{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-02-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 7, 2022 7:00 P.M.\nChair LoPilato convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Cambra, Chen, Montgomery, Tilos and\nChair LoPilato - 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\nJay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he feels the Commission just rubber-stamps whatever\nthe City Attorney or outside counsel says; Commissioners do not have much training for\ntheir position; discussed the First Amendment Coalition, a non-profit organization of\nattorneys who are experts in the Brown Act; suggested Commissioners purchase guides;\na guide addresses the social media issue.\nCOMPLAINT HEARINGS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n4-A. Minutes of the January 11, 2022 Meeting\nCommissioner Tilos moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Cambra seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair\nLoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n4-B. Approval of the Annual Report on Issues Arising from the Implementation of the\nSunshine Ordinance and Consider Agendizing a Discussion to Review the 30 Day\nMandatory Hearing\nChair LoPilato requested the recommendation from Commissioner Cambra be\nconsidered separate under agenda Section 6.\nCommissioner Chen gave a presentation.\n***\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 7, 2022\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-02-07", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of giving an additional 5 minutes.\nCommissioner Cambra seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair\nLoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCommissioner Chen completed her presentation.\nCommissioner Montgomery inquired whether there is a report on Public Records Act\n(PRA) requests.\nThe City Clerk responded that the Commission received a chart of the PRAs, which has\nnow been superseded by the new Next Request software; a demo will be done tonight\n[see Item 4-D]; there is no statutory requirement for a PRA report; it was something the\nCommission requested in the past.\nIn response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, Chair LoPilato stated that she\nthought the report would continue to be prepared annually; her understanding from the\nCity Clerk was that the report was an ad hoc response to a request from the Commission\nas it is not a requirement in the Sunshine Ordinance; language in the Sunshine Ordinance\nstates the Commission may request a tally of records with advanced notice to the City\nClerk as opposed to it being an annual report; if Commissioners are attached to referring\nto it as an annual report she will not jam up the wheels, but thinks the language could be\na little more precise.\nVice Chair Chen clarified that she made a logical assumption that the report was annual\nsince she joined when a second PRA report was presented; she can see that the\nlanguage is incorrect and stands corrected.\nCommissioner Tilos stated he also shared the same assumption as Vice Chair Chen\nsince the report was presented twice consecutively; inquired whether the Commission will\nbe done with the Annual Report and it does not have to return again once a motion and\nvote are made tonight.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative, stated the Commission could accept all the\nedits tonight and that could become the final report, it does not need to come back for\nanother approval without redline; she will publish and post the final report.\nVice Chair Chen stated that she will fix the end notes so that they reattach to their original\ncitation reference point; she is ready to move forward.\nChair LoPilato inquired what the best language would be to reference a report on PRA\nrequests, to which the City Clerk responded the revisions suggested should be captured;\nthe Commission or individual members could ask her at any time for a tally of the records\nand she would be happy to produce it, especially with the Next Request system; it is easy\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 7, 2022\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-02-07", "page": 3, "text": "to use and members could even run the tally themselves; the Next Request\ndemonstration later tonight may help address and alleviate some of the Commission's\nquestions.\nSpeaker:\nJay Garfinkle, Alameda, congratulated Vice Chair Chen on the monumental task; stated\nthe Commission's duty is to enhance transparency of the government activities; ad hoc\ncommittees are subject to the Brown Act; the Police study done last year should have\nbeen open; the Commission needs to be very liberal when making recommendations to\nthe City Council as to what it should be doing; encouraged monthly PRA updates;\nsuggested Police PRAs also be reviewed by the Commission; the Commission should\ndefine what is meant by \"private account\" regarding social media.\nCommissioner Cambra stated he concurs with all the suggested edits made by Chair\nLoPilato; suggested adding a brief description of \"creating a legislative affairs website\" in\naddition to using the link to the Legislative Affairs for those folks who are reading a hard\ncopy; also suggested including the 2021 hearing results.\nVice Chair Chen stated the 2021 figures are included in the report; it is not listed in the\nchart, but is included as text.\nCommissioner Cambra stated there does not seem to be specific references back into\nthe report for the three cases listed in the appendix which occurred prior to 2021; inquired\nif it would be appropriate to incorporate the data into the existing report.\nVice Chair Chen responded it due to time and COVID limitations; stated that she and\nformer Vice Chair Shabazz met on the phone several times to try to create the document\ntogether; in actuality, two documents were created; the portion in the appendix was\ncreated by former Vice Chair Shabazz without a give-and-take between the two of them;\nshe thought the information he had is important and worthy of being included; she decided\nto include the information in an appendix with a disclaimer at the top; she is reluctant to\nremove it as this is the first report and other things have happened before this report that\nwere not recorded anywhere in history; moving forward the report could be more precise.\nCommissioner Tilos stated that he values the comments from Commissioner Cambra and\nVice Chair Chen; he believes over 80% of the message the Commission wants to convey\nis in the report; he is comfortable with the report as is; there is valuable information in the\nappendix and he does not want it removed; in the interest of time, he is leaning towards\nthe report being the final product.\nCommissioner Montgomery moved approval of accepting the report with the edits.\nCommissioner Tilos seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Chair LoPilato stated replacement language needs to be suggested\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 7, 2022\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-02-07", "page": 4, "text": "for the edits that were included as comments rather than redline.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk suggested changing the language\nto remove the word \"annual\" and make it broader.\nChair LoPilato stated the simplest way to address the issue could be striking the word\n\"annual\" in the footnote and add language stating: \"to increase the scope of the staff-\nproduced report on PRA requests;\" inquired whether Commissioner Montgomery's does\nnot accept deleting the end notes.\nCommissioner Montgomery responded in the affirmative, stated the end notes should not\nbe deleted.\nChair LoPilato re-stated the motion: to accept the report with the redline edits accepted,\nincluding the minor language change to strike the term \"annual\" and to reincorporate the\nend notes.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, Commissioner Cambra stated he would make a\nfriendly amendment to add a brief descriptive passage regarding the legislative affairs\nwebsite so long as it does not further the discussion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair\nLoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n4-C. Accept the Annual Report\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated an error in the report was\ncaught by the Chief Assistant City Attorney; she will make sure the corrected version is\nposted.\nChair LoPilato inquired if it would be possible to hyperlink to the actual final decision in\nthe disposition column of the report, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry on how the \"relief sought\" column is characterized,\nthe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the she and the City Clerk drafted the report\nand chart jointly; \"relief sought\" is the only phrase used in the Sunshine Ordinance; in the\ninterest of space and using a chart format, the \"relief sought\" is just a truncated version\nof how each complainant's filing is distilled; there is no specific process followed other\nthan to try to have an accurate snap shot of the relief being sought by each complainant.\nChair LoPilato stated that she was curious about whether there might be an adjustment\nor footnote to the final column for the complaint heard December 6th regarding the\ncustodian of records for the NextDoor PRA request.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 7, 2022\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-02-07", "page": 5, "text": "In response to the Chief Assistant City Attorney's inquiry, Chair LoPilato stated the global\nquestion is does the statutory language indicate that there should be a level of specificity\nabout who potential custodians are or is that referring more to the location of records that\nwere produced.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that her understanding is the final column is\nsupposed to relate to where any records, if they exist, are housed in the City.\nThe City Clerk stated that she concurs with the Chief Assistant City Attorney; the specific\nlanguage is: \"the location of all records relevant to each complaint held by the City;\" if\nrecords not housed in the City are not list.\nVice Chair Chen stated if she can get all the data used for the bar chart and the data from\n2021, she could do a new bar chart for the report and fulfill Commissioner Cambra's wish.\nThe City Clerk stated a motion and vote to approve the report was already done and\nwould have to be reopened if Vice Chair Chen wants to make additional amendments.\nVice Chair Chen stated she will leave it alone.\nCommissioner Montgomery moved approval of accepting the annual report.\nCommissioner Chen seconded the motion.\nIn response to Vice Chair Chen's inquiry, the City Clerk stated she will upload the correct\nversion that includes the Scott Morris case and will be the official report.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk read the section that was missing\nin the version of the report included in the packet.\nIn response to Vice Chair Chen's inquiry regarding the dates, the City Clerk stated the\nScott Morris case was filed in May of 2020, but not heard until April 2021, which is noted\nby an asterisk and footnote.\nChair LoPilato stated that she would like to make a friendly amendment to add a hyperlink\nin the disposition column of the report to the actual OGC final decision for each complaint.\nCommissioner Montgomery accepted the friendly amendment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair\nLoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n4-D. Update on Public Records Act (PRA) Requests\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 7, 2022\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-02-07", "page": 6, "text": "The City Clerk gave a demonstration of the PRA software, NextRequest.\nCommissioner Cambra moved approval of extending the time for the City Clerk to finish\nher presentation.\nCommissioner Montgomery seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair\nLoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nThe City Clerk finished her presentation.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated there is no vote needed on\nthe item; the update is for information only.\nVice Chair Chen inquired whether the NextRequest software increased the number of\nrequests and what that number is.\nThe City Clerk responded the Next Request launched in August so it is difficult to do a\ncomparison from last year yet; the PRA tallies are based on the calendar year, not the\nfiscal year; it will be interesting to see how much requests have increased after the year.\nCommissioner Cambra inquired whether there is a help feature in NextRequest, to which\nthe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated all of the FAQ and Help options are\nalways available at the bottom of each webpage; the Clerk's office is happy to help as\nwell.\nCommissioner Montgomery stated she is impressed by NextRequest and cannot wait to\ncheck it out.\nVice Chair Chen inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle's statement that an in-person meeting\nbetween a Commissioner and a Councilmember would not be subject to the PRA is\ncorrect.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded if a written record of a meeting, such as in\na City-maintained calendar, is requested, it could be subject to and produced under the\nPRA; Mr. Garfinkle referred to the content of the discussion, which would not be subject\nto a PRA request.\nChair LoPilato stated that she echoes Commissioner Montgomery's sentiment that\nNextRequest is a cool system; the update was helpful to see how the tallies and statistics\nare available for everyone.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry regarding Police Department tallies, the City Clerk\nstated the OGC process of going through the City Clerk's office would be the same and\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 7, 2022\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-02-07", "page": 7, "text": "she would be happy to put requests through for individual members or the Commission.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated her office does not actually\nreceive a tally from the Housing Authority (HA) since they are a completely separate\nagency; HA results have never been tallied or shown to the Commission; from time to\ntime, the Clerk's office receives PRA requests for the HA which are forwarded; the one\nreally nice thing about the internal end of the system is that staff gets reminder emails\nabout when requests are due before they are due; it is great at keeping staff on track;\nonce growing pains are smoothed out, the system will be extremely efficient.\nVice Chair Chen stated because the HA was listed as an agency that needs to follow the\nBrown Act, complaints need to go directly to them; inquired whether the OGC has any\njurisdiction over complaints filed against the HA for Brown Act violations.\nThe City Clerk responded that the City Council makes appointments to the Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners (HABOC), but the HA itself is a separate agency; the\nCity contracts with the HA for some services and requests for those records, such as rent\nprogram records, have been produced through the City; other than that, there is very little\noverlap.\nVice Chair Chen clarified her question, inquired whether a violation of the Brown Act by\na HABOC member be considered a violation under the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe City Clerk responded the HABOC is appointed subject to the Health and Safety\ncodes, so it is a different code; the HABOC is not included in the Municipal Code.\nSTAFF UPDATE\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney announced Commission training would be done at the\nMarch meeting as long as no complaints are filed.\nIn response to Commissioner Cambra's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated\nstaff is developing the syllabus which will include topics that have come up over the past\nyear, including issues that have been raised and conflicts of interests; it is a public\nmeeting so the public will be able to attend.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated any\nCommissioner can email her directly with suggested topics prior to the training.\nChair LoPilato inquired if nothing else planned for March, would the training bump to April.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether Chair LoPilato is suggesting bumping\nthe training to April if there is no business in March.\nChair LoPilato stated she was just throwing it out there that the Commission does not\nneed to meet every month since there were 10 meetings last year.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 7, 2022\n7", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-02-07", "page": 8, "text": "to make sure he interpreted the statute correctly; the options are discussion points and\nrecommendations the Commission could consider.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she would like to reserve any substantive\ndiscussion for the next meeting; it would be a bit premature for her to start rendering\nopinions; as a broad-brush assessment, she read Commissioner Cambra's comments\nand thought the topic could be discussed at a future meeting.\nIn response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, Commissioner Cambra stated that he prefers to\nkeep it broad so that each of the Commissioners would have an opportunity to be creative\nand suggest things; he wants to make sure everyone understands the statutory scheme\nand the Commission's authority versus Council's authority.\nVice Chair Chen moved approval of agendizing a discussion of the statutory hearing\ndates at a future meeting.\nCommissioner Montgomery seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Tilos inquired about Commissioner Cambra's timeline.\nCommissioner Cambra responded he is not married to having it on the March agenda.\nCommissioner Tilos stated that he would like to make a friendly amendment to have the\nitem agendized after March.\nVice Chair Chen stated her motion was for a future meeting; if the training is scheduled\nin March and would only take one hour, the item could take only a half hour to be done\nrather than waiting until April or May.\nChair LoPilato offered a substitute friendly amendment to add: \"at the next scheduled\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 7, 2022\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2022-02-07", "page": 9, "text": "meeting\"\nThe City Clerk clarified that Chair LoPilato is saying \"at the next scheduled meeting when\nthere are other agenda items already planned\".\nChair LoPilato inquired whether the amendment to motion is acceptable, to which Vice\nChair Chen responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair\nLoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Chen stated it is the Year of the Tiger and wished everyone a Happy Lunar\nNew Year.\nNON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nChair LoPilato 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\nFebruary 7, 2022\n9", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf"}