{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY\nFEBRUARY 2, 2021\n7:00 P.M.\nChair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz, and\nChair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via\nZoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\n[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie,\nAssistant City Attorney John Le; and City Clerk Lara Weisiger]\nOral Communications\nNone.\nRegular Agenda Items\n3-A. Minutes of the December 14, 2020 Meeting.\nChair Tilos stated that since only he and Commissioner Shabazz were present at the\nDecember meeting, one of the new Commissioners can be the third vote if they read the\nminutes.\nThe City Clerk concurred with Chair Tilos, stated that a new Commissioner could watch\nthe video and confirm the minutes are accurate.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she watched the meeting video and moved approval of\nthe minutes.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated she also watched the video and is comfortable voting on\nthe minutes.\nCommissioner Shabazz seconded the motion.\nChair Tilos made brief comments on the minutes regarding his method of running the\nmeetings; requested clarification about the Commission's recommendation to bring an\nitem [subcommittee enforcement proposal] before the Council, which did not happen.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated he interpreted the item as\nit was the intent of staff to bring the item back to the OGC for the opportunity to provide\ninput on the recommendations.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Tilos provided background to the new Commissioners; stated a decision was made\nby the Commission to forward an item to the City Council; staff deliberately did not forward\nthe item to allow the new Commissioners to be part of the conversation; expressed\nfrustration that it was not forwarded; inquired whether the City Attorney's office had any\ncomments.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the discussion may not be appropriate right now since this\nitem is the approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Chen stated the question is whether the minutes are accurate or not and\ncan be approved; the Commission can then proceed to item 3-C; the fact that an action\nwas not taken is not part of the minutes per se; the minutes are just conveying what the\nCommission recorded as to what happened at the last meeting.\nChair Tilos stated that he wanted to correct his statement recorded in the minutes\nregarding the OGC's objective to determine and fix anything broken in the Sunshine\nOrdinance; clarified that he meant to use the word \"violation\" instead of \"broken.\"\nVice Chair Shabazz suggested deferring the minutes and moving on to other business\nsince Chair Tilos has some concerns regarding his own statements in the minutes; stated\nthat he does not feel comfortable with changes being made to what was actually stated\nalthough he appreciates and understands the intention of communicating clearly.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated he would accept the\nminutes as is, but just wanted to make the clarifications.\nThe City Clerk stated Chair Tilos' clarifications are noted and will be reflected in the next\nset of minutes.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Abstain; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 4 - Abstentions: 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 2020.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the report is perfunctory and comes every year.\nVice Chair Shabazz inquired whether public comment should come before Commissioner\ndiscussion.\nThe City Clerk stated the typical flow is for the Commission to ask questions prior to public\ncomment, take public comments, and the Commission can move into discussion after\npublic comment.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner LoPilato stated references to 2019 should be changed to 2020; inquired\nwhether the PRA chart only shows requests that actually rise to the City Attorney's office,\nto which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the\nchart encompasses requests that went to the different departments; the City Attorney's\noffice reviews the requests to determine whether or not an exemption applies; the City\nAttorney's office has reviewed every request on the chart.\nThe City Clerk clarified requests that trickle up to the City Attorney's office require review;\nsimple PRAs handled by other departments are not included on the chart; each\ndepartment responds to many other requests that do not need review by the City\nAttorney's office.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated three out of four complaints were withdrawn; from his own\nexperience in filing a complaint, there was encouragement to withdraw his complaint;\ninquired whether there was any communication with the complainants to withdraw their\ncomplaints.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the process when a complaint is filed\ninvolves staff trying to work with the complainant to resolve the issue to get them\nsatisfaction without having to go before the OGC.\nVice Chair Shabazz inquired what a voluntary suspension is, to which the City Clerk\nresponded it was a request for records with an agreement to do some follow-up; stated\nthe request was suspended until the follow-up was completed, rather than withdrawn.\nThe Assistant City Attorney concurred; stated the request involved records, which the\ncomplainant decided to voluntary suspend until further notice.\nVice Chair Shabazz inquired what the status of the suspended request is now and\nwhether there was further communication from the complainant.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded his understanding is that the Attorney assigned to\nthe request reached out to the complainant and has not heard back.\nStated the two reports do not provide the information they purport to provide; encouraged\nalleged violations be listed; he thinks it is inappropriate for the City Attorney's office to\nencourage withdrawals of complaints; all complaints should be heard to allow the\nCommission to observe and respond to patterns: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk responded information provided is\nelectronically produced.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether there is a reason why other PRAs are not included\nin the report.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 4, "text": "The City Clerk responded the Commission provided input into the format of the report and\nselected the PRAs that rose to the top in terms of importance; each department has their\nown PRA log; the requests received by her office and other departments are\nstraightforward and simple; the ones brought to the City Attorney's office are more\ncomplex; therefore, the Commission specifically requested a list of those PRAs.\nCommissioner Chen inquired whether there is a satisfaction survey done after complaints\nare resolved, to which the City Clerk responded there was a formal survey process years\nago but it has not been carried forward in the budget; she receives informal follow-up from\nrequests that are satisfactorily completed.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated reviewing the PRA logs and seeing who the frequent\nrequestors are has taught him a lot about Alameda politics; he reached out to a few of\nthe requestors and wanted to share some feedback; one of the glowing reviews from a\nrequestor was: \"if the City continues to hire people like those currently on staff, I remain\nconfident that those of us in the general public who seek information will be able to get\nit;\" he is concerned that the report focuses on the requests that specifically went to the\nCity Attorney's office; he does not recall it was the initial intent; the Sunshine Ordinance\ndesignates the City Clerk as the primary custodian and the City Attorney's office is\ndesignated for the Police Department; based on his own experience and after reading the\nreport, there have been a number of requests that may not have come forward that may\nhave been beneficial to have recorded in the report; he does not know how challenging it\nwould be to compile the data; in order to be able to understand whether or not the\ncommunity is being fully served by departments outside of the City Clerk and City\nAttorney's offices, it would be helpful to know how many PRAs are actually coming\nforward; adding another column, which shows which departments the PRAs originated\nfrom, would be valuable information.\nThe City Clerk stated most of the requests, which are forwarded to the City Attorney's\noffice, originate from her department; any requests that ask for emails must be reviewed\nby the City Attorney's office and are automatically forwarded; the City Clerk's office is\nworking with the City Manager's office to implement a portal for record requests to be\ndone through the City's website, which should simplify the tracking process as well.\nCommissioner LoPilato suggested more appropriate language to replace \"voluntarily\nsuspended\" might be \"abandoned by complainant;\" thanked Vice Chair Shabazz and\nformer Commissioner Little for all their contributions and efforts on the PRA report;\ninquired whether there is an analytical framework for assessing PRAs; mentioned the\nimportance of metrics to be able to track whether issues are moving in the right direction\nand if there is a failure rate; she would like to see a column, which identifies what is\nhappening earlier in the pipeline; there should be a way to gauge whether departments\nare repeatedly overlooking requests; it would be helpful if a broader set of data could be\nbuilt into the portal; it is important to implement the Sunshine Ordinance appropriately;\ninquired whether requestors are advised of the complaint procedure if they are not\nsatisfied with the resolution of their request.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 5, "text": "The City Clerk responded the complaint procedure would be included somewhere in the\nportal.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated she would like to find a way to use the reports to shine a\nlight on whether departments might be over zealous in rejections of PRAs or not as\nresponsive as the Commission would like; she would like to hear if there are any other\nmotions on whether the reports can be accepted as is or if changes are needed.\nChair Tilos stated the reports have come a long way, but more information can be added;\nthe portal idea is good; perhaps the issue can be agendized for a future meeting and the\nCommission can receive an update on the portal; he is leaning toward accepting the\nreports as is but would like to hear from other Commissioners.\nCommissioner Reid stated whether or not a full report of all the PRAs including the\ncolumns is produced, the data feels incomplete; she is glad the City will plan to adopt\na\nnew method to capture the data more seamlessly.\nVice Chair Shabazz concurred with Commissioner Reid; stated that he would like to see\nadditional information on context regarding the specific complaints; there seems to be an\nomission and he is curious about the \"voluntary suspended\" case; he is leaning towards\nnot accepting the report, requesting additional information and then moving it forward; it\ncould be accepted with the understanding that going forward specific information will be\nadded; he is skeptical about a tentative approval; if it is not burdensome, he would like to\nrequest an additional column showing where PRAs originated and data where there are\nblanks; he does not want to create more work for staff, but the report paints an incomplete\npicture as is.\nChair Tilos reiterated the Commissioner's comments and inquired whether two separate\npieces could be voted on, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated because the \"voluntary suspended\" language is\nambiguous, she is leaning more towards getting more information and the Commission\nwould be able to give concrete and specific direction as to what that would look like; she\nwould also like to know if there are any deadlines to avoid putting the City Attorney's office\nin a non-compliant position.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he is able to provide more context regarding the\n\"voluntary suspended\" complaint; the Attorney assigned to the case reached out to the\nrequestor and the requestor asked for additional information; the Attorney and requestor\nwere going to work out an agreement in terms of policy for the particular category of\nrecords; the Attorney asked if the requestor would voluntarily suspend the complaint in\nthe interim until the issue is resolved; the City Attorney's office did consider using the term\n\"abandoned;\" the Attorney reached back out to the requestor and did not hear anything\nfurther; changes can be made to reflect the information he just conveyed; he is willing to\ndive deeper if the Commission makes the request.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Tilos suggested approving the report as is, with a motion for the voluntary\nsuspended complaint be agendized for the next meeting to check the status with the City\nAttorney office.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated a complaint dated May 12, 2020 was for APD Arrest\nInformation; Request 20-40 dated April 15, 2020 was for APD Arrest Information; inquired\nwhether the request was the PRA that lead to the \"voluntary suspended\" complaint, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of deferring the approval of the report to the next\nmeeting in order to have the City Attorney provide information about the specific instance\nand to provide any additional context regarding the withdrawn cases as consistent with\nprevious annual reports.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz re-stated his motion: to defer the\nacceptance of the annual report with the direction to the City Attorney's office to provide\nadditional context and factual information regarding the \"voluntary suspended\" case, and,\nas consistent with previous annual reports, provide any additional context about the\nwithdrawn complaints.\nCommissioner Chen seconded the motion.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated there is no specific deadline; the\nannual report has typically been presented at the Commission's first meeting of the year\nin February.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he really likes the table and does not want to mandate the\nformat, but asks that the information be accurate.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 5.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission can provide a\nspecific date to hear the matter; the first Monday of every month is now reserved in case\nthe Commission has business; this issue can be considered business and does not have\nto wait until the specific established date of February or October; any direction the\nCommission provides will be welcome.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the Commission could schedule the meeting around the\ntimeliness of the City Attorney's office.\nCommissioner Chen stated if there is a specific pattern of requests that are asked\nrepeatedly, the Commission should anticipate that there will be more questions about\nmore controversial items; items should be clustered together instead of listed by when\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 7, "text": "the requests came in; that transparency and information should be available on the City's\nwebsite; it may be a bit more work for staff on the front end, but on the back end the\nreadily public has access to the information.\nChair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated he would prefer to receive the\nreport in a format that can be filtered rather than in a PDF.\nCommissioner Chen stated the report format is not an issue; that she would like to be\nmore transparent in the future ahead of the game; as an example, if there were 10\nrequests for information on the Wellness Center, she would like to see a paragraph stating\nthere were 10 questions relating to the same issue, which indicates the public's concern\nregarding the topic; the City should be transparent about the context, rather than just\nlisting the requests; she would like to see how the Commission could improve services\nby looking at all the different questions that keep popping up repeatedly; there should be\na way to foresee these things in the future and be more transparent up front.\nCommissioner Reid concurred with Commissioner Chen's points; stated Commissioner\nChen's concerns could be achieved through a filter and is doable.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there are some practical considerations regarding the\nsuggestions; the sorting of the spreadsheet sounds like a great idea, but meta data needs\nto be produced in order for that to happen; for each request, tags would need to be\ncreated that can be coded and then sortable; the task is achievable, but is comprehensive\nand at a considerable cost; another consideration is augmenting the report to include all\nrequests, not just ones that come through the City Attorney's office; to the extent that this\nwill impact how other departments handle and document requests, it is difficult for the City\nAttorney's office to commit the other departments; the comments and ideas are good, but\nhow to effectuate it is also important.\nThe City Clerk stated documents posted for the agenda are converted to PDF; there\nwould have to be a different distribution if the Commission would like Excel or another\nsortable format; there are definitely repeated requests, but sometimes even repeated\nrequests on the same topic are for separate pieces of information or different documents;\nthe system devised by the City Attorney's office is very specific to their office; her\ndepartment uses a simple tracking system; other departments use a similar tracking\nsystem; sometimes not every request is captured, especially, if it was a simple request\nwhich was completed immediately; the Clerk's office has compiled an online database of\ndocuments for requests that was built over time, which includes campaign filings, all of\nthe Council records and legislation.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he appreciates the explanation from the Assistant City\nAttorney and the City Clerk; he understands the challenges of the task and does not want\nto regulate the processes, but wants to encourage information to be available, get the\nmetrics, and have transparency without telling staff how to do their jobs; he is concerned\nthat the information is only the requests for the City Attorney's office; his request for the\n2013 through 2018 PRAs did not come from the City Attorney's office; the list is\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 8, "text": "incomplete; he is not sure how to address the issue and does not want to recommend\nsomething too laborious or highly intensive; he would like to recommend having\nsomething a little more comprehensive in the future so that it will be useful for the\nCommission in evaluating the annual report.\nThe City Clerk stated perhaps the reason Vice Chair Shabazz did not receive the\nresponse from the City Attorney's office is because they had not started the tracking\nprocess yet; the City Attorney's office started after the direction from the OGC; the\ndirection of incorporating all of the requests and adding the column seems to be what the\nCommission wants going forward; the Commission could also provide direction to have\nthis item come back; it may have been spottier in the past since the City Manager did not\nto pass on the request to department heads.\nCommissioner LoPilato suggested a streamlined way to get the information which may\nhelp to spot issues the Commission may want to address; stated that she is curious to\nhear some baseline stats: adding the column for the originating department, the number\nof requests received, number of requests fulfilled, and number of instances in which a\nrequest was denied without sign-off from the City Attorney's office; this would help identify\ninstances where people have not receives responses or the denial of a records request\ndid not surface to the City Attorney's office; a tiny amount of over-arching statistics that\ncan be obtained from each department would be helpful to see if there really is a problem;\nthose numbers could identify some gaps if there are any.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated it seems reasonable\nto add the extra columns which brings it more in line with Section 2-98.6 which established\nthe annual report; Vice Chair Shabazz mentioned the report is essentially a tally for\ncomparative and statistical purposes; perhaps a next step is to survey the departments\nand see what they are currently doing, check with staff and report back; it may give the\nCommission more ideas on how to track the data.\nChair Tilos stated he is leaning toward not making a motion on the item and referring it\nback to staff for the additional column and to survey the departments.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission could proceed\nwith the direction or formalize it in a motion.\nChair Tilos stated he would just like to provide direction to staff.\n3-C. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to\nArticle VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal\nCode, as Amended, to Replace \"Null and Void\" Remedy.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's\noffice did receive the Commission's input and the motion was clear; as was noted, the\nCommission composition changed, so it was best to hold it in order to be able to receive\ninput from all the new members before sending it to the Council; all of the input that has\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 9, "text": "been provided by the previous Commission remains intact and will be transmitted at the\nappropriate time once the process concludes; staff simply wanted to provide the new\nmembers an opportunity to weigh in.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated what happened at the last\nmeeting is reflected in the minutes.\nStated since 60% of the Commission members are new, the report submitted to Council\nshould be the work product of the new commissioners; he is concerned that the City\nAttorney granted the City Council immunity from the OGC's oversight; urged the new\nCommission to stick to the original mandate of providing transparency: Jay Garfinkle,\nAlameda.\nStated the issue started in October of 2018; since that time, nothing has happened except\nthe Commission has tried to fight for its original enforcement power; the Commission has\nonly received delay and obstruction from the City Attorney's office; he disagrees with Mr.\nGarfinkle that the Commission should start over; the City Attorney's office has made it\nclear that there is no pathway for the Commission to have any more influence on\ndecisions; urged the Commission to work with the City Attorney's office on the John Knox\nWhite proposal if they want to move forward: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nChair Tilos stated he would like to propose making a motion to have staff bring to Council\nthe original resolution voted on by the previous Commission and see if there is a second;\nif there is no second, the new Commission could provide feedback and a different motion.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved to affirm the previous Commission's decision to forward the\nSubcommittee's recommendations to the City Council.\nChair Tilos seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Chair Shabazz stated he found it unusual that the item came back\nto the Commission without going to the Council; noted the Chair and Vice Chair was not\nbrought forward; stated that he does appreciate the intention of enabling the new\nCommissioners to participate in the discussion; the subcommittee's work was a great\nattempt to move forward and he is interested in what the Commissioners have to say; he\nhopes the item can be brought to Council.\nCommissioner Reid stated that since she is new on the Commission, she would\nappreciate the opportunity to do some research on the specific context; she encouraged\na commitment from the Commission to meet next month to collaborate and come up with\na resolution.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she did not expect the chance to be able to weigh in\non the item; since seeing it on the agenda, she has been knee-deep in the archives of\nthe Commission and has a pretty good understanding of the context; thanked everyone\nfor their work and efforts on the issue; she understands the frustration; there is a lot of\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 10, "text": "investment in the issue; the sequencing on how the work happened is actually a root of\nthe problem; it was not collaborative and became adversarial; she does not think the\nmethod was effective in reaching the end point hoped for by the Commission; she is\nconcerned and does not want the Commission to get so bogged down with retaining its\nenforcement authority or taking the reins back from the City Attorney's office and\npotentially squandering an opportunity to make a recommendation that is actually going\nto get adopted by the City Council; in the staff report, the City Attorney's office has stated\nthe super-majority requirement violates the Charter even though the subcommittee\nproposal did a great job in explaining why it does not; it is clear from the video and also\nreflected in the minutes that the City Attorney's office stated they would bring the issue to\nCouncil if they could find legal arguments for it; where it stands now, the City Attorney's\noffice found legal problems and wanted to bring it back to the Commission for\nconsideration; she is concerned that marching forward with what was done might result\nin the Commission losing the opportunity to actually provide feedback and craft a\nreplacement remedy which the Commission would like; she would like to discuss issues\nwith the City Attorney's office, as well as some problems she found in the subcommittee\nproposal; she thinks a lot can be done with the Knox White proposal.\nChair Tilos inquired whether the only reason the City Attorney's office did not present the\nproposal to the City Council was to give the new Commissioners the opportunity to\nprovide their input, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;\nstated what the City Attorney's office has said from the onset is that the City Attorney's\noffice is obligated to analyze any proposal the Commission puts forth for potential issues;\nthe City Attorney's office remains committed to conveying the Commission's proposal to\nthe Council subject to legal analysis of its viability.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the staff report outlines that the subcommittee's support\nfor the original position requiring the Council to act by super majority runs afoul of the\nCharter; read the proposal; stated that she also sees reference to special counsel; the\npacket itself is very confusing; she is hopeful that she did not invent that there are some\nconcerns regarding the super majority requirement.\nChair Tilos stated there were concerns in November and the subcommittee addressed\nthe issues in the December meeting.\nThe City Clerk provided context as to why there was no legal opinion on the proposal\nwhen it came forward from the subcommittee; clarified that the subcommittee provided\nthe proposal the day the packet was published, so the City Attorney's office had no time\nto do a legal review; now with the benefit of time, the City Attorney's office was able to\nweigh in.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she has spent 30 years going to City Council meetings\nin the County and beyond representing public health policies; as a professional advocate\nfor public health and watching numerous Council meetings, she strongly feels that all of\nthe actions were voluntary, in terms of Council trying to comply with the true intent of the\nBrown Act, which provides for transparency and people being notified in a timely manner;\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 11, "text": "her concern is if there is just going to be a legal fight deep in the weeds, she would just\nlike to get out the weed whacker and ask the question of how to make it so all the public\nboards and commissions follow the intent of the Brown Act, which is recognizing that it is\nthe people's government; it is the people's business they are conducting; when legislative\nbodies decide to make decisions without adequately noticing the public, there has to be\nsome recourse; she would like to move forward with a solution that works for everyone;\none where there is trust in Councilmembers and Commissioners to do their due diligence;\nshe feels trust was lost and would like to find a way to rebuild it.\nVice Chair Shabazz noted Roberts Rules of Order requires a motion and second prior to\nhaving a conversation, which was his intention in making the motion, not to subvert the\nnew Commissioners from providing input; acknowledged the research done by\nCommissioners LoPilato and Chen to go through and better understand the issue; he\nconcurs with Commissioner Chen's comments regarding rebuilding trust; inquired\nwhether if something else is found to be in violation of the Charter, will it be addressed;\nstated that he is interested in hearing from the Council whether or not the supermajority\nrequirement is legal; the Charter was recently cleaned up so he is surprised if this issue\nwas missed.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission does not have\nto strictly adhere to Roberts Rules of Order; the Council adopted using Roberts Rules of\nOrder, which was reviewed by the OGC, but the OGC did not specifically adopt adhering\nto it; according to the rules, it is correct to state the motion in the beginning to have a\ndiscussion, and substitute motions can also be made.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she would like to suggest taking the best parts of what\nwas offered up in December, parts that are streamlined and elegant from the Knox White\nproposal, and then adding in some other creative items to add some meat; the City\nAttorney's flagging of some issues tells her that City Council may have some issue with\nit as well; she would like to consider having an opportunity to ask other questions of the\nCity Attorney's office and bring the item back next month; maybe an alignment can be\nreached tonight on a modified proposal; she is concerned that the language in the\nsubcommittee proposal would make it impossible to make a complaint about a noticed\nagenda item because of the timing; she understands the proposal was pushed through\nwith a desire to be done with it, but there are still issues she would like to discuss; a\ncompromise could be coming up with a way to make votes very public; a way for the\npublic to see whether the City Council or other Boards or Commissions are running\nroughshod over the OGC's recommendations; she believes there may be other options\nthat may have sharper teeth without running into legal issues; she does not support\nmoving forward with the December proposal because she sees problems with it and it is\nnot as strong as what the Commission could potentially put forward with further thought.\nVice Chair Shabazz withdrew his motion.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry regarding timing, the Assistant City Attorney stated it\ndepends on what the Commission, as a whole, feels needs to be addressed prior to the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 12, "text": "meeting; he heard Commissioner LoPilato mention a menu of concerns and questions;\nonce there is a sense of what the Commission would like to address, staff will be able to\nassess whether coming back at the next meeting will be enough time.\nChair Tilos inquired whether the Commission would be able to have the follow up\ninformation for the four complaints by the March meeting, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative; stated it would definitely be feasible; he also heard\nthe Commission talk about getting input on potentially broadening the scope of the public\nrecords requests; inquired whether there should be two separate meetings to address\nboth agenda items; stated it would depend on the nature of the questions being asked,\nbut he would rather do it all in one meeting.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of identifying big-picture questions to pose to the\nCity Attorney's office in order to determine whether it is feasible to reconvene in March\nwith concrete language to talk about.\nCommissioner Chen seconded the motion.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated she is\namenable to any friendly amendments to her motion to continue discussing beyond\nquestions posed to the City Attorney's office.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated she is thinking of the questions that would help frame how\nto move forward include: 1) whether the City Attorney's office would be comfortable\nrecommending anything that contains a super majority requirement; 2) she is curious to\nhear a little bit about benchmarking of what other jurisdictions have done regarding a null\nand void remedy; and 3) have the City Attorney's office elaborate on the risks are of\ngetting it wrong; it would benefit the Commission and the public to be grounded in the\nunderstanding of why it is taking so long to get it right; she would also like the Commission\nto consider the idea of posting votes taken on OGC recommendations and whether there\nare legal concerns around it.\nChair Tilos inquired what the Commissioners' thoughts are on continuing the meetings\nbeyond a certain time or if Commissioners prefer hard stops.\nVice Chair Shabazz expressed support for never having all-nighters.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she prepared a presentation for the meeting.\nCommissioner Chen stated she suffers from Zoom fatigue; she does not mind meeting\nmore frequently than twice a year; suggests dividing the tasks so everyone is fresh; she\nwould like to punt to the next meeting.\nChair Tilos inquired whether the Commissioners would be agreeable to set a hard stop\nof 9:00 p.m. for the meetings.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 13, "text": "Commissioner Reid stated that she is okay with going as long as possible to address all\nthe agenda items; her presentation is brief and she would like to be able to present\nit\ntonight.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she wants to be respectful of the public attending the\nmeetings and knows how difficult it is to stay so late; the meeting should be conducted in\na\nway in which members of the public who have come to make comments get to make\ncomments; the Commission should be respectful of the public's time even if it means\ncutting off Commission discussion to move things forward.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the meetings can be more efficient and can be prioritized if\nthere is a work plan or objectives and not arbitrarily choosing items over others; the first\nquestion is what is the Commission's goal and what can be done to increase transparency\nand accountability.\nThe City Clerk stated she does not think the Commission should specifically decide how\nto conduct meetings tonight; perhaps an agenda item could be brought back to address\nimplementing rules.\nChair Tilos stated that he proposes to pause the discussion on 3-C to hear the next\nagenda item until 10:00 p.m.; then, the Commission can make a call to continue the\nmeeting or continue the item to the next meeting; inquired whether there is a consensus\non pausing 3-C to take the next item.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the next item is\na\nspecific communication from a Commissioner and is thus listed under Commission\nCommunications as an agenda item.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry about public comment, the City Clerk stated there are\n17 members of the public attending the meeting, but she does not know if they will be\nspeaking on the item until it is called.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry regarding pausing 3-C, Commissioner LoPilato stated\nthat in the interest of efficiency with respect to item 3-C, it might be beneficial to quickly\ndo a round robin of things to be prepared for the next meeting or perhaps create a\nsubcommittee or just collect the questions other Commissioners may want to offer the\nCity Attorney's office; she suggests closing the loop so there is something to come back\nnext time; then, move on to 4-A to hear from any members of the public.\nCommissioner Chen stated she would like to be more fresh when discussing the item;\nsuggested continuing the item to the next meeting to talk about it exclusively and have\nbetter, more thoughtful details to discuss; she would also like to allow Commissioner Reid\nto do her presentation.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated any additional information the City Attorney's office can\nprovide would be helpful and important to include, especially information missing between\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n13", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 14, "text": "2011 through 2019; urged working together to figure out what would be an effective\nreplacement for the null and void remedy; he would like whatever the solution is to\nencourage transparency and accessibility.\nCommissioner Chen there was an accountability that was completely removed and the\nCommission just wants to see what that accountability can look like.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired whether there is any desire to bifurcate the items\ndirected to staff; stated the issues related to the annual report can be at a subsequent\nmeeting; the null and void questions posed by Commissioner LoPilato and Vice Chair\nShabazz can be discussed at a next meeting.\nChair Tilos responded both subjects are pretty meaty and concurred with the Assistant\nCity Attorney; inquired whether two separate, dedicated meetings could be done.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative, stated since there is no\nrequirement on follow-up with respect to the annual report, the item can be on an April\nmeeting; the null and void remedy item can be the focus of the March meeting so no\nmomentum is lost; he suggests converting the questions that have been posed by\nCommissioner LoPilato and Vice Chair Shabazz in a motion to direct staff to come back\nwith a staff report to address the items; addressing Vice Chair Shabazz's comments, once\ninformation is laid out regarding other jurisdictions, it might provide the Commission with\nsome ideas about the universe of options out there.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he likes the suggestion of finding other jurisdictions and other\npossible options; he is willing to put some energy collaboratively towards drafting a flow\nchart; seeing it visually may assist with understanding the process at each step.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry regarding consensus on bifurcating the topics at two\nseparate meetings, Vice Chair Shabazz stated he is opposed to having the next meeting\nsolely on the null and void issue; there is currently an effort to do some police reform to\naddress racial equity and subcommittees have been going to some of the different\ncommissions; there are some things that may align with some of the issues of the OGC;\nit would be beneficial to provide a space to discuss the issue within the OGC context.\nChair Tilos inquired whether Vice Chair Shabazz is recommending that the topics should\nbe heard together in March or April.\nVice Chair Shabazz responded it goes back to his comments about making a work plan\nwith goals and priorities and how that would reflect the timing; he suggests meeting in\nMarch, April, and May to address all the issues, but prioritize the issues based on what\nreaches the goals of what the Commission is about; there is conversation to be had about\noversight, which very much aligns with some of the functions of the Commission; based\non the timeline and priorities, he suggests providing a forum in March for the Commission\nto learn about oversight issues, address the null and void issue in April, then address the\nannual report in May or June.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n14", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 15, "text": "Commissioner Reid stated she would be okay with discussing the null and void next\nmonth, having monthly meetings and discussing the other agenda items in April; for the\nrespect of the participants' time, she suggests moving forward to allow for public comment\nsince it is getting late.