pages: CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-06-01 | 16 | which has not yet been analyzed, she would like to include all recommendations made. The City Attorney stated the prior recommendation from the OGC of 2020, was brought to the OGC of 2021. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what would occur in the interim, to which the City Attorney responded if Council does not adopt the proposed ordinance, staff would operate in status quo. Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes the Sunshine Ordinance and OGC have been one of the most important legislations to come out of City Hall; outlined those who spearheaded the legislation; previously meeting materials were delivered the Thursday prior to the Tuesday meeting; the Sunshine Ordinance assures the public is served by understanding how City Hall can operate in a transparent manner; the goal is to put reasonable rules in place to allow for meaningful community input; he is not convinced the OGC process is broken; there have been 17 OGC complaints since 2013; three of the complaints have been in 2021 alone; of the 17 complaints, the OGC has made a determination on seven with the remaining 10 being withdrawn; there does not appear to be an inundation of work requiring Council to transfer the OGC responsibilities to a Hearing Officer; expressed support for staff's analysis of a Hearing Officer being required; stated staff is making a professional judgement; he is satisfied with the current status of the OGC; the structure of OGC meetings is a separate issue; there is a balance between an imperfect process, which is citizen-led and slower, and a faster, more accurate process which is led by City staff; expressed support for the citizen-led process; stated people can raise issues regarding government transparency through the OGC, which is not just a court of appeals; the OGC is a place where residents' issues can be tried by peers within the OGC; the City should keep what it currently has; if the OGC is improved, the improvement should be at the margins. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on the Council when the decision for null and void was made; requested clarification about the current status and status quo for the OGC. The City Attorney stated the OGC may adjudicate a complaint filed by any member of the public under existing law; the provisions of the OGC are advisory and Council may choose whether or not to follow the advice provided by the OGC. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the advisory nature of the OGC; expressed concern about Section 6 related to findings of unfounded complaints; stated the five year period is an extreme and draconian penalty; the definition of unfounded is broad; a complaint being deemed unfounded does not indicate a frivolous intent or that the complaint does not have merit; outlined court filing processes not indicating a frivolous intent; the matter should return to the OGC; expressed support for the OGC's review of the penalty period; stated there appears to be a consensus of Council wanting to hear from community members; the penalty conflicts with the desire to hear from community members; five years is a long time; training should be offered to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 1, 2021 15 | CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf |