pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 22
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 22 | Vice Chair Foreman suggested that the Commission take the position that the matter is outside of its jurisdiction and refer it back to the City Council; this is not a public access issue. Commissioner Dieter concurred. Vice Chair Foreman stated it has to do with Council's power to go over agencies they create; it has nothing to do with sunshine. Councilmember Dieter stated if that is a motion, she seconds it. Vice Chair Foreman stated that is a motion. Commissioner Bonta inquired whether Vice Chair Foreman is referring to the second or third clause, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded that he is referring to the whole section; stated it is not wrong, it is misplaced; it is outside of the Commission's purview. Commissioner Bonta stated every policy body member retaining the constitutional right to comment publically has relevance to how a member of a policy body might continue to speak in public; having something in full transparency and openly available that members are able to speak their mind, which is the intent, is a helpful thing to have in the Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner Dieter suggested a compromise: leaving in the first part of the provision that was already there that goes with sunshine; the addition added by staff does not belong in the Sunshine Ordinance and actually causes problems. Commissioner Bonta stated the intent is that the City would not have any future liability from exercising its right to remove members. Commissioner Dieter stated that should go somewhere else, such as the City Charter. Commissioner Bonta stated reading the section, people would understand they would be able to speak their mind even sitting on a policy body; after choosing to speak their mind, if the City removed the member, it would not be because they choose to speak their mind; there is a relationship; that she would recommend the language be redrafted. Vice Chair Foreman concurred the language needs to be redrafted; stated that he is worried about the first line; if the Planning Board has to approve a development plan, the burden of proof is on the developer; it is something that is supposed to be determined after the hearing and is not something that can be prejudged; if a member of the Planning Board is quoted in the paper a week before the meeting saying: "the plan is lousy and I and not going to vote for it;" that is illegal; yet the Ordinance is saying the member has a full constitutional right to do it; somehow it has to be redrafted; it could be Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 22 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |