pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 12 | The Assistant City Attorney stated that he would surmise the thought was whenever a committee of only City employees met, it would not be subject to the requirements for passive meeting bodies. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he is not hung up on non-legislative; it is fine if other Commissioners want to leave passive meeting body, which is not in State law at all. In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry about the Assistant City Attorney not following the previous Commission's suggestion to use advisory, the Assistant City Attorney stated the concern was using the term "advisory" would get confused with the term "policy bodies" which are advisory bodies under the Government Code; that he thought it would be better to leave the terminology as is even if it is somewhat odd; the definition is not going to apply to many committees. Commissioner Dieter stated that she is okay with the Section. Vice Chair Foreman stated there is still Section D. The Assistant City Attorney stated he added "as a whole" to make it clear and less ambiguous; read the Section. Vice Chair Foreman stated that his personal problem with Section D is that he would love to see the word "policy body" removed; things governed by State law are being addressed; the State law calls them legislative bodies and the City is calling the exact same thing a policy body; one is talking Spanish and the other is talking Greek; the same subject is being addressed but different labels are being given. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the Commission could table the term until getting through the redline. Vice Chair Foreman responded in the affirmative; stated the Assistant City Attorney can make a note of it and decide what he wants to do with it. Chair Aguilar inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney could take a look at it to see if policy body and legislative body are the same, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded if the Commission's direction is to make amendments to the Ordinance to have legislative body appear instead of policy body, staff can do that. Vice Chair Foreman inquired what is the Assistant City Attorney's opinion, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded his only reticence is that from a year-long process, a group of citizens decided that policy body better fits the Ordinance than legislative body; that he does not have a strong feeling one way or the other; how to define it is a policy call. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 12 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |