pages: CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-05-04 | 16 | action, where a majority of the Council has already given direction and the matter comes back as a Council Referral; one of the majority voters would have to bring a matter back for Council reconsideration; expressed concern about discussing, deliberating and enacting a matter to have it return as a Council Referral. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the committee is not a standing committee; Councilmember Knox White and herself are an ad hoc committee; meetings are called when an issue arises; requested clarification about the comments made related to matters being brought back as Council Referrals; inquired the examples of such situations. Vice Mayor Vella stated there have been several examples where Council has given direction on only to have the matter return as a Council Referral; she is raising the question due to the topics of Referrals being discussed. The City Attorney stated there is no legal prohibition against Council Referrals being brought forth for consideration after an action has been passed; the action is similar to a staff report brought for reconsideration of matters; Council may change rules; the Council has wide latitude to adopt rules to place limits if Council chooses to do so. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the subcommittee could present about the goal relative to the decision to limit the referral topics. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that her goal is to increase transparency and the opportunity for audience observation and participation; stated public speakers are timed; if there are instances where Council can speak for unlimited periods of time back and forth, the meeting runs longer; competing interests are being balanced; the recommendation is provided with great consideration and respect for the public. Councilmember Knox White stated there might be a misunderstanding about the proposed changes; the subcommittee met with staff and discussed how other cities have addressed the issue of Councilmembers getting matters onto the agenda via a Referral process; the City's Council Referral process is unique; in many cities, topics are announced during Council Communications and Council decides whether or not to place the topic on a future meeting agenda; the subcommittee decided to add an additional step to ask whether the Council would like to have a discussion and ask staff to bring forth information; there have been a number of instances of late meetings with staff waiting until 11:00 p.m. for a matter to not be heard; the approach will allow Council to move through the matter quickly; the attempt is to get back to the 2007 Referral process to identify a way for Councilmembers to get a topic on the agenda for consideration without sending staff down a rabbit hole of performing work on something that might not be supported by a majority of Council; the reason for limiting the discussion is not to discussion the matter itself; discussed the referral related to gas leaf blowers; stated having information ahead of time might help Council decide whether to have City staff wait at a meeting until 11:30 p.m. to provide an answer. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is presentations are limited to ten minutes; she is unsure about the latest limits on Council comments due to many changes; noted the leaf blower referral had been for an update; stated the referral had previously been brought forth in 2018; requesting an update as part of the Referral process Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 May 4, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf |