{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY MARCH 1, 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;\nCity Clerk Lara Weisiger; Transportation Planner Lisa Foster; and\nSpecial Counsel James Harrison, Olson Remcho]\nOral Communications\nNone.\nRegular Agenda Items\n3-A. Minutes of the February 1, 2021 Meeting\nCommissioner Reid stated noted there is missing information which should be added into\nthe minutes.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated he sent an email to the City Clerk with clarifications to the\nminutes regarding: a suggestion from Mr. Garfinkle regarding information in the Annual\nReport, the selection of the Chair and Vice Chair, his statement about never having all-\nnighters, Commissioner Communications and a point of order.\nCommissioner Reid stated she would like public comments to be preceded with a \"Public\nComment\" heading to make it clear, to which the City Clerk stated the heading can be\nadded to the minute format.\nIn response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding Commissioner Shabazz's\ncorrespondence being in the minutes, the City Clerk stated the correspondence would\nnot be included in the minutes because it is already attached to the item as part of the\nrecord.\nCommissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes with the clarifications.\nCommissioner LoPilato seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 5.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 2, "text": "3-B. Recommendation to Provide Feedback on Draft Recommendations from the\nCommunity-Led Committee on Police Reform & Racial Justice\nCommissioner Chen recused herself and left the meeting.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Chen made the decision to recuse\nherself after being advised by the City Attorney's office due to a common law conflict of\ninterest; further clarified that due to the virtual method of the meeting, members who\nrecuse themselves are not participating and are not \"in the room.\"\nThe City Clerk confirmed she is able to move recused members into a waiting room where\nthey are unable to hear or participate in the meeting discussion.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated at a previous meeting, there was concern about ad hoc\ncommittees; he is concerned that tonight's discussion might later be claimed to be in\nviolation; he wants to make sure things are being done in order and requested input from\nstaff on the matter.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the only item agendized is the Subcommittee\npresentation; the Commission should not go beyond said scope; the item is a presentation\nfrom Subcommittee members and not a meeting of the Subcommittee.\nChair Tilos clarified that the presentation requires no action and is being presented as an\nopportunity for Commissioners to provide feedback.\nSteering Committee Members in attendance: Al Mance, Christine Chilcott, and Jolene\nWright\nSubcommittee Members in attendance: Amy Gong Liu, Andrea Carlise, Ayse Sercan,\nBassy Obot, Beth Kenny, Debra Mendoza, Erin Fraser, Gavin Maxwell, Heather Reed,\nJennifer Rakowski, Jono Soglin, Madlen Saddik, Melodye Montgomery, and Venecio\n\"Vinnie\" Camarillo.\nChristine Chilcott gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nChair Tilos thanked the Steering and Subcommittee members for the presentation and\nfor attending the meeting.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated Commissioner\nquestions should be done prior to public comment; then, Commissioner discussion is after\npublic comment.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated that he wants to express solidarity with Mali Watkins,\nGeorge Floyd, Breonna Taylor and many others that catalyzed getting to this moment; he\nappreciates everyone who put in the work and staff for getting the word out about tonight's\nmeeting and engaging people.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Chilcott stated Commissioner Shabazz's list of questions was forwarded and received\nby the Steering and Subcommittee members prior to the meeting; if the answers cannot\nbe provided tonight, the information will be provided to him at a later date.\nCommissioner Shabazz inquired how many people responded to the survey from the\nmailer and what were the demographics.\nThe Transportation Planner responded 1,485 surveys were received; 70% of respondents\nown their home, 30% are renters; 43% are white; below 20% preferred not to answer;\n10% are Asian, and everything else was below 10%; neighborhoods were dispersed\nregarding race and ethnicity; household income is: 5% under $40,000, 13% $40,000 to\n$80,000, 17% $75,000 to $100,000, and the remaining have higher income.\nMs. Chilcott stated the survey was not just for Alameda residents; anyone who visits\nAlameda to visit friends or family, to work, or anyone who touches Alameda were\nencouraged to take the survey as well.\nJolene Wright discussed the Block-by-Block Program; stated it was a program that ran in\nNovember and December of 2020 which had non-sworn officers or \"Ambassadors\" walk\nthe blocks on Park and Webster Streets doing outreach in support of homeless members\nand businesses.\nMs. Chilcott stated the group referred homeless members to services and was a way to\ntake something out of the Police Department's purview and give it to a different group,\nwho can support the efforts.\nMs. Wright recommended Commissioner Shabazz to reach out to the apdreforms email\nfor more information on the input received.\nChair Tilos stated regarding the slide about defunding the Police, some of the current\nPolice tasks go beyond racial reform; there are other ways to reallocate funds and have\ncost-savings; the Police are some of the most highly compensated employees of the City;\nsuggested that the burden be taken off the Police Department by having employees, other\nthan Police, monitor the tube closures and similar instances.\nMs. Chilcott concurred with Chair Tilos; stated the Committee looked into Alameda Police\nDepartment (APD) calls; the research shows a lot of the calls did not have a racial\ncomponent; there were calls unrelated to Police work, which the Committee is reviewing.\nCommissioner Reid thanked everyone for their work and for presenting to the public;\nstated that she read the draft recommendation and was impressed with everything the\nCommittees have done.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding Commissioner questions, Commissioner\nLoPilato stated she does not have a suggestion for the order of operations and deferred\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 4, "text": "to the other Commissioners.\nCommissioner Shabazz suggested Commissioner questions be asked within the five\nareas of the draft recommendation to keep them organized and on topic.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she likes that approach; she has a couple of bigger-\npicture questions; inquired whether it would be appropriate for her to lead with her over-\narching questions before jumping into the different Subcommittees, to which Chair Tilos\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired if the Committee could speak about the involvement and\nefforts of the young people in the community; stated interactions with Police and youth\ncan really be impactful; she would like to hear how the young folks in the community were\nengaged in the process.\nRaquel Williams responded that she is a high school senior and was on the Systemic and\nCommunity Racism Subcommittee; she was able to really be a part of the process and\nbeing a young person gave her a different perspective; she has had her fair share of racist\nencounters; she also has had standoffish and slightly scary encounters with the Police;\nshe was able to shed light on what she was feeling, especially how some language comes\noff to someone who is young and at the beginning of her professional life; it definitely was\na process of learning and educating simultaneously; she was able to be a resource for\nsome people and, at the same time, use others as a resource for herself; there is\nsomething different about a young person's encounter with the Police; it has been a\nlearning process as well as a ton of growth for her.\nMs. Wright stated from an overall perspective, it was important to engage the youth of\nAlameda; the Committee did send engagement opportunities to the School District for\noutreach in a newsletter; there were high hopes for every 12th grade government class in\nAlameda to take the survey as extra credit; representation is super important.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she wishes she was live and in person so she could\ngive everyone a standing ovation for the incredible report and presentation, which is a\nlabor of love for the City; she noticed the thoroughness of the report and the level of data\nand information received from the City in the process; inquired if anyone could speak to\ntheir experiences in doing getting data; stated that she does not know if there has been\na collective push, which resulted in many record requests, what the process was like, and\nwhether they encountered any obstacles or resistance; inquired whether anything in their\nexperience might shed light on how the Commission could help make the process\nsmoother for other individuals or groups in the future seeking data.\nAndrea Carlise responded the City was pretty responsive to the record requests, but that\nit took several requests, especially specific requests to the Police Department; the\nTransportation Planner and City staff were wonderful, but it felt like some of the initial\nrequests were put aside and it seemed as though they preferred not to respond directly\nto questions asked, so she had to re-frame them; ultimately, the Subcommittees got the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 5, "text": "information they wanted, on which their recommendations were based.\nErin Fraser stated that that he assembled many of the Subcommittee requests and the\nCity's responses; they set up a process to file information requests through a form, which\nwere prioritized in order to get a response; the Committee made many requests; his list\nhas 20 requests; the Committee also wanted to conduct substantive interviews with\nmembers of City staff, particularly members of APD; they were able to get a ton of\ninformation and City staff did their very best to provide the information as timely as\npossible.\nErin Gong Liu stated as the Committee's work is coming to a close, one of the major\nobstacles faced as a volunteer Committee and the deeper a person digs in this kind of\nwork, there is more substantive need to collect data; Commissioner Shabazz emailed the\nCommittee regarding the need for quality data, which the Committee has always echoed\nsince the beginning; they could browse through quantitative records that were made\npublic by the City and APD, but they would also like to code qualitative interactions and\nget stories and information from folks in the City who maybe did not complete the survey,\ndid not have time to provide numbers, or perhaps were not represented in the numbers\nthat are seen online; one of the ultimate recommendations is the work needs to continue\nwith the help of a full time Analyst and financial resources are needed to continue this\ntype of work; many Committee members have done so much with their time volunteering\nto be able to parse through the information to create reports and make it logistically clear\nto everyone; if the work were to continue, it would need more statistical arms.\nAyse Sercan stated she was on the Accountability and Oversight Subcommittee; the City\nsimply did not have a lot of the data the Committee was hoping to get as it is just not\ncollected; in reading through the data and doing analysis, they also came to the\nconclusion that there needs to be a Data Analyst who is deriving and analyzing what data\nis collected to figure out what is going on; something cannot be reformed if that it is not\nunderstood.\nIn response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry regarding points of comparison in\nresidential demographics, Debra Mendoza stated there is insider knowledge within the\nCommittee; when a traffic stop is conducted, Police are required to report the race of the\nindividual whether they were an adult or juvenile and the disposition of the traffic stop;\nbasically, there are nuances within the data that they are not getting; they do not have\nthe information, which is available; the information is being captured and just not made\navailable, which is the case for a lot of the data; they did the best they could with analyzing\nthe calls for service that were non-criminal in nature; they met with members of Police\nand Dispatch to try to understand the categories, but could only go so far.\nJono Soglin stated there is a real challenge correlating data; they could not correlate calls\nfor service with specific incidents; coding data to draw conclusions to establish and track\noutcomes is a deep dive; the quantitative information is there, it just takes a deep dive\nand someone to go in and correlate and track incidents along the different stages.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 6, "text": "Jennifer Rakowski stated that she was on the Oversight Committee; they did correlate\nthe data to population to understand what the relative risk is for a particular community in\nterms of being arrested or stopped; whatever race data the City collects is based on the\nOfficer's perception; there are limits to the data; in the coming years, there will be\nadditional requirements for race-based data for stops and arrests to analyze disparities\nin terms of treatment; encouraged the community to push for immediate transparency as\nopposed to waiting until the Police Department is required to provide it to the federal\ngovernment; not all of the data that needs to be collected is housed in the Police\nDepartment; it is looking at what complaints went to the Police and which ones went to\nother parts of the City about incidents with the Police; information is collected at the jail\nabout what restraints were used; said type of information is not retained at APD, but is\nretained elsewhere; the City encourages having index markers at outside of APD that\ninform what is happening in the City.\nCommissioner Shabazz thanked the Committee members for their responses, and even\nto questions he did not get to yet; stated there are different types of data: quantitative and\nqualitative; he is interested in qualitative data, including what happened when a person\nwas pulled over, how the Officer interacted, and how it is that measured, i.e., a body\ncamera, cell phone, or Ring doorbell device; there are a lot of ways data can be captured\nthese days; he would like to know the location of the data since it can be housed in\ndifferent places; the quality of collection is an issue as well; in 2017, the Alameda\nDemocratic Club held an event about policing, particularly about immigration, since\nTrump was coming into office; he spoke with the Police Chief at that time about the traffic\nstops and shared data he felt was disproportionate comparing the number of Black people\nwho lived in Alameda with the number of people who lived in Alameda; Black people were\nstopped more than their number; it was stated that 1) Alameda is next to Oakland and\nOakland being a proxy for Black people in some people's geographic imagination; and 2)\nit was not a good to compare how many people live in a place versus how many people\nare stopped; he is interested in what other points of comparison are being reviewed; he\nwould also like to know how if the current Police leadership acknowledges the traffic stop\ndisproportionality; the question is important for the incoming Police leadership.\nAlphonso Mance stated Commissioner Shabazz's questions are very important issues;\none of the Committee's recommendations is to have the Crime Analyst and software the\nPolice use make information gathering less subjective; there were certain things APD did\nnot keep; the City has not had a Crime Analyst in a while; he has the same concerns as\nCommissioner Shabazz with regard to where the information is kept and how reliable it\nis; he is hoping that having a Crime Analyst keep the information will be more reliable,\nespecially since the data would be input into software which asks specific questions;\nanother recommendation is additional reporting to the FBI, which has pretty strict\nrequirements and will also be more reliable; one of the more critical responses from the\nsurvey was that disproportionality does not necessarily indicate bias; one of the things he\nlikes to look at is the number of stops versus the number of citations given; how many\nwere just given a warning provides more information; if an Officer is stopping people and\njust letting them go, is the Officer just friendly to a certain group of people or because\nthere was not a basis for the stop; there are other figures that could be gathered and\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 7, "text": "analyzed; the FBI and Crime Analyst is key; when talking to the Interim Police Chief about\ngathering better statistics, he was the one who actually suggested adding a Crime Analyst\nand purchasing the related software; the Committee is hoping the new Chief will be in\nfavor of keeping statistics; one of the Steering Committee members will be participating\nin the new Police Chief interview, so the questions will be asked of the incoming\ncandidates.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether it would be possible for the public to review the\nresearch documents related to the draft recommendation.\nMr. Mance asked for clarification about which specific documents Commissioner Reid is\nreferring to as the Committee has put about 3,000 hours into looking at a lot of different\nsources; he personally did not keep a list of the sources, but is happy to share what some\nof them; he has been a lawyer for a while and a lot of his knowledge of California law is\nbased on his work; he can research issues pretty effectively; if there is interest, each\nCommittee could probably compile a list of sources used for the City to publish on the\nwebsite.\nCommissioner Reid stated that would be great; requested that the Committees indicate\nwhere they received the information to give the public an idea of how to be able to\nresearch information; transparency is helpful to the public.\nMr. Mance stated regarding the information specific to the APD, the Committee had three\nmeetings with APD leadership which were all announced on the City's website and other\nsocial media and were open to the public; the meetings are still up for viewing on the\nCity's website; the other information is available on Google Docs and all the requests for\ninformation are public.\nMr. Fraser stated every Subcommittee's requests to the City is posted on the City's\nwebsite with a link from the website; all the information is available to the public and is\norganized in a way to be efficient for City staff to be able to respond to requests; in the\nfinal recommendations, outside research is footnoted.\nIn response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Mr. Fraser stated any data the Committee\nrequested and received from the City is on the website.\nThe Transportation Planner stated the City sent 80 documents from various Departments,\nmostly APD; not all 80 documents have been posted online, but there is a list of the\nrequests.\nCommissioner Reid inquired how many years of data did was requested and researched,\nto which Mr. Fraser responded the Committee requested data from 2018 through 2020.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether the Subcommittee meetings were recorded and if\nthe public could go back and watch the meetings, to which Mr. Fraser responded in the\nnegative; stated none of the Unbundling Subcommittee meetings were recorded.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Reid inquired whether the Committee is recommending mental health\nprofessionals, in lieu of Police and Fire, or recommending additional training in the mental\nhealth area or both.\nMr. Soglin stated the Unbundling Subcommittee was not looking at training, but another\nCommittee recommended mental health training for Officers; the recommendation from\nthe Unbundling Subcommittee was that when there is call for mental health services, like\nthe CAHOOTS model, mental health professionals respond to the call; when needed,\nthey can call and bring in law enforcement; in the CAHOOTS system, the number of calls\nneeding law enforcement was tiny; law enforcement would always be available, but the\nidea is to have the professional with the training and skills respond to a mental health call;\nif the call is mental health, but also involves a crime or weapon, then law enforcement\nwould respond.\nMr. Fraser recommended Commissioner Reid review the CAHOOTS model from Eugene,\nOregon; stated there were roughly 24,000 CAHOOTS calls with only 0.6% requiring an\narmed Officer to support the CAHOOTS team.\nCommissioner Reid inquired, from an example given in the draft recommendation, who\nwould determine whether a person shoplifting from a pharmacy was acting out of dire\nnecessity and not profit-seeking.\nMr. Mance responded by giving an example of diversion programs most of the Police\nagencies use in the juvenile system; stated the Police agencies have developed policies\nfor determining whether it is appropriate to divert a youth; a similar system can be\nemployed; the Committee recommendations have not figured out the nuts and bolts yet;\nthe next stage is for the City to determine what works for Alameda and how to implement\nthe recommendations; there are situations where Police Officers make the determination;\nOfficers have a great deal of time and experience seeing these things in person; the City\ncan lay out standards and the Police Officers have limited discretion within the standards;\nthis is one model currently in place.\nCommissioner Reid stated the report indicated juvenile offenses declined in Alameda;\ninquired whether the numbers are just dropping or if juveniles are diverted elsewhere.\nMr. Mance responded that he could not answer definitively; stated juvenile filings across\nthe County are down by about 70% as juvenile crime is decreasing; there are a lot of\ndiversion programs; the vast majority of cases that do occur were filed prior to diversion\nprograms; his understanding is that the diversion programs are successful and youth who\nhave completed the program are not re-offending.\nCommissioner Reid suggested perhaps said level of detail and information could be\nadded to the draft recommendation.\nChair Tilos stated he would like the Commissioners to rotate questions three at a time to\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 9, "text": "progress through the meeting more efficiently and get to public comment.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated that he will transform his questions into comments; since\nhe already submitted his questions in advance of the meeting, he will prioritize his\nquestions and not ask all of them; he has two questions but will yield back his time for\nnow.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether the racial statistics could be classified to be\nconsistent with the census; i.e., should Hispanic be treated separately as an ethnicity\nrather than as race; and whether the Committee is recommending hiring a professional\nconsultant from the Police sector, the non-profit sector, or other.\nIn response to Commissioner Reid's second inquiry regarding hiring, Amy Gong Liu\nstated the Committee recognizes that the initial recommendations are drafts but did\neverything to make them as clear as possible; in the final set of recommendations, the\nCommittee will be taking and compiling all of the suggestions to produce the most clearest\nand logical path; with regard to the third party analysis, the recommendation came from\na meeting with Interim Police Chief and several APD Captains; the Interim Police Chief\nstated APD is interested in starting a partnership with an organization called COMPSTAT\nfor Justice and the Center for Policing Equity; due to the current situation, many Police\nDepartments were driven to reach out to third party organizations that offer consulting\nservices for free; they maintain a temporary and short working relationship with Police\nDepartments, produce documents for the Departments and the public; the Committee\nwants to encourage APD to continue this kind of relationship; the Center for Policing\nEquity are inundated with requests, but stated is working towards creating the possibility\nto partner with APD; the Committee will continue to check in with the APD about feasibility.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether community members or the Police would be on the\nBoard for internal accountability and oversight, to which Ms. Sercan responded the\nAccountability Board would be strictly a civilian board; stated there would be no sworn\nPolice Officers, Police Department or City employees; the idea is specifically for\ncommunity oversight because the Police already have Internal Affairs and their own\ninternal management structure.\nCommissioner Reid inquired how group affiliation would be determined for the General\nConduct Affirmative Code, social media likes or membership in a group; and whether the\nfive districts are based on census tracts.\nMr. Mance responded the APD informed the Committee that for policing purposes, the\nCity is broken up into five districts; the districts are a policing designation and he does not\nthink there is any significance outside of that.\nCommissioner Reid stated she would like the public to have clarification about the\ndistricts; stated she has a few more questions but does not want to take up all the time.\nChair Tilos stated Commissioner Reid could submit her questions via email.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Reid made her last questions: 1) whether the Police Chief or the City\nManager would implement the recommendations, 2) whether the authority to investigate\ncomplaints would require a Boardmember to take a Police oath; 3) whether the purpose\nof the Subcommittee is to conduct investigations, amplify complaints or both.\nMs. Rakowski responded some of the Committee's recommendations are intentionally\nnot fully fleshed out because it is the beginning of the process; issues are being identified\nthat staff and the City Attorney will need to make further recommendations on; ultimately,\nthe public would need to weigh in on a Charter commission; the Committee is flagging\nquestions and concerns that need to be addressed for a well-functioning, thoughtful, clear\nand transparent process; answers cannot be provided at this early stage in the process.\nCommissioner Reid stated her questions are concluded and she is happy to submit her\nremaining questions and comments for the Committee's review.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated he will make\ncomments, rather than ask questions; he would like to hear public comment.\nPublic Comment:\nInquired the purpose of tonight's presentation since all of the reports have been published\nand presented to the City Council and Planning Board; stated that he was hoping the\npresentation would be focused on how everything relates to the OGC: Jay Garfinkle,\nAlameda.\nStated Alameda Police should be allowed to hire who they need based on the current\nfiscal year budget; when staffing needs to be increased at a later time, it would be too late\nto select and train appropriate sworn and non-sworn people to meet the demand;\nAlameda has a lot of growing issues, including traffic, crime, and homelessness; it is going\nto be difficult to play catch-up when the hiring freeze is lifted: David Lee, Alameda.\nStated that she was speaking on behalf of her elderly Korean-America mother; she would\nlike to know how much outreach and research has gone into the experience of racism for\nAsian Americans, especially immigrants who were unable to take part in the survey due\nto the language barrier; there is a dramatic rise in hate crimes against Asians: Sang Shim,\nAlameda.\nStated that he experienced racism in Alameda; there needs to be a balance between the\nprotections and fairness in situations, like George Floyd and the dancing in the street\nincident; he would like to participate in more discussion; he wants Alameda to become\na\nbetter place to live and work: David Chu, Alameda\nStated one of the items in the Code of Conduct is that an Alameda Police Officer should\nnot be a member of an organization that is out of bounds; there are concerns about an\naffiliation between Police and the D.C. insurrectionists; the issue is defining membership\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 11, "text": "in those groups, what types of conduct would be expected and how it would be\ndocumented to ensure Officers know boundaries; the key question is what is the\nauthoritative power; encouraged the Commission to think about how to present the work\nstreams to the public and its impact on policing in Alameda : Matt Reid, Alameda.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she is impressed by the amount of volunteer work,\ncollaboration and thoughtfulness that has gone into all the reports; she is deeply humbled\nby the valuable volunteer service the Committees have given to the City; she appreciated\nthe level of attention given to both proposed policy changes and the implementation and\naccountability angles; everyone here cares about the access to information through the\nPublic Records Act; she is very interested in the idea of hiring a full time Crime Analyst,\nwhich would improve data collection and transparency, while still having someone in a\nprofessional capacity to be sure privacy issues are respected; she thought there were a\nlot of interesting recommendations regarding the Police Oversight Board; there can be\nsome rough roads at the intersection between board transparency and the privacy\ndoctrines around Police employee records; if the Oversight Board moves forward, she\nhopes there can be an ongoing dialogue with the OGC to collaboratively and proactively\nwork out kinks with respect to the Sunshine Ordinance; the focus on the Code of Conduct\nin the Policies and Practices Subcommittee report and the note about the social contract\nreason is spot on; she would like to ensure that compliance with the Code of Conduct is\nincluded in the accountability process as well as all the general performance\nassessments, evaluations for promotion, and other steps in the personnel life cycle;\nOfficers who exemplify excellent compliance should be positively recognized; she urges\nthe Subcommittees and staff to keep an eye on the rapidly developing State law, i.e.,\nAssembly Bill (AB) 1506 from last year creates independent investigations into certain\nPolice use of force; AB 998 deals a lot with a mobile mental health crisis team.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated that he has a lot of questions, but will try to keep his\ncomments succinct; he worked as a journalist and has written extensively about Police in\nOakland, Berkeley, BART, and even University of California Berkeley Police (UCBP); as\nan urban planner, he is very interested in policing as a form of social control; he has\nwritten about how civilian oversight is formed, including how Oakland's Police\nCommission was formed after the murder of Melvin Black; after Oscar Grant's murder,\nBART's hybrid model of an oversight board and auditor was formed; paraphrasing a\ncomment by Dave Chappelle, the reason why he is an expert in policing is because he is\na Black man in America; he had some early positive experiences with APD growing up in\nAlameda, but as he got older, his experiences were not as positive; he is grateful to not\nhave had negative Police contact for a long time; he comes to the question about open\ngovernment from a different position than other people who may have experienced\npolicing differently; discussed a 1992 incident which became known as the \"Mobile Digital\nTerminals\" (MDT) incident where Alameda Police Officers were sending messages to\neach other about wearing Black face, dressing up as members of the Ku Klux Klan and\ngoing out and shooting Black people; in response to the incident, there was the Mayor's\nreport on cultural diversity; he encourages folks to read the report because he already\nsees some parallels with some of the work the Committees have been doing; there are\nsome unfinished efforts; under criminalizing survival, he is concerned about what\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 12, "text": "happens when people see unhoused people in public and how APD may respond to a\ncall, how it is dealt with, and how it is coded; he made comments on the prosecutors\ndocket and is making it public so people can see what the focus is on; perhaps it may\ncome back to the OGC with some regularity and could be part of the annual report;\nexpressed concern about mental health of those who work in law enforcement, not just\nOfficers, but Dispatch, and other non-sworn positions; under policies and practices, last\nyear, the Police Chief announced a change in how calls would be prioritized, which\nreceived a lot of negative reactions; in general, he is concerned about Police Chief\npolicies and recommends review either by the City Manager or Council; he has observed\nunhoused people picked up and taken over the bridge so that they are no longer in\nAlameda; he is grateful that is no longer a practice; regarding fees, fine, and revenue, it\nwould be beneficial to look at the data to see if there is some form of reparation or amnesty\nfor people who have been targeted to a higher extent; he appreciates having all\ncommunity voices heard under the policies and practices Subcommittees; since people\nare impacted differently, it is important to recognize getting more people to participate\nthan just one segment of the community; expressed concern about retaliation; in 2015\nand 2018, he interviewed many people while in the process of working on a story; nearly\nthree dozen people he interviewed were Black people who asked to remain anonymous\nfor fear of retaliation; more recently a City Councilmember put Committee member's\nnames on a NextDoor thread regarding crime as if it was somehow related; he is\nconcerned about how people can participate publicly without potential threats to their well-\nbeing; in the next phase of this process, he would like to identify ways for people who\nhave been impacted by policing in Alameda to tell their stories without the potential of\nbeing harmed or invalidating their experience; regarding the social media protocol, there\nwas an incident in August 2017 involving a group of young people who had weapons\ndrawn on them at the Target store; a video was posted on the APD social media that one\nof the youths was suspected of stealing a car; after Commissioner Shabazz's first PRA\nrequest for related information was denied, he was able to get pertinent information with\nthe new State law AB 1421; after tracking down the case to the District Attorney, he found\nout the person was not even charged for the crime; incidents are posted publicly on social\nmedia in a society where a person is innocent until proven guilty; there is no retraction\nafter a mug shot is posted; this type of action re-affirms race crime association and re-\nenforces pre-existing stereotypes; urged the Committees to share their concerns, which\nperhaps could result in an audit; he hopes going forward that there could be a truth and\nreconciliation process to deal with some of the systemic racism; he is hoping the OGC\ncould be a place where there will not be challenges when trying to obtain data from the\nCity and some oversight conversation could return as the Committees consider models\nto put before the voters; he would like the community to build together so someone's\nsafety is not predicated on someone else being over-policed.\nChair Tilos thanked all the Committee members for the presentation, attending and\nanswering questions; praised their efforts and expertise.\nMs. Wright expressed appreciation to the City and staff for making the event possible.\nCommissioner Reid thanked Ms. Chilcott for her presentation and expressed appreciation\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 13, "text": "to all Committee members.\nCommissioner Shabazz raised a point of order proposing that, based on time and the\ntiming of receipt of Commissioner LoPilato's proposal for item 3-D, that Commissioner\nLoPilato's proposal regarding the null and void remedy could be addressed at a later date.\nCommissioner LoPilato said yes, stated that she anticipated that; stated the long-range\nsolution, while it can be packaged with Item 3-D's discussion regarding replacement of\nthe null and void remedy, was an addition to other topics being discussed, so she is okay\nwith re-agendizing it or handling it at a different meeting.\n***\nChair Tilos called a recess at 9:23 p.m. and reconvened at 9:26 p.m.\n***\n3-C. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed February 2, 2021\nCommissioner Shabazz recused himself since he was on the Jackson Park Renaoming\nCommittee and left the meeting.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney clarified that Commissioner Shabazz's recusal is based\non a common law conflict of interest.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she will also recuse herself based on the common law\nconflict of interest and left the meeting.\nComplainant Paul Foreman gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the discussion structure, Chair\nTilos stated outside counsel will present next, followed by Commissioner questions and\npublic comment.\nJames Harrison, Olson Remcho, gave a brief presentation.\nMr. Foreman stated there are no issues that he needs to rebut.\nCommissioner LoPilato requested clarification on the delineation between Mr. Harrison's\nrole and the Chief Assistant City Attorney's role tonight.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that Mr. Harrison has been appointed as\nSpecial Counsel and is representing the interests of the City and the Alameda Recreation\nand Parks Department (ARPD); her role, as it would be in all meetings, is an advisory role\nin a legal capacity when questions come up from the OGC; she is not here in an advocacy\nrole this evening; the two advocates are Mr. Foreman, on behalf of himself, and Mr.\nHarrison, on behalf of the City.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired what are the long-range impacts of a Commission\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n13", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 14, "text": "decision if a complainant comes to the OGC and seeks a remedy beyond what they\nreceived, such that they proceed with a private right of action; further inquired whether a\nCommission decision would become evidence in that type of litigation; stated knowing\nwhat the record could be used for would be helpful before deliberating.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded after tonight's hearing, if either party is\ndispleased with the results and wants to pursue appeal remedies, that party would have\nthe right to file a private right of action as a private lawsuit; the record that is created\ntonight would all become part of the underlying record; a reviewing Court would look at\nall of the evidence put before the OGC to determine whether or not the evidence used\nmet the legal standard of the decision made by the OGC.\nIn response to Mr. Foreman's request to comment, the City Clerk stated the process that\nthe complainant gets to present their case; the only other time the complainant should\nspeak is if a Commissioner asks them a specific question.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether the OGC would be able to issue an oral tentative\ndecision tonight with the opportunity for further clarification for finalization of the written\ndecision; asked for clarification about the draft decision attached to the agenda.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the draft decision was generated and\nprepared by Mr. Harrison on behalf of the City in the capacity as an advocate for one side\nor the other; it was prepared by one side with the hopes that the Commission would reach\nthat decision, although not obligated to do so; the OGC can reach some aspects of the\ndecision if not the entire thing; to address the first question, pursuant to the Sunshine\nOrdinance, the OGC could reach an oral or written decision tonight; if an oral decision is\nmade, there is 30 days to capture it into a written decision; she advises that whatever oral\ndecision is reached, it needs to be complete; the OGC should not make a partial decision\ntonight and plan to add to it afterwards.\nThe City Clerk stated that the practice has been that every time the OGC made a decision,\nit was completed during the meeting; only one time was there direction for staff to come\nback with more information; the written decision could be executed after without violating\nthe Brown Act.\nCommissioner Chen inquired what is within the purview of the OGC and whether the\nARPD violated the Sunshine Ordinance when they established the subcommittee; since\nthe Ordinance was changed to exempt ad hoc committees, it seems like, according to the\nSunshine Ordinance at the time the ARPD decision was made, they were not de facto\nviolating the Sunshine Ordinance; although there is a gray area in her mind whether they\nviolated the Brown Act.\nChair Tilos stated Commissioner discussion will take place after clarifying questions and\npublic comment.\nCommissioner LoPilato thanked Mr. Foreman for being here and sharing the information\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n14", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 15, "text": "and materials he prepared; inquired in what ways, and when, has he shared his concerns\nwith City Council and staff and what was the response.\nMr. Foreman responded the reason he shared his concerns was because he very much\ndid not want to be here tonight; stated he wanted to get the issue resolved and thought it\nwas very clear; he thought he should bring it to the attention of the Council and also made\na\ncall and wrote a couple emails to the City Manager with copies to the City Attorney; he\nreceived no answer from Council and received a phone call back from the City Manager;\nthe City Manager was sympathetic; the letters he wrote to the City Manager were targeted\nto the City Attorney in the hopes the issue could be resolved; the response was zero; he\nwrote to the City Attorney again with questions regarding the issue and the response from\nthe City Attorney was that he will find out when he reads the report written by Special\nCounsel; he is here tonight because he received zero response from the City.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the case law, Mr. Foreman\nstated he did not find or research the cases he cited; the cases were researched by a\ngood friend of his who is a California attorney and Alameda resident; he did not ask if the\ncases were shepardized as he has done work for him before and he is fully competent;\nMr. Harrison would have brought that to their attention if it were the case.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether Mr. Foreman feels he has suffered some type\nof harm from the actions of the Renaming Committee or is it truly more just raising a\nquestion of legal interpretation.\nMr. Foreman responded that everyone has suffered harm; stated the harm is not caused\nby the Renaming Committee, they are hardworking people who did what they were asked\nto do; the harm is that the ad hoc exception has been exercised and it is clearly and\nunequivocally a violation of the Brown Act; he is afraid that next week, next month or next\nyear there will be a citizens committee for the budget or shutting-down-the-pools these\ncommittees violate the law; anytime a law which provides for public access is not abided,\nit harms the citizens and is a future harm; the committees and the Recreation and Parks\nDirector did good work; he is not retracting from their hard work and efforts one iota.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired what Mr. Harrison's position is on whether the complaint\nis timely under Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-93.2 A; stated it seems the challenged\naction is the formation of the Renaming Committee; the actions happened back in the\nsummer of 2020; she wonders if there is some type of relation back doctrine or continuing\nviolation doctrine that applies to complaints under the Sunshine Ordinance; she is not\naware of any case law; inquired whether the City is asserting a position regarding\ntimeliness.\nMr. Harrison responded that the City has not asserted as a defense that the complaint is\nuntimely, largely because Mr. Foreman framed his complaint through allegations that\nthere was a continuing violation because the Recreation and Park Commission (RPC),\nfollowed by the City Council, considered the recommendations of the Renaming\nCommittee, and therefore, furthered the violation via a fruits of the forbidden tree theory;\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n15", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 16, "text": "the City did not contest the timeliness of Mr. Foreman's complaint for that reason.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding when the creation of the\nCommittee occurred, Mr. Harrison stated what the RPC did, which was consistent with\nthe Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, was to designate a less than a quorum of\nits members to act as a temporary advisory body; if the RPC stopped there, Mr. Foreman\nwould not be here tonight; the RPC went further by directing the two-member ad hoc\ncommittee to work with the Recreation and Parks Director to facilitate public input; that\ninvolved the appointment of individuals to serve on the Renaming Committee, which is\nwhat led to the concern about that body having come into existence through some action\nof the Commission itself even though the Recreation and Parks Director appointed the\nmembers because the Commission had appointed two of its members to serve as an\nadvisory body to work with the Recreation and Parks Director; the merging of the two is\nwhere the issue arose.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Chair and Vice Chair of the RPC participated\nsubstantively in the actual preparation of the process, including application for\nmembership, outreach, interviews and appointments.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded that she met with the Chair and Vice Chair\ninitially to discuss where outreach could be done, but she was the one who led the\nprocess, received the applications, did the outreach, conducted the interviews and made\nthe appointments.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Recreation and Parks Director notified a\ngroup of Jackson Park neighbors via email about a July 9, 2020 RPC meeting including\ndiscussion of the park renaming.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative, stated there is an email\ngroup of neighbors of the park; whenever there is anything related to the park, she lets\nthe group know.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it was a very proactive method for ensuring accessibility\nand transparency at an important stage in the process.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated she also reached out to the Jackson Park\nneighbors group to see if they wanted to have representation on the committee as well.\nPublic Comment:\nAcknowledged the work of all the Commissions; stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney's\npredecessors took every opportunity to stifle any attempt to open City activities to the\npublic; thanked Mr. Foreman for raising the issue; stated that he does not agree with\nCommissioner Reid being excluded from the discussion; expressed concerned about the\nCommission deferring to the City Clerk for past practices: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n16", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 17, "text": "Stated that she is confused regarding what the ad hoc group exclusion means; it seems\nthere is a huge loophole which is not clearly defined: Imi Lee. Alameda.\nStated as part of the effort to keep the Committee accountable to the community, he filed\nPRAs, mobilized people to participate in surveys, and attended PRC and Council\nmeetings; ad hoc committees are not a new development; it was only after the Committee\npublished the top four names, which did not include specific name choices that complaints\nbegan; he theorizes that Mr. Foreman and Councilmember Herrera Spencer view the ad\nhoc committees as permitting a radical break from the status quo or that they correctly\nperceive the work of the committees as a challenge to Alameda's prevailing racial\nhierarchy: Josh Geyer, Rename Jackson Park Committee.\nReminded the Commission that they could propose to Council to authorize time for the\nCity Attorney's office to look more closely at the issue; a document from the City of Los\nAngeles on neighborhood council formation cited the Brown Act regarding an exempt\nsubcommittee \"must be comprised solely of members of the governing body;\" when\nmembers of the public are invited, the subcommittee then becomes subject to the Brown\nAct: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nStated that she lives near Chochenyo Park and felt very well-informed throughout the\nrenaming process; she received immediate responses to her inquiries from the\nRecreation and Parks Director and Rasheed Shabazz; it is hard to understand why there\nis an issue with this ad hoc committee, particularly because it was community-led and\ncentered on Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) voices; the renaming process\ndemonstrated how great work can get done through the ad hoc process: Meredith\nHoskins, Alameda.\nStated when the ad hoc committee was set up, there was a pause to really engage the\ncommunity; there was plenty of encouragement for people to submit names; the youth\ncame up with new technology methods to engage the community; it was clear what was\nbeing asked and how the public was being engaged: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nStated there seems to be nitpicking over specific words of the Brown Act and Sunshine\nOrdinance surrounding this Committee in particular; the timing and ongoing framing\nseems interesting; he completely agrees with the Special Counsel's assessment that if\nthere was any kind of issue, they were cured; urged the Commission to follow the Special\nCounsel's recommendation: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission to use the terms \"founded\" or\n\"unfounded\" when discussing the issue; stated that the decision on the item needs to be\napprove by a majority of all members, which is three.\nMr. Foreman stated he objects to the use of the word because it does not mean the same\nthing as whether the appeal is sustained or not; if his claim is unfounded and he files\na\nsecond claim that is unfounded, he would be precluded from filing claims for a number of\nyears.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n17", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 18, "text": "Chair Tilos and Commissioner LoPilato suggested talking in terms of \"sustained\" and\n\"unsustained.'\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that Mr. Foreman is correct; there is a provision\nin the Sunshine Ordinance that if a person files two complaints in a 12-month period that\nare \"unfounded,\" they would be prohibited from filing a complaint for five years; he is\nincorrect in that there is no definition of \"unfounded\" in the Sunshine Ordinance that would\ngive it a different definition than \"unsubstantiated\" or \"denied;\" there is a penalty for having\ntwo unfounded complaints, but there is no requirement that the OGC reaches some\nspecial finding to declare it unfounded.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of determining the complaint to be unfounded on\nthe basis that it is not a question properly before the Commission because it requires\nlegal analysis and requests a remedy beyond the scope of the Commission's authority\nfor resolving Sunshine Ordinance complaints and because it is untimely; even if the\ncomplaint was properly before the Commission and timely, there was substantial\ncompliance with the Brown Act and any alleged violation was cured by the multiple\nnoticed, properly agendized meetings.\nChair Tilos requested the motion be re-stated more concisely.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of finding the complaint unfounded primarily on\nprocedural grounds.\nCommissioner Chen seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Chair Tilos stated there is gray line between ad hoc and legislative\nbody; the ad hoc committee had one clearly defined mission and was reporting to the\nlegislative body; at the end of the day, it is the legislative body that has the final say; the\nad hoc committee does the research and helps out; the OGC formed an ad hoc committee\nto deal with the null and void issue and he sees the Renaming Committee as a similar\nsituation; the spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance is to bring more people into the discussion;\nclearly, there was already a renaming policy and ARPD or the RPC could have just\nrenamed the park without public input and it still would have been in the scope of their\npowers; they chose to create an ad hoc committee to make the process more open to the\ncommunity, which is the whole point of open government.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she submitted a page from the League of California Cities\nguidebook on the Brown Act, which lists \"what is not a legislative body;\" it is very useful;\nthere are two sections: 1) a temporary advisory committee composed solely of less than\na quorum, and 2) groups advisory to a single decision maker or appointed by staff; she\nconcurs with Mr. Harrison's statement that the RPC combined both groups to form a\ncommittee, which falls into a gray area; it will always be a gray area until the City actually\ndefines what is not a legislative body or what is not a policy body; the term \"ad hoc\ncommittee\" is not defined in the ordinance; it should be defined for clarity; there are valid\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n18", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 19, "text": "arguments on each side.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated Commissioner Chen's phrase \"outside the scope of the\nOGC\" is spot on; that is the primary place she lands on the issue; all the facts inform the\ndecision, but looking at the scope is very important; one of the significant things is there\nis nothing in the ordinance that gives the Commission power to re-write the ordinance or\nrecommend re-writing the ordinance in response to a Sunshine Ordinance complaint; this\nseems more like a request to avoid future harm rather than a complaint about an action\nthat was taken; the request has gone to staff and City Council where it belongs; she\nconcurs with Commissioner Chen that perhaps, in some separate capacity outside of the\ncomplaint, if there ever is a collaborative review of the ordinance, the OGC could be the\ninstitutional knowledge about the definition of ad hoc; as it is right now, there is an ad hoc\nexception in the ordinance, that is what the OGC is charged to review; she wants to be\ncareful not to overstep the authority granted to the Commission by delving into case law\nand legal analysis; it is not appropriate for the Commission to research case law,\nparticularly since at the outset, the Commission does not have access to the ability to do\ntheir own research; cautioned against having legal citations in any written decision; stated\nthe OGC is allowed to be the regulatory body of the Sunshine Ordinance; when looking\nat the ordinance, not just the academic question of whether it is in conflict with the Brown\nAct, there is the ad hoc exception; there is no dispute that this was an ad hoc committee;\nwhen the language in the Brown Act is looked at separately, the choice to find the\ncomplaint unfounded still holds up; she does not think the Commission even needs to get\nthere; she worries that engaging in discussion that involve interpreting case law or\ncomplaints that involve lengthy legal analysis would create a chilling effect on those willing\nto serve on the OGC; a person should not have to be an attorney to be on the\nCommission; the practical lived experience of having gone through the processes is very\nrelevant; she does not see a way to go forward under the Sunshine Ordinance with\nanything other than dismissing the claim as unfounded given the timeliness and scope\nissues and the lack of authority the OGC has to opining on inconsistencies with the Brown\nAct.\n***\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.\nChair Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3 - Absent: 2\n(Commissioners Reid and Shabazz).\nChair Tilos concurred with Commissioner LoPilato that a person should not have to be a\nlawyer to serve on the OGC.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the implication of nefarious or malicious intent by the\nvolunteers that are serving on the committees is very harmful to the community and the\nargument about openness has been weaponized; she wants to acknowledge and\nappreciate that Mr. Foreman has been very clear throughout all of this and does not seek\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n19", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 20, "text": "to undo the work of the Renaming Committee.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she really enjoyed reading the packet; she was\nimpressed about how much work the committee put into the renaming; it made three\ndimensional the whole discussion about inclusion and bringing back hidden history; she\nis ready to move forward with a vote.\nChair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated he appreciates all the hard work\nof the ARPD and RPC for including everyone in the community in the decisions; he is\nready to vote on the issue.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3. [Absent:\nCommissioners Reid and Shabazz].\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether the OGC is able to issue a decision that the\ncomplaint was found to be unfounded.\nChair Tilos stated they used the term \"sustained\" when issuing a decision on past\ncomplaints; deferred to the Chief Assistant City Attorney.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that based on her recollection of the motion, it\nwas slightly more involved; it is more appropriate and complete to have to vote match in\nthe written decision.\nThe City Clerk clarified that Commissioner LoPilato's initial motion included more detail,\nbut was then simplified to find the complaint unfounded primarily on procedural grounds.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated there was alignment in the deliberations that there was\ngood public engagement in the process; inquired whether there was also alignment on a\nfinding that there was substantial compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance; stated, if so,\nit should be part of the ultimate decision; another way to state it is that the issue was\ncured and corrected by the public meetings.\nChair Tilos stated he did not want to go that route to show that the Commission was\ntalking about the ad hoc committees and not the methods used to cure it; it seems\nredundant.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission to create the most complete\nrecord possible; stated if the consensus or unanimity of the voting Commissioners is that\nthe decision was based on three factors, all the factors should be in the final, written\ndecision; it should be reflective of all the reasons the decisions was made.\nChair Tilos stated that he would be in agreement to include all Commissioner LoPilato's\nreasons for reaching the decision.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n20", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 21, "text": "Commissioner Chen stated that she was going with Commissioner LoPilato's initial long\nlist as it puts in the public record why the OGC made the decision; under the Brown Act,\nthere is an assumption that government moves so quickly and is so intricate that there\nwill be violations of certain aspects, but if they turn around and correct the violations, they\ndo a self-cure and correct, the Brown Act has that kind of elasticity in it to allow that to\nhappen; even if it is found that the RPC violated the Brown Act, they already cured and\ncorrected it and there is no case.\nCommissioner LoPilato restated her original motion with the following basis: 1) the\ncomplaint was not properly before the Commission on a procedural level, 2) it requires\nlegal analysis outside the scope of the Commission's authority, 3) it requested a remedy\nbeyond the Commission's authority to resolve a Sunshine Ordinance complaint, and 4) if\nanalysis is limited to actions that occurred and whether they violated the Sunshine\nOrdinance, the complaint itself is untimely under Section 2-93.2a; separately, despite all\nthese factors, there are various indications in the record that the Sunshine Ordinance was\ncomplied with in full and any alleged violation was cured.\nChair Tilos and Commissioner Chen indicated their consensus with Commissioner\nLoPilato's comments.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated once the document is compiled,\nthe three voting members will sign it.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated a renewed motion should be made to make it\nabundantly clear that all Commissioners voted on that basis.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved for a renewed motion on the basis as just set forth.\nChair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3 - Absent: 2\n(Commissioners Reid and Shabazz).\n3-D. 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. [Not Heard]\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Shabazz stated the OGC is a really energetic and enthusiastic group with\ndifferent strengths; he hopes they could all build on those strengths to come together with\na longer term plan; he sent staff an outline of areas and questions that could be\nconsidered for the plan over the next couple of months; announced that he will be hosting\na Public Records Workshop on March 15th\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated Item 3-D was continued to the next meeting.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n21", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-03-01", "page": 22, "text": "Commissioner Chen stated regarding the null and void topic, she saw a marriage between\nCommissioner LoPilato and Councilmember John Knox White's suggestions and would\nlike to see it in one document for the OGC to review; having fresh eyes on it is of great\nbenefit.\nCommissioner Reid noted that she submitted a null and void remedy.\nIn response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the City Clerk stated she would caution the\nCommission that the public was told that the null and void topic was not going to be heard,\nso any further discussion or suggestions should be submitted for the next meeting.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with the City Clerk.\nAdjournment\nChair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMarch 1, 2021\n22", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf"}