pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 6 | background the City Clerk provided; down closer to the end of the page [it states:] "reviewed Item 7: public testimony on an item after being heard by a subcommittee;" she thinks this should be added: "the [Interim Assistant] City Attorney explained that as written the public could not comment on items after being heard by a subcommittee;" that is why it was being brought before the Commission; he [the Interim Assistant City Attorney] did not think there was a reason to have that [sentence in Section 2-91.15a included]; that it should be repealed; at the top of page 9 the end of the first sentence [reads]: "stated the language should be made clear" [that she would like to add:] "so that the public can speak;" "stated the language should be made clear" does not say what language; again, you [the public] would have to watch the video to figure out what language and it goes back to what was said previously about advisory committee meetings so the public can speak; down to about the fifth paragraph [it reads:] "The City Clerk responded the Public Records Act includes the requirement mentioned; the Sunshine Ordinance adopted stricter, faster timelines; stated response is to be provided within" [the language should read:] "a few days", not "ten days;' delete "ten days" and put "a few days;" [the minutes continue:] "but there are times the City cannot respond within ten days;" the City Clerk probably knows exactly what she meant by that [statement]; the City provides a response to whoever is requesting the record, but the City has ten days in which to respond; the next page second line [states:] "Commissioner Spanier stated that the suggestion is to move the requirement to a different Section of the Ordinance" does not say what requirement; [she would like to] add the words: "of the State of the City Address;" [the language should read:] "move the requirement of the State of the City Address to a different Section of the Ordinance;" down to about the sixth paragraph [it says:] "The City Clerk noted "four years" could be removed"; [should be changed to:] "The City Clerk noted "four years" should be removed" not "could be removed;" a few more lines down [states]: "Commissioner Spanier provided an example of working for a cooperation [corporation]" but it does not say anything about the example, so that example is not releasing information to the media, so that ["not releasing information to the media"] can be added to the end of the sentence; on page 11 under Oral Communications Non-Agenda, a member of the public spoke, Bill Smith; she thinks it should say: "on behalf of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates" unless everybody understood that; those are all of her suggested changes. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the October 6, 2014 minutes as corrected. Chair Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-C. Potential revisions to the City's Sunshine Ordinance Assistant City Attorney Roush stated that he reviewed the Sunshine Ordinance to give the most recent training and came across a number of items that he thought could be improved upon; he found items in conflict; he brought the matter to the Commission in October 2014; the Commission gave direction and he put together the staff report outlining the substantive changes; he can walk through the changes with the Commission; given the membership changes, the Commission could have the matter come back later or address it tonight. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 6 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |