pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 4 | In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated Chair Schwartz's summary of Mr. Foreman's explanation is correct; quoted Mr. Foreman's comments rationale for striking it: "I struck the penalties because they are ridiculous, it is the tax payers who would be paying them." Commissioner Shabazz inquired whether Mr. Foreman's comment regarding the tax payers paying the penalty is accurate. Chair Schwartz responded in the affirmative; stated the penalty would be against the City, which is funded by tax payer's dollars. The Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Schwartz; stated the penalty is included as a deterrent, but whether it has any real practical effect is for the Commission to decide, as well as whether or not to leave in the provision. Commissioner Tilos stated that he supports removing the provision, it is just a slap on the wrist and immaterial. Chair Schwartz stated it bothered him that the proposal endorsed by the City Attorney's office wanted to keep the $250 fine, but removed the more significant deterrent like delaying, or not allowing, legislation that was passed without the proper proceedings to go into effect. Commissioner Tilos stated the power was taken away from the Commission; the Commission was clear and Council was clear on taking the power away; he shares the frustration with Mr. Foreman that this topic has been unresolved for two years now. Chair Schwartz clarified that the rationale articulated by the City Attorney which the City Council needed to obey was that nullifying a Council action improperly usurped the authority of an elected body to legislate to an appointed body, which is not the same as delaying it and asking for another vote; for the Commission to cancel an ordinance passed by the Council is stronger; he agrees that the Council rejected that proposal; he does not think the Council rejected the idea of delaying implementation of an ordinance and asking for a supermajority. Commissioner Shabazz stated referring to the teeth metaphor that has been used throughout the discussion, he feels as though the Commission's teeth have been kicked out; in absence of the power taken away, there are other things the Commission can do to encourage transparency; it seems the only options are to delay action for another vote or impose a penalty; reiterated some of the concerns he had regarding the perception of a "conflict of interest" with the City Attorney's office and the OGC, as well as with the Public Records Request Act; he does not have any specific solutions, but is frustrated that the Commission has no power to hold any bodies accountable for making sure meetings are accessible. Chair Schwartz stated Mr. Foreman's proposal suggests that the Commission Chair be able to request that the City retain independent legal counsel as opposed to dealing with Meeting of the Open Government Commission June 24, 2020 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |