pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 6 | Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether policy bodies are being discussed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded before, the Section dealt with both employees and advisory policy bodies; stated that he was trying to be true to the previous work but separate the Sections because different standards apply to employees and policy body members. Vice Chair Foreman stated if the Section is moved after the Section that covers boards, it is totally confusing; there is one Section on policy bodies and another Section on policy bodies and employees; the Section on policy bodies repeats the previous Section. Commissioner Dieter stated the matter should be in an employee handbook; as somebody who has gathered signatures for petitions, she has often heard City employees say they cannot sign; there is a misconception that employees do not have the right to speak out; employees should be told what they can and cannot do when they are hired; she understands what Vice Chair Foreman is saying. Commissioner Dieter stated that she would second the motion as long as the Commission is clear that City employees should be made aware what they can and cannot do when they are hired. Vice Chair Foreman amended his motion to recommend that the Section be deleted from the Sunshine Ordinance and that the employee handbook include a Section which explains to employees under what circumstances they are allowed to speak out on matters. Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion. Chair Aguilar agreed with the motion. The Assistant City Attorney noted the sentence dealing with appointed policy bodies has already been adequately covered in the previous Section. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioners Bonta and Tuazon - 2.] The Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation on the definition of meeting. Vice Chair Foreman discussed the prior Commission unanimous vote on adopting the Brown Act language; stated even though the structure of the ordinance's definition of meeting is different than the structure of the Brown Act, it basically says the same thing; the only real substantive exception being the last sentence of 2-91.1(b)(4)(C), which is more restrictive as to what meetings would not be subject to the Brown Act. The Assistant City Attorney responded the Section does not specifically track the Brown Act; if anything the Sunshine Ordinance is slightly more restrictive than the Brown Act. Meeting of the Open Government Commission March 30, 2015 6 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |