pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 2 | 3-B. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code, as Amended, to Replace "Null and Void" Remedy. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated what is being presented tonight is in response to the Commission's comments and recommendations; the City Attorney's office did hire outside counsel, James Harrison, as requested by the Commission to review the proposal put forth by Paul Foreman; Mr. Harrison has provided comments which were incorporated in the agenda report; the item is intended to provide the Commission with the opportunity to respond to what staff has presented; further comments or amendments will be considered and moved forward to the City Council. In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated Mr. Harrison is outside Counsel from Olson Remcho hired by the City Attorney's office. Chair Schwartz stated it appears the chief authorities cited against the Commission's proposal to add teeth to the Sunshine Ordinance, being cited by the City Attorney's office and its outside counsel for the notion that the Commission's proposal would violate the principle of "non-delegation," are a case from 1904 (when 10% of Alameda was 600 people) - where, unlike today, sending back an ordinance would have cost two years - and another case, from over 50 years ago. Chair Schwartz inquired whether the cases are the chief authorities, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Chair Schwartz inquired whether when drafting the recommendation the Chief Assistant City Attorney read the June OGC minutes when the Commission discussed their recommendations for over an hour, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Chair Schwartz stated City Attorney staff weighed in on independent legal counsel even though it was not an issue the Commission put forward; inquired why it was included. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded it was included as a response to Mr. Foreman's proposal; stated it was a good idea to address all his concerns. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he understands that Chair Schwartz felt the issue did not need to advance; he went back to listen to the recording and it was actually part of the motion. Chair Schwartz stated that he does not believe that is correct, but now it explains why staff had a different understanding; his impression was that part was not recommended by the Commission. Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 17, 2020 2 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf |