pages: CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-02-04 | 12 | The City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance allows speakers to cede time and Resolution 15382 does not; since Council adopted Resolution 15382 after adopting the Sunshine Ordinance, the resolution is the policy Council wants to effectuate; the proposed amendment allows consistency between the Sunshine Ordinance and Council's will; additional changes can be made if so desired. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Section 2-93.7 will be applied prospectively or retrospectively only. The Assistant City Attorney responded prospectively; stated unless a provision specifies retrospectively, the general rule is against applying retrospectively. Councilmember Oddie noted the process seems retrospective. Read a letter submitted by the League of Women Voters; urged Council to reject amendments to Section 2-93.8: Susan Hauser, League of Women Voters. Urged the amendments be tabled: Steve Slauson, Alameda. Stated Council should earn back trust by keeping the Open Government Commission's enforcement provision; outlined other options: Bill Smith, Alameda. Discussed the Open Government Commission adoption of its bylaws; stated the Council is taking the teeth away from the Open Government Commission: Kurt Peterson, Alameda. Stated the October 18, 2011 minutes on page 4 state the Council should not police its own process; suggested a task force be formed to address the matter: Paul Foreman, Alameda Citizens Task Force Stated that she supports the City Attorney's opinion, which is correct: Former Mayor Trish Spencer, Alameda. Discussed her Sunshine Ordinance complaint; outlined her experience as a public advocate for tobacco control laws: Serena Chen, Alameda. Expressed support for civic engagement; discussed the Open Government Commission position; outlined potential harm from the change: Bryan Schwartz, Open Government Commission. Councilmember Vella stated Section 9 notes a timeline that begins when a complaint is filed of 30-business days, which is roughly six weeks to schedule a hearing; a formal written decision on the matter may be placed on a continued meeting within 30 business days of the conclusion of the hearing; expressed concern for due process and extended timelines; inquired whether the timeline makes sense for ordinances. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February 4, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf |