pages: CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-06-01 | 14 | should be formed; the matter has not come forth in the spirit of collaboration: Rasheed Shabazz, OGC. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is not ready to support the staff recommendation; if Council wants to change the way adjudicating is performed, the matter should be sent to staff with direction to meet with the OGC over the coming year; he has heard good feedback from the current proposal; comments from OGC members have provided useful feedback; it is difficult to bifurcate the issues within the proposal; the null and void provision was requested from Council over a year ago; expressed support to direct staff to bring back the null and void replacement provision language within the next month and to include the OGC's recommendations; stated in the future, he expects recommendations from Boards and Commissions to be presented to Council in full; expressed support for staff making alternative recommendations; however, the full recommendation from Boards and Commissions should be included; expressed concern about Commissioners and Board members spending hours working on language to not have the material reflected when presented to Council. In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's request for clarification on the background of the changes, the City Attorney stated most of the changes to the null and void remedy relate to one of the positions unanimously supported by the OGC; staff is bringing one change to Council; a change was made in order to provide the Council and City reasonable flexibility to continue to operate; there is an understanding that the status quo should be maintained to the extent possible. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested context be provided to the language outlined. The City Attorney stated the language would provide that when a complaint is filed, the City would be encouraged to maintain the status quo; outlined a hypothetical Brown Act violation with little prejudice; stated in a different instance, the City would proceed notwithstanding a pending complaint; for posting and noticing, staff is committed to performing the work; posting and noticing is administrative and need not be included in the ordinance; for adjudications, staff saw complaints being brought with complicated legal issues which required serious parsing of court of appeal decisions; three members of the OGC indicated a lack of comfort in doing so; the lack of comfort indicated an independent Hearing Officer, with a trained legal background, would be a better fit to hear adjudicating cases; OGC members have indicated the cases are an opportunity for the Commission's main role to provide recommendations to the Council; any independent Hearing Officer decision would provide helpful feedback; the Commission would be relieved of the arduous task of having to parse difficult case law and will be able to receive a well-reasoned decision that is independent and fair; the City Attorney's Office acts upon direction from Council; Council directed staff to bring null and void changes to the OGC and staff did so for 18 months; Council did not provide other specific direction to bring other recommendations; changes to the RRAC were run recommendations through Commissions and were brought directly to Council. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Hearing Officers are private attorneys serving on Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 1, 2021 13 | CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf |