pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 7 | Vice Chair Foreman stated that he spent a lot of time on the matter today; the whole construct of the ordinance bothers him; he became really embroiled in the Sunshine Ordinance when he was working on the Mayor's campaign and the Del Monte development; he finds the ordinance to be very confusing and in some cases contradictory, which the Assistant City Attorney pointed out in past meeting videos; the basic law is the State law, which sets the minimum standards; the only thing the City of Alameda can do is expand public access; questioned why the approach is basically restating the entire Government Code in the Municipal Code; stated if he had worked on the ordinance when it was created, he would have suggested an ordinance to supplement the [State] sunshine code, not completely restate it; a person has to read both when doing research as he had to do; his suggestion would make it [the City's Sunshine Ordinance] much shorter; that he would publish the Government Code on the City's website and this [City Sunshine Ordinance] would be a supplement; in the notice area, one expansion is going from a three day notice to a 12 day notice; almost everything else is repetition of what is already in the Government Code; that [his proposal for a shorter ordinance] is one approach; the other approach is to do what has been done; using the City existing ordinance in its current form needs to use the same language [as the Government Code]; for instance, the word "policy body" does not appear in the Government Code; the closest synonym for "policy body" is "legislative body;" if State law, which provides the minimum standards, uses the term "legislative body," Alameda should not be using the word "policy body" because it leads one to the conclusion that they are two separate things and they are not; it would be very difficult even for an accomplished lawyer to try to figure out some of these inconsistencies; another example would be "passive body;" there is no terminology "passive body" in the Government Code; that he understands why it is in the City's ordinance because the City is expanding public access, which the City has a right to do; "passive bodies" have some obligations of notice, not to the same level as legislative or policy bodies; he would not call them "passive bodies;' he would call them "non-legislative bodies;" a body is either a legislative body which is covered by the State law or a non-legislative body, which is not covered by State law; the City is expanding the [State] law; where it [the City's ordinance] really gets complicated is in the notice section using the terms "advisory body" and "passive body" interchangeably; the references keep changing and they are two different things; "advisory bodies" are subject to the Sunshine Ordinance and the State law; non-passive bodies are not; it boils down to two things: 1) it would be his preference to basically start all over again with the ordinance and have it only supplementary; you talk about simplicity, this [City ordinance] is not simple; one has to be a lawyer to understand it; the last law that should need a lawyer to understand should be the Sunshine [Ordinance]; if that approach does not sit well, at least use the same language in the State law; do not create something that is not there. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he was present when the ordinance was going through a year-long process; he would defer to the City Clerk who may have more background information; he does not disagree with what Vice Chair Foreman said in terms of having essentially different terms being used for the same thing; if the Commission feels it would be a better approach to have either a simpler ordinance or at Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 7 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |