pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 26
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 26 | Commissioner Tuazon stated it is still stored somewhere, just out of the website. Commissioner Dieter stated she is glad agendas and minutes are going to be removed; she also has a problem with EIR's, which can take up a lot of space because they are often big; however, when a project is still being built, people may want to go back to that, Alameda Point in particular, which was just passed last year; chances are the City will not move forward with building anything for a couple more years; in four years when the City is getting ready to start with one section, the EIR will already have been removed from the website; it makes more sense to remove it from the City's website once the project is final and has been built out. The City Clerk stated the Alameda Point EIR would be an exception and would be left up; people are going to be referring to it during all the phases; the Section is addressing the more typical EIR for a smaller project that would be completed within one year. Commissioner Dieter inquired could the language be that the EIR would be removed [from the website] when the project has been completed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded staff can get terminology from Community Development to reflect the concept, which is a valid point. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 12 on Public Records Index, struck language that was supposed to happen within 12 months from the enactment of the ordinance has been accomplished; there is no reason to keep it in the ordinance any longer; Section 13 on Matters of Public Concern, the attempt was to rework the language without changing the substance; the concern was it was not particularly clear; basically saying that an employee or policy board member can express an opinion as long as it does not materially misrepresent the position of the City or the department or the policy by which a member belongs. Commissioner Dieter inquired if it is similar to the one that the Commission tabled, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded it is similar but goes to a little different issue; stated if he is speaking as a member of the public but he happens to be on the Planning Board, he can indicate that he is a Planning Board member but he is only speaking on behalf of himself and not the Planning Board; he should not represent that he is representing the Planning Board, which is what this language is intending to address and is fair and accurate. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he has a little bit of a problem with it; he is conflicted; provided an example from last Council meeting when Karen Lucas spoke about the City trying to make peace with East Bay Regional Park District and suggested the City Manager be disqualified; stated that he can see a public employee making a public statement that he has every right to make but that makes it difficult for the City to perform its business; he not saying this [Ms. Lucas's commenting] is an example. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 26 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |