pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 8 | least have the ordinance track what is in State law, the Commission can make a recommendation to go to the Council and get said direction. The City Clerk stated that she could provide a little background; the year-long process was comprised of a group just like the Open Government, one member put on by each Councilmember; the group reviewed various sunshine ordinances from other cities and complied them together at public meetings with public input; a piecemeal approach was used; the group liked some things from some cities and liked some things from other cities, which was used to come up with an ordinance specifically catered for Alameda; language could be different because it could have possibly been cut and pasted from different cities; the group was supposed to create the Ordinance in three meetings, but ended up meeting 11 times; then, they finalized the Ordinance and sent it to Council; the process was lengthy. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether that is pretty much in place, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated that [process] is how the Ordinance was established. Vice Chair Foreman stated it might be difficult to switch horses now, but the matter should at least keep that in mind going through the Ordinance; for one more example, State law defines "meeting;" Alameda's law defines "meeting;" there is really no difference between the two, but the same language is not used; if there is no difference, the City should use exactly the same language, not a paraphrase; changing the language creates risk; that he understands if the Commission wants to remain on the current track and just try to be consistent with State law; the Ordinance has been through a process; the Commission cannot very well turn it upside down. The Assistant City Attorney stated if the Commission's direction is to see that the language in the Ordinance tracks what is in State law to the extent possible, staff can do that; the matter could be brought back to the Commission; the task is a doable task, but will take a little time. Chair Aguilar stated the problem for her is that she does not know it well enough to know whether the distinctions are substantive and big differences; somebody would need to go through the Ordinance piece by piece to know that; stated she could not give said direction. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he spent a few hours on it; someone would have to look at each section and see if there are any real differences; if there are no real differences, the exact language of the State law should be used so as not to confuse it; if there is a difference, then point that out and try to use the same terminology throughout; how "policy body" got in the Ordinance is beyond him. Commissioner Bonta inquired whether the requirement of the local ordinance is that it does not controvert the [Government] Code, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated it can allow for additional transparency; for example, Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |