{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-02-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 3, 2020 7:00 P.M.\nChair Schwartz convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Little, Pauling, Shabazz, Tilos and\nChair Schwartz - 5.\n[Note: Commissioner Shabazz arrived at 7:25 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\n[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael Roush and City\nClerk Lara Weisiger]\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA\nJay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he emailed the Commission; discussed the City\nAttorney's office rendering opinions and interpreting rent laws.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the December 18, 2019 Meeting\nChair Schwartz expressed his appreciation for the comprehensive minutes; outlined\ncorrections to the minutes; inquired about the statement: the Chief Assistant City Attorney\nclarified that the Commission would like Section 2-93.8 to remain as it is written.\nThe City Clerk responded the minutes could be amended to read: \"as currently written\"\nto clarify the Commission did not want the section revised.\nChair Schwartz proposed using \"unamended.\"\nThe City Clerk stated she would revise the minutes to clarify.\nJay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed the format of the minutes; suggested minutes include\nthe name of staff members and written testimony be attached.\nIn response to Mr. Garfinkle's inquiry regarding the record request report, Chair Schwartz\nclarified the report is part of the next agenda item.\nIn response to Chair Schwartz's inquiry, the City Clerk stated staff titles have always been\nused in the minutes; the meeting videos are posted online; the practice has been not to\ninclude names.\nChair Schwartz inquired whether there is any downside to including a name the first time\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nFebruary 3, 2020", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-02-03", "page": 2, "text": "a title is listed, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative.\nCommissioner Tilos suggested the staff be listed on the first page under roll call.\nChair Schwartz concurred; inquired whether the change could be made across\ncommissions, the City Clerk responded that she could pass on the suggestion; stated\neach commission adopts bylaws, rules and practices, and would make its own decision.\nChair Schwartz stated when the suggestion is passed on, commissions should be\ninformed that in response to a public request, the Open Government Commission feels it\nwould increase transparency to list the staff present at a meeting; inquired whether the\nminutes being approved could also be amended.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Tilos moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Pauling seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Little inquired whether she should second the motion\nsince Commissioner Pauling was not in attendance.\nChair Schwartz stated Commissioner Pauling can second the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Little: Aye;\nPauling: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: None. [Absent:\nCommissioner Shabazz - 1.]\n3-B. Accept the Annual Public Report and Report Concerning Responses to Public\nRecords Act Requests Referred to the City Attorney's Office in 2019\nChair Schwartz expressed appreciation for the report and table, which is a great addition\nto transparency, and for Commissioner Shabazz getting the ball rolling.\nCommissioner Little stated that she requested a column showing the number of days be\nadded, so people do not have to do math and can determine if the response was timely.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that he recalls the request; stated that he\nwas unclear whether the number should reflect the days between first receiving the\nrequest contrasted with the day the documents were produced.\nCommissioner Little stated that she wants an easy way to determine which complaints\nwere out of compliance without having to read through the entire document; the math\nshould be done to determine whether or not the response was handled within the City's\ntimeframe.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 3, 2020\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-02-03", "page": 3, "text": "The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office can add a line item\nin the next report.\nChair Schwartz inquired whether the count starts on the day the request was received or\nacknowledged.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the date received; stated the ordinance\nrequires requests be acknowledged within a certain period of time; the time to provide a\nresponse starts the day the request was received.\nChair Schwartz inquired about the deadline for acknowledgement, to which Chief\nAssistant City Attorney responded that he believes a request is supposed to be\nacknowledged within three days.\nChair Schwartz stated two counters may be needed; the number of days to acknowledge\nthe request and number of days to respond.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff can do that.\nChair Schwartz inquired whether a number of complaints are being acknowledged late,\nto which the City Clerk responded acknowledgement might happen outside of the chart if\nthe request is received in another department; the department might acknowledge the\nrequest and forward it to the City Attorney's office; capturing when another department\nacknowledges a request could be difficult.\nCommissioner Little stated that she would want to ensure weekends and holidays are\nconsidered.\nThe City Clerk stated the response is 10 calendar days.\nChair Schwartz noted typically, in rules of civil procedure, weekend and holidays are\nexcluded from three days.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated a date acknowledged column will be added; other\ndepartments often acknowledge the request; typically, the City Attorney's office will also\nacknowledge the request, but it may be outside of three days; the Attorney's office will\nadd the column and remind departments about the short timeframe to acknowledge\nreceipt of the request.\nCommissioner Tilos inquired whether the date acknowledged is the first calculation, to\nwhich the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Tilos inquired whether the ordinance requires response within 10 calendar\ndays.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the ordinance requires response to the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n3\nFebruary 3, 2020", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-02-03", "page": 4, "text": "requestor about what is going to happen within 10 days; stated staff generally tries to\nprovide the documents, but sometimes there is a delay.\nChair Schwartz inquired whether there is an opportunity to request an extension, like the\nState's Public Records Act statute.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney Responded in the Affirmative; stated extensions\nhappens when documents are voluminous or take significant time to review to determine\nwhether documents are privileged; the requestor is informed additional time will be\nneeded; ideally, there is a 14 day window in which to provide the response; at times, the\nrequestor is informed it will take additional time; staff tries to work within the 24 day\nwindow to provide the documents.\nCommissioner Little inquired whether a notes column should be added at the end for\ntransparency or if there is another mechanism to clarify circumstances and explain why\nthe records request was not complied with within the timeframe.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that is a very good point; stated the reasons\nfor response outside of the timeframe can be added to the note column; the request is\ngood and easy enough to do.\nChair Schwartz stated the table should be sufficiently simple to be digestible, but on the\nother hand the notes would help explain issues; the next go round could have a\nmechanism that shows when extensions were required.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff can do that.\nCommissioner Shabazz expressed appreciation for the table, which allows people to\nunderstand what documents the City is producing and the amount of requests;\nencouraged staff to utilize notes to help with processing and tracking; knowing\nSeeClickFix is not the best solution, collaborative software should be used to\ncommunicate between different parties and should having tracking.\nJay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he has another non-agenda items to discuss.\nChair Schwartz stated the Commission is currently addressing the agenda item.\nMr. Garfinkle stated that he was surprised about cases with no documents produced;\nthere should be an explanation when no records are found; if records are exempt, the\nletter from the City should explain the exemption; suggested ways to use the data and\ncomplaints to improve quality; stated that he spoke to the Attorney's office when he made\na request; requestors should be able to communicate with the custodian of records\ndirectly; response to his request was timely, but the custodian of records was out of the\noffice; expressed concern over voicemails being out of date.\nCommissioner Shabazz concurred with Mr. Garfinkle about a notation when there are no\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 3, 2020\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-02-03", "page": 5, "text": "responsive documents; stated a distinction should be made if something is exempt;\ndiscussed his request; discussed a Police Department tasing incident, Senate Bill 1421\nand a request he made; stated after a District Attorney's investigation was closed, he was\ntold the information was available; initially, he was told nothing fell within the areas which\nare supposed to be disclosed, but the material was actually not disclosed because there\nwas an active investigation; a distinction should be made whether there are no records\nthat exist or the records are exempt based on whatever law, such as a personnel matter\nor active investigation; he is grateful the information is being incorporated in the annual\nreport, which is not part of the Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether there is need to\ncodify that the public records requests information be provided in the future; he\nunderstands the matter is not on the agenda, but wanted to make the point.\nChair Schwartz stated it could be noticed on the next meeting and is a great idea.\nCommissioner Shabazz moved approval of accepting the annual report and report\nconcerning responses to the Public Records Act requests referred to the City Attorney's\noffice in 2019.\nChair Schwartz seconded the motion, with the caveat that he is hopeful the additional\ninformation discussed by everybody can be included, which the Chief Assistant City\nAttorney has graciously agreed to do.\nThe motion carried unanimously by the following roll call vote: Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye;\nShabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: None.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nSunshine Ordinance Amendment\nCommissioner Little inquired whether anyone from the Commission will be in attendance\nat the City Council hearing tomorrow night when the proposed revisions to the Sunshine\nOrdinance will be discussed.\nChair Schwartz stated that he submit a written communication and hopes to attend.\nCommissioner Little stated that she is out of town; she also submitted a letter to the City\nCouncil.\nCommissioner Pauling stated that she will be present, but she has come into the process\na\nbit late; noted she was at the original Council meeting when the matter that caused the\nissue was heard.\nCommissioner Tilos stated that he will not attend; he has discussed the matter with the\nCity Attorney's office to voice his opinion.\nChair Schwartz stated the decision tomorrow night will determine the future abilities of the\nCommission; discussed the letter he submitted to Council; stated the City Council could\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n5\nFebruary 3, 2020", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-02-03", "page": 6, "text": "make a policy, not legal, decision to eliminate the null and void provision; artful\namendments and looking at other cities could be considered to address concerns in a\ntransparent, open and honest way; expressed concern over the amendment being\npresented as a legal imperative, which is not supported by case law; discussed process\nand duties of the Commission.\nCommissioner Little stated that she has faith the current City Council would seriously\nconsider Open Government Commission recommendations and hopefully reach\nconclusions the Commission recommends, which might not always be the case;\nexpressed concern over the provision being removed without having other safeguards.\nPublic Records Act Forum\nCommissioner Shabazz stated that he wanted to follow up on a previous request for an\nagenda item at the next Commission meeting about organizing a forum or method of\ncommunicating about the Public Record Act; if the matter needs to be placed on an\nagenda to make it happen, he would like it done; if not, he would be interested in working\nwith staff to host something to inform the community about the Public Records Act.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office would be happy to work\nwith Commissioner Shabazz to set it up; the matter can be placed on the agenda or\nCommissioner Shabazz could meet with the Attorney's office to figure out something; the\nAttorney's office would be happy to do it.\nChair Schwartz stated that he would welcome having an agenda item if there is a proposal\nfor something the Commission could do; he is open to any kind of proposal; it is a great\nidea.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated both can be done; Commissioner Shabazz can\nmeet with the Attorney's office and the matter can be placed on an agenda to do\nsomething more formal.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated that he shared the suggestion at the last meeting and did\nnot follow up to make sure it was on the agenda tonight; he does not know the level of\ndetail needed for an agenda item.\nCommissioner Tilos stated something might need to be done outside of the agenda since\nthe next meeting is not until October.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the Attorney's office is happy to meet with any\nCommissioners about the type of forum.\nChair Schwartz stated both can be done.\nCommissioner Pauling suggested a subcommittee work on the forum; inquired whether\nthe forum should be held by summer before getting too far into the election cycle; inquired\nwhether the forum would be done by June.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 3, 2020\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-02-03", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Shabazz responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Pauling inquired whether a subcommittee can be formed.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that he is a little reluctant to have the Commission\ncreate a subcommittee because the matter is not on the agenda; he suggests meeting\nwith Commissioner Shabazz to set something up that could involve the Commission; the\nforum could be noticed as a Commission meeting; the forum could be done in June if\ndesired.\nChair Schwartz stated having a subcommittee could be included as part of a proposal at\nthe next meeting.\nCommissioner Little inquired whether Commissioner Shabazz is interested in educating\npeople; stated that she would not want to stand in the way of Commissioner Shabazz\ndoing outreach; questioned the need for a formal process.\nChair Schwartz stated a formal process is not needed, but the next agenda could include\na formal Public Records Act communications project or subcommittee if desired by\nCommissioner Shabazz.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated the distinction is wanting to utilize the platform of the Open\nGovernment Commission to educate people about the Public Records Act; stated that he\nwill follow up with the City Attorney's office; hopefully the entire Commission can be invited.\nPublic Comment\nCommissioner Shabazz inquired whether Oral Communications needs to be opened in\nresponse to a request to speak.\nChair Schwartz stated the member of the public already spoke under Oral\nCommunications.\nADJOURNMENT\nCommissioner Shabazz moved approval of adjourning the meeting.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mr. Garfinkle asked to raise a point of order; stated he brought up some\npoints which were not discussed; questioned what is accomplished by mentioning things.\nChair Schwartz stated full Commission comment is not typical for items not on the agenda;\nthe Commission would not have been prepared to address the issue; Mr. Garfinkle's\nspecific minutes request was addressed.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n7\nFebruary 3, 2020", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-02-03", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Garfinkle stated that he suggested quality assurance analysis of record logs; inquired\nwhether it goes any place or accomplishes anything.\nCommissioner Tilos stated it accomplished something; the Commission heard the\nsuggestion and can consider it when making decisions; stated the spreadsheet is evolving;\nMr. Garfinkle's comments have been listened to and can be considered.\nCommissioner Pauling stated that she understood Mr. Garfinkle's comments; the\nCommission is addressing quality when talking about timeliness of response; the initially,\ntimeframe is going to be used as a red flag; she heard Mr. Garfinkle.\nMr. Garfinkle discussed conversations with the Police Department; stated that he is trying\nto learn the process on interacting with the Commission.\nChair Schwartz stated Commissioners were interested in the remarks, but are not\nprepared to take further actions on the particular remarks right now; he would welcome a\nmore detailed proposal.\nMr. Garfinkle stated that he has a suggestion about exhibits; he does not know whether\nthe matter should go through the Commission; discussed policies.\nChair Schwartz stated there has been a motion and second to adjourn.\nCommissioner Shabazz called the question, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThere being no further business, Chair Schwartz adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 3, 2020\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf"}