pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 5 | underlying issues regarding cannabis and everything to do with transparency in government and making sure the public does not have to hunt for information; the Commission made a decision based on the Sunshine Ordinance to make a Council action null and void, yet it is still unclear whether or not the Commission does have that authority, and it is left for the Council to decide; ultimately she would like to ask the City Council three things: 1) make a determination based on the OGC's decision in December to make the ordinances null and void, 2) the null and void clause of the Sunshine Ordinance needs review with the next City Attorney; if it is deemed unconstitutional, the Commission needs to have some method of oversight, and 3) the Commission needs to have separate legal counsel. The Interim City Attorney requested the Commission review and provide a written decision concerning the matter. Commissioner Schwartz stated redlining the decision on the fly does not make sense; the decision should simply state that the complaint is sustained; if the ordinance does not get sent back for a first reading, the City could potentially be faced with a lawsuit; suggested starting fresh and re-introducing the ordinances. The Interim City Attorney stated the proposed decision could be amended to state there was a violation of Section 2-93.2-B and 2-91.5 and the complaint should therefore be sustained. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the decision adding that the Commission based their findings on information presented during the hearing on the matter, including, but not limited to, the fact that the Commission's prior decision was not included in the January 15, 2019 City Council packet, causing average members of the public, or even a well-informed members, to be confused about what the Council was voting on. Commissioner Shabazz requested a friendly amendment; stated that he would not include Commissioner Schwartz comment regarding "average members of the public" as it is an assumption and he wants to remain as factual as possible; suggested the motion state the OGC sustain Ms. Chen's complaint filed on January 25, 2019, and that there was a violation of Section 2-93.2-B and 2-91.5 of the Sunshine Ordinance based on the omission of the documentation of the Commission's decision in the Council packet. Commissioner Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Shabazz and clarified the term he meant to use is "reasonable well-informed" member of the public. The City Clerk stated the motion is: Ms. Chen's complaint will be sustained with the decision stating that the document of the Commission's decision was not attached to the January 15th Council packet and that a reasonable well-informed person would be confused as to what Council was voting on. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] Meeting of the Open Government Commission 5 February 4, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |