pages: CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf, 20
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2017-10-17 | 20 | The Assistant City Attorney responded both processes are correct; stated although staff asks for a reason to be listed for the call for review, it is the Councilperson's prerogative whether or not to state the reason. Mayor Spencer stated not listing a reason was recommended to her by staff. The Assistant City Attorney stated Council should not prejudge an issue that is coming to them de novo. Mayor Spencer inquired how staff will handle two different Councilmembers bringing the same item for review on different issues. The Assistant City Attorney responded staff is requesting that two Councilmembers call an item for review, regardless of the reason; if there are two Councilmembers, the standard is met. Mayor Spencer stated in the past staff has notified Council when an item is appealable; inquired whether staff is planning to continue to do so. The Assistant Community Development Director responded Council could direct staff to continue said process. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a reason should be listed to give notice to the appellant to prepare for the appeal. The Assistant Community Development Director responded when a Councilmember calls an item for review they should not list their position, only the reason for calling the item for review. Councilmember Oddie requested clarification on the Brown Act language referring to the call for review process. The Assistant City Attorney responded that the proposed policy does not involve the interactive role that would be a Brown Act violation; the Councilmember would contact the City Clerk who would then contact other Councilmembers without relaying any information. The City Attorney added that the call for review is not a decision or determination on the merits of what is being appealed, only whether the matter is going to come before the Council on appeal; stated the process is like a scheduling. Vice Mayor Vella stated the process would be asking for an additional vote ahead of an agendized meeting. The City Attorney clarified that the process would not involve talking about the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf |