pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 3 | In response to Commissioner Schwartz's inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated Attachment 3 of the report includes the information regarding the impacts. Commissioner Schwartz inquired where the report state that the previously null and void ordinances are back in effect. The Interim City Attorney responded the City's position is that the ordinances never went out of effect. Commissioner Tilos stated the ordinances were never null and void because the Commission did not have the power to do so. The Interim City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated if the Commission did not have the authority to render the ordinances null and void, by definition, they were still in full force and effect. Chair Little stated that she is concerned the Commission is entering into a slightly different conversation by arguing the merits of whether or not the Commission has the right to render any Council action null and void; she would like to focus on the complaint before the Commission tonight; inquired whether there are technical questions; inquired what was the rationale behind not including the Commission's decision. The Interim City Attorney responded there was no purposeful thought of not attaching the document; stated when the item was drafted, it seemed agenda report adequately described the issue and paraphrased the Commission's decision. Chair Little stated stating information in the background and paraphrasing created the situation tonight; the Commission's purpose is to make sure issues are made available publicly and not just in the background. Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, read a letter the League submitted on the matter. Paul Foreman, Alameda, stated the failure to attach the decision is a technicality; the real problem is the title misled the public because it was not clear; the process should be two steps: 1) repeal the ordinances, and 2) re-introduce the ordinances. Irene Dieter, Alameda, concurred with Mr. Foreman; stated there was no way for the public to figure out that any no vote was just symbolic; there was no opportunity for the public to realize the item was not a re-hearing; the item should be re-noticed. Serena Chen, Complainant, stated the written decision of the Commission should have been issued within 14 days of December 17th; it was not, so it became a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. Ryan Agabao, Alameda, stated the public was given plenty of notice and many Meeting of the Open Government Commission 3 February 4, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |