pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 3 | Chair Dieter stated that she would not recommend conflating affordable housing into an infrastructure bond measure or future surveys; it dilutes the issues and is a little confusing to the public. 3-C. Review the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Vice Chair Little inquired whether the Commission should go through the list of items that was provided by the Council subcommittee; stated that she has questions and comments throughout the list; going through the list one item at a time might be easiest. Chair Dieter stated that she has a motion that she would like to make which might clarify how the Commission moves forward. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding the agenda title, the City Clerk stated the Commission's feedback will be provided to the City Council; the review encompasses the Commission's discussion, which will be passed onto the City Council. Chair Dieter inquired whether the complete rules of order do not exist as one document, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the resolution has been amended. Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules are posted on the City's website, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the resolutions are all posted separately. Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules of order and order of business are two separate things, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Chair Dieter stated the Commission is discussing the rules of order tonight, which is how to conduct meetings; inquired whether the Commission could also provide input on how the public could easily access the rules in the future. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated said matter is the first thing that should be addressed. Stated that he had not paid attention to the details of running meetings or heard of Rosenberg's Rules of Order; discussed the two methods for counting an abstention; stated one counts an abstention as a no; the other method, called present and voting, does not count abstaining as a no vote; he reviewed the rules and did not see the method used to count votes; custom has been an abstention is the same as a no vote; it does not happen often; discussed a recent example: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 3 February 5, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |