{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY JUNE 24, 2020 -\n7:00 P.M.\nChair Schwartz convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Little, Pauling, Shabazz, Tilos and\nChair Schwartz - 5. [Note: The meeting was\nconducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\n[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael Roush, Assistant\nCity Attorney John Le, and City Clerk Lara Weisiger]\nOral Communications\nNone.\nRegular Agenda Items\n3-A. Minutes of the Meeting Held on February 3, 2020\nStated that he is unsure how Board or Commission members make recommendations to\nspecific parties, other than relying on the minutes; he would like the names of staff\nincluded in the minutes as discussed at the February 3rd meeting; also suggested a\nmechanism for statistical analysis of the data collected by the Police Department: Jay\nGarfinkle, Alameda.\nChair Schwartz stated the recommendation was to include the names of officials and staff\nat the beginning of the meeting minutes; he thanked the Clerk for doing so and hopes\nother Commissions would do the same.\nThe City Clerk stated she passed the recommendation on to the other Boards and\nCommissions on behalf of the Open Government Commission (OGC).\nCommissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes, with the addition of identifying\nstaff with their names rather than titles.\nThe City Clerk clarified the recommendation was to identify staff by name at the top of the\nminutes and use titles throughout the rest of the minutes.\nVice Chair Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 5.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 2, "text": "3-B. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to\nArticle VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal\nCode, as Amended, Concerning the Replacement of the \"Null and Void\" Remedy.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nStated that he is concerned that the matter of the OGC authority has been an issue for\nalmost two years; he is upset that the extent of the collaboration was to scrutinize his\nsubmission: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nStated he would like to speak on the noticing requirements for special meetings: Jay\nGarfinkle, Alameda.\nChair Schwartz stated there are many issues regarding the Sunshine Ordinance that will\nbe addressed; the first issue is the Commission's authority over violations; the second is\nnoticing requirements for special meetings, which is later on in the agenda.\nCommissioner Shabazz requested that Chair Schwartz or staff briefly summarize each\nagenda item while progressing through the agenda.\nChair Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Shabazz's request and briefly summarized\nthe first item regarding the Commission's authority.\nCommissioner Tilos stated he was leaning toward Vice Mayor Knox White's suggestion\nabout having the issue re-agendized on the next reasonable agenda; the issue would\nallow another opportunity for public comment.\nCommissioner Little concurred with Commissioner Tilos's comments; stated that she\nappreciates the efforts of Councilmember Vella and Paul Foreman; the one aspect she\nfeels is missing is how the Commission could pause the situation to avoid being in the\nsame spot as two years ago; she would also appreciate including the language provided\nby Vice Mayor Knox White.\nChair Schwartz stated that he was under the impression, as suggested by the City\nAttorney, that Vice Mayor Knox White's language is the sole amendment to be re-\nagendized and that Mr. Foreman's proposals be rejected.\nCommissioner Little stated she would like to see some sort of combination between the\ntwo; there is a lot of good language in Councilmember Vella and Paul Foreman's\nsubmission; she does not feel it should be just one or the other; she would appreciate\nhaving the language that was submitted, then, add a clause which addresses the issue\nVice Mayor Knox White brought up.\nIn response to Chair Schwartz inquiry, Commissioner Tilos stated that he would be in\nsupport of Vice Mayor Knox White's language as the simplest proposal, but is not\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 3, "text": "opposed to Councilmember Vella's and Mr. Foreman's submission or a combination of\nboth.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated the Commission needs to think about the objective, find\nthe solution between the various proposals and ideas which can still enable the ability for\nthe public to participate in meetings, and some remedy to ensure that people have that\nopportunity.\nCommissioner Pauling stated the Commission has to be able to move quickly to resolve\nissues, especially time sensitive ones; public comment does not get responded to by the\nCouncil and does not change a vote that has already been recorded and moved forward.\nChair Schwartz stated he echoes Mr. Foreman's comments that the City Attorney's\ncomments are not sufficient to confer with the Commission on viable ways to provide\nteeth to the statute; the comments were more focused on that the Commission does not\nhave the right to do so; he continues to disagree with the advice provided by Counsel;\nthe ship has sailed, but he does not think Commissioners are limited in what they are\nallowed to do; simply asking Council to re-agendize something at their convenience is\ninsufficient to address the seriousness of a failure in the City's legislative process based\non the Sunshine Ordinance; now is not the time to be squashing transparency; it is time\nto increase transparency; the best way to do that is to provide some consequence to a\nfailure to have a public process as required by the Sunshine Ordinance that makes it\ndifficult for the City to have such a failure; Mr. Foreman's suggestion has two parts that\nthe Commission should pay close attention to: 1) delay action that does not usurp the\nCouncil's legislative authority; if the Council is interested in empowering the OGC, they\nneed to consider that; it does not make the OGC the legislative body, the Commission is\nnot writing new legislation or weighing in on the merits of any legislation, the Commission\nis making sure the process is as transparent as it needs to be; 2) in Section 2-93.8\nregarding penalties, Council accepts the recommendation from the Commission unless\nthe supermajority rejects it, which gives some teeth to what the Commission does in the\nabsence of \"null and void;\" the paragraph included in the supplemental memo from the\nCity Attorney's office is adequate.\nCommissioner Little stated there is a lot of language in the Vella-Foreman submission\nthat lends a lot of clarity with respect to timelines that were missing from the current\nordinance; being able to provide the public and the Council with some guidance around\nboundaries for complaints to be brought forward is important; inquired what the rationale\nis behind removing the OGC's ability to fine a violation and impose a penalty.\nChair Schwartz responded that he could not speak for Mr. Foreman, but to the extent that\nMr. Foreman suggests that the $250 penalty is like a parking ticket, he tends to agree;\nthe penalty does not address the seriousness of having City legislation pass that has not\ntaken into account the required public process.\nCommissioner Little stated that she is not arguing one way or the other; she is just curious\nwhy it was removed.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 4, "text": "In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated Chair\nSchwartz's summary of Mr. Foreman's explanation is correct; quoted Mr. Foreman's\ncomments rationale for striking it: \"I struck the penalties because they are ridiculous, it is\nthe tax payers who would be paying them.\"\nCommissioner Shabazz inquired whether Mr. Foreman's comment regarding the tax\npayers paying the penalty is accurate.\nChair Schwartz responded in the affirmative; stated the penalty would be against the City,\nwhich is funded by tax payer's dollars.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Schwartz; stated the penalty is\nincluded as a deterrent, but whether it has any real practical effect is for the Commission\nto decide, as well as whether or not to leave in the provision.\nCommissioner Tilos stated that he supports removing the provision, it is just a slap on the\nwrist and immaterial.\nChair Schwartz stated it bothered him that the proposal endorsed by the City Attorney's\noffice wanted to keep the $250 fine, but removed the more significant deterrent like\ndelaying, or not allowing, legislation that was passed without the proper proceedings to\ngo into effect.\nCommissioner Tilos stated the power was taken away from the Commission; the\nCommission was clear and Council was clear on taking the power away; he shares the\nfrustration with Mr. Foreman that this topic has been unresolved for two years now.\nChair Schwartz clarified that the rationale articulated by the City Attorney which the City\nCouncil needed to obey was that nullifying a Council action improperly usurped the\nauthority of an elected body to legislate to an appointed body, which is not the same as\ndelaying it and asking for another vote; for the Commission to cancel an ordinance passed\nby the Council is stronger; he agrees that the Council rejected that proposal; he does not\nthink the Council rejected the idea of delaying implementation of an ordinance and asking\nfor a supermajority.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated referring to the teeth metaphor that has been used\nthroughout the discussion, he feels as though the Commission's teeth have been kicked\nout; in absence of the power taken away, there are other things the Commission can do\nto encourage transparency; it seems the only options are to delay action for another vote\nor impose a penalty; reiterated some of the concerns he had regarding the perception of\na \"conflict of interest\" with the City Attorney's office and the OGC, as well as with the\nPublic Records Request Act; he does not have any specific solutions, but is frustrated\nthat the Commission has no power to hold any bodies accountable for making sure\nmeetings are accessible.\nChair Schwartz stated Mr. Foreman's proposal suggests that the Commission Chair be\nable to request that the City retain independent legal counsel as opposed to dealing with\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 5, "text": "the perceived conflict of interest; the City Attorney's office responded that they were not\nasked to do so; he agrees with the City Attorney's office that it is not within the charge of\nthe OGC to tell the City Council to retain independent legal counsel.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the comments provided by the City Attorney's office to\nMr. Foreman's proposal is just preliminary thinking; the Office plans to do a more thorough\nanalysis once concrete direction is received from the Commission; the supplemental\nmemo from the City Attorney's office should be considered as a starting point for the\nCommission to work with the City Attorney's office in developing a satisfactory proposal\nthat can be repackaged for the Council; it would be helpful to staff for the Commission to\nweigh in on each item, so the City Attorney's office is clear on how to draft the proposal.\nChair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney; stated that he would like to\naddress each item; suggested breaking down into a few parts: 1) Section 2-92.2 of Mr.\nForeman's proposal that further action on an agenda item shall be delayed until the\ncomplaint is resolved; 2) Section 2-93.8, Council shall accept the recommendation unless\n4 Councilmembers reject it; 3) keep or eliminate the monetary penalty.\nIn response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated the discussions can\ninclude the Vella/Foreman proposal; added a fourth category regarding timing issues in\ngeneral, which would encompass the rest of the changes; a fifth category could be\ndiscussed regarding independent legal counsel; regarding the timing issue, a member of\nthe public commented that there will not be time for the public to weigh in if things are\nrushed.\nCommissioner Pauling stated that she agrees with Commissioner Little and would like to\nwork through the list item by item rather than bouncing around.\nIn response to Chair Schwartz's inquiry regarding timing, Commissioner Pauling stated\nthat she concurs with the proposal to delay action on the second reading to address any\noutstanding issues and to do it within the regular meeting agenda framework so that\nCouncil can be notified quickly.\nChair Schwartz inquired whether the method would cut people short in their ability to\nparticipate if complaints must be filed and responded to so quickly.\nCommissioner Pauling responded that she is ok if the second vote is delayed by two\nmeetings to allow proper reparations.\nCommissioner Little stated it is important to have transparency in the process and provide\nthe boundaries of what can and cannot be brought forward; the situation could end up\nwhere something has gone through and an issue arises 30 or 40 days out; it should still\nbe brought forward to the OGC; by setting the boundaries, the Commission knows what\ncan happen; otherwise, there will be a pause in the entire process and it will be extremely\nmuddled; as long as it is clear that the timing keeps business moving forward and\nhopefully allows enough time for the public to respond; this type of framework provides\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 6, "text": "the public and the leadership with guidance on what the Commission can still do about\nsaid items.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the concern in the City Attorney's office is the\nlonger period of time someone has to file a complaint, things might move forward; to be\nable to undo it becomes problematic; the Commission can decide to extend or shorten\nthe timeframe, but there have been no problems with the current 15-day window and\nkeeping items within the Commission's jurisdiction.\nCommissioner Little inquired what the difference is between the 10 and 15-day timeframe,\nto which the City Attorney responded according to Mr. Foreman's proposal, the section\ndealing with public meetings and problems with public participation, as those tend to move\nforward more quickly, the 10-day rule would apply in that situation; the 15-day rule would\napply to other violations because there would likely be no timing issues with an additional\nfive days.\nCommissioner Pauling inquired if the Commission votes on this, would it give power to\nrecommend the Council delay the second vote for final passage.\nChair Schwartz responded Mr. Foreman's proposal would delay action until the complaint\nis resolved or rejected by a supermajority of the Council; Vice Mayor Knox White's\nproposal would ask the Council to review the Commission's recommendation and render\na final decision.\nIn response to Commissioner Pauling's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated the timing issue\nhas to do with the timing of complaints and timing for the hearing.\nCommissioner Little suggested combining Items A through F as one, rather than going\nthrough line by line.\nChair Schwartz concurred; inquired whether there is support for amending the timing\nrequirements with respect to complaints and hearings as proposed by Mr. Foreman.\nCommissioner Little moved approval of adding Items A through F of the Vella/Foreman\nproposal to the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney clarified that the days for filing the complaint are calendar\ndays, and the days for the hearing are business days.\nCommissioner Little stated the clarification is very important, suggested adding the\ninformation to the proposed language; amended her motion to include the language\nregarding calendar days.\nCommissioner Shabazz suggested an amendment of business days rather than calendar\ndays.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Little accepted the amendment.\nThe City Clerk stated that changing 10 calendar days to 10 business days would put the\nhearing past the next Council meeting, so a complaint could come in after final passage\nof an ordinance; she believes the 10 calendar days was intended to ensure there\nis\nopportunity between introduction and final passage.\nCommissioner Little withdrew her last motion and moved approval of her original motion\nto add Items A through F to the Sunshine Ordinance, and clarify in Items A and B that it\nis calendar days.\nCommissioner Shabazz seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz:\nAbstain. Ayes: 4; Abstentions: 1.\nCommissioner Shabazz moved approval of substituting the word \"chance\" in Item C to\nthe word \"opportunity.'\nChair Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 5\nChair Schwartz moved approval of adopting the recommendation on Item G.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Shabazz inquired what significant prejudice means, to\nwhich Chair Schwartz responded it is open to interpretation; stated there is a concept of\nprejudice that the City Attorney included in the supplemental memo regarding the statute\nof limitations; typically prejudice can be thought of as some right being sacrificed.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated he does not want to speak for the drafter, but his\nthought is that the prejudice is an impact of 'harm' to the City.\nChair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney, stated that is how he reads\n\"significant prejudice\" as well.\nIn response to Chair Schwartz' inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated that he\nunderstands the clarification, but was also wondering how the phrase will be interpreted\na year from now.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 5.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 8, "text": "Chair Schwartz moved approval of not recommending the Chair request the Council to\nretain independent legal counsel as it over-reaches the Commission's authority.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff understood that the process tonight would\nbe collaboration with the Commission and draft a proper analysis to be brought back to\nthe Commission which reflects the direction given.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 5\nChair Schwartz moved approval of Mr. Foreman's recommendation for Section 2-93.8-C.\nCommissioner Shabazz seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 5\nChair Schwartz moved approval of accepting the Foreman proposal of striking the\nmonetary penalty.\nCommissioner Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 5\nThe Assistant City Attorney clarified Section C regarding the Council accepting OGC\nrecommendations actually applies to Section 2-91, not 2-92; both sections involve a cure\nand correct, he just wants to make sure that was the motion and that staff has proper\ndirection.\nChair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney, stated the motion was\napplicable to Section 2-91 regarding public access of meetings.\nCommissioner Little inquired whether there should be any conversation regarding Item D\nunder the penalties section; she reads that section as someone bringing forward an issue\nsimply to disrupt the process.\nChair Schwartz responded that Item D is not a redlined item and there are no changes to\nthe section.\n3-C. Set the First Monday of Each Month, Excluding September, as Established Meeting\nDates\nChair Schwartz moved approval of accepting the proposal on meeting dates.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 9, "text": "Under discussion, Commissioner Shabazz stated one of the reasons he was on the OGC\nwas because there were not as many meetings as the other Boards and Commissions;\nhe organizes a program that also meets on first Mondays and may have potential\nconflicts.\nChair Schwartz stated it would be difficult for him to meet every month as well due to child\ncare and other responsibilities; he agrees with Commissioner Shabazz wholeheartedly\nregarding the monthly meetings, but also understands holding a set date on the calendar\nso no one has to be chased around.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 5.\n3-D. Report to the Commission concerning Public Record Act (PRA) Requests that are\nReferred to the City Attorney's Office.\nChair Schwartz stated he read the report and appreciates the efforts of the City Attorney\nand City Clerk's office in drafting the report; it is very helpful for transparency to have the\ndata; he appreciates Commissioner Shabazz in moving this forward; he appreciates that\nthe City made the information on the Mali Watkins arrest available immediately on the\nCity website; it fosters public debate and discussion at a time when it is important for the\npublic to be able to have the discussion.\nCommissioner Shabazz moved approval of accepting the report.\nCommissioner Pauling seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Shabazz stated that he appreciates how the report\nlayout; suggested adding a number to the PRAs which includes the year, so it is easier\nto track how many are occurring in a calendar year.\nIn response to Chair Schwartz' inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated adding a\nnumber can be done, because the PRA's are referrals to the City Attorney's office from\nvarious departments, the City Attorney's office will assign a number to them as they are\nreceived.\nIn response to Commissioner Shabazz inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Sunshine\nOrdinance includes each department having a designated person to handle PRAs and\nalso allows anyone to make their request to any employee of the City or any Department;\nthe Sunshine Ordinance tried to be very broad and inclusive so as not to funnel people to\njust one spot; staff has honored the spirit of that and does not limit any requests; she is\nworking with the Public Information Officer on a web portal whereby people can submit\nrequests electronically.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Shabazz stated he would like to ensure that the PRA report be included in\nall the annual Sunshine Ordinance reports that go before the Council.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated his office is handing it administratively and will\nwork with the City Clerk's office to make sure the PRA report is provided to the Council\nalong with the other requirements under the Sunshine Ordinance.\nOn the call for the questions, the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 5\n3-E. Discuss Organizing a Forum or Method of Communication to Inform the Alameda\nCommunity about the Public Records Act (Commissioner Shabazz)\nCommissioner Shabazz made brief comments regarding the referral.\nIn response to Commissioner Tilos's inquiry regarding the steps required to make this\nhappen, Commissioner Shabazz stated he would also like to know if a vote on the process\nis necessary to move the issue forward; he likes the idea of having something that anyone\non the Commission, or staff, can present; he would also like to identify a time when the\nforum can happen.\nChair Schwartz inquired whether the idea of having a subcommittee could be considered,\nto which Commissioner Shabazz responded it just depends on which method would be\nthe most effective; the intention is to ensure people are aware of the Public Records Act\nand how they can use it in the context of City government; the method used to achieve\nthat would be to do a presentation to outline what it is and the process; he agrees with\nCommissioner Tilos's idea of creating a presentation that anyone can present so even\nafter his time on the Commission, the vision could be expanded and be done in a way\nthat is effective to reach the goal; his initial idea involved doing a live presentation, but\nunder the circumstances, a virtual presentation could work.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney office does Sunshine\nOrdinance training every three years; his office could put together something along the\nPRA that would be an outline; his office also provides AB 1234 training for elected officials\nand already have a set of slides regarding the PRA; it could be packaged up and have a\nforum in connection with the Commission, or whatever is appropriate, and have the public\ninvited to attend virtually; if that is something the Commission is interested in, it is\nreasonably simple to do.\nCommissioner Little stated that she understands there is training for staff and elected\nofficials on the PRA process; what she heard from Commissioner Shabazz is that he\nwould like the public to be able to understand the process; she does not think it is up to\nthe OGC to mandate that; it would be up to an agreement between Commissioner\nShabazz and the City; unless the Commission is adding it as a component to the training,\nshe completely supports Commissioner Shabazz moving forward to provide this very\nimportant public service.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 11, "text": "Commissioner Pauling concurs with Commissioner Little; stated that she believes a\npresentation by Commissioner Shabazz would be accessible and focused for the public;\nit is at the heart of what the Commission stands for, which is to protect the transparency\nof local government; partnering with the City could afford benefits such as free meeting\nspace; she fully supports Commissioner Shabazz moving forward.\nIn response to Chair Schwartz inquiry regarding next steps, Commissioner Shabazz\nstated he will continue working on his slides if there are no objections from the\nCommission; he will work with the City Attorney's office and with staff to move forward\nand hold a public forum.\nChair Schwartz stated it is apparent that there is full support from the OGC; he would also\nbe happy to support further action needed in the future.\nIn response to Commissioner Shabazz inquiry of anyone else wanting to be involved,\nCommissioner Little stated she would like to participate as well as introduce\nCommissioner Shabazz to another person who was instrumental in the PRA process with\nthe Police Department regarding a recent incident.\nChair Schwartz stated he would also like to be involved as time permits; it is a very\nimportant topic.\n3-F. Discuss Noticing Requirements for City Council Discussions of Proposed Charter\nAmendments (Chair Schwartz)\n3-G. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to\nArticle VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal\nCode, as Amended, Concerning Special Meetings, Including the Setting and Noticing of\nSuch Meetings\nChair Schwartz recommended Items 3-F and 3-G be heard together.\nStated he is concerned with the way Council uses special meeting; suggested special\nmeetings be permissible only if the topic being discussed cannot be reasonably put off to\nthe next regular agenda; also suggested when items run over during a meeting, they\nshould be put onto the next regular meeting agenda and not onto a special meeting the\nnext day; Council invoked the urgency ordinance illegitimately: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nStated the Commission is doing a great job; the special meeting ordinance is woefully\ninadequate and should be changed; special meetings are not held because of any\nurgency, they are held to dedicate a meeting to a specific subject; a special meeting\nneeds as much notice as a regular meeting; he tried to include the noticing issues in his\ndraft proposal: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office is looking for input from\nthe Commission for what it feels might be appropriate for the Council to consider.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 12, "text": "The City Clerk stated regular agendas are distributed 12 days in advance, but with current\nCOVID related issues, sometimes items that were not anticipated have has seven day\nnotice and a special agenda has been sent out to take place on the regular meeting night;\nthe seven-day noticing requirement prevails whether or not it falls on a regular meeting\nnight.\nChair Schwartz stated methods of dissemination of information need to be brought into\nthe present, especially during COVID; how the issue came about was a Charter\namendment item had less notice than an ordinary meeting; as a result, a lot of people\nwho may have wanted to speak on it did not learn about it and there was inadequate\nparticipation; the Commission should adopt new standard ways to disseminate\ninformation into the current day and current times; another point to consider is the Mayor's\ncomments that meetings go very late and public access is not increased when important\nissues are being discussed at ten in the evening, or midnight, or two the morning.\nCommissioner Little stated there needs to be a distinction between a special meeting that\nis dedicated to one topic, versus a special meeting that is urgent in nature; the distinction\nwould help to sift through and provide a little more guidance and flexibility with public\nnoticing.\nChair Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Little; stated making the distinction is a\ngreat point; he agrees with Mr. Foreman that special meetings and urgent meetings being\nlumped together is counterproductive.\nCommissioner Tilos inquired whether a special meeting, as used now, is anything that is\nnot a regular meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated there\nis a further distinction in the section that special meetings do not apply just to the City\nCouncil, it applies to any special meeting of all bodies; the only body that is different is\nthe City Council which requires a 12-day notice for regular meetings and seven-day notice\nfor any special meetings.\nCommissioner Pauling inquired whether a third category regarding closed sessions needs\nto be considered and whether whatever the Commission decides if it would apply to all\nBoards and Commissions or just the Council.\nIn response to Commissioner Pauling's inquiry, the City Clerk stated sometimes litigation\nmatters come in after the regular agenda has been published; the closed session\nmeetings are special meetings; items can be added to the closed session within the\nseven-day noticing requirement; it has been a practice that is helpful and useful in getting\nitems to the Council in closed session that are not known about 12 days in advance.\nChair Schwartz stated there is not anything within the realm of the OGC's authority or\npersuasion to say about closed sessions; the issue will probably have to be carved out of\nthe discussion about special meetings.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 13, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Schwartz; stated one of the concerns\nthe City Attorney's office would have is that the status quo of closed sessions remains in\nplace.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated it is interesting that the issues which brought this up in the\nfirst place were two very controversial items in Alameda, referring to the City Manager\nincident and Measure A; the Planning Board meeting regarding the same topic was\nnoticed a month out, so there was a lot of public participation and robust discussion;\nconsidering the constraints of closed sessions and also considering the challenges of\nparticipation now, some people do not have access to the meetings; the principle should\nbe what will allow people to participate, no matter what the meeting is labeled; what is the\nmaximum way for people to know about the meetings.\nChair Schwartz moved approval to recommend four parts: 1) expand communications as\nto all meeting types to include social and new media; 2) for special meetings, meaning\nthose meetings about discreet topics that require extensive discussion, that they are\nnoticed 12-days out; 3) emergency meetings continue to be on the seven-day timeframe;\nand 4) closed session items continue on the seven-day timeframe.\nCommissioner Little inquired whether there will ever be a circumstance where noticing\ncannot be within seven days for emergency items, to which the City Clerk responded\nwhen the first declaration of emergency was issued, the Brown Act exception of 24 to 48\nhour noticing was used when the issue was beyond the control of the City; maintaining\nthat policy would also be helpful and can be done under the emergency section.\nCommissioner Little suggested an amendment to the motion which would be that special\nmeeting notices would align with the regular meeting noticing timeframe for each\nparticular body.\nChair Schwartz stated he accepts the friendly amendment that there would be some\ncarve-out for a statutorily authorized 24 hour period for noticing for exigent circumstances;\nregarding the alignment of special meeting noticing to the regular meeting noticing\nrequirements, he feels a special meeting should require more notice than a regular\nmeeting and would like to apply the 12-day noticing for all special meetings.\nThe City Clerk clarified Chair Schwartz's motion that the 12-day noticing requirement\nshould apply to all Boards and Commissions, to which Chair Schwartz responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated if an OGC complaint fell outside of a regular\nmeeting date, there would be a 12-day requirement for noticing rather than a seven-day\nnotice, which is okay, but is an unintended consequence; if there has not been any\nproblems with the seven-day noticing for bodies other than the Council, the 12-day rule\nmay not be warranted for all special meetings for all bodies.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n13", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 14, "text": "Chair Schwartz stated it is a worthy consideration; he would suggest that, since the\nCommission is being asked for recommendations at this point, that he still recommends\nthe 12-day noticing rule for special meetings and that the Commission be advised if it is\nnot a good idea for any of the Commissions before there is a final resolution; the\nrecommendation could be to increase public access and public transparency, and special\nmeetings be held to the 12-day noticing requirement.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office would bring back draft\nlanguage that reflects comments and direction from the Commission.\nCommissioner Tilos stated there are accessibility issues and accessibility is lowered even\nmore during this pandemic; important and controversial issues, such as Charter\namendments, should not be noticed in special meetings during a pandemic when\nparticipation is low.\nCommissioner Little disagreed; stated business has to continue; there is no idea how long\nthe pandemic will last and City business cannot continue to be postponed; she would also\nargue that although the format of virtual meetings has been limiting to some people, it can\nalso afford greater accessibility to the public who might not otherwise be able to attend a\nmeeting and engage from home instead of in person; there are positives and negatives,\nbut what is critical is expending all efforts to communicate and make sure the public has\nevery opportunity to be aware of the various meetings and agendas that will be\nhappening.\nCommissioner Tilos stated he would like to add to Chair Schwartz's first recommendation\nregarding communication; he would like to implore technology be used, including text\nnotifications and allowing citizens to opt in to receive notification about specific meetings.\nCommissioner Little stated it would be an easy list since there are a number of Alamedans\nwho already receive text notifications from the City regarding COVID updates.\nChair Schwartz stated that he would like to move toward a vote if there is a second on\nthe four points, adding the text notifications to the first part.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 5\nIn response to Chair Schwartz inquiry, Commissioner Tilos stated that he does agree with\nCommissioner Little regarding the show must go on for day-to-day business; moved\napproval of the recommendation that Charter amendments or big issues should not be\naddressed during a pandemic.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney requested clarification that Commissioner Tilos's motion\ndoes not necessarily have to be a pandemic, but any type of declaration of local\nemergency.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n14", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 15, "text": "Commissioner Tilos stated any situation that would prevent people from showing up,\nincluding a shelter-in-place order.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether Commissioner Tilos would like\nsomething more specific than just a declaration of local emergency and a situation which\nwould involve a shelter-in-place, to which Commissioner Tilos responded he is not\nopposed to a declaration of local emergency in the broader context.\nThe City Clerk requested clarification that the Commission recommendation would be that\nthose items just not be on special meetings.\nCommissioner Tilos stated his recommendation would be that such items would not be\non any meeting agenda during local emergency situations.\nThe City Clerk noted the City Council has already taken action to move two ballot\nmeasures forward in July; she just wants the Commission to be clear that items are in\nprocess right now.\nThe motion failed due to a lack of second.\nCommission Communications\nCommissioner Shabazz stated with the recent arrest of Mali Watkins, there are some\nissues that overlap with the Commission; he probably has a slightly different perspective\nthan Chair Schwartz regarding the amount of transparency regarding the information,\nconsidering his attempts to get information from the Police Department; there is list of\ndemands for information from a group of young people which the OGC may be interested\nor able to address: 1) quarterly release of Police use of force; 2) independent oversight\nof Police review; and 3) the call for an audit of the Police budget; to what extent does the\nOGC want to make sure the people understand the City budget and the taxpayers\nfunding; he wanted to raise these issues and see if there is a place for the OGC to better\nunderstand and make recommendations around the matters.\nChair Schwartz stated he appreciates that there was no legal compulsion regarding the\nrelease of the information, it was voluntarily released for public access within two weeks;\nhe would be interested in police review, but does not think it would fall under the OGC.\nCommissioner Little stated the one piece the OGC could look at is the multiple times\npeople have requested body cam footage and the response from the APD was always\nthat the incident was under investigation and footage could not be released; the APD set\na precedent regarding releasing the Mali Watkins body cam footage even during an\ninvestigation, which the OGC should take note of, especially when constituents come\nforward to the OGC that their requests are not being addressed in a timely manner.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJune 24, 2020\n15", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-06-24", "page": 16, "text": "The City Clerk stated the next City Council meeting regarding the police topic is scheduled\non Monday, June 29, 2020 at 5:30 p.m.\nAdjournment\nCommissioner Little moved approval of adjourning the meeting.\nCommissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: No; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye.\nAyes: 4. Noes: 1.\nThe meeting was adjourned at 9:47 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\nJune 24, 2020\n16", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf"}