pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 5 | the perceived conflict of interest; the City Attorney's office responded that they were not asked to do so; he agrees with the City Attorney's office that it is not within the charge of the OGC to tell the City Council to retain independent legal counsel. The Assistant City Attorney stated the comments provided by the City Attorney's office to Mr. Foreman's proposal is just preliminary thinking; the Office plans to do a more thorough analysis once concrete direction is received from the Commission; the supplemental memo from the City Attorney's office should be considered as a starting point for the Commission to work with the City Attorney's office in developing a satisfactory proposal that can be repackaged for the Council; it would be helpful to staff for the Commission to weigh in on each item, so the City Attorney's office is clear on how to draft the proposal. Chair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney; stated that he would like to address each item; suggested breaking down into a few parts: 1) Section 2-92.2 of Mr. Foreman's proposal that further action on an agenda item shall be delayed until the complaint is resolved; 2) Section 2-93.8, Council shall accept the recommendation unless 4 Councilmembers reject it; 3) keep or eliminate the monetary penalty. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated the discussions can include the Vella/Foreman proposal; added a fourth category regarding timing issues in general, which would encompass the rest of the changes; a fifth category could be discussed regarding independent legal counsel; regarding the timing issue, a member of the public commented that there will not be time for the public to weigh in if things are rushed. Commissioner Pauling stated that she agrees with Commissioner Little and would like to work through the list item by item rather than bouncing around. In response to Chair Schwartz's inquiry regarding timing, Commissioner Pauling stated that she concurs with the proposal to delay action on the second reading to address any outstanding issues and to do it within the regular meeting agenda framework so that Council can be notified quickly. Chair Schwartz inquired whether the method would cut people short in their ability to participate if complaints must be filed and responded to so quickly. Commissioner Pauling responded that she is ok if the second vote is delayed by two meetings to allow proper reparations. Commissioner Little stated it is important to have transparency in the process and provide the boundaries of what can and cannot be brought forward; the situation could end up where something has gone through and an issue arises 30 or 40 days out; it should still be brought forward to the OGC; by setting the boundaries, the Commission knows what can happen; otherwise, there will be a pause in the entire process and it will be extremely muddled; as long as it is clear that the timing keeps business moving forward and hopefully allows enough time for the public to respond; this type of framework provides Meeting of the Open Government Commission June 24, 2020 5 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |