{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY\nSEPTEMBER 20, 2021\n7:00 P.M.\nChair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid and Chair Tilos -\n4. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nVice Chair Shabazz - 1.\n[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;\nCity Clerk Lara Weisiger]\nOral Communications\nNone.\nRegular Agenda Items\n3-A. Minutes of the July 19, 2021 and August 2, 2021 Meetings\nCommissioner LoPilato proposed changes to the July 19 minutes; stated on Page 12, her\nmain point was that the percentage allocation for internal OGC structural issues should\nbe small and not a big chunk of the report; on Page 15, Vice Chair Shabazz talked about\na public ethics commission report and she does not know if the discussion was clear that\nthe report was from the City of Oakland; on Page 16, she was delineating things that\nseemed right for inclusion which got lumped together; she will send brief language\ncorrections to the Clerk; on Page 19, there is a typo: Sacrament instead of Sacramento;\non Page 23, there should be more context regarding when the Chief Assistant City\nAttorney sent an email instead of just stating she gave an overview.\nCommissioner Reid stated she made comments at the last meeting and wants to reiterate\nthat her changes were noted properly.\nCommissioner Chen moved approval of the July 19, 2021 minutes as amended.\nCommissioner Reid seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent:\nVice Chair Shabazz - 1]\nCommissioner Reid stated the minutes mention that she offered to work with the City\nClerk and it was followed through.\nCommissioner LoPilato moved approval of the August 2, 2021 minutes.\nCommissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent:\nVice Chair Shabazz - 1]\n3-B. Provide Input to the Subcommittee on Practical and Policy Problems Encountered\non Administration of the Sunshine Ordinance\nCommissioner Chen gave a brief presentation.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the report was included in the packet,\nto which the City Clerk and Commissioner Chen responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Chen continued her presentation.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she strongly believes the Commission should take the\ninternal issues in a very small subheading because the focus of the report should be on\nexternal issues heard from the community; one issue that stood out to her was the\nconcerns over the Alameda Police Department (APD) not tracking Public Record Act\n(PRA) denials; she has general concerns about the treatment of community members at\nthe informal resolution stage of Sunshine Ordinance complaints, specifically the\nperception of a bullying dynamic; she is on board with the ad hoc language clarification;\nof the complaints that have surfaced, these are the ones she would prioritize.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the new PRA system that was\nlaunched, Next Request, is being used by all the City departments except for the Police;\nthe APD has extremely different reporting requirements and regulations, so the\nDepartment is still handling requests directly; APD has received the feedback about the\ntracking concerns which can be included in the report.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she submitted correspondence and was hoping to get\nmore feedback from the public moving forward; if the issue is agendized for another\nmeeting, it would be great to get as much public feedback as possible; provided examples\nof issues included in her correspondence, including agenda revisions; stated it would be\nhelpful if agenda subscribers receive notification when an agenda is revised; she noticed\nanother issue that sometimes attachments are not included in PRA requests.\nThe City Clerk clarified that the system automatically stores all emails and retains\nattachments, but in very small instances, attachments are lost somehow and are not\nincluded.\nCommissioner Reid continued sharing comments from her correspondence, including\nwhen exemptions should be used; suggested clarifying exemptions and creating a list of\nexemptions used every month for OGC review; suggested links should indicate expiration\ndates; stated other PRA issues include masking of information and calendars not\nincluding dates and times of meetings.\nCommissioner Chen stated it is obvious Commissioner Reid has run into many\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 3, "text": "roadblocks with requests; the next step is to decide how to bring the issues back and\nwhether to separate the PRA and Open Government pieces; she would like to make sure\nthe discussions are productive and come up with good recommendations.\nChair Tilos stated that he is leaning towards staff make determinations about what is\nfeasible, then bringing it back to the meeting for the Commissioners to make a decision\nabout whether or not to pursue them.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees with Chair Tilos' approach; some of the\nissues sound like they could be more easily resolved by simply asking staff and are not\nbroad scale community concerns; it seems more feasible for staff to provide a response\nor clarification offline; the matter does not need to escalate to Council.\nThe City Clerk stated the exemptions, link expirations and masking issues are all going\nto be addressed with the new system; staff could definitely follow-up on any question\nabout anything missed.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she thinks there is broad community support for as much\ntransparency as possible and for really understanding some of the details; the example\nshe gave regarding the masking is just one of possibly two dozen examples she could\npersonally give; inquired how the public will know about the new system.\nThe City Clerk responded that she announced the launch to the OGC at the last meeting;\nstaff wanted to do a soft launch to get the system working; a social media blast and press\nreleases would go out very soon.\nCommissioner Chen inquired what the next step is moving forward.\nCommissioner LoPilato suggested the deliverable be a two to three page report;\nquestioned whether the report would be written by the Commission or staff; stated it\nshould be presented at a future meeting to the full Commission.\nCommissioner Reid stated suggested agendizing the item on the next meeting to provide\nan opportunity for public feedback; stated there could be more examples from people who\nhave done PRA requests.\nChair Tilos stated the issue has been a topic of conversation over the last three meetings;\nthere has been public comment; he does not want to belabor the topic any longer;\nsomething should be written up by the next meeting for a Commission vote.\nCommissioner Chen stated there are some easy things that could be included in a two to\nthree page report, but the PRA issue is a little bit more nuanced and complicated; if the\nCommission decides to hold a hearing at the next meeting on PRAs and invite the people\nwho have submitted PRAs, the Commission would get the feedback needed to move\nforward.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Tilos stated he would like to see how the new PRA system goes as it would address\nmany of the issues Commissioner Reid brought forward; after a few months, there can\nbe a check in with the public.\nCommissioner LoPilato read the ordinance language; stated presenting an actual\nrecommendation for action is ideal; the Commission is safely within compliance with its\nstatutory duties by simply surfacing an issue as a heads-up; the Commission does not\nneed to spend a ton of time thinking of exactly how to solve every PRA bottleneck before\npreparing the report.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Commissioner Chen; it would be great to\nget feedback from the public; suggested a public survey.\nCommissioner Chen stated the survey could be included in the recommendation as an\naction item; she will meet with Vice Chair Shabazz to draft a memo as part of the report;\nshe appreciates all the feedback and realizes the City is launching the new system for\nPRAs and there will be a sorting-out period to get the kinks out.\nCommissioner Reid stated the Commission should try to shoot for the maximum possible\nto be delivered to the public; encouraged Commissioner Chen to make a motion.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she would get together with Vice Chair Shabazz and a\nreport would come to the Commission next month to go to Council as part of the annual\nreport.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the report that is prepared will go on the agenda; there will\nbe opportunity for public comment; suggested Commissioner Reid make the public aware\nof the item as opposed to creating a survey since there already will be space for public\nengagement.\n3-C. Report from Subcommittee on Draft Bylaw Revisions\nCommissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation.\nThe City Clerk stated the report was shared with the League of Women Voters (LWV)\nalong with a link to join the meeting; the LWV knows the item is being addressed tonight\nand have access to the meeting.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she had\na discussion with Commissioner LoPilato at the beginning of her drafting process\nregarding specific issues that could come up; in general, she feels comfortable with the\nidea and concept of the Commission revising the rules that guide the meetings provided\nthat the rules being drafted are consistent with the Brown Act; it seems very appropriate\nto spend time to ensure meetings are working well for both the Commission and the\npublic; the only clause that she would like to double check is the provision about the 15-\nminute public comment period for non-agenda items.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 5, "text": "In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the 15-minute public\ncomment period matches the City Council's practice; the non-agenda public comment\nused to be at the end of the Council agenda and was moved to the top because people\nwere complaining about having to wait through the entire meeting to make comments; the\n15-minute limit was imposed to prevent lots of speakers from delaying regular business.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her concerns regarding the 15-minute comment\nperiod are now evaporated.\nCommissioner Chen inquired whether the City Council rarely has speakers during the last\ncomment section of the agenda, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she did not know the two-part public comment section\nwas in the Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether the OGC was in violation of the\nordinance since they do not have a two-part comment section.\nThe City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the requirement is specific to the City\nCouncil.\nCommissioner Reid stated the Commission should consider adding a specific role for the\nVice Chair; she is also concerned about the language added to the Bylaws to establish\none-member subcommittees; members should be working collaboratively; suggested\nstriking the clause that encourages one-member subcommittees; encouraged two-\nmember subcommittees instead; stated whatever is decided regarding public comment\ntime limits should be consistent across all Boards and Commissions; suggested\nencouraging the public to engage with the Commission when only a few people, less than\nfive, are in attendance; stated that she feels there is room for a point- and counter-point\ndiscussion; the OGC should be soliciting feedback from the public.\nChair Tilos stated exposed support for the changes.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether there are public speakers.\nThe City Clerk responded the one member of the public in attendance has not raised his\nhand to speak.\nCommissioner LoPilato provided clarification on subcommittees; stated the goal is to give\nCommissioners flexibility; she would leave the language as-is, although noting there is a\npreference for two people, instead of just one; she is open to thoughts on whether the\nVice Chair should have additional tasks, but is inclined to leave flexibility; requested\nfeedback from other Commissioners on using Public Comment versus Oral\nCommunications; stated otherwise, she is prepared to make a motion to adopt the revised\nBylaws; inquired whether additional review from the Chief Assistant City Attorney is\nneeded.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 6, "text": "The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she would like the opportunity to run\nthrough it one last time to verify there are no legal issues; overall she is supportive, legally,\nof refining the Bylaws to reflect the practice and procedures the Commission would like\nto follow.\nChair Tilos concurred with the Chief Assistant City Attorney; stated he would also like to\nget comments from Vice Chair Shabazz; inquired Commissioner Chen's thoughts on\nCommissioner Reid's concerns about one -member subcommittees.\nCommissioner Chen responded the way in which Commissioner LoPilato wrote the\nlanguage makes it very clear; individuals can volunteer to get a task done; ideally, it would\nbe good if another person wants to help; requiring that every subcommittee has at least\ntwo people is restrictive since there are only five members; it is really hard to require a\nminimum of two members; leaving it open and encouraging more than one member\nworks; she understands Commissioner Reid's concern.\nCommissioner Reid stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney mentioned in a previous\nmeeting a one-member subcommittee was a possible concern; requested feedback from\nthe Chief Assistant City Attorney on the issue and also regarding the spirit of establishing\na subcommittee.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated whether it is satisfactory to have a subcommittee\nof one came up before; at that time, her view was a subcommittee of one is satisfactory\nand acceptable; she does not have any legal issue with including language that states\neither a subcommittee or designated individual can do outside research and advise the\nCommission.\nChair Tilos stated the Commission should give staff time to review the revisions.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated the next step would be\nto have the item on the next agenda, including the same materials and Commissioner\nReid's correspondence.\nCommissioner Reid noted Commissioner LoPilato's summary of what happened in a prior\nmeeting did not properly indicate that she volunteered to work with the City Clerk;\ncautioned against writing summaries in reports before minutes are approved.\n3-D. Report from the Subcommittee on Proposed Complaint Procedure Revisions,\nincludes Draft Complaint Form\nComplaint Process\nCommissioner LoPilato suggested not using the term subcommittee when the item comes\nback on the next agenda and gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated\nthat she had a chance to discuss the matter with her colleagues; as an overarching\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 7, "text": "reminder, her office is tasked by the City Council to staff and advise the OGC; the details\nand how it is done that is up to the City Attorney's Office, which wants to be responsive\nto the Commission's concerns; the Office is prepared to commit to delivering written\nguidance when appropriate; she does not think the Office would be comfortable with the\ndraft procedures as written being absolute, especially referring to her role in the complaint\nprocess; the Office will commit to delivering the guidance mentioned in her July 19, 2021\nemail outlining the current staffing plan, which involves guidance to the OGC in its\nadjudicatory capacity when deliberating over complaints and calling upon outside counsel\nif necessary; she would be the one delivering guidance to the Commission; during the\ncomplaint process, instances may need elaboration; it would not be wise for her to commit\nto everything being in writing; guidance ahead of the hearing will be in writing; she does\nnot know if her position will always advise the Commission; another Attorney could fill the\nposition; concerns were raised about ethical walls or guardrails; attorneys are used to\nwalling themselves off from their colleagues in a variety of situations; OGC cases would\nbe no different; she does not have a formalized process; if a complaint is filed, she would\nadvise the OGC in a neutral capacity and would not discuss anything with the staff\nrepresenting the City.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated one of the components of the procedures is dependent on\nwhether there is a written statement; she wanted to create a timeline; inquired whether it\nis beneficial to have the pre-hearing submission timeline include some kind of guidance.\nThe City Clerk responded that she had some concerns about the timeline; stated if the\nCommission wants to hold meetings the first Monday of the month and a complaint is\nsubmitted later in the previous month, the timeline could make it harder to get the hearing\non the agenda; expressed concern about coordinating special meetings.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the process is more like a motion hearing and\nmore formulaic; individuals filing complaints are most likely not attorneys; the process\nshould not be stifled too much; after someone has gone through the trouble and effort of\nfiling a complaint, they might feel boxed out if they do not understand Respondent\nStatements; she thinks Commissioner LoPilato addressed the issue and provided enough\nflexibility, but she is mindful there may be instances in which the Complainant would not\narticulate their argument and her written guidance may not capture all arguments; there\nneeds to be some flexibility.\nCommissioner Reid stated in a prior meeting, the City Clerk mentioned Complainants are\nrequired to attend the hearing; inquired whether there would be any legal issues with\nsomeone filing an anonymous complaint.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she is not aware of any legal issues;\nstated that she would look into the matter more deeply in advance of the next meeting;\nmost of her concerns have to do with the practicalities; it seems odd to her having a quasi-\nadjudicatory process where there are two sides and one side is anonymous; she is not\naware of any legal prohibition.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Reid stated that she does not want to exclude members of the public who\nwish to remain anonymous; the goal is to create a platform of transparency and allow the\npublic to come forward while still maintaining their privacy; it is a practice in San Francisco\nand other places; she sent Commissioners case law which supports doing so; as an\ninclusive city, Alameda should allow anyone to come forward anonymously.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she has not thought about the issue enough; when talking\nabout transparency and openness, people should also be transparent and open; if\nsomeone feels strongly that the government is not following the laws, they should be\npublic about it; she understands the need for privacy, but she is not sold on it; she would\nlike to look into what the benefit would be.\nChair Tilos stated it would be more of a con or detriment because it would open it up for\na lot more complaints, which could be frivolous.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she would not be supportive of an anonymous\ncomplaint process because it is ripe for abuse; she does not want to change the process\nor weaponize the concept of transparency to jam up City government or utilize staff\nresources; on the one hand, the Commission wants to hear as much as it can about\nissues people are encountering; on the other hand, the complaint process requires a\nhearing, staff time and responding party statements; she does not want tax dollars spent\non these things a dozen times a month; if someone wants to privately express issues with\nthe Sunshine Ordinance, there is still a vehicle to do so; the complaint process is not the\nonly way to handle issues; if someone wants to raise an issue anonymously, they can\nemail the Commission via the City Clerk; there are lots of ways to raise a concern other\nthan the complaint process.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it would be hard to harmonize an anonymous\ncomplaint procedure with the limit on unfounded complaints that currently exists in the\nSunshine Ordinance.\nCommissioner Reid inquired why the language is not more streamlined to just include\ndenied and sustained; stated San Francisco and Oakland have only two options.\nChair Tilos stated that he asked the same questions two or three meetings ago; the\nCommission wanted more options.\nCommissioner Chen stated if the complaint is sustained, the Commission agrees the\ncomplaint is valid; if a complaint is denied, it means the facts of the case did not uphold\nthe complaint; if it is unfounded, it falls into the rule about two unfounded cases in one\nyear; a person can file more complaints as long as their complaints is denied, rather than\nunfounded.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether the unfounded option should just be eliminated, to\nwhich Commissioner Chen responded in the negative; stated unfounded captures cases\nin which the process is being weaponized.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 9, "text": "Chair Tilos stated if a person has two unfounded cases, they should not bring more\ncomplaints.\nCommissioner Reid stated the penalties are harsh.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the penalties are rooted in the Sunshine Ordinance, which\nthe Commission does not have the ability to revise, nor is it the topic of the agenda item;\nshe thinks it might be instructive to describe the different type of findings; listed examples.\nCommissioner Reid stated it is overdone and should be much more simplified and fair for\nthe public.\nChair Tilos stated Commissioner Reid's comments are noted.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the Commission needs to deal with the pre-hearing\nsubmission timeline.\nChair Tilos concurred; stated the decision to have monthly meetings is all new and the\ntiming need to be hashed out.\nThe City Clerk discussed scheduling.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated she could work with the City Clerk and Chief Assistant City\nAttorney between now and the next meeting to streamline a solution; the individual from\nthe City Attorney's office supporting the OGC needs sufficient time to review the materials\nand prepare something for the Commission, while also working to prevent off-cycle\nmeetings; the goal is to give everybody a clear and transparent process and timeline; the\nlanguage could be a little more vague to say: \"based on the complaint submission timing,\nthe City Clerk will advise all parties of when written submissions will be due. \"\nor\nsomething along those lines.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated there are timing requirements for\nscheduling a complaint hearing; prior to setting the monthly Mondays, staff always tried\nto schedule the hearing for the next meeting; it was quicker because all that was needed\nwas the complaint and staff report; hearings sometimes had to be set on a different date\nbased on the schedules of the Commissioners and/or Complainant.\nChair Tilos inquired whether bringing the item back on October 4th is a reasonable\ntimeframe, to which Commissioner LoPilato responded that she could potentially have it\nready; stated the complaint procedures might require more legal review; deferred to the\nChief Assistant City Attorney.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated she is fine to do the review on one or both items\nby the October 4th meeting.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner LoPilato stated getting the Bylaws done by the October meeting might\nmake sense; the complaint procedures could move to November, but the Commission\ncould attempt to get it on the next agenda.\nComplaint Form\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Reid stated the City Clerk's form is an online form and hers is the paper\nversion; the forms are modeled after San Francisco's form; her revision includes a\nworksheet to help people indicate which section of the Sunshine Ordinance may have\nbeen violated; a hyperlink to the Sunshine Ordinance could be included in the online form;\nreferences could also be posted on the City's webpage; requested the Chief Assistant\nCity Attorney sure all the references are correct; suggested cleaning up the forms for the\nnext meeting.\nCommissioner Chen stated the revised form may actually reduce the amount of\ncomplaints; in answering the questions on the form, the person may realize that they are\nanswering \"no\" to most of the questions and what they really should do is come to the\nmeeting to speak under public comment.\nCommissioner Reid concurred with Commissioner Chen's comments; stated it is another\nway to educate the public.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the worksheet reminds her of the self-help legal access\ncenter of the court system; the specific breakdown of the sections assists individuals in\narticulating claims, which is also helpful for the decision-makers it is definitely a nice\noption to consider; she would like to hear from the City Attorney's office to make sure\nthere are accurate statements of the law and requirements; in the spirit of encouraging\npublic comment during the meeting, it may be beneficial to include a statement at the end\nof the worksheet that people are welcome to share their concerns with the OGC if they\nare no longer interested in filing a complaint.\nCommissioner Chen concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the form should lead\nwith encouraging public attendance and comment during the OGC meetings; she feels\ntwo of the complaints the OGC heard this year have a place in the public comment section\ndue to the Bylaw revisions.\nChair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated the Commission could guide\npeople towards public comment before going down the road of filing a complaint; the\ncomplaint process takes a lot of resources on both sides; issues raised during public could\nbe placed a future agenda.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she would have probably addressed the Commission\nunder public comment before filing a complaint if she has known it was a possibility,\nalthough her timeline would have run out.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 11, "text": "Commissioner Reid inquired whether the timeline should be extended to 30 days.\nCommissioner Chen stated the timeline would have to be changed in the Sunshine\nOrdinance.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated there should be language regarding the 15-day filing\nrequirement; people should be aware they may need to file their complaint while going\nthrough the informal process.\nCommissioner Reid stated perhaps the 15 calendar days could be changed to 15 working\ndays to be more accommodating.\nThe City Clerk stated a revision would need to be approved by Council because the 15-\nday requirement is in the Sunshine Ordinance.\nCommissioner Reid stated the comments could be suggested to the City Council by the\nCommission.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated the issue of timing has come up historically, including in\nthe prior iteration of the Commission's attempt to revise the Sunshine Ordinance; rather\nthan proposing a lot of revisions to the timing, it might be appropriate to flag during the\nrevision of the complaint procedure; the 15-day requirement is there for a reason.