pages: CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf, 19
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2017-10-17 | 19 | The Assistant City Attorney responded that such an act might be a Brown Act violation. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether he can call only one of his fellow Councilmembers after submitting a call for review. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the amendment is set up to eliminate the need to make that call; all Councilmembers will be simultaneously be notified that there is potential call for review. Councilmember Oddie inquired what if he had already called a fellow Councilmember before the email is sent out. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there could be two Councilmembers calling an item for review on separate grounds. *** (17-637) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** The Assistant Community Development Director responded if Council believes there will be Brown Act violations with the amendments, then Council could choose another option. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff will share the basis of the call for review when notifying other Councilmembers. The Assistant Community Development Director responded with an example of how the process would occur. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Councilmember's email is forwarded from the City Clerk, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired why the process changed to require listing a reason for the appeal. The Assistant Community Development Director responded that the process has not changed. Mayor Spencer stated that she was informed differently. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2017 15 | CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf |