pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 18
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 18 | Vice Chair Foreman stated a Councilmember cannot respond to that; that he has no problem with prohibiting that. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether what Vice Chair Foreman is saying is that he does not like the fact that the member cannot access material. Vice Chair Foreman responded they cannot access any material other than agenda material; stated Councilmember Daysog has a computer up at every meeting; no one knows what he is looking at; the law has been in effect, not that he is not accusing Councilmember Daysog of anything. The City Clerk stated the Section does not just apply to the Council, it applies to all boards and commissions. Vice Chair Foreman stated it seems that language can be written that says a device cannot be used to communicate to another member of the board about any meeting subject or to receive any communications; language can be drafted; something can be drafted about what members are prohibited from doing with electronic devices. Commissioner Dieter stated Vice Chair Foreman's proposal is to delete the last sentence and include what, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded it is going to take some drafting; that he cannot sit here and draft it by himself. The Assistant City Attorney stated essentially what he is hearing, if this is the direction of the Commission, is that the second sentence would essentially largely track what is in that first sentence; the first sentence states the rule; the second sentence states the prohibition; that he could add language about communication with other policy board members as well as members of the public to avoid a Brown Act issue as well as the outside information; that would be more restrictive than what the second sentence reads; it can be written that way if it is the Commission's direction. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney would draft something that the Commission could review, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Commission seems okay with certain things and some other things will be brought back; if the Commission wants to review the language, staff can provide a draft. Chair Aguilar stated that would be good. Vice Chair Foreman stated the suggestion is fine with him. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 6 on Public Notice Requirements was discussed at the last Commission meeting; if a member of a policy body is unable to attend a meeting at which an item is going to be discussed, the Section would prohibit the absent member from submitting written comments to be read into the record at that meeting; the former Commission thought that was a good idea so it has been added. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 18 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |