{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nOF\nof\nof\n$\nORATEIO\nMINUTES OF THE\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2018\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nCynthia Silva, President\nDorothy Wismar, Vice President\nAmber Bales, Board Member\nKathleen Kearney, Board Member\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nLori Amaya, Recording Secretary\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar\n*A.\nReport from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of July August,\nSeptember and October, 2018.\n*B.\nDraft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of July 11, 2018.\n*C.\nLibrary Services Report for the Months of June, July, August and September, 2018.\n*D.\nFinancial Report Reflecting FY17/18 Expenditures by Fund for July, August, September and\nOctober, 2018.\n*E.\nBills for Ratification for the Months of July, August, September and October, 2018.\nDirector Chisaki explained to the board that the Alameda Reads statistics look different because they are\nchanging the way they report which will give a better snapshot of what they are doing. Data base use is\nexpected to trend up due to the Connect Code project. New borrower counts in August went up because\nall Connect Codes are counted as new borrowers. The director wants to ask for two new staff positions as\nthe new two-year budget process is expected to begin in February. President Silva asked if a new board\nmember has been nominated. Director Chisaki responded that the mayor nominated Joyce McConeghey", "path": "LibraryBoard/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nNovember 14, 2018 Meeting\nand she should be sworn in at the November 27, 2018 City Council meeting. Her first meeting should be\nJanuary 9, 2019.\nThere were no changes to the Draft Minutes of the July 11, 2018. Library Board meeting. Board Member\nKearney moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Bales seconded the motion, which passed\nwith a 4-0.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nNone.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nDiscussion. Moving forward in 2019. (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki stated we will start the year with a new board member. As previously mentioned, Ms.\nMcConeghey worked for the Park Street Business Association and is excited to work with the community.\nHer relationship with the business community may help during the Strategic Planning process.\nAt the All Staff meeting in October, Luis Herrera, retired City Librarian of the San Francisco Library,\ncame and spoke to staff about libraries and their role in the community, and how to stay relevant. After\nhis presentation, staff broke in to small groups and brainstormed on what things they are proud of and\nwhat they would like to do if money was no object. They came up with interesting ideas and there are a\nfew things we may be able to implement. This will get us ready for the Strategic Plan. We need\nrepresentation from the library board, library staff, school district, other city departments, the business\ncommunity, different areas of Alameda, parents of children of different age groups, seniors, millennials\nand different ethnic groups. The library will interview the consultant that completed the previous Strategic\nPlan, Management Partners in San Jose, and a third consultant recommended by the Library Board, or\nlocal libraries that have completed plans in the last year. Director Chisaki would like to complete the plan\nby the end of the fiscal year and plans to put the completed plan on the library's new website, which will\nlaunch in January.\nThe State Library recently announced that they will supply naloxone (aka Narcan) to public libraries at no\ncost. Director Chisaki attended a session at the California Library Association Conference on this topic.\nThe speaker represents Alameda and Contra Costa County, and will come train staff and provide kits,\nwhich includes an open subscription to replace supplies as needed. It is another tool in your first aid kit.\nDirector Chisaki will see if other city departments, and possibly community organizations are interested in\nparticipating.\nDirector Chisaki is researching eliminating overdue fines, which does not include fees for lost and\ndamaged materials or fees for lost library cards. The plan is to collect three months of data to compare the\namount of revenue collected and the cost of staff time to process collecting the fines. It is estimated the\ncost of staff time is greater than the amount collected in fines. Other local libraries have implemented this\npolicy and it is becoming the norm. Board Member Kearney asked what the dollar amount for a patron's", "path": "LibraryBoard/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nNovember 14, 2018 Meeting\naccount to be blocked and Director Chisaki answered $10. With elimination of fines, patrons that were\nblocked will be able to use their cards again, increasing circulation numbers.\nB.\nFriends of the Library. (J. Chisaki)\nThe Friends held their appreciation event, which included the library volunteers this year. They will do\nanother event again next year. The Fall Book sale was held at the O'Club in October. The Wi-Fi was not\nworking so, they were not able to use credit cards at the sale. IT has confirmed that it is currently working\nnow and should be available for the next sale. There was $17,000 in gross sales, which is normal.\nDirector Chisaki asked the board to look out for storage space for the book sale. The current space is\nfrequently broken into and items are often stolen.\nThe Friends are working on a Strategic Plan and will do visioning on their meeting on November 26. The\nlibrary is withdrawing the request from the Friends for funding of digital subscription services for Hoopla\nand Kanopy. The library will pay for those services and add Mango Languages.\nC.\nPatron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response\nA patron disagrees with the $5 processing charge for lost items. The fees make using the library\nrestrictive. Library staff spoke with the patron and she understands why the library is charging the fee, but\ndoes not agree with it, and wants to voice her disagreement with the policy.\nA patron complained that the owner of the black van that parks in the library parking lot harassed her\nwhen she tried to park next to him by the curb. He said she couldn't park there and will hit her car with\nthe door if he opens the door. She said he had plenty of room and he said it was a handicapped space. He\nsaid he'd call the police because he's harassing him. The library responded that the gentleman has a\ndisabled placard and can park anywhere he chooses. He parks in one of the disabled spaces and has been\nasked to move to one of the other spaces in the lot, but he has a cat in the van with him and he feels the\nlarge tree provides shade for his van and his cat. If you are speaking about the space between the van and\nthe curb, he is correct. It is not a parking space. The space between the disable space and the curb are\ncross hatched to allow for doors to open or ramps to be lowered and wheelchairs to have access. He has a\nvalid placard and can park in that space legally.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Silva shared that she attended a Pacific Library Partnership event with Supervising Librarian,\nMarlon Romero. She learned that San Francisco has a full-time social worker assigned to the library. She\nadded that she attended the End of Summer Reading program and worked at the Live @ the Library\nconcert, and at the Friends of the Library Book Sale.\nBoard Member Kearney shared that she went to a memorial for a friend in Walnut Creek and she had been\nactive in her library program equivalent to Alameda Reads. At the reception, the emcee read a letter how\nshe changed her life by learning the language, receiving training, and getting a job. It made you realize\nthat what you do as a volunteer makes a difference in people's lives.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nNovember 14, 2018 Meeting\nBoard Member Bales shared that she was impressed at Karen Butter's acceptance speech at the Friends\nappreciation. She mentioned they are looking forward to a library at Alameda Point, which will keep it on\npeople's minds.\nPresident Silva asked if there is anything planned for the Jean Sweeney Park grand opening on December\n15, 2018. Director Chisaki informed the board that the seed library is in phase two, but there's no funding\nfor phase two, so she predicts it is three to four years out.\nPresident Silva mentioned Alameda Police Department has a warehouse at Alameda Point that they use\nfor evidence and there may be space in it available for the Friends to use to store materials. Director\nChisaki will speak with Chief Rolleri about use of the space.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nCarol Roth is retiring and her last work day is December 6, 2018. There will be a cake and coffee\nreception at 3:00pm and the Library Board is invited to attend. The Mayor will present her with a\nproclamation. Circulation Coordinator, Kevin Tam is planning to put together a photo book as a gift.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Alameda Free Library Board", "path": "LibraryBoard/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nWEDNESDAY\nNOVEMBER 14, 2018 - 7:00 P.M.\nChair Little convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Dieter, Foreman, Henneberry,\nSchwartz and Chair Little - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the October 1, 2018 Meeting\nCommissioner Dieter noted a change to Council Communication to clarify that she had\ntwo follow up items and the third item was reporting out; stated that she would also\nprovide the Clerk correct typographical corrections.\nCommissioner Henneberry moved approval of minutes with the changes.\nCommissioner Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed October 30, 2018\nSerena Chen, Complainant, gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired whether there were copies of the original agendas,\nto which Commissioner Schwartz responded copies were included in the packet.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired whether Ms. Chen attended and spoke at the\nNovember 7th City Council meeting.\nMs. Chen responded in the affirmative; stated the basis of her complaint was that when\na meeting is noticed and Council radically changes something on the agenda, it does\nnot seem fair.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether anything in the staff report indicated removing\nthe cap.\nMs. Chen responded in the negative; stated that she was clear what the changes were\ngoing to be since she attended the July City Council meeting; when she saw the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nNovember 14, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 2, "text": "October 16th agenda, it was a reflection of what was discussed in July and she decided\nnot to attend.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the staff report reinforces his understanding about the\ndelivery-only dispensary.\nMs. Chen concurred with Commissioner Foreman; stated after she read the October\n16th staff report, she was satisfied with the terms of the ordinance and felt confident of\nthe vote; however, she has a problem with the number of dispensaries being doubled\nwithout any public notice.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired whether there was any consideration by the Council of\nMs. Chen's views after her public comment at the November 7th meeting, to which Ms.\nChen responded in the negative; stated the item was pulled from the Consent Calendar\nso she could speak; she had already sent a letter to Council regarding her concerns, but\nthe issue was not addressed further.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether Council discussed the item further and\nprovided rationale or just voted on the matter at the November 7th meeting.\nMs. Chen responded that she did not feel her questioning caused a quandary; stated\nshe respects Council and staff's professionalism but disagrees with the City's position.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated that he understands Ms. Chen's complaint; inquired\nwhat, in her view, would resolve the issue.\nMs. Chen responded the resolution she has experienced before any other board is that\nif there are any changes to the language that has been proposed, staff is directed to\ncome back to Council with changes for Council to introduce the ordinance, have a first\nreading and vote; there should be adequate notification for the public and an opportunity\nfor people to be involved.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether Ms. Chen's remedy would be that the matter be\nre-noticed and come back to the Council, to which Ms. Chen responded in the\naffirmative; stated that she understands marijuana has been legalized in the State, but\ncities are responsible for their own regulations.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the Commission takes Ms. Chen's complaint seriously and\nwill do their best to consider her points.\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired what would have been the harm of waiting one\nmore meeting and re-noticing the item.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nNovember 14, 2018\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 3, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded he did not think there would be any harm; stated\nthe Council asked whether or not the Ordinance would comply and if they could\nproceed; since the answer was affirmative, Council chose to move forward.\nIn response to Commissioner Schwartz inquiry on who answered affirmatively, the\nAssistant City Attorney stated the Acting City Attorney.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired whether the Acting City Attorney explained the\nbasis of his opinion.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the Acting City Attorney explained that the\nattorneys had opined on the matter and communicated to Council that proceeding with\na\nsecond reading was okay; the Acting City Attorney further stated the opinion has not\nchanged.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated the ordinance talked about delivery-only and was\ncompletely flipped on its head at the October 16th meeting by adding two full-service\ndispensaries with deliveries; inquired how doing so works with the strict and exact\nstandards of agenda noticing.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded staff's position is that the change was delivery-\nonly to delivery-required; stated the agenda was noticed for an increase in the number\nof dispensaries; the agenda language did state delivery-only, the Council has authority\nto modify the ordinance in part because State law does not regulate the businesses any\ndifferently and does not have a distinction for delivery-only; the distinction is a local\nconsideration, therefore, the Council has authority; conversely, the Council could decide\nnot to make the distinction and still be compliant, which is precisely what the Council did\nin this instance.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he did not see the term \"delivery-required\" in either\nthe regulatory or zoning ordinance that came before Council on October 16th\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Foreman is correct; Council was\namending the ordinances to allow the change to happen and directed staff to do so.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the change was not only delivery-only to delivery-\nrequired, it was also changed from \"closed to the public\" to \"open to the public.\"\nThe Assistant City Attorney agreed with Commissioner Foreman's statement; stated the\nordinance language from November 7th defined the change.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney would agree with\nMs. Chen that the difference between delivery-only and delivery-required is a facility\nthat is just a warehouse versus a facility that has public interaction.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n3\nNovember 14, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 4, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded not exactly; stated the difference between the\ntwo is that although they are functionally the same, one does not allow public access;\nhe would not characterize a delivery-only dispensary as a warehouse as it would still\nhave to go through all of the State and local legal requirements.\nChair Little stated there was better public notice for the November 7th meeting; inquired\nwhether it is normal circumstance to allow a significant distinction or change in the\nagenda item between the first reading and second reading.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded legal counsel's position is that re-setting the first\nreading due to changes is not an accurate statement of the law, as Ms. Chen asserts;\nstated it is typical and permissible for Council to give staff direction to make changes\nand come back; what is not permissible is making substantive modifications at the\nsecond reading; in this case, however, resetting does not apply when an agenda is\npublished but Council decides to move in a different direction; Ms. Chen is arguing the\nmeaningful description as opposed to when a Council needs to reset the first reading\nand start over; the separate issues are conflated because of the remedy Ms. Chen is\nseeking; the issue before the Commission tonight is to determine whether or not the\nagenda description is a meaningful description.\nChair Little stated it is difficult to know for certain the direction of Council conversation;\ntherefore, it is impossible to predict by way of an agenda description to name everything\nand cover all of the minutia details that may come up; the intention of the discussion\nwas to have a meaningful conversation about delivery-only dispensaries; the\nconversation did take place, but then deviated and language was changed; inquired\nwhether public awareness of the change took place in time for the Council to then vote\non the item and allow for public comment on November 7th\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Chair Little's statement\nof events is accurate.\nCommissioner Dieter requested clarification regarding whether a first reading and a\nsecond reading can be entirely different as long as nothing substantive has changed; if\nso, the first reading needs to be reset.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Dieter's statement is accurate; in this\ncase, the change happened before the Council did its first reading.\nIn response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the\nCouncil suspended the first reading until they actually got their comments in on how\nthey wanted it modified; said practice is actually central to what Council does with\nrespect to ordinances; the Council would be hamstringed if they did not have said\nability.\nThe Assistant City Attorney read an unpublished court of appeals case analogous to the\nissue; stated the notice was sufficient to provide a member of the public to know that\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nNovember 14, 2018\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 5, "text": "there would be an increase in the number of dispensaries, whether it is delivery-only or\ndelivery-required.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she understands that the Assistant City Attorney is in a\nposition of defending the City and that he believes there were no substantive changes;\nthe Commission's role is to defend the public to what a reasonable person would\nunderstand; she would consider the changes substantive because a cap on retail\nbusinesses was removed; the changes were not included in the staff report or agenda\ntitle.\nThe Assistant City Attorney clarified that the legal standard Commissioner Dieter refers\nto does not apply to the general agenda description because the changes happened\nbefore the first reading and before Council introduced the ordinance.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he understands substantive or non-substantive is\nnot the issue; inquired whether the City's position would be the same if Council changed\nthe retail cap to eight, as long as they corrected it by the second reading.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded he does not like to opine on hypotheticals, but\nresponded in the affirmative; stated the standard that applies is the notion that there is a\ndescription for the members of the public to decide whether or not they should appear.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired whether there was a basis to dispute Ms. Chen's\nclaims that community advocates might have attended the meeting had they been\naware of the changes.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that it would be speculative to speak to that;\nstated that he has attended every meeting regarding the cannabis issue and is\nsurprised by the amount of support versus the amount of opposition to the issue.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney was aware of a\nvocal minority of public health advocates who are opposed to the additional public\ndispensaries, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded Ms. Chen and one other\nspeaker are the only ones he is aware of that attended and spoke at the November 7th\nmeeting.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the public did not know that more retail businesses were\ngoing to be open; at the beginning of the process, there was a lot of concern about the\namount of retail, but the public was relieved and reassured by the City Council that\nthere would be a cap; the Council directed staff to bring back a report which included\nthe cap; the cap was then removed; Ms. Chen's complaint is not about what happened\nat the November 7th meeting, it is about the first notice and whether members of the\npublic were alerted to changes made before the second notice.\nChair Little clarified that the ordinance clearly states \"add two cannabis retail\nbusinesses.\"\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n5\nNovember 14, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 6, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Little; stated regarding Commissioner\nDieter's comments, that he cannot speculate on whether or not the public was\nconcerned about the issue.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she looked at the July meeting and no one on the\nCouncil suggested adding the two retail businesses; Council requested staff bring back\na staff report with a cap; the staff report brought at the October meeting reiterated and\nreaffirmed what Council directed regarding the cap; inquired why the first clause adding\ntwo retail business was even included.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the report in July provided a status report on the\ncannabis request for proposals issued in April; Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice\nMayor Vella suggested adding \"delivery only\" at that meeting.\nIn response to Commissioner Dieter, the Assistant City Attorney stated the subsequent\nstaff report did not include only the Council direction; additional items were included.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired what prompted the first clause to add two cannabis\nbusinesses.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded he does not recall; stated that he just\nremembers it was mentioned.\nCommissioner Dieter stated as a member of the public reading the ordinance, she\nwould interpret the additional two cannabis businesses as delivery-only businesses\nsince there is nothing in the staff report to suggest otherwise.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the staff report was designed to report on outcomes,\nas opposed to creating a recommendation; staff was seeking direction from Council.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether there would have been any harm to postpone\nthe second reading until after the complaint was heard.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is a current application that is pending and\nchanges in the ordinance may impact the applicant.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired what happens now if the Commission determines there\nwas a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney staffing the Commission responded pursuant to the\nSunshine Ordinance, if the Open Government Commission determines there is a\nviolation of Section 2.91, the Commission may order the action of the body null and void\nand/or may issue an order to cure or correct, and may also impose a fine on the City for\na subsequent similar violation.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nNovember 14, 2018\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Dieter stated it did not make sense to her that the ordinance proceeded\nto a second reading when a complaint was filed with no opportunity for remedy.\nIn response to Chair Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff reached out\nto Ms. Chen after his email to her stating that she could still provide comment; Ms.\nChen's response to the email was that providing comment would not resolve her\ncomplaint.\nChair Little stated that she understands the item was pulled; inquired how doing so\nplays into the process.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the item was pulled for discussion but the\nsecond reading did take place; stated a further amendment is going forward to clarify\ndefinitions.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the complaint is about the October 16th meeting, not about\nanything that happened after.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether a motion should be put on the floor, to which\nthe City Clerk responded the Commission is not required to follow Rosenberg's Rules\neven though the Council does.\nChair Little stated the Commission pushed following Rosenberg's Rules; called for a\nmotion.\nCommissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Commission should deliberate before\nmaking a motion, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the negative.\nCommissioner Schwartz moved approval of sustaining the complaint and that Council\nbe ordered to re-notice the meeting so that community advocates can be heard on the\nissue of two additional dispensaries.\nCommissioner Dieter seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Foreman stated there are two cannabis ordinances;\nthe zoning ordinance was not impacted by the complaint; suggested an amendment.\nThe Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Foreman, stated the changes\nwere confined to the business ordinance which contains the definition of \"delivery-only.\"\nCommissioner Schwartz stated that he does not think the ordinance needs to be\namended as long as it is clear when re-noticed that the conversion of delivery-only to\ndelivery-required deserves a public hearing; commended the speakers for thorough\npresentations; stated that he agrees with Ms. Chen that the November 7th final vote did\nnot give the impression that there would be any meaningful debate; to the extent that\nthere are people in the community that want to be heard on this, it should be heard; it\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n7\nNovember 14, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 8, "text": "a longer delay; nothing may change in the end; there could have been a two week delay\ninstead of another first reading and second reading; it is important to do the right thing.\nThe Assistant City Attorney for the Commission stated there was not a time savings as\na practical matter; the issue would have been delayed and would have to be re-noticed\nanyway in the event of the Commission sustaining the complaint.\nCommissioner Dieter stated the City moving forward even though a complaint was filed\nlooks bad to the public.\nThe Assistant City Attorney for the Commission stated just because a complaint is filed\ndoes not mean the decision made at the October 16th meeting was not in order; the\nopinion did not changed by November 7th. the Commission could have reached a\ndifferent conclusion; there was not a compelling reason to change the opinion at the\nNovember 7th meeting.\nChair Little stated the 267 pages of information was confusing; assumptions cannot be\nmade about the decision; comparing what was originally proposed to the eventual\noutcome of adding the two businesses has a greater weight; she supports the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice votes - 5.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she has enjoyed being on the Commission; sitting at\nthe dais is harder than it looks; commends the people who volunteer to sit on the\nCommission.\nThe Assistant City Attorney for the Commission noted that he will draft a written\ndecision for the Commission to review and edit so a final version can be completed.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nNovember 14, 2018\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-11-14", "page": 9, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n9\nNovember 14, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf"}