\nIn response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry regarding revising a complaint, the City Clerk\nstated even if the person outlines the issues vaguely in the complaint, specifics and details\ncan be raised at the hearing.\nCommissioner Reid stated the issue was also one of her concerns; allowing additional\nflexibility for an individual to make modifications or additions does not create such a tight\nbox for people and is more open.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she could take a stab at changing some of the\nlanguage to inform Complainants it is in their best interest to give the Commission as\nmuch information as possible, but the Commission also understands the Complainant\nmay gain information over time or may need to revise or add to their complaint, all of\nwhich will be considered up until the hearing.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she is ready to finish her collaboration with the City Clerk\nand submit a more polished version of the complaint form documents for the next meeting.\nThe City Clerk stated she is happy to have it ready for the next meeting; suggested the\ncomplaint form and procedure be addressed together.\nChair Tilos stated the October meeting should tackle the Bylaws and the complaint\nprocedure should be in November.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner LoPilato stated if there are other items on the October agenda, the\nCommission could proactively put the complaint procedures on a future agenda; if both\nitems can go in October, there may not be a need for a November meeting.\nThe City Clerk stated Commissioner Chen and Vice Chair Shabazz's subcommittee\nreport would return in October.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she would be happy to bifurcate the procedures and the\nform; they do not need to be on the same agenda item; suggested having the item done\nin October.\nChair Tilos summarized that agenda items for the October meeting: the Bylaws and the\nSunshine Ordinance practical and policy problems, with the complaint procedures and\nform on the November agenda.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she is fine with the schedule.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\n4-A Consider Communication regarding Informational Report on Disclosure of\nDocuments (Vice Chair Shabazz)\nThe City Clerk stated Vice Chair Shabazz requested that she pass on his intention: he\nthinks the report should come back before the Commission again as an agenda item; the\nreport went to the Commission on February 1, 2016 in response to a Commissioner\nraising questions at the time; the City Attorney reported back on the issue; the subject\nhas not changed and an identical report would come back; Vice Chair Shabazz thought\nit would be good to have the report on another agenda.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her understanding of the communication is that\nVice Chair Shabazz is asking for the same information the City Attorney's Office provides\nin the twice yearly report to the City Council, which has already been done once this year.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated Vice Chair Shabazz's email includes a request for\ninformation about how State laws like Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748 have\nchanged City requirements for disclosure and let the Commission know where the\ninformation is available on the website.\nChair Tilos stated since there are some clarifying questions from the Chief Assistant City\nAttorney, perhaps Vice Chair Shabazz should just present the item to the Commission in\nOctober; at the Commission's discretion, it could be placed on the November agenda.\nCommissioner Chen stated it is a good idea that the Commission is copied on the report\nthat City Council receives since it directly impacts open government.\nChair Tilos stated he would like to hear more from Vice Chair Shabazz at the October\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nSeptember 20, 2021\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-09-20", "page": 13, "text": "meeting.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she would also like to hear from Vice Chair Shabazz as\nwell.\nThe City Clerk stated she add the item to the October agenda.\n4-B Consider Communication regarding Draft Sunshine Charter Article (Commissioner\nReid)\nCommissioner Reid made a brief presentation.\nChair Tilos stated getting more teeth has been a two year ordeal; the Commission is close\nto a happy compromise; his position is he would like to focus on the Bylaws and making\nthe OGC meetings more efficient.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it makes sense to see what other jurisdictions are doing,\nbut the Commission should stay mindful of the impacts on staff bandwidth; comparing\nSan Francisco and Alameda is like apples and oranges; it is important to stay aware when\nlooking at things that would actually impact procedure.\nChair Tilos stated the discussion of tonight's meeting was very robust and a good organic\nconversation; thanked the Commission for always continuing to bring their thoughts and\nperspectives to the meetings.\nAdjournment\nChair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 9:30 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\nSeptember 20, 2021\n13", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf"}