pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 5 | Acting Chair Foreman stated a Councilmember might want to look at a Google map regarding rezoning a piece of land. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether Commission Tuazon would be offended by said Councilmember. Commissioner Tuazon responded in the affirmative; stated homework should be done in advance. Acting Chair Foreman inquired about the Assistant City Attorney's view on the quasi- judicial issue; further inquired whether he is being too legalistic. The Assistant City Attorney responded that he thinks the way the first sentence has been redrafted is probably broad enough to cover the quasi-judicial issue; in an abundance of caution, language could be added; however, in the staff report to Council, he could indicate that implicit in the language is honoring the notion that quasi-judicial matters have to be observed. The Commissioners expressed consensus. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he understands the introductory non-substantive sentence would be deleted. Acting Chair Foreman inquired what section the Assistant City Attorney is referring to. The Assistant City Attorney responded Section 2-91.4H; stated the sentence would state: in order to ensure that all communications to policy board members presented in a public meeting are shared with the public, members are prohibited from communicating electronically with others during public meetings that pertain to the business thereof. Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether staff would go to the Commission or Council, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded based on the outcome tonight, he will prepare an agenda report that will go to Council that would reflect the Commission direction. Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is regarding submitting comments when a policy body member is not present at a meeting. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission discussed the matter before and felt comfortable that if a member was not present at a meeting, the member should not be able to submit comments on the item; the City Council did not agree and directed that the prohibition be deleted; it has been deleted, but the Commission has the discretion to add the item back. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 1, 2016 5 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |