their seats, and the RRAC members deliberated over the case.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated that he believed the reasonable range of rent for the\nsubject unit was between $1,850 and $2,000.\nMember Friedman stated that he believed Mr. Lee's proposed increase goes more\ntoward profit than keeping up with expenses. He said he believed Mr. Lee needs about\n$100 more per month, and he thought Ms. Kandel's proposed increase to $1,850 was\nreasonable.\nMember Griffiths stated that he believed $1,900 total monthly rent was reasonable\nbased on Mr. Lee's operating costs, and noted that it was about half way between the\ntenant and landlord's proposed amounts. He noted that Mr. Lee provided a lot of\ndetailed evidence of his costs, while Ms. Kandel did not provide evidence of financial\nburden.\nChair Cambra stated that he believed a $150 increase was reasonable.\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Griffiths) for a $168 (9.7%) increase to a\ntotal rent of $1,900. Motion passed 4-0.\nProgram staff commented that the RRAC must also determine the effective date of the\nincrease.\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Friedman) to amend, adding an April 1, 2018\neffective date. Motion passed 4-0.\n7-B. CASE 995 - 413 Coral Reef Rd.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $347.50, a 16.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$2,500.00, effective April 1, 2018.\n7-C. CASE 998 - 1151 Park Ave., Apt. B\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $50.00, a 2.6% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$2,000.00, effective March 1, 2018.\n7-D. CASE 1000 - 732 Central Ave., Apt. 11\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-03-05", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 5, 2018\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $80.00, a 4.9% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,7150, effective October 1, 2018.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nChair Cambra stated that he wanted agendize an item to discuss the possibility of\nsubmitting comments alongside the Rent Program's annual report to City Council in\nApril. Program staff replied that staff could get back to the RRAC about the timeline and\nguidelines for submitting comments. Chair Cambra asked the other RRAC members if\nthey would like to make comments. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Member Griffiths\nsaid they would.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated that he doesn't think the timing of the Housing\nAuthority's report to the City Council should necessarily influence when the RRAC\nsubmits comments or suggestions to staff or City Council.\nMember Friedman said he thought the RRAC should discuss making and presenting a\nreport to City Council separate from Program staff's report.\nCity Attorney staff interjected that it may be best to not speak about this topic at length\npresently, but agendize a time to discuss it after staff has had a chance to provide\ndetails consistent with the RRAC's direction.\nChair Cambra commented that he believes the City of Alameda's RRAC is a very\nsuccessful process with superior results compared to other jurisdictions he has\nreviewed.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 7, 2018\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf"}