{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY MAY 3, 2021 7:00 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; Assistant City Attorney John Le]\nOral Communications\nNone.\nRegular Agenda Items\n3-A. Minutes of the April 4, 2021 Meeting\nCommissioner LoPilato made a correction to the Police Captain comments; inquired\nabout redactions.\nThe City Clerk stated the redactions were missed and will be done.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the corrected minutes.\nCommissioner Chen 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.\n3-B. 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.\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Reid stated her position proposes to include Commissioner LoPilato's\nsuggestions; her main concern is in the penalty section; inquired whether Commissioner\nreceived her last correspondence; inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney would\nreview the proposed amendments section by section or using another method.\nChair Tilos stated there are some pretty big pieces of the proposal, but the meat of it is\nhow to correct the null and void; suggested Commissioners identify the top five sections\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 2, "text": "and start discussion from there; stated that he would like to go away from the\nsupermajority and is leaning towards Councilmember Knox White's proposal to re-\nagendize the issue; he also likes Commissioner LoPilato's piece about posting the\nCommission's decisions on the internet for transparency; said items are his top three\ntopics he would like to vote on.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated part of the ordinance enables people to challenge meetings\nshifting from using the phrase \"required\" to \"recommended;\" what the Commission is\nattempting to achieve got lost in the language, particulars and supermajorities; there were\nsome lessons from what happened with Commissioner Chen's complaints.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she has been worn down because the issue has been\ngoing on so long; she read the materials and found the null and void piece came directly\nfrom the Brown Act; no one has ever thoroughly won a case on the Brown Act; she thinks\nwhat the Commission really wants is to have City government and Departments\naccountable for their decisions, how they make their decisions and transparency; she\nlikes Commissioner LoPilato's recommendations to shine a light to assist the City in\nadhering to the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission is not here to further\nany disagreements people have with the decisions the City Council and other\ncommissions make, but whether or not the correct process was followed to reach\ndecisions; the Brown Act is merely a tool to shame or embarrass the leaders into following\nthe rules; the Commission should be practical and realistic; she supports posting the\nCommissions' recommendations to cure and correct any violations brought before them\non the City's website or issuing a press release; every Commissioner wants to represent\nthe best interest of the community; no Councilmember wants it publicized that they are\nalways voting against the Commission; the Commission is calling people out and saying\nthis is how it should be done; when things happen that are not transparent, trust is lost;\nshe would like the Commission to be viewed as a group of five people who are trying to\nmake everything run better; she likes the idea of adding in the transparency piece and\nmaking the decision not to sustain a complaint really clear; she was confused by the term\n\"unfounded\" versus \"not sustained;\" she embraces said proposal and does not want to\nset up an appeals process; the Commission would have done its duty and if the City\nCouncil does not want to accept the fact the Commission found a Sunshine Ordinance\nviolation, it will be publicized; she does not think any Councilmember would want to be\non a list of not listening to what the Commission sees as being transparent and good\ngovernment.\nChair Tilos inquired whether Commissioners Shabazz and Reid are aligned with wanting\nto be transparent about the Commission decisions and posting decisions on the City\nwebsite.\nCommissioner Reid responded in the affirmative, stated that she feels very aligned with\nCommissioner Chen's comments; her main concerns are centered around the goal of\ntransparency and full support for public participation at all levels; she made a suggestion\nto modify the penalty section that seems to disproportionately affect elderly participants\nwho may not live an additional five years; she also recommends a more open approach\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 3, "text": "to allow residents to participate at the maximum level possible; she would also like to\npropose an appeal subcommittee in the event the Council disagrees on a proposal\nbrought by the Commission; the goal would be to draw in as many members of the public\nas possible; said type of awareness is necessary in open and good government.\nVice Chair Shabazz responded that he appreciates Commissioner Chen's point about the\nobjectives of accountability, transparency and restoring trust; if the Commission aligns on\nsaid baseline, then it can determine the method in which to achieve the goals.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she likes the idea of grounding in said objectives; the\nintent behind her proposal as an tracking device; it is a way to see the health of the Open\nGovernment Commission (OGC) over the long term and what is done with the\nrecommendations, the result and the action when a complaint comes in; she is open to\ndiscussions from the Commission or staff on improvements that could be made to her\nproposal; how it would look on the website is important to make sure it is effective;\nthanked staff for the benchmarking report, which was helpful; stated trust-building and\ntrust-restoring is an important piece; a big part is creating a pathway for the Commission\nto give feedback to the City Council and make recommendations about how to avoid\nfuture problems outside the scope of a specific complaint; posting on the website could\nalso accomplish accountability; she likes the language of John Knox White's proposal,\nwhich is a good direction for the Commission to go in terms of not getting too into the\nweeds of details about the complaint process.\nChair Tilos summarized the Commission members' comments.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he would like to have alignment around some general\nprinciple goals the Commission hopes to achieve, instead of conceptualizing along some\nspectrum of trust or punishment.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission could make suggestions about what\nit wants to do and then a show of hands to move toward a motion.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of the proposal for Section 2-92.4.i.\nChair Tilos 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.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the next item is John Knox White's proposal and\nwhether or not to have an additional appeals process or subcommittee; it would be\nproductive for folks who are putting forth an affirmative proposal to be heard to figure out\nif there is support for a motion.\nChair Tilos summarized the Commission members' position.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he is tired of talking\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 4, "text": "about the matter; ideally, the OGC would be a body that could encourage accountability,\ntrust and transparency; much of his thinking has not been focused on the null and void\nand teeth of the Commission; unfortunately, he views it as the Council will make whatever\ndecision, regardless of the Commission recommendations; he suggests sending all of the\nproposals to the Council with some priorities; the staff report could summarize what has\nhappened and present the goals the Commission would like to achieve; he does not have\nany strong opinions on this piece and is thinking about other mechanisms the\nCommission could use to achieve the goals of transparency, trust, increased participation,\naccessibility and equity in open government.\nCommissioner Chen stated the City Council has to discuss the Commission's decision at\na public hearing; the Council needs to decide whether or not to accept the\nrecommendations or offer an alternative, which is all part of the transparency piece; the\nCommission's decision needs to be agendized at the next possible City Council meeting.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated because it was in\nthe context of a cure and correct, the item would be agendized for the Council to consider\nthe recommendation and decide what to do.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Chen stated Commissioner Reid\ndeserves a separate hearing on her proposal.\nCommissioner LoPilato reiterated her modifications on the John Knox White proposal,\nincluding changing the terms \"agreeing and curing or disagreeing\" and just calling it a\n\"rejection;\" stated it would be a choice to accept or reject the Commission's\nrecommendation; she also leans in favor of including language like \"in whole\" or \"in part\"\nwhich would account for scenarios with multiple recommendations; she would also like to\nadd language which acknowledges a broader array than just the City Council.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the John\nKnox White proposal was adopted fairly immediately after the removal; if the status quo\nwere to continue, it would not advance the ends of justice; it was more keeping it in\nabeyance while the decision was made.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated it seems there are some attempts to focus on some particular\nrules and technicalities to impact certain things; he suggests having a policy that\nempowers people to hold government accountable and not keep government from doing\nthings more justly; allowing flexibility and keeping it moving is important.\nIn response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated the motion will be to take\nJohn Knox White's proposal with Commissioner LoPilato's corrections.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of revising the ordinance to include the John\nKnox White proposal in Section 2-93.8.a with her redline and additional language carving\nout the ability not to maintain the status quo in the interest of conducting necessary City\nbusiness.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Tilos 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.\nCommissioner LoPilato suggested addressing the provision adding a Subsection D to the\ncomplaint procedures, which would harmonize the Sunshine Ordinance language with\nthe statutory language elsewhere in the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) laying out the\nduties of the OGC; stated that she drafted a possible way to capture it under the complaint\nprocedures; it would be non-binding recommendations and a vehicle for the Commission\nto do something beyond merely finding something substantiated or unsubstantiated.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated his understanding\nof Commissioner LoPilato's proposal is that she is tying back to the duties of the\nCommission as set forth in AMC Chapter two; requested clarification if the additional\nlanguage is put into the ordinance, there would still be a finding as to the merits of the\ncomplaint; then, rather than using the cure and correct remedy, it would be an alternative.\nCommissioner LoPilato responded the existing process would be retained; stated the\nCommission would make a finding on the specific complaint; the finding may include a\ncure and correct remedy; there are many instances where, even if the Commission finds\nsomething substantiated, there is no appropriate cure and correct remedy; the issue could\nseemingly be resolved, but the underlying complaint is substantiated; she wants to create\nan alternative path where the Commission could take a majority vote as to whether there\nare also some informal resolution options that might be beneficial; she is open to making\nadjustments if there are legal concerns.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that is how he interpreted Commissioner LoPilato's\nproposal; there could be a scenario where the Commission could have a decision as to\nthe merits and order a cure and correct; a footnote could be added about informal ways\nto deal with the complaint or how to anticipate future problems in the same decision; there\ncould be a scenario that does not use the cure and correct, but rather an alternative\nremedy.\nCommissioner LoPilato concurred with Assistant City Attorney's summary of her\nproposed process; stated that she discussed a slight modification that envisions dealing\nwith a different path to be able to make recommendations outside of the decision; she is\nvery flexible about whether people feel better about confining everything to one decision\nand getting it done in one meeting; she envisions a scenario where the Commission\nmakes a decision, hammers out the points of the finding and whether there is a cure and\ncorrect or put a pin in the issue and take a vote as to whether it is something that needs\nto be pursued further.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Code permits simply agendizing an issue if it needs\nto be heard further; additional language would not be necessary to do so.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Reid stated that she would find it acceptable as long as the informal\nprocess does not penalize complainants.\nVice Chair Shabazz inquired whether the piece about being able to make a\nrecommendation and do a report already exists and the Commission just has not utilized\nit.\nCommissioner Chen stated the Sunshine Ordinance has only been given test runs in the\npast two years with just a handful of complaints; the Commission has been finding little\nthings they did not know existed by struggling through the complaints; she did not vote\nwith the majority at the last meeting, not because she did not agree with most everything,\nbut because there was so much nuance in the issue being raised; she agrees with\nCommissioner LoPilato about having some kind of process that clearly does not require\nsaying just yes or no; there could be a more nuanced response; she agrees with the\nAssistant City Attorney that said instances should be agendized; the Commission is just\ntrying to build something from scratch; it is like building a new car or airplane and realizing\nwhen trying to fly it that someone forgot the parachutes or there is no trap door; the trap\ndoor needs to be built now; the process is very healthy; when asked to vote in previous\nmonths, she did not know what the options were and was unclear about \"unfounded;\" it\nis important to have the same vocabulary about what the Commission is actually saying;\nshe may find an issue unsustained, but not unfounded; the moment the term \"unfounded\"\nis used, it becomes one strike against the complainant; two more strikes and they are out\nfor five years; she hears Commissioner Reid's concern.\nCommissioner Reid stated it is very important to take note of the definitions of\n\"unsustained\" and \"unfounded;' her understanding is the term \"unfounded\" is very harsh;\nit puts a member of the community who is participating in the City's democracy in a\nposition where potentially they can no longer participate; she noticed the attorneys were\npushing for using the term \"unfounded;\" there is some confusion around the two terms;\njust because the attorney recommends something does not mean the Commission has\nto follow it; it is important to clarify the terminology; the attorneys err on the side of more\nprotection for the City; it is the position of the Commission to represent the people; the\nCommission should want to hear the complaints and give the community the opportunity\nto have a voice; she supports Commissioner LoPilato's alternative path as long as there\nare no penalties to the complainant.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he understands the confusion around the terms,\nwhich seems like a priority for some Commissioners; the proposal put forth by\nCommissioner LoPilato is unrelated; suggested dealing with it first; then, circle back to\nthe terminology; neither of the proposals have any red line related to unfounded and the\nCity Attorney's office does not have any language currently proposed for how to resolve\nthe issue.\nVice Chair Shabazz observed noted there was different language in each of the different\ncomplaints; there was a recommendation from City staff to \"dismiss; the issue could be\na subcommittee conversation to develop the vocabulary in order for the Commission to\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 7, "text": "make a decision and make recommendations about how to improve the process.\nPublic Comment:\nStated that he was not keeping track of which item the Commission is discussing because\nthe conversation seems to have drifted into some of the topics raised in issues later on\nthe agenda: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nCommissioner LiPilato moved approval of the Commission adopting a recommendation\nfor the addition of Subsection D to Section 2-93.2 with the new subsection stating: \"In\naddition to the Open Government Commission's (OGC) ability to render a formal written\nopinion, finding a violation or non-violation of the Sunshine Ordinance, the Commission\nmay also consider options for informal resolutions of complaints; upon a majority vote,\nthe Commission may make non-binding recommendations to the City Manager, City\nAttorney's Office, City Clerk or City Council regarding informal resolution options or steps\nto avoid future similar complaints.\"\nCommissioner Chen 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.\nThe Assistant City Attorney read the red-lined portion of the issue pertaining to penalties.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated there was a second addition at the end of the paragraph on\npage 47, Exhibit 4: \"As soon as practical, the originating body shall consider and take\nappropriate action.\nCommissioner LoPilato clarified Exhibit 4 is staff's revisions to the original subcommittee\nproposal, which was steered away from; however, the next item on her proposed\nrevisions is actually taken from that; the Commission could jump to it next; although the\nAssistant City Attorney stated there were no redlines in the penalty portion of the proposal,\nCommissioner Reid submitted some today that can be reviewed after.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she submitted two proposals; one is labeled Section E\nunder 2-92.2; she noticed her correspondence did not appear on the agenda; her second\nproposal is under penalties Section 2-93.8; suggested just following the order.\nThe City Clerk confirmed that Commissioner Reid's correspondence was delivered to all\nCommissioners and uploaded as part of the record.\nCommissioner LoPilato read the revisions of Section 2-93.8.b: \"If the Commission finds a\nviolation of Section 2-9.2 Public Information, the Commission may recommend to the City,\nstaff, City Manager, City Clerk, and the City Attorney steps necessary to cure the violation;\nthe City Manager, City Clerk and/or the City Attorney, as appropriate, shall promptly\nrender a final written decision upon receipt of the Commission's recommendation.'\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 8, "text": "In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated that he\nis hesitant to speak about the intent of the revisions since he does not recall his office\nmaking the edits to the last sentence of Subsection B; it was actually an integration of the\nsubcommittee proposal and changes that were made.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of the Commission recommending the revisions\nin Section 2-93.8.b.\nChair Tilos 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.\nCommissioner Reid read her Subsection E proposal under Section 2-93.2: \"If a complaint\nis determined by the OGC to be valid and sent as a recommendation to the City Council,\nbut if they do not agree, the OGC shall then be allowed to create a temporary appeal\ncommittee comprised of one member of the OGC randomly chosen, and four members\nof the public chosen by each remaining member of the OGC to review the complaint. If\nthe Appeal Committee determines that the complaint has merit, it is sent back to the City\nCouncil for a second review. The Appeal Subcommittee should adhere to the Brown Act;\"\nas an alternative, the subcommittee members could also be chosen from a list created by\nthe City Manager; her proposal is a good alternative to include members of the public and\nbrings out more transparency and open government.\nChair Tilos stated the Knox White proposal does enough; he is not leaning toward going\nbeyond it to set up another channel to handle OGC rulings.\nCommissioner Chen stated she agrees with Commissioner Reid in the sense that she\nwould like to involve more people in the open government process; however, there is\nnothing to preclude the City Council from rejecting the appeal; the Commission would be\nstuck in a merry-go-round of engaging people to be frustrated in a sense; the OGC has\nno teeth; the Commission could set up another body to just come to the same conclusion\nwhich would be twice as much no teeth; Commissioner LoPilato and John Knox White's\nproposal has the force of letting the community know what open government is and what\ncan be done; there are other ways to engage the community and get them more involved,\nrather than frustrating them in the complaint process.\nCommissioner Reid stated she is fine with letting it go; she just wanted to throw it out as\na possibility; her second proposal is to modify the language under Section 2-93.8.D\nregarding penalties; the language is quite harsh and penalizes residents who bring forth\ncomplaints; outlined her proposed language; stated citizens should not be penalized; the\nCommission should support that they are bringing forth complaints.\nPublic Comment:\nStated the complaint process was meant to be a low-friction way to file a complaint but\nnot negate other remedies; the penalties were built in to just prevent abuse and wasting\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 9, "text": "the group's time: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he does not support increasing the threshold for complaints;\nhe agrees with the speaker that the intention of the penalties is to prevent people from\njust filing a lot of complaints; people have an opportunity through the informal resolution\nprocess to address any issues or complaints; if the Commission develops the clarity\naround the options and language that it can consider, it is not the binary of \"unfounded\"\nor \"sustained\" and it would not be harsh or punitive.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the Commission all agrees not to create a binary process;\nshe does not support Commissioner Reid's proposed changes.\nCommissioner Reid moved approval of adopting her proposed option 2 in Section 2-\n93.8.D that filing three unfounded complaints prohibits filing a complaint for the next three\nyears.\nThe motion failed due to a lack of second.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated there will be a discussion later related to whether or not there\nwill be subcommittees; perhaps that would be a conversation as part of the subcommittee\nand could be brought back to the full group; if there are no other additions to this item\nrelated to replacing null and void, he would like to recommend that the Commission share\nthe package with the City Council and ask them to make a decision on it.\nChair Tilos inquired whether there was anything else missing that needed to be\ndiscussed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the additional items at the end of Commissioner LoPilato's\nproposal regarding proposed revisions and posting information could be handled by the\nsubcommittee, so the Commission does not have to pick through it tonight.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated that staff has been\nat this for some time; there have been discussions about moving with more deliberate\nspeed; the plan was to get the input, put it all together and bring it to Council.\nCommissioner Reid stated she would not approve the package if the penalty section\nremains as is.\n***\nChair Tilos called a recess at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:12 p.m.\n***\n3-C. Accept the Annual Report and the Report Concerning Responses to Public Records\nAct Requests\nThe City Clerk made brief comments.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 10, "text": "In response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated the item was already\npresented to the OGC and a couple issues were found, mainly the records were not\nprovided, but was resolved through an OGC hearing.\nThe City Clerk stated the item returned in order to provide more clarity on the complaints\nfiled and to also include additional Citywide information.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the NextRequest program is pretty cool; it is used at the City\nof Oakland and BART; his hope is not to have the same legal challenges with public\nrecords that Oakland is having; what stood out to him was the amount of requests the\nAlameda Police Department (APD) received that were not being tracked; inquired what\nthe method is for the APD to get the public record requests and why are they not being\ntracked.\nThe City Clerk responded anything APD produces is categorized; stated the Department\nconfirms they responded; records that were denied was not part of their tracking system;\nthe concept came from the previous Commission discussion.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, the City Clerk stated anything the City\nAttorney's office receives is separately tracked on the spreadsheet provided, regardless\nof the originating Department.\nCommissioner Chen inquired why the APD does not track responses and whether they\nshould be required to do so.\nThe City Clerk responded it was not being done before and was a new request from the\nOGC.\nIn response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, the City Clerk stated APD has a completely\nseparate set of rules regarding PRAs than everyone else; the Fire Department has a few\nseparate rules as well, but the APD has a very complex and separate records program;\nat this point, they will not be using NextRequest.\nCommissioner Chen stated it is unfortunate because of the need for transparency and\nrebuilding trust with the APD.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the question from the OGC was how the various\ndepartments track PRAs; each department is required, as custodians of their records, to\nrespond to records requests and track the requests as they see fit; there is not a specific\nrequirement in terms of tracking.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether the date the PRA was referred to the City\nAttorney's office always corresponds with the date the request was received.\nThe City Clerk responded most of the requests she refers to the City Attorney's office are\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 11, "text": "on the same day, but she does not know about any others.\nChair Tilos stated that he sees some variations on some of the dates listed on the\nspreadsheet.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated an understanding of the legally required time to provide\nresponses is helpful; having a rubric for gauging whether requests are being responded\nto on a prompt or timely manner is important; inquired what the City's position is on what\nis considered the number of days allowed under the Government Code.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded there are various code references in the\nGovernment Code which state that holidays and Sundays are not considered days within\nwhich to calculate responses; the City relies on the Code for the required 10 day period.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she saw a section that indicated the legislative body\nof any city or district could name a Saturday as a holiday, which caught her by surprise;\ninquired whether that was enacted in Alameda, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney\nresponded in the negative, stated she was not able to find a parallel citation within the\nAlameda Municipal Code regarding Saturdays.\nCommissioner LoPilato noticed a request in which the response provided was 18.8\ngigabytes of data; inquired whether there is a way to indicate what that amount translates\nto in pages.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the format in which the data is produced is\ngenerally the format in which it was retained on the City server; it also depends on what\ntype of document or material is requested; she cannot comment specifically since it was\nbefore her time.\nChair Tilos stated that he noticed there were requests from Vice Chair Shabazz and\nCommissioner Reid that indicated electronic data was provided.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she noticed that there were errors and omissions related\nto her requests and wondered how many errors are in the other requests; she also noticed\nthat the number of pages of data produced could be reduced if email threads were not\nduplicated and only the parent thread was provided; she would like to see a\ncomprehensive list in the annual report of all the requests made, organized by\ndepartment.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he would like to suggest addressing the issues in order;\nstarting with the Annual Report, items related to the PRA, then the supplemental materials\nfrom staff.\nPublic Comment:\nStated from a privacy standpoint when implementing the new system, it would make\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 12, "text": "sense not to include personal information in the PRA descriptions, such as private\ncitizen's addresses, especially with requests dealing with permits: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the current table in the annual report needs to be updated\nsince there has been a disposition around one of the items; perhaps it could be noted that\nthe hearing was held and the results could be in next year's annual report; it is important\nto note how the item was labeled \"voluntarily withdrawn\" and that the complainant did not\nnecessarily agree with that; he would like a summary provided consistent with the\nprevious year.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she would be in favor of changing the language of the\nMay 12, 2020 complaint disposition to be along the lines of: initially, noted as voluntarily\nabandoned, complainant brought forth the complaint, it was heard on April 5, 2021 and\nwas found substantiated; the finding should be included in the disposition instead of\nwaiting to note it on a subsequent report.\nCommissioner Chen stated it is called an annual report, but actually looks like an annual\nof two sets of tables; she would like to see some kind of narrative; she agrees with\nCommissioner Reid that the data should be reorganized by department.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she wanted to make sure the\nCommissioners are looking at Exhibit 1, which notes there was an April 5th hearing\nregarding Mr. Morris's complaint; the table was revised to reflect what has happened.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that the table indicates there was a hearing held on April 5th, ,\nbut the point he is making is that it should also state the actual disposition; he would like\nto add language stating: \"consistent with what the Commission previously approved;\" the\nannual report from the February 3, 2020 meeting has a brief narrative; he would like to\nsee something similar on the current report detailing what happened at the hearing.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of adopting the annual report with modification to\nthe table clearly stating that the disposition of the complaint from May 12, 2020 was\nsustained on April 5, 2021; additionally, there should be a narrative that includes a\ndetailed description of the complaint consistent with prior annual reports.\nCommissioner LoPilato seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Chair Tilos summarized the modification requested by Vice Chair\nShabazz.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the point he is trying to\nmake is to have a narrative in the annual report similar to the last one; he appreciates the\ntables, as they simplify the report, but some of the nuance of what actually happened\nversus how it was portrayed in the initial annual report is lost in the table.\nThe City Clerk clarified that the disposition of \"sustained\" would be added to the table box,\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 13, "text": "and then the additional parts would be in the narrative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 4. Noes: 1.\nVice Chair Shabazz inquired what the next steps are for the annual report and whether it\nwould go to the Council in writing.\nThe City Clerk responded the annual report will be transmitted to the Council and they\nwill receive a copy of it.\nChief Assistant City Attorney further clarified that Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-93.6\nstates the Commission shall prepare an annual report to be placed on the City's website\nand made generally publicly available in printed form of alleged violations of the ordinance\nbrought to its attention during the previous calendar year.\nCommissioner Reid stated her main concern is that there are inaccuracies in the annual\nreport.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the annual report does\nnot go before the Council as an agenda item, it just gets transmitted to them.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated there was some extensive conversations about challenges\nhappening with PRAs, which might be something the Commission wishes to have a report\nto share with Council.\nChair Tilos stated Vice Chair Shabazz's comments could be addressed under\nCommissioner Communications.\nVice Chair Shabazz provided a brief background on the report; suggested prefacing the\nreport by noting including background would be helpful; stated language should also be\nadded to the Sunshine Ordinance so that the report is kept beyond the current\nCommissioners' terms.\nCommissioner LoPilato suggested, in accordance with a public comment, that residential\naddresses be redacted before publishing the report.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her understanding is that the only thing being\npublished on the City's website will be the chart of the complaints; there is no requirement\nor authority under the Sunshine Ordinance to include the other documents.\nThe City Clerk clarified all staff reports and exhibits are posted on the City's website; the\naddresses that were listed were not the requestor's address, but the specific address for\nwhich information was being requested.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n13", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 14, "text": "Commissioner LoPilato stated she is concerned about balancing privacy considerations\nand does not think specific addresses, even with regard to permit issues, is relevant\nenough to be included in the materials and could simply be redacted.\nThe City Clerk explained that when there is a well-known address of interest, requestors\nwill use the address when submitting their PRAs; gave the example of the McKay\nproperty.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees it is fine for addresses for properties that\nare the subject of public discourse, but she sees some listed that are calls for service at\nspecific addresses that seem to be residential.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the last issue he wants to\naddress is the supplemental documents compiled related to individual Departments\nrequests; shared that when he submitted a PRA, the City Attorney's office addressed him\nas Commissioner Shabazz; he does not want to receive special treatment because he is\non the OGC; he is concerned and hopes all community members are being treated\nequally based on the law; described the example of two separate requests for SB 1421\ninformation where one requestor, the District Attorney, received 18.8 gigabytes of\ninformation, whereas the other requestor's was labeled non-applicable; he would like to\nensure that people have access to the same information.\nCommissioner LoPilato concurred with Vice Chair Shabazz; stated it seems one\nrequestor is the District Attorney and the other requestor looks like a plaintiff-side personal\ninjury law firm; one thing to consider is the extent to which PRAs may differ depending if\nthere is active litigation; alternatively, it could be something less straight forward; she\nwants to highlight how helpful it is to see the requesting party; going forward, more\nclarifications should be built around the requestor so trends can be tracked.\nThe City Clerk stated the tracking and reports that can be run in the new system will be\nvery verbose and drilling for the details will be possible.\nVice Chair Shabazz reminded the Commission that Commissioner Reid made comments\nabout inaccuracies in the report regarding her own request and wonders what else may\nneed to be addressed; if a subcommittee is created, is should become an annual thing;\nalso suggested that one of the duties of the Commission could be a report evaluating\ncompliance with PRAs.\n***\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated a motion is needed to hear items\npast 10:30 p.m.\nCommissioner Reid noted that she would pull items 4-A and 4-C.\nChair Tilos stated Items 4-A and 4-C will not be heard and could be placed on another\nmeeting.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n14", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 15, "text": "Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether Commissioner Reid wants to address anything\nspecific regarding the inaccuracies of the report.\nCommissioner Reid responded that she would propose there be a full review; she cannot\napprove something when she knows there are mistakes.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of accepting the report concerning responses to the\nPublic Records Act.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether the motion includes both record request exhibits, to which\nVice Chair Shabazz responded it included Exhibit 2.\nCommissioner LoPilato proposed an amendment to the motion to add an additional\nfootnote saying the OGC is highly concerned regarding the lack of tracking of denials\noccurring within the APD.\nChair Tilos seconded the motion.\nVice Chair Shabazz accepted the friendly amendment to the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye;\nChair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\n4-A. Correspondence from Commissioner Reid\nNot heard.\n4-B. Consider Preliminary Proposal to Address Possible Open Government Commission\n(OGC) Procedure/Bylaw Revisions and Ensure OGC's Substantive Compliance with\nGoverning Ordinance via Subcommittee Formation (Commissioner LoPilato)\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney noted items placed on the meeting agenda must be\nreceived by the Secretary at least 10 working days prior to the scheduled meeting date;\ninquired whether the item was indeed received by the secretary within said timeframe, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated this is an attempt to draw together different conversations\nand do it in a way that is compliant with the ordinances and move the Commission forward\nin an efficient way; it is an ambitious proposal which, the Commission could collectively\nwhittle down to what feels interesting and manageable; staff feedback would be great if\nthe vote is to agendize any of the items; there is room in the proposal to make some\nspace to do some good work for the City; the bulk of the memo looks at procedures that\nmight be appropriate for the OGC to shine a brighter light on issues arising under the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n15", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 16, "text": "Sunshine Ordinance and provide more substantive information; the meetings are not\nlinear or easy for the public to follow; she feels strongly that meetings going late into the\nnight and topics being bumped impede public accessibility; she would like to make sure\nas the Commission makes recommendations to other bodies improvements that can be\nmade to the OGC are reviewed as well; the item is framed around subcommittee\nformation.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated much like when the\nordinance revisions were being considered, there was a subcommittee of two\ncommissioners formed to do the work and then it was brought back to the full Commission\nfor a vote.\nChair Tilos inquired clarification on whether forming a subcommittee to hear complaints\nwould be feasible in terms of the timing in scheduling a hearing.\nCommissioner LoPilato responded she is not actually suggesting subcommittees on\nanything related to the findings on a complaint; the usual process would be followed for\nwhen a complaint comes in; what the subcommittees would involve is those situations\nwhere there is a conversation that reveals something much bigger going on after making\na discrete decision on a complaint; there is a lengthy meeting dilemma where the solution\nis to revise the bylaws; the next steps would be to vote on whether the Commission would\nlike staff to consider agendizing the creation of a subcommittee to do that; there are issues\noutside the scope of the complaint where the solution would be to form a subcommittee\nto track issues related to practical or policy problems encountered in the administration\nof the Sunshine Ordinance, and/or when there is a time sensitive issue that warrants a\nstandalone report; the third issue in the ordinance seems to indicate the Commission\nshould be reviewing postings; she would defer to staff on what this section of the\nordinance might require.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry about agendizing the item for the next meeting, Vice\nChair Shabazz responded the item is on tonight's agenda; the Commission is within order\nto discuss the matter and potentially make decisions; the length of the meetings is an\nissue that other Commissions do not have; one thing that could help is doing work and\nasking questions prior to the meeting; the meetings will not take as long if the Commission\nmembers could organize in a way to communicate with each other appropriately prior to\nmeetings or have subcommittees address certain things; training for the Chair and Vice\nChair would be helpful to figure out Commission boundaries without having to figure out\nbearings publicly on Zoom; having a time limit is a solution.\nCommissioner Chen stated the issues are all things the Commission has been thinking\nabout; the proposal is very comprehensive; the Commission should start thinking about\npriorities; the press release regarding the death of Mario Gonzales was very upsetting for\na lot of people because it was similar to what happened to George Floyd; the trust level\ndeclined in the City, which is a form of open government and transparency; the item about\npostings is really important, especially on sensitive issues; the issue framing adds to the\ntransparency or the distrust; she would like to see the Commission split into two-person\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n16", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 17, "text": "subcommittees to brainstorm and come back with a report to the full group for a healthy\ndiscussion; it sets the framework and a provides a structure on how to talk about each\nissue.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired what the boundaries are with respect to what the\nCommission could do tonight.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney read the section of the bylaws related to the item; stated\nher opinion is the Commission has the authority to take action since it has been properly\nagendized.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated what he shared previously about having goals and listening to\ndifferent people's ideas are helpful; Chair Tilos discussed the use of technology to make\nthings efficient and accessible; there have been many conversations around\ntransparency, accessibility, accountability and equity; it is a thematic or principle way of\nthinking about the work goals; other categories include the null and void remedy,\nSunshine Ordinance revisions and public presentations to engage people to know about\nthe Commission; another potential way to consider organizing the Commission is related\nto how the Sunshine Ordinance is written; there is a section related to records and one\nrelated to meetings; a subcommittee could be formed to deal with any of the sections; a\nsubcommittee could be formed to deal specifically with the Commission's structure;\nidentifying the priorities is a good start along with who is willing to do work.\nChair Tilos suggested choosing one big issue to have a subcommittee address; stated it\nwould leave room to tackle other topics.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether there is interest in utilizing this mechanism of\npreparing a report on practical and policy problems encountered in the administration of\nthe Sunshine Ordinance; stated it could be an ongoing subcommittee; the two people\nwould be charged with listening to the Commission's items that come up addressing\ncomplaints and keeping notes to compile an annual report; two people should be\nidentified to work on it, even though it would not be active immediately; this would be in\naddition to having a high priority subcommittee.\nChair Tilos stated perhaps reserving the last 10 minutes of a meeting to summarize the\nbig issues could be a method for a subcommittee to compile the top issues onto a\nspreadsheet that could be an agenda item to decide what to present to the Council.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she likes that idea; she would like it to be more than\nwrapping it up at the end of a meeting and going into the minutes; in a lot of cases it would\nbe an actual report that the Commission does not necessarily have the authority to ask\nstaff to do; she agrees with the method of doing a collective wrap-up and then charging\ntwo people with putting something together.\nVice Chair Shabazz suggested having speaking time limits for the Commissioners; stated\npotential specific reports could go forward, including concerns related to the City's\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n17", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 18, "text": "lobbying efforts; a semi-annual report related to lawsuit settlements used to come to the\nOGC, but now goes to the Council; he does not want to address items during meeting\nwrap-up; suggested using his work plan idea; stated the Commission should identify the\nspecific reports to evaluate compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated rather than having multiple, different subcommittees, all\nthe topics mentioned could all go into one annual report regarding the practical and policy\nproblems heading; suggested going with: 1) creation of a subcommittee to review and\nidentify potential revisions to the bylaws, and 2) creation of a subcommittee to prepare a\nreport on practical and policy problems; stated Commissioner Chen also referenced that\nthe postings are particularly interesting; a single Commissioner handled that in the past.\nThe City Clerk concurred, stated former Commission Dieter would read the agenda titles\nand postings, and report back to the full Commission.\nChair Tilos listed the three priorities: 1) bylaws, 2) practical policy, and 3) postings.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the procedure piece could be coupled with the bylaws.\nCommissioner Chen stated the procedure is actual hands-on things that are happening;\nthe bylaws are broader and provide structure; they are actually two separate things.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she sees a potential marriage between the bylaws and\npotential revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance; the process of looking through the bylaws\ncould come under that umbrella.\nCommissioner Chen stated the report about the practical and policy problems\nencountered relates to the Sunshine Ordinance, which was changed when ad hoc\ncommittees were added and now needs to be fixed, as well as \"unfounded\" and\n\"sustained;\" all are interrelated, but stem from problems in the Sunshine Ordinance.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated using the ad hoc example could be a report around the\npractical policy problems encountered with the administration of the Sunshine Ordinance;\nthe question is where the report would go and if it would go to the full Commission; the\nchallenges with the administration could be initially in the form of a report that could come\nto the Commission, and then be sent to Council.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he would be interested\nin the practical problems and would frame it as one report; it has been 10 years and is\ntime to revisit it.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she would volunteer for the practical and policy problems,\nwhich is the whole reason she was unable to vote coherently.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of appointing Commissioner Chen and himself as\na\nsubcommittee focused on preparing a preliminary report on the practical or policy\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n18", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 19, "text": "problems encountered in the administration of the Sunshine Ordinance.\nCommissioner Chen seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Reid stated that she also wanted to volunteer to work\nwith Commissioner Chen.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 4. Noes: 1.\nChair Tilos inquired whether the Commission wants to meet in June.\nCommissioner Chen responded she has a lot of election work to do.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated maybe July or August.\nChair Tilos stated there will be no meeting in June unless a complaint is filed.\n***\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of continuing the meeting an extra five minutes past\n11:00 pm.\nCommissioner LoPilato seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 4. Noes: 1.\n***\nVice Chair Shabazz stated Commissioner LoPilato expressed interest in a bylaws\nsubcommittee.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of appointing herself to serve on a subcommittee\nto review the bylaws.\nCommissioner Shabazz seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Abstain; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 4. Abstention: 1.\n4-C. Consider Proposal to Amend the Sunshine Ordinance and Consider Other\nDiscussion Items. (Commission Reid)\nNot heard.\n***\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he wanted to echo the comments made by Commissioner\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n19", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-05-03", "page": 20, "text": "Chen related to trust and some revelations relating to the Police Department, particularly\nthe use of facial recognition technology after it was banned, combined with the press\nrelease regarding Mario Gonzales; expressed concern that said issues reaffirm and\nreinforce the lack of trust related to APD operations.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated in the formation of the practical and policy problems report,\nshe would urge that there is some attention paid to the hotspots with respect to\ntransparency in the Police Department.\nAdjournment\nChair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nMay 3, 2021\n20", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf"}