pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 4 | Mr. Harrison responded he is special counsel and did draft the third proposal; in doing so, they noticed it also raises several issues or practical concerns, particularly in light of the fact that if the City Council were unable to act in whatever period of time required at the Commission's order could have the effect of undoing City Council action, which raises the concern expressed with respect to the non-delegation doctrine and the provision that the City Council has full legislative authority. Commissioner Little stated the Commission tried to bring forward something that would prevent ending up in the same situation as before, which was that the City moved forward with a second reading and in the meantime a complaint had been made before the second reading went through and nothing paused; the Commission put forward language so as not to be in the same position and that the Commission did not have the authority to go back and make something null and void; every option the Commission has brought forward seems to be fairly well rejected, except for the Knox White proposal, which in her opinion does not really afford the Commission its teeth; it does not feel satisfactory to just say the City Council can proceed as usual and there are no real consequences to pause the process; questioned what is the point of a Sunshine Ordinance and an Open Government Commission if it does not have authority. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that he looks at the Knox White proposal as accomplishing what the Commission is after; it does indicate there would be a pause in the process and would allow the matter to be returned to the body which the Commission has found to be in violation of the ordinance and would allow that decision to be reviewed further; both Mr. Foreman's and Mr. Harrison's proposals still run into the problem that existed in the ordinance concerning non-delegation; the City Attorney's office has a different view about what the authority of Commission should be and are prepared to take forward to the Council the Commission's recommendation; the City Attorney's office is in the position to give the Commission the best legal advice; the Commission is not bound to accept it; what has been presented is the most legally defensible. Chair Schwartz stated fundamentally, the City Attorney disagrees with what the Commission is trying to put forward; his understanding of why there was a very long pause to move something forward was because the City Attorney's office was going to give back to the Commission an essentially formalized version of what the Commission wanted to put forward; that was what the Commission was told and that is why there was so much time spent debating each item; he does not think presenting the Knox White proposal as something the Commission wanted is right; the Commission adopted a different proposal that was more along the lines of Mr. Foreman's proposal; the problem is going around and around for years trying to see that the Sunshine Ordinance has some teeth and the City Attorney has been pushing back; it seems none of the Commission's actions or votes have any bearing and the City Attorney's office comes back with a proposal that is explicitly what the Commission has rejected rather than sending what the Commission proposed to the City Council; suggested forming a subcommittee of the Commission to put forward a proposal consistent with what the Commission voted on in June since the City Attorney is not going to put that forward; stated both the Commission and the City Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 17, 2020 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf |