pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 4 | The Assistant City Attorney responded not exactly; stated the difference between the two is that although they are functionally the same, one does not allow public access; he would not characterize a delivery-only dispensary as a warehouse as it would still have to go through all of the State and local legal requirements. Chair Little stated there was better public notice for the November 7th meeting; inquired whether it is normal circumstance to allow a significant distinction or change in the agenda item between the first reading and second reading. The Assistant City Attorney responded legal counsel's position is that re-setting the first reading due to changes is not an accurate statement of the law, as Ms. Chen asserts; stated it is typical and permissible for Council to give staff direction to make changes and come back; what is not permissible is making substantive modifications at the second reading; in this case, however, resetting does not apply when an agenda is published but Council decides to move in a different direction; Ms. Chen is arguing the meaningful description as opposed to when a Council needs to reset the first reading and start over; the separate issues are conflated because of the remedy Ms. Chen is seeking; the issue before the Commission tonight is to determine whether or not the agenda description is a meaningful description. Chair Little stated it is difficult to know for certain the direction of Council conversation; therefore, it is impossible to predict by way of an agenda description to name everything and cover all of the minutia details that may come up; the intention of the discussion was to have a meaningful conversation about delivery-only dispensaries; the conversation did take place, but then deviated and language was changed; inquired whether public awareness of the change took place in time for the Council to then vote on the item and allow for public comment on November 7th The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Chair Little's statement of events is accurate. Commissioner Dieter requested clarification regarding whether a first reading and a second reading can be entirely different as long as nothing substantive has changed; if so, the first reading needs to be reset. The Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Dieter's statement is accurate; in this case, the change happened before the Council did its first reading. In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the Council suspended the first reading until they actually got their comments in on how they wanted it modified; said practice is actually central to what Council does with respect to ordinances; the Council would be hamstringed if they did not have said ability. The Assistant City Attorney read an unpublished court of appeals case analogous to the issue; stated the notice was sufficient to provide a member of the public to know that Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 14, 2018 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |