pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 3 | present; the minutes do not reflect that [staff names]; under Item 3-B: Status Update of the Public Records Index, it says: "The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation;" she thinks the minutes should stand on their own and a person should not be forced to have to go look at a video to understand what took place at a meeting; she thinks the minutes should say what was said and should say something to the effect of: "The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation that stated that Alameda follows Berkeley's Index; it has two parts; everything will be kept for five years at a minimum;" this is what was said; and [it should say:] "disclosure will be added at a later date and will go to Council for approval;" that way no one is forced to have to go look at the video. The City Clerk suggested that she modify the minutes and bring them back to the Commission at the following meeting; she could capture the presentation, then, the Commissioners could read the minutes ahead of time. Commissioner Dieter stated if there are not enough changes, perhaps the minutes can be approved tonight. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Dieter stated that she is not finished; the very last line says: "The Assistant City Manager noted that Alameda's schedule is in line with other cities;" that she suggests deleting the following clause: "the key distinction is that Alameda has decided to increase the minimum retention to five years instead of two years required by law;' actually, the [Assistant] City Manager talked about various requirements; some are two years, some are three years, and some are ten years, so she thinks it is unnecessary to include that [clause]; it is confusing; unless staff wants to change it to say: "two or three years or other time frames as required by law;" those are the only two changes she has for that meeting [October 7, 2013]. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Chair Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Following Agenda Item 3-C being called, Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission still needs to approve the minutes of the next meeting [October 6, 2014]. The City Clerk and Chair Aguilar stated both sets were approved. Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission has approved the first set of minutes [October 7, 2013]; for the second set of meeting minutes [October 6, 2014], [she has] the same issue; it [the minutes] starts off by saying: "The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation" but does not say what the [Assistant] City Clerk said, so the only way a person from the public would know would be to watch the video; that she thinks the meeting minutes should reflect what was said; suggested adding the statement: "The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation, which included that titles go through an approval process in various departments, then it goes to the City Attorney's Office, then Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 3 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |