{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY OCTOBER 4, 2021 7:00 P.M.\nChair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz and\nChair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via\nZoom and Vice Chair Shabazz arrived at 7:04 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\n[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;\nCity Clerk Lara Weisiger]\nOral Communications\nNone.\nRegular Agenda Items\n3-B. Adopted Proposed Amendments to the Bylaw\nCommissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she has no further comments as to any legal\naspects of the Bylaws with exception of referencing the blank in Section 4-B.3 regarding\nprocedures for complaint hearings; she wants to make sure it gets completed if there is a\nfuture motion; at the last meeting, she mentioned that she wanted to verify the revision\nregarding the 15-minute public comment time limit; she is comfortable with the insertion.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she had a chance to read the correspondence submitted\nby Jay Garfinkle; acknowledge the extensive work; recommended taking additional time\nto digest it and allow other members of the public an opportunity to comment and take\nthe ideas into consideration; stated her take-away from his letter are optimizing\ntransparency and participation; Mr. Garfinkle's suggestions address said values.\nCommissioner LoPilato continued her presentation.\nSpeaker:\nJay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he put a lot of effort in reviewing the proposed\nrevisions; he thinks both the original Bylaws and complaint processes are very lacking;\nthe public should have every opportunity to participate in the process; what matters now\nis the revisions by Commissioner LoPilato and the suggestions he submitted; his offerings\nare extensive and are based on many years experience in parliamentary procedure;\nurged the Commission to make every effort to optimize enhancing the openness and\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 2, "text": "transparency of government activities.\nCommissioner Reid stated the Commission should acknowledge Mr. Garfinkle's\ncomments; there should not be any rush to revise the Bylaws without careful\nconsideration; reiterated some of the points referenced in Mr. Garfinkle's\ncorrespondence, such as the Bylaws being amended by a supermajority vote; stated the\nrole of the City Clerk as the Secretary is confusing and should be clarified; if the\nCommission wants to continue considering meeting monthly, it should be included in the\nBylaws; the suggestion to increase awareness regarding special meetings and updates\nis important; locations of meetings should be available and accessible to the public.\nChair Tilos stated that he does not agree with the speaker's comment regarding\nsteamrolling through issues; nothing has moved that quickly during the entire time he has\nbeen on the Commission; he wants to gauge the rest of the Commissioners on making a\nmotion tonight or pushing it out for several more meetings.\nVice Chair Shabazz concurred with Chair Tilos regarding the steamrolling comment;\nstated that he is willing to move to approve the revisions of the Bylaws; the issue has\nbeen and can be an ongoing process; he does not think any revisions voted on tonight\nwill be final revisions; if the Commission adopts the provision of a supermajority\nrequirement, it would make it potentially more difficult to make revisions in the future; he\nagrees with some of Mr. Garfinkle's comments; suggested a simple adjustment to noticing\nspecial meetings via electronic communications to add the phrase: \"and others\" beyond\njust local media; questioned how a majority of the Commission would call a special\nmeeting, which could be addressed at a later point; stated other issues could also be\ndetailed in a practical way that does not cause obstruction and enables the Commission\nto function.\nChair Tilos stated that he shares Vice Chair Shabazz's sentiments.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she appreciates Commissioner LoPilato's hard work on\nthe item, as well as the efforts of Mr. Garfinkle; she does not agree with the supermajority\npiece for the same reasons Vice Chair Shabazz stated in that it would freeze the\nCommission in place; inquired how the Secretary of the Commission is also a staff\nmember and whether she is a voting member of the Commission.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he could provide examples of organizations he has been a\npart of where there was a similar designation, including the Peralta Community College\nBoard of Trustees, which has a Board Secretary who was hired to do specific work;\ntechnically based on the Bylaws, the Chancellor of the District is the Secretary of the\nBoard; often times public institutions have a Secretary who serves as record keeper; if it\nis necessary, the City Clerk's role as Secretary to the OGC could be clarified to indicate\nthat she does not vote; it is a standard practice, as is found in some private and non-profit\norganizations; it would be difficult for a volunteer body to have someone do the work that\nthe City Clerk does as a volunteer; it is a common designation.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner LoPilato stated the language regarding the role of the Secretary is\nconsistent across all Alameda Boards and Commissions Bylaws; there is always an\ninterest in maintaining specificity to the work of the Commission, but also some uniformity\nand basic provisions.\nThe City Clerk concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the Secretary is always a\nstaff person; she does not staff all the Boards or Commissions, so typically someone in\nthe related Department is the Secretary noted in the Bylaws as an Officer fulfilling said\nrole.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Mr. Garfinkle's position to allow members\nof the public to be invited to participate in the work of subcommittees; she feels it is a\ngood goal to incorporate in the Bylaws; the review and analysis of Public Records Act\n(PRA) requests should be an essential goal of the Commission included as an order of\nbusiness; it is good preparation and streamlining process to include a section in the\nagenda on Standard Commission Business; review of prior meeting meetings could be\nsomething the Chair could work with the City Clerk to streamline the process; allowing\ntime for the Commissioners to respond to public comments is a good practice.\nChair Tilos inquired whether there are glaring issues that need to be addressed before\nmoving forward.\nCommissioner Chen stated Commissioners are not allowed to hold debates with public\nspeakers under non-agenda public comment; inquired whether it would be a violation of\nthe Brown Act.\nThe City Clerk responded the rule is actually in the Code of Conduct which applies to all\nthe Boards and Commissions; stated every Commissioner signs that they will follow the\nCode of Conduct, which states public comment is not to be a debate.\nCommissioner Reid stated the intention behind it is not debate, but for clarification\npurposes; speakers should not be excluded just for time limitations if they have something\nelse to say on a topic.\nVice Chair Shabazz suggested the basis for discussion be the revisions proposed by\nCommissioner LoPilato; stated particular things could be added from Commissioners and\nMr. Garfinkle; he has nothing to add to the work done by Commissioner LoPilato, other\nthan the clarification question around process and majority requesting a meeting; he is\nprepared to make a motion.\nThe City Clerk stated the Bylaw provision Vice Chair Shabazz asked about is actually\nreplicated based on the City Council; either the Chair or three members can call a special\nmeeting; the reason it exists is so the Chair does not have the ultimate authority to block\nsomething Commissioners wants to hear; it is a practice that has not been used during\nher time, but it does exist.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Reid inquired whether public comment submitted during an appropriate\npart of the agenda should be allowed to be read to the Commission.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated reading correspondence into the record as a standard\npractice could be very time consuming and not ideal; there already is a practice in which\nthe City Clerk can accommodate speakers who are unable to attend or speak during the\nmeeting.\nThe City Clerk concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the Clerk's office would\nmake any reasonable accommodation; the feedback received from most of the public\nwhen the COVID lockdown happened and staff was reading public comments was they\nwere tired of the Clerk reading the comments; then, an automated reader was used, which\nthe public did not like either; reading the public comments into the record was not well-\nreceived.\nChair Tilos stated that he has no reservations against the current system where the\ncorrespondence is received and distributed by the City Clerk; he is confident all\nCommissioners are checking their emails and are very thoughtful of the comments.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he hears an underlying theme from Commissioner Reid\nillustrated in the lifting up of Mr. Garfinkle's comments, which is the desire to maximize\npublic engagement; the theme has been repeated over a few months; his thoughts are to\nthink of other ways to have the same outcome, including considering a town hall forum or\nencouraging people to be involved in civic organizations; he has heard the repeated\nsuggestions of finding other ways, having public involved in subcommittees or increasing\nspeaker time, but the meetings have been very long; there are alternate ways of doing it\nthat does not reduce public participation by having very long meetings.\nChair Tilos concurred with Vice Chair Shabazz; stated the biggest comment he received\nfrom more than one Councilmember was about the length of OGC meetings, which is why\nthe City Attorney's office proposed removing the complaint procedure from the\nCommission completely; he is looking for more efficient ways; it is not efficient use of the\nCommission's time to deliberate every point in correspondence received; it is not a\ndebate; Commissioner Reid already knows how other Commissioners feel about some of\nthe themes she would like to change and seems redundant.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she does not know how other Commissioners feel and\nthat Chair Tilos's comment is an assumption.\nChair Tilos stated that he understands Commissioner Reid's desire to get the public more\nengaged, but he is also trying to balance out how to shorten meetings; the initial schedule\nof bi-annual meetings became monthly meetings; work is being done; he would like to tilt\nit back the other way in terms of meetings.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she appreciates Chair Tilos's position and that he has\nbeen doing this for a long time; she is just an average member of the community and she\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 5, "text": "is not afraid of change or afraid to bring her ideas to the table; just because something\nhas been done one way does not mean it is the optimal and the best way for the public\nto engage; members of the community are unaware of what is going on; the OGC should\nbe supporting these values; she is sorry to sound redundant, but teachers repeat\nthemselves hoping their students will learn; Mr. Garfinkle's suggestions should not be\nignored; she appreciates Vice Chair Shabazz asking for ways in which the OGC can\nengage the public more; the email list distribution is a very simple change, which is a good\nidea.\nThe City Clerk stated the public already has the ability to sign up to receive email\nnotifications of any and every meeting; the City sends out notifications of every agenda,\nposts upcoming events and lists upcoming meetings; the City makes sure the public has\nevery ability to know about and participate in every meeting.\nCommissioner Chen moved approval of accepting Commissioner LoPilato's revisions to\nthe Bylaws.\nVice Chair Shabazz seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner LoPilato made a friendly amendment to address a\ncouple items; under Section 5-A. Regular Meetings, which references semi-annual\nmeetings, she does not want to automatically assume the OGC is sticking with monthly\nmeetings; suggested adding the language: \"on the receipt of an alleged complaint or due\nto ongoing business before the Commission\" so it is clear that there could be instances\nother than a complaint requiring another meeting to be held.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he thought the language already stated: \"or as needed.\"\nCommissioner LoPilato stated to be very clear, after the phrase \"alleged complaint \"add\n\"or due to ongoing business before the Commission;\" under 5-B. Special Meetings, add\nthe words: \"or others\" after \"local media\" to address the noticing; strike the word \"mail\" so\nit just says \"written notice;\" in Section 8. Rules of Order and Governing Procedures,\nSection 3-C. Statement of Position, the final line should state: \"each Commissioner may\nbriefly state his or her position on the matter before roll call or the call for the next item of\nbusiness;\" the City Clerk will add the link to the complaint form and procedures in the\nhighlighted sections once it is completed.\nCommissioner Chen and Vice Chair Shabazz accepted Commissioner LoPilato's friendly\namendment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 4. Noes: 1.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the Bylaws could be revisited at some point in the future;\nsuggested not dispensing with the subcommittee in the event the Commission considers\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 6, "text": "revisiting the Bylaws.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated if an individual Commissioner\nhas interest in further revisions to the Bylaws at some point, it could be raised as a\nCommission Agenda Request.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated that she would like to\nstart tonight but is open to a later implementation if more adjustment time is needed; it is\nintended to be a living document and reference material that will be consulted a lot.\nCommissioner Reid stated starting at the beginning of the year seems appropriate.\nCommissioner Chen stated it should be effective at the next meeting; she sees it as a\nliving document; she has been studying and will keep in mind Mr. Garfinkle's suggestions\nwhile seeing how well the newly revised Bylaws are working.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated he would like to implement it immediately.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated there is flexibility about voting to adjust time limits on\npresentations and things like that if needed for any other agenda items.\n3-A. Approve Report to City Council on Issues/Problems Arising from Implementation of\nthe Sunshine Ordinance\nVice Chair Shabazz and Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation.\n***\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of allowing an additional minute for the presentation.\nChair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 5.\n***\nCommissioner Chen and Vice Chair Shabazz completed the presentation.\nIn response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that\nshe is not entirely sure what Mr. Foreman's referenced in his correspondence regarding\nthe City Attorney's office; there may have been comments about complaints hearing\nserving as a semi-adjudicatory capacity, which means that the Commission is making\ndecisions about the legitimacy of a complaint.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether it is the opinion of the City Attorney's office that the\nCommission is a quasi-judicial body.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded she is not sure the term is quasi-judicial; she\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 7, "text": "is more familiar with the term quasi-adjudicatory; it is difficult for her to interpret someone\nelse's statement about another statement that was made.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she would like clarification on what Mr. Foreman was\nasking in his correspondence; if the OGC is quasi-adjudicatory, what are the ramifications\nof the recent null and void proposal and what are the necessary steps to rectify the\nsituation; inquired whether it is true that the OGC is quasi-adjudicatory.\nChair Tilos stated the term came up when the City Council and City Attorney's office said\nthe Commission could not use null and void; therefore, the OGC does fall under the label\nof quasi-adjudicatory.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated another staff member from her office made the\npresentation to the City Council on June 1st; she cannot intuit exactly what Mr. Foreman\nis meaning in his comments; she would be happy to respond at a later time with more\ndepth.\nCommissioner Reid stated Mr. Foreman's comments regarding the statements made at\nthe June 1st City Council meeting that the OGC is quasi-judicial should be addressed;\ninquired how the City Attorney's office interprets that statement now.\nChair Tilos stated null and void has been answered; the Commission cannot use it;\ninquired whether Commissioner Reid's is intending to bring the null and void issue back\nfor discussion.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she just asked the question and would like an answer\nfrom the Chief Assistant City Attorney on whether the City Attorney's office considers the\nOGC to be quasi-adjudicatory.\nChair Tilos stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney already stated she would provide a\nresponse in depth at a later time.\nCommissioner Reid stated her question was mentioned in the correspondence from Mr.\nForeman, which she assumes everyone has had a change to read.\nChair Tilos stated the correspondence was sent two hours before the meeting and not\neveryone has read it.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she scanned Mr. Foreman's\ncorrespondence; at this point, there is no reason to say anything different than what Mr.\nLe may have said on June 1st; she does not recall the exact comments and is still not\nentirely clear what Commissioner Reid is asking her to do related to this particular agenda\nitem.\nCommissioner Chen stated what she understood is that the Commission has an\nadjudicatory function, which means the Commission decides whether or not there is\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 8, "text": "validity to a complaint; what can happen once a complaint is deemed valid, is to advise\nthe Council, or whichever Commission, that they are in violation of the Sunshine\nOrdinance; the Commission does not have the function to make any decision null and\nvoid; she has been listening very intently to the entire process; she was indignant when\nit\nfirst happened three years ago; sitting on the Commission, she has come to realize that\nhaving an adjudicatory role is not the same as having the right to make something null\nand void; as a point of order, the subcommittee did not make any comment or statement\nor recommendation on that specific issue and it is not on the table at this point.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the complaint\nby Scott Morris was put on hold due to the expectation that the City Attorney's office would\ndevelop a policy; his understanding is that has not taken place; the recommendation was\nfor the policy to be put in place and for it to be published publicly.\nSpeaker:\nJay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated the staff report appears convoluted and extensive and he\ncannot tell what the recommendations are; encouraged the Commission to carefully read\nMr. Foreman's letter; stated the Sunshine Ordinance as drafted in 2013 is out of sync with\nwhat the public expects from the government in terms of openness; encouraged the OGC\nto set up a committee to find out what the public would like to see in terms of openness\nin the procedures.\nIn response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the Word\ndocument provided to the Commissioners has redlines of corrections and revisions.\nCommissioner Chen stated because there was not enough time to put together a proper\nreport, she would like another month to clean it up for the sake of the public being able to\nsee what was just sent to the Commission today.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated nothing in his report is new; the difference is previous iterations\nin July and the rudimentary outline has details he was not able to include before due to\nlack of computer access; shared that tonight is his last meeting; stated everyone is\nwelcome to utilize the information.\nChair Tilos stated since Commissioner Chen will be the sole subcommittee member and\nshe needs more time to clean up the report, it can be paused and brought back at a later\nmeeting.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he was unavailable to attend the September meeting; the\nsubcommittee was hoping to get input; additional feedback should be shared now, so\nwhen the item returns, it can be dealt with effectively and efficiently; this is the first time\nthe Commission has authored a report; the report does not have to be the everything\nreport; encouraged subsequent reports and for the Commission to do with it what they\nwill.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 9, "text": "Commissioner Chen stated in light of what Vice Chair Shabazz said, she is okay if the\nCommission approves sending it on; it is an ongoing process; moved approval of\naccepting the report.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the draft of the report which was\nattached to the agenda has additional language.\nVice Chair Shabazz responded the staff report has blanks where information needed to\nbe inserted or facts cited; stated the clean document he sent at the start of the meeting\nincludes the information.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she has concerns; the Commission would\nbe voting to approve a document that was not in the packet and people are having trouble\nlocating; it would not be a good idea to consider voting on a document that was provided\nso late.\nCommissioner Reid stated it seems there is a lot of confusion about the document and\nperhaps would be wise to table it until the next time and Commissioner Chen would have\nan opportunity to clean it up a bit.\nCommissioner Chen withdrew her motion.\nVice Chair Shabazz suggested deferring the item to the next meeting.\nChair Tilos concurred; stated it will be brought back on the next agenda November 1st\n3-C. Adopt Proposed Complaint Procedure\nCommissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation.\nSpeaker:\nKaren Butter, League of Women Voters, inquired whether the process addresses\ncomplaints about the Commission.\nJay Garfinkle, Alameda, clarified what he meant regarding the term steamrolling; stated\nwhen members of the Commission have a lot of momentum, it is impossible to change\ntheir mind on issues he believes they misunderstand; he feels the complaint process is\nheavily tipped toward protecting the actions of City staff and elected officers; submitted\nsuggestions on how to tip the process in favor of the public; urged the Commission to\ntable consideration of the process until the next meeting.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of adopting the proposed complaint procedures.\nCommissioner LoPilato seconded the motion.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 10, "text": "Under discussion, Commissioner Reid thanked the members of the public present at the\nmeeting; stated that she agrees with Mr. Garfinkle's comments; the Commission should\ntake a little more time to digest the recommendations; they are very detailed; she is in\nfavor of adopting most of them; highlighted a list of important items, including keeping a\nrecord of communication between a Complainant and City staff, the idea of the pre-\nhearing process, including details for Complainants to visualize the process, removing\nthe term unfounded, and the Annual Report to the City Council should be on the Regular\nAgenda, not the Consent Calendar.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated, typically, according to parliamentary procedures or Robert's\nRules, the person making the motion speaks first to debate the motion; as someone who\nhas filed a complaint, he echoes some of Mr. Garfinkle's sentiments in regards to feeling\nlike the process was weighted against him, even when he filed a complaint as a sitting\nCommissioner; the process being weighted is not necessarily germane to Commissioner\nLoPilato's suggestion; the procedures specifically outline what will be addressed first; the\nfirst thing he would like to see is what the complaint is about, rather than City's response;\nat the hearing, the person should have an opportunity to share first; then, a response,\npresentation of facts and opportunity for rebuttal with time restrictions provides a clear\nprocess which tips the scale back towards the Complainant; this is a much better process;\nhe appreciates the efforts around collaboration; he is not trying to change the rules for a\nparticular outcome; encouraged the Commission adopt something that is going to be\nmore fair for people who file complaints; what is proposed moves in that direction.\nChair Tilos stated that he shares the same sentiments as well; having the City Attorney's\nOffice provide a neutral opinion tips the scale towards the Complainant and addresses\nsome of the concerns Commissioner Reid has regarding making the process more open,\npublic, easier and fairer; the Commission should move forward.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he absolutely agrees with Chair Tilos; during the\nconversations related to Mr. Morris's hearing, there was discussion related to the different\nfindings and the need to go beyond the binary; the proposal provides a wide array of\nopportunities; looking back at the pre-2018 era, the process delineates a spectrum of\noptions including sustained, unfounded, and denied, which should continue because\nthere have been a lot of shenanigans and attempts to change rules and manipulate\nprocesses; he does not want people to use the OGC as a vehicle to attempt to do so.\nCommissioner Chen stated there has to be a balance between helping a democracy work\nor throwing molasses in the wheels; the OGC was set up to make sure the government\ndoes not run roughshod over the public, deny them the right to know what is happening\nand to have a representative government; the ultimate decision makers are the voters; if\nfolks do not like how their elected officials are behaving or legislating, having an election\nis what a legislative democracy is; the OGC and Sunshine Ordinance is set to give the\npublic an opportunity to question whether decisions and access to public records are\nbeing denied; the Commission is able to decide whether or not to agree with the\nComplainant; the OGC should not be used to delay how local government; sitting on the\nCommission, she can see why there are complaints about government not acting quickly;\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 11, "text": "being a successful Complainant, she can see why it is important to have a vehicle to\nquestion and ask an objective body to decide whether or not a complaint is valid; she\nwould vote to accept the proposal, which is a lot better than what came before; moving\nforward, tweaks and corrections could be on an annual basis.\nCommissioner LoPilato thanked everyone for the feedback; stated that she is glad most\nfolks feel like it is an improvement; she would like to include a glossary and an FAQ\nsection; this is the type of thing the Commission could revisit and quickly address; the\nFAQs deal with things within the City Clerk's purview, so she has offered to complete it;\nthe glossary and FAQs could come on a future agenda; the procedures are ready to move\nforward; acknowledged Ms. Butter's comments regarding how a complaint against the\nOGC would be handled; stated it is a question that the Commission needs to grapple with;\nshe does not know whether it needs to be resolved tonight and does not know whether\nthe Commission has the authority to resolve it; it is something to look at and propose\nsome suggestions in the future; thanked Mr. Garfinkle for his interest in the procedures;\nstated that she is not supportive of his proposed changes because she is very mindful of\nthe need to stay within the boundaries of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Commission's\nability to direct staff.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she did not receive an email regarding a complaint filed\nthat the Commission will hear in November; inquired the date of the email.\nChair Tilos stated Commissioner Reid not receiving the email could have easily been a\nstaff miscue and is not something the Commission should be discussing.\nThe City Clerk responded the email was sent to Commissioners on September 22nd\nCommissioner Reid stated that she has some concerns she would like to address; while\nshe appreciates all of Commissioner LoPilato's work on the procedures, she wants to\nrestate that she believes a subcommittees should be more than one person; it was a lot\nof work and the public should have been incorporated in the process; the Commission\nshould not ignore good suggestions that do not always require extra time from City staff;\nthe Commission should be tipping the scale towards the public's benefit; she questions\nwhether it is appropriate for the person who submitted the document to second the\nmotion; she is in favor of adopting most of the redlines submitted by Mr. Garfinkle, which\nsupport the public and are much more transparent; she will not be supporting a motion of\nthe proposal as is.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she sent out the email to the Commissioners\non September 22nd regarding the complaint to be heard in November; she sent it to\nCommissioner Reid's City email address, which she thought Commissioner Reid uses for\nOGC business; she could send it to another account.\nCommissioner Reid thanked the Chief Assistant City Attorney; stated she just double-\nchecked the email address and there was no email from September 22nd\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n11", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 12, "text": "The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it shows that the message was sent on her end;\nshe will resend the email; if the email is still not received, she will endeavor to see why it\nis not going through.\nCommissioner Reid requested the email be sent to the address corresponding to the\nOGC.\nChair Tilos stated the conversation could be taken offline.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that fortunately he was not included in the conspiracy and\nreceived the email on September 22nd at 5:13 p.m.; to address Commissioner Reid's\nconcern, people who make proposals can also make motions; there is a motion and\nsecond on the floor and he is ready to call the question; he added that it would be helpful\nto make the form available electronically.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\n4-A Consider Communication regarding Informational Report on Disclosure of\nDocuments (Vice Chair Shabazz)\nVice Chair Shabazz gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the item does not\nrequire a motion, but the Commission could provide direction.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated as a Commissioner, the\nbody can make requests or advise the City Council, but cannot tell staff what to do.\nChair Tilos stated that he concurs with Vice Chair Shabazz's request, but since it is under\nCommission Communications, he thought the request might be more informal.\nCommissioner Chen stated the item should be put on the agenda for next month for the\nCommission to formally request staff to provide a report.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the first question is whether the Commission wants the\ninformation; when would be a matter of staff and their capacity to be able to provide it.\nCommissioner LoPilato encouraged feedback from the Chief Assistant City Attorney on\nany questions about the nature of the request, if it is doable and not necessarily\ncommitting to any timeline.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her understanding of Vice Chair Shabazz's\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 13, "text": "request is he is asking for the same information that is in the semi-annual report the City\nAttorney's Office provides as a Consent item on the City Council agenda; the last report\npresented was on September 7, 2021; other dates included March 2, 2021, September\n3, 2019, and February 19, 2019; she could not readily find the 2020 dates; the report is\nrequired under the Sunshine Ordinance and is publicly available; she reviewed the 2016\nreport Vice Chair Shabazz included with his Commission Communication; it appears to\nbe very similar, if not a duplicate, of what was submitted to the City Council; it is\ninformation that has already been made publicly available; information about how the City\nresponds to PRAs consistent with various new laws poses a definite challenge and would\nrequire direction from the City Council because it is providing legal advice and\ninterpretation subject to attorney-client privilege; it is not information the City Attorney's\nOffice would normally disclose in a public meeting; the City Attorney's Office would do so\nif the Council directs such disclosures; if the Commission decides to make the request to\nthe City Council, she would definitely note the fact she has indicated that such analysis\nmay require legal interpretation that may be subject to attorney work product and\nattorney-client privilege.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she would like the Commission to receive a copy of the\nreport sent to the City Council as a point of procedure; she would also like to see all of\nthe PRAs that have been submitted in a monthly report sent to the OGC.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated if some of the information is already being provided to the City\nCouncil, it would not be difficult to share the information with the Commission; regarding\nthe piece on attorney-client privilege, his request is that the Commission is asking for an\ninformational report which provides context and what is required in the Sunshine\nOrdinance; what is disclosable has changed over the last five years; perhaps the\nadditional laws become an issue.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she may not have been clear and\napologized; she is taking the request in two pieces; the first piece is for the City Attorney's\nOffice to provide the OGC a report similar to what is provided to the Council indicating\nwhat, if any, documents have been released after being initially withheld from disclosure;\nas to that piece, the information is regularly provided twice a year to the City Council in\na\npublicly available report; the ones that she reviewed indicate no documents have been\ndeclassified; the second piece of Vice Chair Shabazz's request is asking for an analysis\nor explanation of how the City Attorney's Office, and the City as a whole, treat document\nrequests with the advent of some new laws; it is this piece the City Attorney's Office\nbelieves would require her office to divulge attorney work product or attorney-client\ncommunications because it would require her office to indicate what legal interpretation\nthey take of the laws in their application to specific requests that are made to the City,\nwhich would require direction from City Council.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he understands what the Chief Assistant City Attorney is\ncommunicating; it is not that he disagrees; he is in no position to make a decision for the\nCity; he is requesting a formal, agendized Commission agenda item in the future; for the\nsecond portion, the Commission may ask the City Council for information or documents\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n13", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 14, "text": "that are now disclosable; having the conversation publicly could help the OGC continue\nto effectively do its work.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she would support a motion that specifies the OGC would\nhave a formal agenda item to further discuss these issues, asking the City Attorney's\nOffice to submit a copy of the same report to the OGC and to also include monthly reports\nof PRAs submitted and exemptions that have utilized.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated that he would make a motion not including everything\nCommissioner Reid included; he is a fan of the PRA, but doing a monthly report might be\nburdensome; he is attempting to start with one request for an informational report, which\nincludes a recommendation to permanently implement a PRA supplement in the annual\nreport.\nVice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the Commission requesting that City staff provide\nan informational report on disclosure of documents.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether providing the same document as the one on the\nCity Council's Consent Calendar under the Commission's Staff Update section meets the\nneeds of the motion.\nVice Chair Shabazz responded essentially, the issue came before the Commission five\nyears ago and a Commissioner asked what it was about; he is asking the same thing; the\ncore of the question is that he is requesting the information come back to the Commission\nto be shared in a way that is contextualized; he does not think it should take more than\nhalf an hour to provide the information and allow the public to be aware of the report that\ngoes before the City Council twice a year.\nCommissioner Reid stated that she is familiar with the report and has been following it;\nshe appreciates Vice Chair Shabazz's motion but would like to make a friendly\namendment to make it even more open and include the list of the PRAs on a monthly\nbasis; stated that she does not think it would take much of City staff's time; it would be\nhighly beneficial to the OGC and the public to see all the requests coming through, how\nthe City Attorney's Office is handling them and what exemptions are being used\nrepeatedly.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Vice\nChair Shabazz's motion, but would like to add to his motion that a PRAs report is added\non a monthly basis.\nChair Tilos stated Vice Chair Shabazz already declined adding the monthly PRA piece\nbecause it gets a little more tedious and adds more content to already-long meetings.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she is concerned Commissioner Reid's\nrequest is not agendized; there is discussion and action being contemplated about a\nrequest that is not on the agenda; cautioned the Commission to be careful.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n14", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 15, "text": "Commissioner Reid clarified that her request was to place the item on the next agenda.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated if the Commission gives direction\ntonight, the item can come back at a later date when there is time on the agenda.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated a motion has been made but not\nseconded; a motion can be made since the matter is listed as an agenda item.\nCommissioner LoPilato inquired whether the motion is to talk about it at a future date as\nan agendized item; stated that she thought the actual motion was to directly request that\nstaff provide the information and materials at the future agenda.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion was to request staff to provide an informational report.\nCommissioner Chen stated under Commission Communications, the Commission can\nonly ask to have an item be put on an agenda; technically, the item is not being discussed\nright now; it has to be an agendized item for the Commission to ask staff to do something.\nChair Tilos moved that the Commission discuss what they would like to do at a later time;\nstated he is trying to avoid putting it on the agenda next month; inquired whether it is\ncorrect procedure to put it on an agenda for a future date.\nThe City Clerk stated there is no date in the motion, so a later time is fine.\nCommissioner Reid inquired whether Chair Tilos is making a motion.\nChair Tilos stated he withdraws his motion.\nCommissioner Reid moved approval of placing the item on the agenda for a later time to\ninclude a monthly PRA report and that the City Attorney's Office share the bi-annual report\nwith the OGC.\nChair Tilos stated there is no second on either Vice Chair Shabazz or Commissioner\nReid's motions.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney clearly cautioned the\nCommission against considering and discussing the item that is not on the agenda; a\nsimple solution would be to request the item be placed on the next agenda.\nCommissioner Chen seconded Vice Chair Shabazz's original motion.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated before taking a vote, she wants to make sure the staff who\nwill be responsible for providing the report is clear on the scope of what is being\nrequested.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 4, 2021\n15", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-10-04", "page": 16, "text": "The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated in general, the City Attorney's Office takes\ndirection from City Council on workload; she would like to strike a balance to be\nreasonable; the report that includes the information Vice Chair Shabazz has asked for is\nalready in a written report so a copy could be attached to Commissioner Communications\nin a meeting closest to whichever City Council meeting the semi-annual report is\npresented; she does not envision producing a separate report.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Commissioners\nChen: Aye; LoPilato: Abstain; Reid: Abstain; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: No. Ayes: 2.\nAbstentions: 2. Noes: 1.\nVice Chair Shabazz stated this is his last OGC meeting and shared his resignation letter;\nwished all the Commissioners well.\nAdjournment\nChair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 9:50 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\nOctober 4, 2021\n16", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf"}