pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 3 | opposed to Councilmember Vella's and Mr. Foreman's submission or a combination of both. Commissioner Shabazz stated the Commission needs to think about the objective, find the solution between the various proposals and ideas which can still enable the ability for the public to participate in meetings, and some remedy to ensure that people have that opportunity. Commissioner Pauling stated the Commission has to be able to move quickly to resolve issues, especially time sensitive ones; public comment does not get responded to by the Council and does not change a vote that has already been recorded and moved forward. Chair Schwartz stated he echoes Mr. Foreman's comments that the City Attorney's comments are not sufficient to confer with the Commission on viable ways to provide teeth to the statute; the comments were more focused on that the Commission does not have the right to do so; he continues to disagree with the advice provided by Counsel; the ship has sailed, but he does not think Commissioners are limited in what they are allowed to do; simply asking Council to re-agendize something at their convenience is insufficient to address the seriousness of a failure in the City's legislative process based on the Sunshine Ordinance; now is not the time to be squashing transparency; it is time to increase transparency; the best way to do that is to provide some consequence to a failure to have a public process as required by the Sunshine Ordinance that makes it difficult for the City to have such a failure; Mr. Foreman's suggestion has two parts that the Commission should pay close attention to: 1) delay action that does not usurp the Council's legislative authority; if the Council is interested in empowering the OGC, they need to consider that; it does not make the OGC the legislative body, the Commission is not writing new legislation or weighing in on the merits of any legislation, the Commission is making sure the process is as transparent as it needs to be; 2) in Section 2-93.8 regarding penalties, Council accepts the recommendation from the Commission unless the supermajority rejects it, which gives some teeth to what the Commission does in the absence of "null and void;" the paragraph included in the supplemental memo from the City Attorney's office is adequate. Commissioner Little stated there is a lot of language in the Vella-Foreman submission that lends a lot of clarity with respect to timelines that were missing from the current ordinance; being able to provide the public and the Council with some guidance around boundaries for complaints to be brought forward is important; inquired what the rationale is behind removing the OGC's ability to fine a violation and impose a penalty. Chair Schwartz responded that he could not speak for Mr. Foreman, but to the extent that Mr. Foreman suggests that the $250 penalty is like a parking ticket, he tends to agree; the penalty does not address the seriousness of having City legislation pass that has not taken into account the required public process. Commissioner Little stated that she is not arguing one way or the other; she is just curious why it was removed. Meeting of the Open Government Commission June 24, 2020 3 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |