pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 9 | if the State law says the agenda has to be posted 72 hours before the meeting, the local ordinance, even with a Charter City, probably could not say it only has to be 48 hours; on the other hand, it could have 12 days rather, than three days for Council and 7 days for commissions. Commissioner Bonta stated it is likely that a lot of these analogs that were created, such as the use of policy bodies in the ordinance, are largely driven by the fact that the local government bodies are groupings working together at the City level; stated that she would be inclined to not undo the work of an open process and the year of work to come to this Ordinance; the work would be undone by thinking that the State code language could just be slapped on; that she agrees that there are some areas where the ordinance could have some clarification; the idea of a policy body was probably generated because the City is a local government. Vice Chair Foreman stated the State law is written for local government; it is not written for the State legislator; it is written almost exclusively for local government; that he does not know why policy body was put in there; when you read policy body and you read legislative body it is exactly the same thing. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he can speculate that the thought might have when you read legislative bodies many people might think that is simply the City Council because Council makes final decision as opposed to a policy body which might sound broader to a layperson; he does not know if that would enter the equation or not; that he can see how that could have played a part in coming up with that term rather than legislative body; that is just a guess on his part, but it sounds logical that may have been part of the reasoning process. Vice Chair Foreman stated the Commission can just go through the Ordinance piece by piece and vote. Commissioner Bonta inquired whether staff recommends reviewing the Ordinance or tabling the questions until the Commission has had a clear opportunity for review. The Assistant City Attorney responded his concern is that three people have just been appointed; Commissioner Tuazon has only been on the Commission a short while; that he did not know whether ample time had been provided to allow the Commission to digest the relatively few changes staff is recommending; if more time is needed, a special meeting could be set up in March or April to bring back the matter along with any other items that the Commission might feel would be appropriate to consider; if the Commission feels comfortable considering the matter tonight, that is fine too; staff would always bring back further amendments if the Commissions so desires. Commissioner Dieter stated that she spent hours on the staff report; she would like to go over what is before the Commission; what works, what does not work, what needs to come back and go from there; then, the Commission can always expand what is discussed at the next meeting if that sounds reasonable. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 9 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |