pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 3 | Commissioner Foreman stated his motion included dismissing the reconsideration of the matter. Chair Little inquired whether the motion should also include having the item re-noticed by City Council, to which Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated that he thinks staff report Attachment B would suffice with some changes. The Interim City Attorney stated Attachment B could be easily word-smithed to carry out what the Commission would like with respect to the matter; further stated that he is not going to agree with Commissioner Foreman's position that the ordinances in question are null and void; the decision will have the effect of providing direction to the Council to have said result come about; as indicated in his memo to the Commission, he does not think the Commission has the legal authority to render a legally adopted ordinance null and void. Chair Little stated the Commission was told that the timing of their deliberations and delaying the second reading of the ordinances in order for the Commission hearing to take place first did not matter; inquired whether the issue came about because the Commission deliberated on the issue after the second reading of the ordinances. The Interim City Attorney responded the matter proceeded on November 7th; at the October 16th meeting, the City Attorney advised the City Council that it was appropriate to introduce the ordinance with the amendment in question and that it did comply with the Sunshine Ordinance; Council relied on said advice and made the decision to proceed on November 7th notwithstanding the fact that a complaint had been filed on October 30th Council adopted the ordinances on November 7th which went into effect on December 6th. it is his understanding that the Commission would like to have the ordinances re-noticed, and the two ordinances would be repealed. Commissioner Dieter made a friendly amendment to the motion that the Commission affirm its November 7th decision. Commissioner Foreman stated that is basically his motion; Commissioner Dieter may just be objecting to the first sentence regarding dismissing the matter as out of order; he thinks it is important for the Commission to make the assertion; he is not present to argue whether or not the City Attorney's position of delegation of power is correct; he is here to argue that the Commission's jurisdiction on the matter ended on November 14th Commissioner Dieter stated that she is ready to move forward with the vote because she is not persuaded by the City's legal analysis that no grounds exist to revisit the matter; she also believes the Commission does not have the authority to determine whether the ordinance is valid. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 3 December 17, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |