{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY JULY 19, 2021 7:00 P.M.\nChair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:05 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]\nOral Communications\nPaul Foreman, Alameda, stated regarding Section 2-93.8, a quasi-judicial decision is not\na policy decision; it is an application of City law to the facts in the Sunshine Ordinance;\nthe current proposal language drafted by Councilmember Knox White and Commissioner\nLoPilato appropriately deals with the issue; urged the Commission to support the\nconclusions.\nRegular Agenda Items\n3-A. Minutes of the May 3, 2021 Meeting\nCommissioner Chen stated she would like to review the video to see whether she used\nthe term superheroes as reflected in the minutes as she did not recall saying it.\nThe City Clerk stated the sentence could just be struck from the minutes.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she wanted to make a correction that she had her hand\nraised but Vice Chair Shabazz spoke out of turn; it should be noted that Chair Tilos did\ncall on her and she did not have an opportunity to speak; she also wanted to remind the\nCommission of the Rosenberg's Rules of Order and the courtesy of decorum where it is\nalways best for only one person at a time to have the floor.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated as a point of order the item of discussion is the minutes and\nis not the appropriate time for Commissioner Reid's comments.\nCommissioner Reid stated it is appropriate because it is best for every speaker to be first\nrecognized by the Chair before proceeding to speak; it is a relevant point that should be\nmade and pertains to a particular point in the minutes.\nChair Tilos stated he does not remember the incident and apologized if something was\ndone out of order; there was some confusion with the phones and raised hands but he\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 2, "text": "always strives to grant the floor to whoever is asking to speak; thanked Commissioner\nReid for calling it out.\nThe City Clerk clarified when people raise their hands to speak is not reflected in the\nminutes.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she feels it should be included that Chair Tilos did call on\nher because it reads strangely in the minutes as she asked to participate in the\nsubcommittee during her turn to speak.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated Commissioner Reid's comments\nwill be noted in the minutes for this meeting.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the comments are debatable and he would like to review the\nvideo before voting to approve the minutes; inquired whether the minutes from the last\nmeeting need to be approved before continuing with the agenda.\nThe City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the Commission could defer approval of\nthe minutes to the next meeting; suggested capturing the current discussion in this set of\nminutes instead of modifying the other set; stated the minutes could be brought back to\nthe next meeting if the Commission would like to consider further revisions.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated in light of the comments, he would like to ensure the accuracy\nof the minutes and find ways to better the practices so everyone can participate.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the deferring the approval of the minutes to the\nnext meeting.\nThe motion failed due to a lack of a second.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated she would capture the discussion\nin this set of minutes because she does not know where it would be inserted in the May\n3rd set.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the May 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. Preliminary Report from Subcommittee on Bylaw Revisions\nCommissioner LoPilato reviewed the items outlined in her report.\nVice Chair Shabazz thanked Commissioner LoPilato for beginning the work on the\nrevisions; stated the OGC previously discussed bylaw revisions at its meeting on March\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n2\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 3, "text": "5, 2018; a subcommittee of Commissioners Dieter and Little had some recommendations\nrelated to Rosenberg's Rules and noted the League of Cities does that; he supports\nutilizing Rosenberg's Rules; another framing that exists is Roberta's Rules; encouraged\nfolks to look back at the March 2018 meeting for the excellent recommendations from\ntheir predecessors.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she noticed the subcommittee report prepared in\n2018; it was recommended that Rosenberg's Rules be encouraged to be applied to all\nBoards and Commissions; continued her presentation.\nIn response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated her thought\nwas to move away from the existing content in the rules of order section and streamline\na much clearer order similar to City Council to follow Rosenberg's with the modifications\noutlined; she is open to hearing other ideas on modifications; for the sake of consistency\nand creating a uniform experience for the public in participating, it would be a great step\nto follow.\nChair Tilos stated that he is aligned with Commissioner LoPilato's vision on setting eight\nminutes for each Commissioner's speaking time with the ability for a majority vote of the\nCommission to extend it.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she would like to include a nine minute speaking time to\nbe consistent with City Council and extension by a majority vote.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether there were any objections to nine minutes; there\nwere none.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the timing is done on the Council\nlevel and can be done at Commission meetings.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether anyone had opposition to having a limit on\npresentations.\nCommissioner Chen responded a 10 minute limit on presentations is fine; stated\nCommissioner Communications should be discussed in future meetings only needs an\nexplanation long enough so that other Commissioners can agree or not agree to put an\nitem on a future agenda; for presentations under Commissioner Communications,\nit\nshould be less than 10 minutes.\nCommissioner LoPilato concurred with Commissioner Chen's comments; stated that she\nwill jot down five minutes and go from there.\nIn response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated she would be\nputting a placeholder in the bylaws about the complaint procedures for now; the\nCommission will need to flesh out a public document that outlines the complaint\nprocedures.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n3\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Reid inquired whether a subsection under the Purpose of the Commission\nwould be an appropriate place to put the complaint procedures.\nCommissioner LoPilato responded amendments to Sections Il Purpose of the\nCommission, and III, Membership, require City Council action; stated the Commission\ndoes not have the authority to change it; she would rather not have it go to Council and\ncome back.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he would defer to Chair Tilos, but because there is a lot of\noverlap in the agenda, he is okay with discussing and going through the items now so\nthere would be no need to discuss them separately; encouraged streamlining the\ndiscussion.\nChair Tilos stated that he likes the flow of Commissioner LoPilato's presentation and\nwould like to continue in said manner.\nCommissioner LoPilato continued her presentation.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission\ncan modify the sections of the agenda in the bylaws and have an actual item where\ncomplaint hearings would land before the regular agenda items to make sure the hearings\nare held as required by the complaint process; modifying the agenda sections is\nacceptable.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the issue of outlining how things come to be placed on the\nagenda is already in the bylaws but is a little bit confusing; inquired whether staff is the\nprimary source, but Commissioners could also reach out to staff for guidance.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated it would be\nhelpful to have some clarifications in the bylaws about how staff decides to place items\non the agenda; inquired whether the proceedings for the Chair and Vice Chair election\nshould be modified.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk explained the history of when the Chair\nand Vice Chair were elected; stated it has been done in many different ways and not\nconsistently.\nChair Tilos concurred with the City Clerk and stated the Commission used to only meet\nin February and October; suggested having the elections in January or February after\nmembers are appointed by newly elected Councilmembers.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the bylaws\ncurrently state the election takes place after January 1st; the unique composition of the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n4\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 5, "text": "Commission distinguishes it from others; how officers are selected accounts for that; there\nis also a habit in the order of appointment, which, should be codified if it will be the\npractice.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the comments are helpful; she will tinker with some options\nand bring it back to the group; continued her presentation.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she was going to suggest no new items be considered\nafter 10:00 p.m. unless a supermajority of the Commission votes to allow the items to be\nheard; this would facilitate more communication with the public so the meetings do not go\ntoo long with the potential for losing participants.\nChair Tilos stated he could support either 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated his main concern is the public's ability to participate; if the\npractice is to have Commissioner Communications as the mechanism to get things on\nthe agenda, he would be concerned about things that do not get on the agenda; the\nCommission takes a long time to have discussions and go over details; he would\nencourage having only three minutes for Commission Communications and have that\nsection first; it depends on the composition of the group.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she will do a little research on the other bodies that do\nit in a similar way.\nThe City Clerk stated the section in the original bylaws matched a deleted section of the\nSunshine Ordinance.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it would be great to allow non-agenda items to be a space\nto encourage community members to come forward outside of the complaint process with\nissues they are facing; inquired whether there are strong preferences on the minutes\nsection.\nCommissioner Reid stated the bylaws state draft minutes should be available in 10 days;\ninquired whether it would be possible to publish the draft minutes as soon as possible.\nThe City Clerk responded the deadline of 10 business days for draft minutes is always\nmet; stated unapproved minutes are not published in the agenda database because\nmembers of the public could think they are approved and take them and run with them; if\nthe Commission finds fault in the unapproved minutes, posting them would be misleading\nto the public.\nCommissioner Chen stated when reading the minutes, she felt like she relived every\nminute of the meeting; she would suggest moving in the other direction of having just a\nbasic outline of the discussion with the key points and having the last paragraph state the\ndecision; she gets bogged down reading the minutes and is having trouble reliving the\nentire experience; it is not helpful to her and actually works the opposite of transparency\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n5\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 6, "text": "because it seems like too much information.\nThe City Clerk stated a form of minutes commonly adopted called Action Minutes which\nis as Commissioner Chen described; past Commissioners have stated there was not\nenough included in the minutes; the Clerk's office is happy to go towards Action Minutes\nand will do whatever the Commission prefers.\nChair Tilos stated he feels the longer minutes are helpful because there are a lot of\nmembers of the public who did not attend the meeting live and do not know all the pieces.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether the live transcript can be published.\nThe City Clerk responded the Zoom function used for the meetings does not capture a\ntranscript; the captioning is only shown on the screen during the discussion, but not\ntranscribed; the video of the meeting is posted the day after the meeting; the Clerk's office\nis also available to help and provide information to let people know what transpired at the\nmeetings.\nCommissioner Reid inquired how a disabled person can watch the video, to which the\nCity Clerk responded the captioning is in the recording, but the typing is not transcribed\nor saved anywhere in a document.\nVice Chair Shabazz inquired whether the issue is regarding revising the actual process\nof the minutes or about what is captured in the minutes.\nCommissioner LoPilato responded her intention with the question was to gauge whether\nthere were any strong statements about the way minutes are handled that could be\nincorporated in the bylaws, including changing to Action Minutes if decided; she would\nwork with the City Clerk to be sure the Commission is referring to the most contemporary\npractices in the bylaws; she would like the minutes section of the bylaws to reflect what\nthe Commission is actually doing as opposed to making huge changes.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated as someone who uses minutes for historical research, he is\ngrateful when they include more detail; provided an example of a meeting in the 1940's\nwhere watching a video was not possible; stated the detail in the minutes was valuable\nbeyond just bullet points that would be included in Action Minutes; he appreciates\nCommissioner Chen's point about having so much discussion included in the minutes,\nbut does not have a strong opinion about it and appreciates the ability to go back and\nread to understand what was discussed; issues with the minutes has come up a few\ntimes; there are conversations that do not seem germane during the minutes and it is not\nthe time for that; he would like the Commission to figure out the appropriate time and not\ndiscuss things that are not relevant at that moment; these issues could be addressed in\ntraining.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she appreciates Vice Chair Shabazz's comments and\nhas noticed the same issues arise; in working on the language of the bylaws, she will try\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n6\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 7, "text": "to find an easy place to insert language about the process; she agrees basic training\nwould be helpful; for the last item, she is hoping to add a new section in the bylaws: an\nindex of onboarding resources; it will change over time, but would be a straightforward\nprocedural process for each new Commissioner; it would be a placeholder until more\ninformation is spelled out.\nChair Tilos stated he thinks an index of resources is a great idea.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she appreciates all of Commissioner LoPilato's work on\nthe bylaw revisions; inquired whether a requirement could be added to communicate with\nthe OGC whenever the OGC is mentioned at Council or other Boards and Commissions\nmeetings.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she is hearing is the desire to have a statement that if\na matter pertaining to the OGC is brought before another policy body, such as the City\nCouncil, that staff will make the OGC aware of the item; she thinks it is a question for staff\nwith respect to whether the OGC has the power to require it.\nThe City Clerk stated if the OGC would like to put in a request to be informed of matters\npertaining to the OGC, staff could do their best; quite often Boards and Commissions are\ntypically copied on reports.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she noticed the Code of Conduct includes that if staff\nis presenting something that relates to a Commission, there should be space for the\nCommission chair to be able to respond if there is a dispute; if there is a statement like\nthat, she may add a mirror image of it into the OGC bylaws because it was a very\nsignificant recent issue.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether some reference to the minimum number of\nmembers required to create a subcommittee should be added.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated another option is to give the Commission the\nability to designate a single member; it could be a subcommittee or a sole member.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated she will write something out for the Chief Assistant City\nAttorney to review.\nCommissioner Reid suggested meeting locations also be included in the bylaw revision if\nthe City Attorney and City Council wish to proceed with providing Zoom meetings to the\npublic; she also wanted a possible amendment to increase the time for public speakers\nwhen there are less than five speakers in order to encourage as much public participation\nas possible or allow an opportunity to speak a second time.\nChair Tilos stated the meetings have been going beyond 11:00 p.m. since January; time\nlimits for speakers should not be increased and should remain at three minutes; most of\nthe speakers comply with three minutes; he does not want to give an invitation for more\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n7\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 8, "text": "time; if a speaker requests another 30 seconds, he would grant it, but there have been\nno requests for time extensions and he does not want to change the rules.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated it is not necessary to increase the speaker time; meetings are\none method of getting things done and take a long time for various reasons; there are\nother things like workshops or charrettes; people can individually contact Commissioners\nand have conversations; there are alternatives to just opening the floodgates for\nadditional time, which is not the most optimal method of letting democracy flourish.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she concurs with Vice Chair Shabazz.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees with keeping the speaker time at three\nminutes; the point is well taken that there are other ways to get ideas out there; a guiding\nprinciple is that Commissioners are very available and can say things during\nCommissioner Communications if a member of the public brings something forward.\nChair Tilos stated Commissioner time limits should stay at the eight minute mark.\nCommissioner Chen stated regarding the issue of declaring a conflict of interest and\nrecusal, until she read up on the issue, she did not believe she had a conflict of interest\nwhen she was asked to recuse herself; there needs to be some clarification on the\nprocess; when she read about it online, it was mainly about financial interest.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the topic is definitely one for training and something for the\nonboarding resources in the bylaws.\nChair Tilos thanked Commissioner LoPilato for all the work, providing a good framework,\nand for being very efficient in asking the questions; he thanked the Commissioners for\ntheir input as well.\n3-C. Report from Subcommittee on Practical and Policy Problems Encountered on\nAdministration of the Sunshine Ordinance\nVice Chair Shabazz and Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation.\nChair Tilos stated he was given a 45-minute orientation by the Recreation and Parks\nDirector, along with the Chair of the Commission when he was appointed to the\nRecreation and Parks Commission; suggested the same orientation process for new\nCommissioners, rather than the two hours proposed by the subcommittee.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner Chen stated it would have been helpful\nfor the three new commission members to meet with the City Clerk to go over the\nSunshine Ordinance and Handbook; there is a group dynamic; one Commissioner might\nask a question that another Commissioner did not even think about; the idea was just her\npersonal vision of how to onboard people and existing Commissioners could also join the\norientation as a refresher.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n8\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he is also considering the certain dynamics of the staff\ncurrently; provided the example of the new Chief Assistant City Attorney not having some\nof the historical knowledge that the City Clerk has; proposed the orientation be based on\nthe roles and responsibilities of a specific position and title versus the individual, i.e., there\nmay be some instances where the Chair could do something informally and a staff person\ncould provide a more formal orientation.\nCommissioner Reid suggested the OGC create a video for training purposes, which might\nalso be cost-cutting moving forward; inquired whether the subcommittee would create an\nonline binder as suggested; noted the Chief Assistant City Attorney has been very\nrespectful and she appreciates the good working relationship.\nChair Tilos stated there is some value in having a new Commissioner come onboard with\na staff member and a current Commissioner.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the orientation portion is not what she pictured as being\npart of the thrust of this particular report; all the ideas are great and are things the\nCommission should be doing; she sees structural issues with the OGC as a smaller\nsubheading to the broader, internal issues, which should be the report's focus; it is not\nsufficient to train OGC members with the same training given to everyone; Commission\nmembers need something more in-depth with more resources; training that is developed\naround how to function as an adjudicatory body would benefit the OGC; she would add\nthe 2019 Sunshine Ordinance training video to the list.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, Commissioner Chen stated the report is a\nwhole different thing; the exhibit is just a list of things the subcommittee would like to have\ndone; the report is one of the OGC duties; she agrees the annual report and the decade\nreport are going to be much more robust and detailed; the way for people to work together\nsuccessfully is by working together; there is no cohesion in the high tech/low touch\nsituation of the pandemic and Zoom world; instead, there are people thinking of plots\nagainst each other and having a lot of divisiveness in the country as a whole; training\nshould be exempt from being considered congregating as a quorum; Commissioners are\nnot legislating or making decisions; training is about learning the laws the Commission is\nrequired to oversee; she always benefits from hearing other people's questions; having\nat least one group session of the new members with veteran members would be\nbeneficial.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the exhibits were set up to deal with internally bringing people\nin, then, expanding the relationship with the staff, and lastly, getting to the actual duties.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated there has been a lot of uncertainty around whether the\nCommission is charged with recommending specific revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance\nor with the implementation of the ordinance; the delineation is also at the root of some of\nthe tension and relationship issues between the Commission and the City Attorney's\noffice, but also goes to the roles and responsibilities question; the Commission should be\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n9\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 10, "text": "mindful that it is not here as legislative drafters.\nThe City Clerk read section 2-22.4 of the Alameda Municipal Code regarding the duties\nof the OGC.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated if a problem comes up over and over, such as the ad hoc\nexemption in the Sunshine Ordinance, the Commission could surface the issue through\nthe implementation reports to Council as an issue the community is concerned about,\nrather than sending out Commission Communications about changing the language in\nthe ordinance.\nCommissioner Chen stated the reason she has that confusion is because the Boards and\nCommission Handbook actually lists \"proposing amendments to the Sunshine Ordinance\nto the City Council.\nThe City Clerk stated she would correct the Handbook and thanked Commissioner Chen\nfor pointing it out.\nCommissioner Reid stated the trainings would be great; suggested including members of\nthe public as well so they can also learn; stated the Sunshine Ordinance is a guide to\nimplement the Brown Act and should be looked at from that higher point of view.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated if the orientation is noticed, members of the public can\nparticipate; the Brown Act, which is based on principles of democracy, is a specific tool\nthat is being used and clarified at the local level; the subcommittee will take all the\nfeedback into advisement; this is just a starting place to correct some challenges the\nCommission has had with operations; the next piece regarding the roles and\nresponsibilities relates to challenges of folks coming on the Commission and not\nnecessarily knowing the different roles; Chair Tilos already suggested having a more\ninformal meeting with new Commissioners, along with City staff; he likes Commissioner\nChen's suggesting that the first thing that should be seen in the complaint process should\nbe the complaint itself, then, a staff report with action and response if there is any cure\nand correction; making sure all communications are pertinent is important so that one\nperson does not have more information than others; provided an example of receiving\nemail data for the Scott Morris complaint, which gave him a different timeline and\nunderstanding of the particular issue; stated one of the duties listed is contacting the\ncomplainant, which is actually a duty for City staff; these are just some issues the\nsubcommittee wanted to bring up, specifically related to the City Attorney's office.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether it would be appropriate to add that staff and the City\nAttorney's office should inform the OGC about exemptions, which should also be included\nin the annual report or possibly a monthly report; stated the goal should be to educate\neveryone and to create greater access.\nVice Chair Shabazz clarified his understanding of Commissioner Reid's suggestions: if\nthere are complaints, communicate that there is a complaint, the exemptions being\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n10\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 11, "text": "claimed and have frequent reporting or monthly communication; suggested adding a Staff\nCommunication section to the agenda as a mechanism to share important information\nwith the public; stated the role and responsibilities of the City Clerk's office would include\ntimely communications with the OGC and relaying the decisions or recommendations to\nthe originating body; some of this is internal City communications that the subcommittee\njust does not necessarily know what happens, along with responding to questions from\npotential complainants.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, Commissioner Chen stated sometimes\ncomplaints do not reach the Commission because they have asked the City Clerk's office\nfor clarification; once the Clerk provides it, they realize it does not qualify as a complaint;\nshe assumes that providing the clarification is one of the Clerk's duties and there must be\na lot of interesting queries, including questions where people think the Sunshine\nOrdinance does more than it does; the Sunshine Ordinance does something very clearly\nprescribed and people think it is a vehicle to do something else; it would be helpful if the\nCommission could do something to inform people about the parameters.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the Commission does not necessarily know what staff does in\nrelationship to the Commission; the subcommittee was trying to outline some of the\ndifferent roles and responsibilities and give staff an opportunity to clarify the roles.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she would like to find a way for the OGC to be of service\nto the community regarding the Public Records Act (PRA); suggested having a statement\non the City's website that would encourage members of the community to reach out to\nthe Commission directly; also suggested providing a list of resources and points of contact\nin the community such as the library, Mastick Center or other community organizations.\nVice Chair Shabazz clarified the discussion is still on the roles and responsibilities section,\nnot the PRA portion; stated Commissioner Reid's suggestions are interesting and the\nCommission will have the opportunity to come back to them; he would like to consider\nhow individual Commissioners and relationships with different organizations may be able\nto be leveraged; the next issue is the question around how to build trust between the OGC\nand the City Attorney's office; the subcommittee wanted to begin this as a conversation;\nthe guiding questions for bringing up the discussion and how to document it in a report\nincluded what are the specific roles, how do the OGC and the City Attorney's office relate\nto one another, where have issues of contention arisen, and the need to understand the\nstructural conflict of interest between the role of the OGC and the City Attorney's office\nand find ways within it to work constructively.\nChair Tilos stated he definitely agrees with Vice Chair Shabazz's comment regarding the\nbreaking of trust; he does not have answers; restated the issues that created the mistrust,\nincluding the December OGC meeting where items were not brought forth to the Council\nas recommended by the OGC; he is concerned about how complaints will be dealt with\nin the future and whether complaints will just go to a hearing body or mediator; he will\nleave it up to the subcommittee to figure out how to make it better.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n11\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Chair Shabazz restated the issue and what needs to change with the process or\nclarification of roles to build or reestablish a trusting relationship.\n***\nChair Tilos inquired whether a break is needed.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she would pull items 4-A and 4-B.\n***\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the first thing related to Public Records Act (PRA) requests is\nwhere the challenges have arisen and whether the challenges are idiosyncratic or\nsystematic; if the problems are systematic, the question becomes how can the OGC help;\namong the recommendations was a 10 year report, which is overarching and not specific\nto the PRA requests; the report is modeled after a PRA report by the City of Oakland's\nPublic Ethics Commission which came out in May; encouraged folks to read the report;\nstated the report is to understand what is happening with public records requests in the\nCity of Alameda; the second question is regarding the amendments, including what is and\nwhat is not a legislative body, the adjudicatory functions and specifically the suggestion\nto add a definition to ad hoc; there is also the question around the mechanisms of\nenforcement, which has been a focus for the last few years; these are only a few issues\ndiscussed; there may be more specific recommendations; the subcommittee wanted to\nget feedback from the rest of the Commission.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the issues are the areas she imagined would be the thrust\nof what the report would encompass; her vision may not be in sync with the Commission\nand feels there may be a disconnect; there is the annual report prepared by staff which\nlists the PRAs and complaints; then, there is discussion about a possible 10 year review\nof the OGC and Sunshine Ordinance; what the Commission is charged with doing, which\nis also in the ordinance, is reporting to Council annually on practical or policy problems\nencountered in the implementation of the Sunshine Ordinance; it is the Commission's\nopportunity to weigh in on a more in-depth look at interpreting the issues listed in the PRA\nchart or what was surfaced during complaints; inquired whether her thoughts are in line\nwith the type of reports produced.\nVice Chair Shabazz responded in the affirmative; stated that is where he sees the bulk of\nthe challenges, along with the capacity to generate a report; additional areas have been\noutlined in the conversation; he could share specific things that have come up in\nmeetings, but just wanted to hear from the rest of the Commission on the different issues\nthat need to be addressed.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it would be great if the Commission had limitless bandwidth\nto dive in, investigate and do interviews to get to the meat of the issues; the report can be\nthe Commission's opportunity to elevate and amplify concerns from the community; even\nsomething as simple as headings: \"Concerns raised to the OGC via complaints\" or\n\"Concerns Raised to the OGC outside of the complaint process;\" whatever it is needs to\nbe substantive; listed items that should be included: ways in which community members,\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n12\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 13, "text": "including journalists, have had to push hard to get public records requests fulfilled,\nwhether delivery of records after having to make repeated requests constitutes prompt\ndelivery, how complainants are treated, there have been some observations of an\nadversarial or bullying dynamic, said issues are functional to flag that may not surface to\nCouncil otherwise; others are: how Consent Calendar items are placed on the Council\nagenda and the legality of certain Sunshine Ordinance provisions; she does not see the\nCommission as appropriately weighing in on it, but elevating it as it comes up could be a\nfunction of the report; the State and federal legislative advocacy agenda could be\nsomething the Council could report back on and concerns about the Alameda Police\nDepartment (APD) not tracking PRA denials; it is a benefit that the subcommittee is made\nup of members who have gone through the complaint process and can also fill in some\nof the gaps about their experiences; she thinks a 10 year report would be great, which\nwill probably need some staff resources, but at least once a year a report should go to\nCouncil.\nVice Chair Shabazz summarized Commissioner LoPilato's suggestions and comments;\nstated that he encourages folks to go back and look at the different OGC complaints; one\nof the strengths of the subcommittee is that it is an undefeated group who have gone\nthrough the experience and whose complaints were sustained; suggested the\nsupplementary report regarding PRAs be a regular report; stated that he would like to\ncodify Commissioner suggestions; repeated concerns related to the ad hoc definition and\nBrown Act.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she noticed some inconsistencies and wonders how the\nCommission can provide consistency and transparency across all Boards; inquired\nwhether directing staff to appropriately provide a remedy should be brought up with the\nCouncil; gave some examples of inconsistencies within other Boards and Commissions.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated most Boards and Commissions\nhave their own staff members who do their minutes and may be running behind; the time\nstamping of the meetings require a staff person to be logged into the system during the\nmeeting; other Boards and Commissions do not have additional staff like the Council and\nOGC; clarified that not all Boards and Commissions are required to broadcast meetings;\nshe can review missing items and inform the appropriate staff.\nChair Tilos stated from his experience serving on the Recreation and Parks Commission,\nstaff informed him that it sometimes takes four to eight hours to complete a set of minutes;\nthere is no staff to facilitate minutes or time-stamping of meeting videos.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he hears the concerns regarding information being\navailable, which could be included in some format; some Commissions do not have as\nmuch capacity as others.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether the OGC should alert the City Council about the\ninconsistencies with the other 11 Boards and Commissions.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n13\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Chair Shabazz stated that when reviewing other Sunshine Ordinances, an OGC\nmember could monitor what other Commissions are doing to see if there are any\nchallenges; someone could monitor public meetings; the needs of the different\nCommissions should be considered.\nThe City Clerk clarified that the Sunshine Ordinance only requires broadcast of the City\nCouncil, Planning Board, Transportation Commission, Historical Advisory Board,\nRecreation and Park Commission and OGC.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it would be a good idea to have a discussion about\nprioritizing the issues the Commission will actually make a recommendation on once the\nreport is brought back; these would be items that are high impact and would really bring\nas big of a change as possible, in terms of transparency improvements; other concerns\ncan be listed or flagged, but not go in-depth; from the standpoint of institutional credibility\nto be of service to the Council and the community, the Commission should focus on true\nhot spots and substantive issues that lots of people are raising or see as extremely\nproblematic.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated utilizing time more effectively by de-prioritizing or not\nduplicating efforts would be helpful.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she wanted to clarify that she understands the conflicts\nbetween the OGC and the City Attorney's office are not personal; it is about the systems;\nthe OGC is supposed to look at complaints against City government and the City\nAttorney's office represents City government; there is a built-in conflict; open government\nis like internal affairs on the government; depending on people's personalities and\ndifferent things, there might be greater or lesser conflicts; the conflict is built into the\nnature of the relationship; the email received from the Chief Assistant City Attorney was\na good explanation of a really great starting point for conversations; she wants to make it\nclear it is a systemic conflict and not personal; a systemic issue should be approached\nsystemically and lay aside any personal feelings; she would like to figure out a way to\nwork together and understand the underlying conflict to do what is necessary to reduce\nthe conflict.\nCommissioner LoPilato expressed support for Commissioner Chen's comments as the\nbest framework for putting forth a lot of the challenges within the structure of the OGC;\nstated it is inherent in the system that was created in 2011 and 2012; it is beneficial\ncontext for Council and the public and furthers the institutional credibility; perhaps there\ncould be ways to work within in or make changes to it at some point.\nVice Chair Shabazz summarized the comments and recommendations; stated the\nsubcommittee will take the feedback and information received and work to prioritize some\nof the things to bring forward in a report; regarding comments made about capacity, staff\nmay be able to assist in some ways with a multi-year process; considering how the\nCommission may want to operate over the next two years is important; this is one of the\nfirst reports that is trying to look at the system and address some of the recurring\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n14\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 15, "text": "challenges; the subcommittee will come back with a final report.\n3-D. Update on Training\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney announced Sunshine Ordinance training would be held\non December 14th at 10:00 a.m. and a Study Session would also be scheduled, which\nwould be publicly noticed.\nIn response to Commissioner Chen inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the\ncontent of the email she sent Commissioners would be more appropriately discussed\nduring a later agenda item about the complaint procedure.\nVice Chair Shabazz thanked staff for working together to set up training; stated that he is\nlooking forward to different study sessions.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\n4-A. Consider Communication regarding Correspondence with First Amendment\nCoalition (Commissioner Reid) Withdrawn.\n4-B. Consider Communication regarding Discussion Items (Commissioner Reid).\nWithdrawn.\n4-C. Consider Communication regarding Equity Survey (Vice Chair Shabazz)\nVice Chair Shabazz made brief comments.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated any survey cannot be made\nmandatory; a person cannot be forced to fill it out; legally what can be asked and where\nthe survey should come from is a question of whether it falls under the OGC or something\nthe Council should direct.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she likes the goal of the survey to ensure Boards and\nCommissions are diverse, inclusive and equitable; gaining the information at the\napplication stage, rather than after the appointment stage, is problematic in nature; an\ninteresting question is what does the application pipeline look like and what can be done\nto improve the pipeline and make it more diverse; she would add more immediately\nimplementable things along the lines of applying an equity lens in the application process;\nalso finding out what is done currently to recruit people and how that can be improved.\nCommissioner Chen thanked Commissioner Reid for sharing the Sacramento link; stated\npart of the recommendation is suggesting that the City set up a committee on racial equity\nand diversity; the OGC's role is to increase the number of people who apply; it is hard to\nknow where is the need to generate applications.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she is supportive of the goal to represent all members of\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n15\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 16, "text": "the community; diversity is paramount; the OGC should really strive for it; she hopes other\nmembers will have a chance to review the Sacramento report; inquired what the cost\nwould be if the OGC recommends it and Council decides to implement the process; stated\nit is an important issue and what is being requested is important to know.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated there is some level of interest and some questions around the\npracticality and privacy concerns and potential implementation cost; he is interested in\nknowing how it could be done in Alameda; it appears the Sacramento system was done\nby the City Manager's office or an auditor.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated this would be a request that would be\nappropriately considered by the City Council in that it deals with a body that is in addition\nto the OGC and also potentially may involve funds and/or staff time to actually conduct\nthe program; said decisions should be made by Council.\nThe City Clerk concurred with the Chief Assistant City Attorney.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether the comment came up in the Police Reform and\nRacial Equity Subcommittee presentation to the OGC; stated if it was part of said context,\nit could be a way to frame the message that it did not come directly from the OGC.\nChair Tilos concurred; stated rather than calling it out as a separate request, it could be\nadded to the report.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he would like to frame it a little differently; the way he tried to\nframe it while writing it to the Commission was the question of what does equity look like\nwithin Boards and Commissions, considering how to implement it and whether it is\npossible to have something really be democratic when a wide spectrum of the community\nis not engaged; he questions whether or not there are substantive barriers to participation;\nhe would like to streamline it and simply suggest the Council review the Boards and\nCommissions to increase representation; it is a question the Council should explore and\nif they choose not to, it is their prerogative.\nCommissioner Chen moved approval of the OGC writing a letter to the City Council\nexpressing interest in expanding citizen participation in City government, starting with\nBoards and Commissions, including a diversity audit so the Commission will know where\noutreach should be done.\nVice Chair Shabazz 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.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated his suggestion would be\nfor Vice Chair Shabazz to draft the letter along with Commissioner Chen and bring it to\nthe next meeting for review by the whole Commission.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n16\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 17, "text": "Vice Chair Shabazz stated waiting a month for a letter is not very effective.\nCommissioner Chen stated City Council takes August off so it will be a month anyway;\nthe OGC can send the letter and speak during public comment.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the OGC should have a functional equivalent of a Consent\nCalendar; she does think the letter could be simple and streamlined; given the practical\nreality that Council is not meeting in August anyway, it may be beneficial to put some\ndaylight on the letter and surface it through the full Commission.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she can go either way and wants to leave it up to the rest\nof the Commission.\nThe City Clerk clarified the next meeting date of the OGC is August 2 and the packet\nwould have to go out in one week.\nChair Tilos stated that he is leaning toward having Vice Chair Shabazz and Commissioner\nChen draft the letter and send it out so an August meeting would not be needed.\nCommissioners Shabazz and Chen agreed to draft the letter and send it to Council.\n4-D. Consider Communication regarding Remote Meeting Participation (Vice Chair\nShabazz)\nVice Chair Shabazz made brief comments.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she loves the item very much and lifts up a lot of\nappreciation to Vice Chair Shabazz; she strongly supports it and has just some minor\nwordsmithing on the resolution; there are a lot of ways to do remote participation; the\ntelephonic option is a low-cost approach; she is open to whatever the spectrum is as long\nas there is a way to continue to be accessible to folks who would not be participating in\nperson.\nThanked Vice Chair Shabazz for bringing the item forward; stated it took a pandemic for\nfolks to realize how inaccessible government is to certain people; being able to attend the\nvirtual meetings has been transformational; he does not want the accessibility to end\nwhen September 30 hits; urged including AB 339 in Alameda's Sunshine Ordinance: Zac\nBowling, Alameda.\nCommissioner Reid stated she is also very supportive of the item, especially as someone\nwhose first language is not English; it is a great idea.\nChair Tilos concurred with Mr. Bowling about keeping the momentum on the issue going;\nstated the pandemic made all the technological advances better; it could be very powerful\nin getting more people to meetings, which is the goal; he definitely supports it.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n17\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 18, "text": "In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk explained that with the\ntechnology, staff is completely bypassing the Chambers equipment and the Zoom\nmeetings are not integrated with the equipment; it is not to say it cannot be done, but she\nand her staff have been trying to troubleshoot and think of ways to do it; converting the\nsystem back to being live is complex; her office wants to wait until Council is dark in\nAugust to start running tests and see how the technology could work; there is definitely\nsome momentum with the issue; regarding the resolution, the OGC has never adopted\none before and it may not be the right mechanism; suggested turning the resolution into\na letter to the Council similar to the last item, as a motion would accomplish the same\ngoal.\nChair Tilos concurred with the City Clerk; stated the proper channel would be to write a\nletter to the Council.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated it would be great if Chair Tilos would be willing to convert the\nresolution language into a letter to the Council and move it forward.\nChair Tilos stated he would be able to do so.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he authored the resolution, which includes two different\nsuggestions; one is about continuing remote participation; the second is a piece related\nto making meetings accessible to the most common non-English language; Chair Tilos'\nletter could include one or the other or both.\nThe City Clerk stated the Sunshine Ordinance has a section about capping translation\nservice at $20,000 per year.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk outlined Section 2-91.13e stated the\nmain translation service used currently is sign language.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the translation expenses have\nnever come close to the cap; she wanted the Commission to be aware since it is being\ndiscussed.\nCommissioner Chen stated the existing law does not expire until December 2023 so there\nis time to do research; she does not know how many languages are needed; the largest\nminority group in Alameda is Asian, which divides up into Chinese, Filipino, and\nVietnamese; she does not know which of those populations need the greatest language\naccess; the letter could be vague and just state the OGC's desire to increase access to\nlanguage minorities in the City; there is time to explore how it can be done; money should\nnot be the only reason prohibiting increased access to non-English speaking residents of\nAlameda.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated it can be simplified by\nadjusting the language to say the OGC recommends the City consider the options; if staff\nis going to do the research on cost and implementation, the Commission does not need\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n18\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 19, "text": "to give specific guidance; it can be packaged all at once, using the existing language and\nbeing mindful of tone.\nChair Tilos concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the letter could be written\nasking for consideration of the two points; the letter will be drafted and sent to Council\nprior to their September meeting.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated as a point of order, contrary to Commissioner Chen's\ncomment, the Governor's order ends in September, 2021; it is important to get the\nconversation to the City Council prior to that.\nThe City Clerk confirmed that the Governor's order ends September 30, 2021.\nCommissioner Chen inquired whether the 2023 date in the resolution is incorrect, to which\nCommissioner LoPilato responded the date references the Bill and not the Governor's\norder.\nVice Chair Shabazz and Chair Tilos stated they will write the letters.\n4-E. Consider Communication regarding Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Form and\nProcedure (Commissioner LoPilato)\nCommissioner LoPilato made brief comments.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated the issue seems a little\nheftier and could be an agenda item.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it would make sense for the Commission to agree to form\na subcommittee to revise the complaint procedures; then, what the Chief Assistant City\nAttorney wants to share could be discussed; she wants a general thumbs up or down on\nthe items outlined.\nChair Tilos stated the Commission should also discuss whether the OGC will still be the\nones taking the complaints after Council's suggestion of just having a hearing officer.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it was not Council's suggestion; it was the City Attorney's\nsuggestion, which Council rejected.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the discussion of a hearing officer has not been\nagendized and it is a significant enough topic that it should be properly agendized.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated it does make sense\nfor the Chief Assistant City Attorney to present to the public what was provided to the\nOGC.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney gave an overview; stated the purpose of her email was\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n19\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 20, "text": "to give the Commission an update on how the City Attorney's office plans to staff\ncomplaints going forward; the vision is to realign how outside counsel would be used to\nadvise her as she maintains her role as the advisor to the OGC; outside counsel would\nbe used to provide guidance to the OGC in its adjudicatory role; the City department on\nthe other side of the complaint would be represented at the hearing by another member\nof the City Attorney's office; the ethical wall she mentioned means that any other attorney\nfrom her office representing another department in the complaint process would be\nethically walled off; in practical terms, nothing is discussed in the office; she would step\nback from taking significant roles in evaluating and reviewing PRA requests; she provided\nthe information as it may have some bearing on how the OGC decides to evaluate\nrevisions to the complaint process.\nCommissioner LoPilato continued her presentation, inquired whether there is a desire\nto\nmake a formal request for a different arrangement or if the arrangement will address some\nof the issues that have come up.\nChair Tilos responded he would like more time to mull over the issue.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she has some concerns about outside counsel not\nappearing to be truly independent; the OGC should be making suggestions to the City\nAttorney about how to address issues and, conversely, what can the City Attorney can do\nto support the OGC.\nCommissioner LoPilato questioned whether the Chief Assistant City Attorney would be\nwilling to take on the role of doing a legal review of complaints; stated it would be really\nhelpful for the Commission.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the City Attorney's office taking\non a non-advocacy role, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she thinks the\nquestions are all fair; she is not prepared to commit her office to any certain work plan in\nthe context of a complaint at this time; a staffing decision was discussed internally and\nshared with the Commission to add to the full consideration of the issue; she would need\nothers from her office to weigh in before committing.\nCommissioner LoPilato continued her presentation.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she is not prepared to make any decision or\nrecommendation tonight; inquired whether anyone in the City could be Switzerland; stated\nthere needs to be someone with no ties to the City in the way that the City Attorney's\noffice represents the City; the OGC's duty is to find if a complaint has validity; she would\nlike to put the issue on the next agenda so the Commission could have more discussion.\nChair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated it does sound like a conflict of\ninterest that the OGC is asking for a neutral memorandum from a City employee.\nCommissioner Reid stated there is a greater discussion in that the City Attorney's office\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n20\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 21, "text": "went to the Council and bypassed the OGC; it seems the City Attorney's office has deeper\nconcerns that have not been addressed; she believes there are underlying issues that the\nOGC should address before moving forward with other suggestions.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated one thing she heard at the June 1st meeting regarding the\nOGC's adjudicatory function is a suggestion that there could be improvements to the ways\nin which complaints are adjudicated; while there are big philosophical questions the\nCommission wants to dive into, she is concerned that keeping it abstract opens up having\nmany complaints filed in the interim period while the complaint procedure is not being\nfollowed; there is a big picture question about who advises the Commission and what\ndoes that look like; she encourages moving forward with something that outlines what a\ncomplaint hearing should look like, what kind of documentation could be submitted, the\ntiming and what the findings and options are; something could be prepared that begins to\nanswer the questions and put forth a proposal; she would like to see what could be done\ntonight to be sure something is brought forward for the OGC to take action on at a future\nmeeting.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding whether there is interest in\nrevising the complaint procedures, Commissioners concurred.\nChair Tilos stated he would like someone in a neutral position provide guidance on how\nthe OGC should weigh in, rather than having outside counsel tell the OGC how to weigh\nin.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it might make sense to actually draft up what a complaint\nprocedure might look like, acknowledging there is a desire for a neutral guidance and\ninclude expectations about what the docket and complaint hearing would look like; she\nwould really like to get something moving forward and has already fleshed out some\noptions; suggested creating a subcommittee to make some progress in the downtime.\nChair Tilos stated he would support doing so.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she envisioned a flow chart of a process while reviewing\nCommissioner LoPilato's report; expressed support.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated if there is capacity of some staff members to create a flow\nchart, as another visual learner, it would be helpful.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she is supportive of having an August meeting; she is\nwilling to work on a subcommittee.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he supports figuring out the priority of the questions,\nincluding the issues around the complaint process, not necessarily the procedures, but\nhow the information is presented; other issues may need to be prioritized and timelines\nconsidered.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n21\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 22, "text": "Commissioner Reid stated including members of the public is also important since the\nOGC supports the public; it would be great to form a subcommittee that includes some\nmembers of the public.\nVice Chair Shabazz expressed concern about the Brown Act.\nCommissioner Reid stated the subcommittee would comply with the Brown Act.\nChair Tilos stated that he would just like to get it done; the vote could be done right here\nto be done with the matter; he is also leaning toward cranking it out for the August 2nd\nmeeting; it should be the lone agenda item in order to give it the full time and scope\nit\nshould be given.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated if Commissioner LoPilato, and Commissioner Reid if joining\nthe subcommittee, have the capacity to bring something back in August, he is fine with\nthat; expressed concern about the potential for complaints to come forward; stated that\nhe would like to be able to address the issues going forward; the opportunity for public\ninvolvement and participation could be at the August 2nd meeting.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she agrees; if the Commission drills down on the issue,\nit can cherry pick the things that can be fixed right now; on August 2 the Commission can\nagree to start to map out how to proceed with the rest of it; she thought an outside\nfacilitator was needed to help resolve and bring together the City Attorney's office and the\nCommission.\n***\nVice Chair Shabazz noted a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of continuing the meeting another 5 to 10\nminutes.\nCommission 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.\n***\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated she would take\nCommission direction and place the item as a Regular Agenda item; it will be the only\nagenda item since there will not be minutes to approve.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it would be great if other Commissioners take whatever gift\nof time can be given this week, think through things and submit correspondence to be\nmade publicly available when the packet goes out; the Commission would be better able\nto come prepared and wrap things up.\nChair Tilos restated that the Commissioners agreed to have an August 2nd meeting.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n22\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-07-19", "page": 23, "text": "Adjournment\nChair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:02 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\n23\nJuly 19, 2021", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf"}