{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING\nTuesday, January 11, 2022\n1\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Downing called the regular meeting to order at approximately 6:35 p.m. via\nteleconference\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\n(Via teleconference) Chair Ed Downing, Vice Chair Claire\nLoud, Commissioner John Kim, and Commissioner Robert\nLattimore\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Kaiwin Su\nNone\nStaff:\n(Via teleconference) Recreation and Parks Director Amy\nWooldridge and Sarah Craig, Greenway Golf\nAlso Present:\nNone\n2\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nMinutes of November 9, 2021, were approved unanimously.\n3\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n4\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Downing reminded the Commissioners to review the Sunshine Ordinance that\nwas provided to them.\nVice Chair Loud shared a letter that was addressed to the Mayor, the City Council, Ms\nWooldridge, Chair Downing and Vice Chair Loud, and has heard from the service\nclubs at Corica Park, especially the women's service clubs, (the nine hole club was\nfounded in 1972 and the 18 hole club was founded in 1929) regarding the restrictions\nthat are being put in place by Greenway per a letter from Brett Morrison. She has\nreceived general feedback concerning these restrictions. The Ladies 18-hole club is\nnow playing in the City of Oakland for 14 of their events this year. She was also\ninformed that there is no longer a nine-hole rate for the Ladies Nine Hole club.\n5\nWRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS\n1\nGolf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, January 11, 2022", "path": "GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 2, "text": "5-A\nBeautification Program and Junior Golf Club\nChair Downing stated there have been three meetings with Greenway staff and\nAlameda Junior Golf involving a Memorandum of Agreement, and after every meeting,\nthey left with an understanding of what the agreement would look like, and at the next\nmeeting, there were changes. One of the concerns he had was there was no one in\nattendance from Greenway that could make a decision, and by the next meeting,\nsome of the proposals had changed. He was concerned about two words that were\nused, the first being subsidization, they did not feel that they should be subsidizing\nAlameda Junior Golf Club, and he feels they should be supporting a city group that\nhas been playing junior golf for decades on a city owned golf course. In his view,\nsubsidization was the wrong word, support would have been better. The second\nphrase that concerned him was \"stand alone\", that the junior golf club should stand\nalone without their support. Again, it's a city group and city club, there should be some\nsupport from Greenway, but his understanding of \"stand alone\" was not to expect any\nsupport from the course, and if it impacts revenue, Greenway is not willing to support.\nGreen fees went from pre pandemic were $1.00 to $25.00 to play the entire course,\nand the Mif rates were previously free and will be $5.00 for the summer events. As a\nresult of these increases, the junior golf club has had to raise their annual membership\nfee from $50.00 to $75.00 to help defer these increases. He feels that this is not as\nsupportive as he hoped, and the MOU is not what he hoped it would be. He\nencourages the City to take a look online at the Solano County Junior Golf program to\nsee what type of support is given elsewhere.\nPer Connie Wendling, membership applications are available in the clubhouse,\nAlameda Golf Works, and the driving range. Great response has been received for\ntheir donation requests from the community. There is a new website available, and\nvolunteers are always needed.\nVice Chair Loud shared that she was also a part of the discussions regarding the MOU\nwith junior golf and she would help support them, as they have not been able to have\ntheir biggest fundraiser, the Jack Clark tournament, due to Covid. They had heard\nfrom Greenway, that even though they were raising their rates, they would assist with\nthe first Jack Clark, but she feels those commitments were not honored, as it was left\noff the MOU, as junior golf did not feel they were getting any consideration from\nGreenway.\n6\nAGENDA ITEMS\n7\nOLD BUSINESS\n7-A\nFacility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf\n2\nGolf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, January 11, 2022", "path": "GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 3, "text": "Sarah Craig of Greenway stated that she was not provided a facility report and\nthe report as well as the annual report would be provided at the next meeting\nChair Downing asked about the beverage cart and asked for an update. She\nstated that Greenway is considering several options but is not comfortable\ndiscussing them. Vice Chair Loud asked if there was a beverage cart operating\nright now, and Ms. Craig stated there is not.\nChair Downing asked about the teaching center and Ms. Craig stated they are\nhoping to open it this summer.\nChair Downing asked about the practice area memberships, and she stated that\nthey are looking to bring them back this year but will have to check with Umesh\nand Brett for clarity on when that will occur.\nChair Downing asked Ms. Craig to inquire why there is no resident rate for the\nadvance tee times.\nVice Chair Loud asked about the fire tower and Ms. Craig stated that they had\ncompleted their initial assessment and it was determined that it was structurally\nsound, but they are unable to meet the extension deadline, mostly due to Covid\nrelated issues, but they have kept Amy Wooldridge informed.\nChair Downing asked about the Annual Report and Ms. Craig stated it was\nbeing prepared and would be presented at the next meeting.\nCommissioner Kim asked about the advance booking fee, and Ms. Craig stated\nthat per our website host, EZlinks, this is a common practice for tee times\nbooked 8-90 days in advance as it is considered to be a premium product and\nis utilized by many courses.\n7-B\nJim's on the Course Restaurant Report\nNone\n7-C\nRecreation and Parks Director Report\nAmy Wooldridge stated that she has been working to secure quotes for parking\nlot lights. They are looking to add two lights to the back side of the existing\ndriving range lights which would face the parking lot. There are other lights in\nthe parking lot that are not activated, that is an additional possibility.\nAdditionally, they are asking the lighting company for a lighting spread, which\nwould show the dark spots, and also fix some of the lighting along the road.\n3\nGolf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, January 11, 2022", "path": "GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Wooldridge also stated that she is working with Marc Logan of Greenway\nand have asked him to provide information about Greenway's storm drain\nsystem that connects with the City's that runs under the golf course, it collects\nstorm water for Bay Farm, and sends it out to the bay. Due to Harbor Bay\nflooding after the last two storms, they also had backyards along Beach Road\nflooding, so Public Works is doing an analysis, once they receive the\ninformation from Greenway, and also will analyze Bay Farm storm drain\nsystems.\n8.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - March 8, 2022\nFacility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf\nJim's on the Course Restaurant Report\nRecreation and Parks Director Report\n9.\nANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:04 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the\nAlameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the\nBrown Act.\n4\nGolf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, January 11, 2022", "path": "GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 5, "text": "Greenway Golf - Facility Update\nJanuary 11, 2022\nThe following provides an update on Greenway Golf's activities during the months of November and\nDecember 2021 at Corica Park. A portion of this update responds directly to questions asked by Golf\nCommissioners at the October 2021 Golf Commission meeting as well as information on the food and\nbeverage amendment and fire tower. Future updates will include a standard agenda for reporting on\nstanding items of interest as well as adding in issue and/or topic specific information.\nQuestions from Golf Commissioners\nDoes 90-day booking policy that apply to the Founder's Club?\nYes, the booking fee applies to all patrons. The Founders still have 14-day advance booking\nprivileges.\nI noticed that the teaching center by the range has been closed since COVID - any plans to open that\nup?\nWe are evaluating our space needs, including those for our On the Green Summer Camp, and\nhave no plans to open up that space to instructors at the current time.\nPractice center memberships - is that still an offering at the course?\nWe paused the program at the onset of pandemic-related closures, but we are planning to bring\nthem back in the new year. We will keep everyone posted.\nFood and Beverage\nWe are currently working through possible food and beverage offerings with a focus on studying food\nand beverage carts, working with our legal counsel on securing a liquor license, and evaluating and\ntalking with local vendors. We will report out on the food and beverage work at every Golf Commission\nmoving forward.\nFire Tower\nWe have been making great progress on the beautification and design tasks to restore the old fire tower\nlocated at the entrance of Corica Park. To date, we have done the following:\nReviewed the design review application in its entirety to familiarize ourselves with the City's\nprocess\nResearched and held preliminary discussions with architectural firms - one of which will lead the\ndesign/beautification process\nResearched and held introductory conversations with potential artists\nIdentified key stakeholders to participate in the process\nHeld preliminary discussions with some key stakeholders\nHeld internal ideation sessions on design themes\nResearched similar civic projects\nPrepared a timeline and plan", "path": "GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 6, "text": "Greenway Golf - Facility Update\nJanuary 11, 2022\nWe are now in the process of selecting an architectural firm and artist and finalizing the outreach\nprocess to ensure community input. We anticipate we will be meeting with various stakeholders to\ngather input and have preliminary designs to share at the end of Q1 2022.", "path": "GolfCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY JANUARY 11, 2022 7:00 P.M.\nChair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:11 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Cambra, Chen, Montgomery, LoPilato\nand Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted\nvia Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\n[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;\nCity Clerk Lara Weisiger]\nNON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT\nNone.\nCOMPLAINT HEARINGS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n4-A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair\nIn response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, Chair Tilos summarized the\nselection process.\nCommissioner Montgomery moved approval of electing Vice Chair LoPilato as Chair and\nCommissioner Chen as Vice Chair.\nChair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Chair Tilos:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\n4-B. Minutes of the December 6, 2021 Meeting\nVice Chair LoPilato outlined minor corrections.\nCommissioner Chen moved approval of the minutes with the corrections.\nCommissioner Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair\nLoPilato. Ayes: 5.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJanuary 11, 2022\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 2, "text": "4-C. Report to City Council on Issues Arising from Implementation of the Sunshine\nOrdinance\nCommissioner Chen gave a presentation.\nCommissioner Montgomery moved approval of allowing five more minutes for the\npresentation.\nChair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair LoPilato.\nAyes: 5.\nCommissioner Chen completed her presentation.\nCommissioner Montgomery stated the orientation packet should be moved to the success\nportion of the report since she received one when she became a Commissioner.\nVice Chair LoPilato thanked Commissioner Chen for her huge undertaking in providing a\nwell-structured and comprehensive report; stated that she would like to add a link to the\nBrown Act and Public Records Act in the Bylaw; she would like clarification about what\nthe Commission/staff partnership should look like.\nThe City Clerk stated she will add the links to the bylaws.\nIn response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry regarding posting the bylaws online, the City\nClerk stated the bylaws for Boards and Commissions are not typically posted, but she\nwould be happy to post in on the Commission's webpage.\nCommissioner Chen stated she would like the bylaws to be posted online.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding the four-year maximum term limit, Vice Chair\nLoPilato stated the section regarding the term limits is from the original bylaws; it is a\npiece that the Commission does not have the ability to revise since it requires City Council\naction; quoted the language, a term that is concurrently linked with the service of the\nappointing City Council member but in no event shall exceed four years.\n\"\nThe City Clerk stated the key language is that a single term cannot exceed four years.\nVice Chair LoPilato stated that she was wondering about development of a ten-year plan;\nquestioned whether problems, such as lack of continuity in institutional memory, might be\nsolved in a less labor-intensive way; she thinks it is a great aspirational request, but fears\nit will be bumped to the bottom of the priority list given everything else staff has to do.\nCommissioner Chen stated for her personally and as a resident of Alameda, it would be\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJanuary 11, 2022\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 3, "text": "good to have a historical document that talks about open government and democracy,\nespecially now; it does not have to be as detailed as an encyclopedia; people forget the\nimportance of open government and we are seeing the destruction of voting rights in this\nCountry; people do not really appreciate what it entails to have a legitimate democracy\nand what should be expected from elected officials; she would like to see the City allocate\nresources to the development of a document that allows people to see the background\nbehind the whole series of open government and Sunshine Ordinances that were passed\n10 to 15 years ago and why local communities may be the last place where democracy\nis still practiced; it is really important that people have a healthy respect for open\ngovernment, what it means and how they can practice it themselves.\nVice Chair LoPilato stated it is a great goal, but she is concerned that it is too big of an\nask to include in this inaugural report in terms of staff allocation and financial resources;\nan alternative could be a staff/Commission partnership could prepare the report which\ncan then be publicized on City channels; the alternative could soften the ask if the\nCommission is willing to take on some of the labor.\nCommissioner Cambra stated that he would like a little more clarification regarding the\ndocument; questioned if the intent would be that the memory of the decisions made by\nthe Open Government Commission (OGC) would create precedent; he understands that\nit does not address the over-arching issue of democracy, but also wonders if creating a\nreport every year would add to the continuity of the OGC.\nCommissioner Chen stated Commissioner Cambra just took her down a different path on\nhow the Commission adjudicates all the different cases; the Commission has no idea of\nhow previous cases were adjudicated, which seems like a case law issue.\nChair Tilos inquired whether the Commission should have knowledge of previous cases\nor come in with a fresh set of eyes.\nCommissioner Cambra responded that he thinks continuity in the decision-making\nprocess is important so the public understands when they come before the OGC with a\ncomplaint factually similar to a previous one, the Commission will not come to a\ncompletely different decision; he does not want to use the word \"precedent\" as it is a legal\nterm; the term \"guided by\" may be more appropriate.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk part of the recent Sunshine Ordinance\nchanges require all of the decisions made by the Commission be posted online; the\ninformation is posted on the City's OGC website.\nCommissioner Montgomery stated her thoughts are as the times and days change, the\nCommission's ideas will change as well; she is uncertain about using past decisions as a\nprecedent to base decisions on; she is not totally against the suggestion as worded in the\nreport.\nVice Chair LoPilato stated past decisions of the OGC are also accessible to anyone in\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJanuary 11, 2022\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 4, "text": "the Legistar archives; she is fine with the language that the PRA report could be modeled\nafter this report; the bigger question is whether to make an ask about the development of\na 10-year plan or report related to the history of the Sunshine Ordinance; she does not\nknow if the City Council is aware that an annual report on PRAs is prepared.\nIn response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the PRA report evolved\nfrom the Commission; basically the OGC asked questions about the PRAs, wanted data,\nand the information was added to the annual report; now that the City has NextRequest\nwhich tracks the data, it will evolve again.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she recalls it was former Commissioner Shabazz who\nrequested the PRA report; the rest of the Commission joined in the second year of the\nreport and it became more detailed as a result; she will include the history.\nVice Chair LoPilato stated that she is in favor of bringing a version back in February to\nincorporate the Complaint Form amendments; she offered suggestions for consideration,\nnot so as much as line-by-line recommendations; inquired what the subcommittee sees\nas the best path to ensure an efficient vote on a final report in February.\nCommissioner Chen stated the report was started six months ago and keeps changing;\nshe would like to present a final version next month for the Commission's approval; she\nappreciates all the input provided; it is aspirational to see if the City in interested in helping\nto produce a more robust document.\nIn response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Chen stated that she would like to put\nthe report to bed to start on the next one.\nThe City Clerk stated any Commission suggestions should be emailed to her to forward\nto Commissioner Chen.\nVice Chair LoPilato stated the Commission is doing great and is slowly learning how to\nproduce work product as a group on the fly; she would like to receive feedback from the\nCommission on the complaint hearing in December; a lot of different issues came up;\nthere was discussion regarding the possibility of making a recommendation to encourage\nthe City consider the 15-day statute of limitations as it applies to PRA requests; inquired\nwhether the Commission would consider it a worthy recommendation before\nCommissioner Chen puts time into it.\nCommissioner Cambra stated that he supports Vice Chair LoPilato's comments regarding\nthe recommendation; as long as there are fruitful and productive conversations between\nCity staff and the requestor, it would be fine; the statute could be refined so there is a\nclear point where the parties are done; requiring a meet and confer would be helpful in\nthe event a complainant did not want to engage with the City.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she would appreciate language for the report.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJanuary 11, 2022\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Cambra stated he would be happy to help prepare the language.\nVice Chair LoPilato stated as long as the Commission is framing it as encouragement for\nCouncil and the City Attorney's office to consider; her guess as to the origin of the 15-day\nstatute of limitations was from the need to look forward with open meetings violations,\nmaking sure the complaint process happens quickly and perhaps the implications on a\nPRA request did not come into play; she wants to give some deference to the drafters of\nthe statute in case there was some brilliant reason behind it that the Commission is\nmissing; Commissioner Cambra's points are well taken, but it strikes her as that it\nincentivizes complaints; the more ways to find informal resolutions, the better.\nThe City Clerk stated as part of the complaint form revision, the Commission gave\ndirection to include that members of the public could attend OGC meetings and raise an\nissue without filing a complaint; the language is included at the top of the revised form; it\ncould also be placed in other places throughout so that the public knows the Commission\nalso exists to hear them.\nChair Tilos stated the report should be wrapped up; new comments and ideas could go\ninto next year's report.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she will bring the best of everything back at the meeting\nin February; unless there is something highly egregious, she is hoping the Commissioners\nwill adopt it and a new subcommittee could be set up for the next report.\nCommissioner Cambra stated there was a situation at the December 6th hearing\nregarding a recusal; inquired whether the Commission should address the issue or make\nthe Council aware; stated it has the impact of potentially having the Commission's\ndecision come under judicial review.\nCommissioner Chen responded in an earlier iteration of the report, she included the\nrecusal issue asking for clarification on when it is appropriate for a Commissioner to\nrecuse themselves from a vote; she could put it back into the report.\nCommissioner Cambra stated it would be helpful to put it back into the report so the\nCouncil is aware; the issue is a refusal of recusal puts the entire Commission decision\npotentially into question; it would be nice to have the ability to do something about it and\nhave an answer.\nChair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Cambra but recalls there was a reason why it\nwas taken out.\nVice Chair LoPilato stated her loose recollection is that there was going to be specific\ntraining given to the Commission with respect to their roles in the adjudicatory process;\nshe assumes recusals would fall under the training; the City Council would most likely\ndefer to the City Attorney's office; perhaps the Commission could ask the Chief Assistant\nCity Attorney to include the issue in the upcoming training.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJanuary 11, 2022\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 6, "text": "The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated training has been discussed, but was bumped\ndue to the number of complaints the OGC received; the City Attorney's Office and City\nClerk will discuss holding a training session to be conducted during a meeting; the\nchecklist of topics that are intended to be presented would include conflicts of interest,\nboth statutory and those defined by case law, in order to advise Commissioners of any\nconflicts.\nCommissioner Cambra inquired whether the Chief Assistant City Attorney is aware of any\nenforcement actions for a non-recusing member of a legislative body.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she is not aware of any as she is sitting\nhere today; stated it is always a risk; an action taken could be invalidated because\nsomeone who had a clear conflict of interest failed to heed the advice to recuse; if she\nfinds any examples, she could include it in the training.\nChair Tilos stated it is a difficult issue because the Commission does not have teeth; the\nonly recourse would be not to hear an item if Commissioners fear their vote could be\noverturned; discussed a similar situation when he sat on the Recreation and Parks\nCommission; stated Commissioners are crossing their fingers and hoping, but hope is not\na strategy; a precedent needs to be set.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she has her marching orders and invited any comments\nbe sent to her via the City Clerk.\n4-D. Consider Amending the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Form.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Montgomery stated that she does not quite understand the section in the\nform which requires to name the person or department the complainant contacted;\ninquired clarification.\nThe City Clerk responded the section is intended for instances when the complainant did\ncontact someone; proposed making the field not required to eliminate any confusion.\nVice Chair LoPilato stated a possible two-word fix would be add a parenthetical \"(if any)\"\nin addition to it not being required; inquired whether the last Date field on the form could\nbe made to auto-populate with the date it is being submitted.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative, stated when the form comes through the\nsystem it is time-stamped; the form can be made to auto-populate the date submitted and\nthe language could be changed to Filing Date for clarification.\nCommissioner Chen stated that she compared the new form with the old written form;\nshe can see how a written form is less scary than an online form because if the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJanuary 11, 2022\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 7, "text": "complainant did not contact anyone, they could just skip a section; the recommended\nsolutions would work.\nIn response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated a paper form will still be\navailable; the paper form would match the revised online form; everything would be\nexactly the same whether it was obtained online or hard copy; based on the trends, she\nhighly doubts there will be many paper form submissions.\nVice Chair LoPilato inquired whether there is a word or character limit in the Describe\nAlleged Violation field, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative.\nVice Chair LoPilato inquired whether the language regarding submitting \"all evidence\nsupporting the complaint at the time of filing\" could be revised to be more flexible to allow\ncomplainants to provide information up to, and during, the hearing.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded confusion arises from the actual text of the\nstatute; the language is not entirely clear, but very suggestive that all evidence the\ncomplainant will be relying upon will be included as part of the complaint; however, further\non in Section 2-93.2, the language states that during the hearing, the Commission will\nprovide the parties with a chance to present evidence and make arguments; in practice\nand in the new complaint procedure, the Commissioners have made it clear that they\nwould want to hear and consider any evidence the complainant may bring up at the\nhearing and do not want to put up any barriers for complainants to put their best foot\nforward; one option is the entire sentence could be simplified to say: \"Please attach\nrelevant documents\" or \"you are not required to submit evidence, but any evidence would\nbe\nhelpful\" and provide a link to the complaint procedures; she recommends a very basic\nrevision with the language: \"attach relevant documents\" and end it there.\nThe City Clerk suggested the language \"evidence supporting your complaint should be\nsubmitted at the time of filing; during the hearing, the Commission will provide the parties\nwith an opportunity to present evidence and make arguments.'\nChair Tilos stated that he is leaning more toward the simple path of \"please attach relevant\ndocuments/evidence;\" staff could inform the complainant about the other opportunities to\npresent documents; it does not need to be on the form.\nCommissioner Chen stated that since used the paper form when filing her complaint, she\nhad the impression that she could present more evidence at the hearing; she does not\nwant the form to dissuade a complainant from being able to add to their arguments.\nThe City Clerk noted the old form included the language: \"Please attach all relevant\ndocumentation supporting your complaint. Documentation is required.\nCommissioner Montgomery stated there definitely needs to be some language about\nsubmitting any evidence that the complainant now has; she fears that on the day of the\nhearing, the Commission gets swamped with pages of late material; a statement on the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJanuary 11, 2022\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 8, "text": "form that guides complainants to submit what they now have would be helpful.\nChair Tilos agreed with Commissioner Montgomery's comments; stated that he has not\nyet experienced being swamped with documents on the day of the hearings.\nCommissioner Cambra stated that he has the same concern on both sides of the coin;\nthe Commission could potentially be swamped at the end, which could prejudice the other\nside; civilians are looking at this; suggested language along the lines of: \"additional\ninformation may be submitted later;\" stated City staff could encourage the complainant to\nget the information in sometime before, and not on, the hearing date; the way her would\nhandle Commissioner Montgomery's point is that he would not be able to evaluate any\nevidence submitted on the day of the hearing, which he is concerned the City would not\nhave the ability to defend; it is a tough call.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated when the City directs complainants to the new\nprocedure, the revised information might address the issues of providing related\ndocuments and evidence, as well as encourage complainants to present it a certain\nnumber of days before the hearing.\nThe City Clerk responded the procedure is currently posted on the website; she also\nincludes: 'contact the City Clerk's office with any questions,\" as she does not want anyone\nto feel overwhelmed or discouraged when filing a complaint.\nVice Chair LoPilato inquired whether it is possible to embed the link to the procedures in\nthe complaint form; suggested adding language to encourage submitting evidence at the\ntime of filing along with a link to the procedures so it is clear; stated the form needs to be\nroad tested over time; the Commission may hear from people that the form is too legalistic\nor formal; as it is now, the form include an entire section on pre-hearing submissions that\nalso ties the timing for submissions to the agenda timing.\nChair Tilos stated since complainants will be working with City staff, the language could\nbe left very basic; he likes Commissioner Cambra's language suggestion: \"additional\nevidence could be submitted later.\"\nCommissioner Montgomery moved approval of the form with the changes suggested by\nVice Chair LoPilato.\nIn response to Commissioner Cambra's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the suggested\nlanguage is: \"you are encouraged to submit evidence supporting your complaint at the\ntime of filing\" and \"additional information for of submitting evidence. with a link to\nthe\nprocedure.\nCommissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Chair Tilos:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nJanuary 11, 2022\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-01-11", "page": 9, "text": "Commissioner Chen moved approval of the paper form matching the online form.\nCommissioner Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Chair\nTilos: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nSTAFF UPDATE\nThe City Clerk made an announcement regarding the Sunshine Ordinance training held\non December 15, 2021.\nCOMMISSION AGENDA REQUESTS\nNone.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\n7-A. Communication from Commissioner Cambra\nCommissioner Cambra stated that he wanted to provide his background information as\nthe new Commissioner and he is honored to be back on the OGC.\n***\nNON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nChair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 8:54 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\nJanuary 11, 2022\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf"}