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the direction he\nheard was that the null and void issue would come back in March; and the annual report\nwould come back in April.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated what she is hearing is the Commission is interested in\nreceiving some amount of feedback from the City Attorney's office with respect to the null\nand void issue for the March meeting; there is general agreement that the annual report\nis less urgent and whether it comes back in April, May, or June would depend on what\nother time-sensitive issues may come up before then; she suggests adding an agenda\nitem for the March meeting to set a work plan.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated a motion is not required since\nstaff can follow up on the consensus direction given.\nVice Chair Shabazz had a point of clarification regarding whether Commission\nCommunications are agenda items or referrals.\nCommission Communication\n4-A. Discuss Possible Amendments to Sunshine Ordinance Sections 2-91. 1(d)(3), 2-\n91. 1(d)(4) and 2-91.1(d)(6) pertaining to Bodies (Commissioner Reid)\nCommissioner Reid made a PowerPoint presentation.\nVice Chair Shabazz inquired what the time limit is for speakers, to which Chair Tilos\nresponded three minutes.\nStated he is not seeking to invalidate or delay the work of the Police Reform or Jackson\nPark Renaming committees, they have done great volunteer work that should move on;\nthis is about respecting the rule of law; urged the Commission to seriously consider\nspecific amendments to the ordinance, so that citizens can understand, including\nrepealing Section 2-91.1 (d)(6) that exempts ad hoc committees from the category of a\npolicy body and Section 2-91.1 (d)(3) and (d)(4) to add the phrase \"formal action\" to both\nsubsections and provide additional language to clearly define the terms \"creation\" and\n\"formal action;\" the amendments will bring Alameda in line with the Brown Act and existing\ncase law: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nStated that he was disappointed not to find anything discussed regarding the Sunshine\nOrdinance amendments at the February 2019 City Council meeting and with the City\nAttorney office rationale regarding the formation of ad hoc committees at the December\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n15", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 16, "text": "2019 meeting; the term ad hoc committees is not defined and does not exist anywhere in\nthe Brown Act; the use of the term ad hoc has no relevance to the Brown Act; he suggests\nthe Commission put together a play book or set of instructions and guidelines for\nmembers of the public: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nStated that he is concerned about ad hoc committees being exempt from the Brown Act;\nit is clear that they cannot be legally exempt; provided an example as to where\ntransparency could help out with respect to the Police Reform committee; an online\nsurvey that has no scientific validity was put out by the committee; the survey results\ncannot be trusted; the public needs to be able to see and comment on groups operating\nofficially as part of the government and doing the work of the people; he was disappointed\nin a tweet by Vice Chair Shabazz that the ad hoc committee issue was racially motivated:\nMichael Divine, Alameda.\nStated that his main concern is the lack of transparency in much of the government\nactivities; he is thrilled that Commissioner Reid brought her proposal forward; the\nCommission should concentrate on making it work to improve transparency; urged the\nCommission to set up a working group comprised of members of the public and two\nmembers of the Commission to find ways to improve transparency and allow public\noversight access of all committees: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nStated the City Attorney has already confirmed that ad hoc committees are not subject to\nthe Brown Act; the formation of committees is different than the terminology the Brown\nAct covers; the formation of the Police Reform committee was done by staff and endorsed\nby the City Manager, it was not an action of a legislative body: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated it is clear that the creation of ad hoc committees seems like a major loophole and\nvery controversial: Amy Lee, Alameda.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the item is similar to the Council\nReferral process; because the Council directs the work plan of the Commission, the action\nthe Commission could possibly take is to seek Council direction on whether or not the\nCommission should take up the issue; the concept from the individual Commissioner is\nbeing presented and shared tonight; the Commission as a whole can decide whether or\nnot there is enough interest in the proposal to seek Council advice on whether to pursue\nany changes.\nChair Tilos inquired whether the next move is to ask Council if the Commission should\nmake a move on the issue, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe Council provides direction on whether or not to move forward on an issue brought\nforward by a Commission.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with the City Clerk; stated the City Council\nwill be the final body to determine a work plan, namely if the City Attorney's office will be\nasked to develop any analysis or staff report.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n16", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 17, "text": "Commissioner Reid inquired whether it is appropriate at this time to ask the Commission\nto put the item on their next agenda, to which the City Clerk responded the decision is if\nthere is a majority of the Commission who want to forward an inquiry to Council.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office role is to do whatever\nthe Council asks, similar to the discussion of the null and void.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he wants to address the mention of his tweet; read it verbatim;\nstated that he does not think his tweet was inaccurate; it is not entirely clear on the\nintention of the amendment or what the genesis truly is; inquired what could be the impact\nif some of the bodies are considered as meeting the requirements of the Brown Act;\nadditional questions include whether it increases transparency or creates opportunity for\npeople to be involved.\nChair Tilos stated it seems there is a lot of interest in the subject; asked if Commissioner\nLoPilato and Commissioner Chen want to pursue the matter further and seek direction\nfrom the Council.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the first step would be to check whether the Commission\nhas interest in seeking direction from the Council to address the item; she is concerned\nabout the topic and the way it is coming in; it could have an impact on chilling participation;\nshe disagrees with a comment that it is not hard to abide by the Brown Act; it is hard\nbecause commissions cannot organically communicate on the side or build trust and\nrelationships outside of public meetings; a lot of the topics discussed in the committees\nare more amenable to the way they have been structured; there are a lot of other issues\nthe Commission can be working on; she appreciates Commissioner Reid efforts on the\nissue, but she does not think it is a priority at this time.\nCommissioner Chen stated she thinks this is an issue for the City Council because it is\nlooking at an ordinance; she will be agnostic on the topic because she sits on the Police\nReform committee; it was one of the best committees she has been on and has a very\ndiverse group of people; there is a real benefit of having working, temporary groups\naround an issue where they can coalesce and give recommendations; as it applies to the\nBrown Act, the question becomes when does a group stray into Brown Act territory; it is\nnot within her bandwidth and should be something the Council should decide what to do\nwith.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated a Commissioner can make a\nmotion to either send it to the Council or not; the Commission can take a vote or just let\nthe matter die if no vote is taken.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether the issue has been raised to the City Council\nseparately, to which the City Clerk responded communication on the issue has done to\nthe Council and people have been publicly commenting about concerns; the Council is\nvery aware.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n17", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 18, "text": "Commissioner Reid moved approval of bringing the issue to the City Council for review.\nThe motion failed for a lack of second.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he appreciates the efforts put into the presentation and the\ntopic; he would have liked to see the same level of effort put into 3-C; he is concerned\nwith what seems to be a contradictory public statement.\nCommissioner Reid thanked the Commission for allowing her to make the presentation;\nstated the importance of making subcommittees transparent was the reason why she\nbrought the item forward; her intention has nothing to do with the content of the\ncommittees; her concern is the procedure; if the goal as public representatives is to create\na transparent government, she feels the Commission should hold that goal; while she\nappreciates that people are having conversations and meetings, why not adhere to the\nBrown Act and include members of the public to participate as well; full transparency at\nevery level should be encouraged; she researched item 3-C and does not appreciate Vice\nChair Shabazz's comment; she does have questions and would like to address the issue\nat the next meeting; she hopes that Commissioners fully respect each other on social\nmedia and work together and serve the public as they deserve.\nChair Tilos summarized the next steps to be taken at the next meetings; discussed the\nissue of timing for the meetings and expressed his desire to end the meetings by 10:00\np.m.; stated that he would like input on how to frame the next meetings.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he would appreciate having adequate time; he is conscious\nthat folks have already indicated having Zoom fatigue; explained why he made the\nreference regarding Commissioner Reid not doing research, which is what she already\nstated; commended her work on her presentation; stated that he would like the\nCommission to consider an invitation to the Police Reform and Racial Equity\nsubcommittee for the next meeting; the question about Police oversight has come up\nbefore and providing another opportunity for the public to learn about the\nrecommendations is important; the null and void topic and the annual report, could go a\nlittle further out; his goals on being on the Commission include: increase government\ntransparency, increase public knowledge of government, and advocate for equity and\ninclusion within open government; his actions are motivated by these goals and if he is\ncontradicting himself, let him know; he hopes the Commission could bring the steering\ncommittee item forward for March; he does look forward to offline conversation regarding\n[Paul Foreman's] contradictory comments to bridge and grow a deeper understanding of\nthe intentions and potential impacts on other members of the community.\nCommissioner Chen thanked Commissioner Reid for taking the initiative to bring up an\nissue she thought was important; she wants to acknowledge how important the issue is;\nthe new Commissioners are off to a rousing start; she would like to see a work plan; the\nmembers of the Commission are thinking about how to enhance open government in the\nCity, not just waiting around for complaints; members will not always agree on personal\nvisions within the group, but she thinks it is very healthy; she was unaware of Alameda's\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021\n18", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-02-01", "page": 19, "text": "Sunshine Ordinance until someone told her about the OGC; it is important to get people\nmore involved and more engaged; it would be fantastic to be open government\nambassadors to everyone; there may not be agreement on every opinion that comes up,\nbut that is what makes a democracy.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she concurs with Commissioner Chen's comments;\ngetting information out to the community is a core reason that she is interested in serving\non the Commission; thanked the City Attorney's office for being patient in doing all the\nhomework assignments; stated a work plan should include all the things the Commission\nwants to get done; she is excited about putting together any training opportunities; she\nloves training volunteers on advocating in a legislative space; giving people information\nin a way they can digest and use to be more engaged in the government is really\nworthwhile for the Commission; the Commission should create opportunities for public\neducation and training; establishing a cadence for when certain topics come up in\nmeetings is something the Commission should explore; thanked all the Commissioners\nfor a robust discussion.\nAdjournment\nChair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 10:47 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\nFebruary 2, 2021\n19", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf"}