pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 10 | Commissioner Tuazon stated that sounds reasonable. Vice Chair Foreman stated the Commission can just work from the red lines. Commission Dieter stated the Commission can just go down [the redline]; inquired whether anybody has input under findings or if the Commission is okay with the findings the way that it has been edited. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he is okay with it. Commissioner Dieter stated that she is okay with the first section. The Assistant City Attorney stated [on Section 11 staff is not deleting the section entirely from the ordinance; that he simply moved it to a substantive section where he thought it made more sense. Vice Chair Foreman stated the Commission will talk about that when the section is addressed. Chair Aguilar inquired whether having the Assistant City Attorney identify the changes would be easier, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he can walk through the red line; stated for Section 1 on Findings, the concept was that the matter seemed to be more of a substantive issue rather than a finding; he moved the Section to Section 2-91.4(h); similarly, Section 2 on Responsibility of the City Manager and Mayor were in other portions of the Ordinance but having the Sections standalone made more sense. Chair Aguilar inquired whether there are any comments on Section 2, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the negative; stated this is exactly what was decided upon by the former Commissioners; it was achieved and clear. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 3 on Definition of Passive Meeting Body, described more of a passive meeting itself, not a body, so the Section was deleted. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he has a comment on Section 2-91.1; suggested Subsection B be revised to quote the Government Code definition of a meeting word for word; stated the definition should be word for word and in the same order, unless the term meeting is being expanded and broader than the Government Code; otherwise, the City is bound by a definition in the State Code and bound by a slightly different definition in this Code; it does not jive in his mind. Commissioner Dieter stated that she has not read the State Code and does not know the difference between the State Code and the Ordinance; she is assuming Vice Chair Foreman has done so and it is pretty much the same thing. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 10 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |