pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 5 | Attorney can present proposals to the Council and allow Council to decide; in his opinion, the Council will be deciding whether or not to have teeth in the Sunshine Ordinance and a real transparent legislative process; what Council has said months ago was that they adopted the City Attorney opinion that a null and void provision usurped the legislative process, but they still wanted real teeth in the ordinance; the Commission's proposal would do that; he disagrees that there is anything unlawful about it; suggested forming a subcommittee to put forth the Commission's proposal to the City Council; stated undoubtedly, the Council will also have the considered opinions of the City Attorney. Commissioner Shabazz expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Little about confusion in the language; stated the current proposal does not meet the criteria of putting teeth back into the Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether staff will still bring a proposal forward to the City Council for approval even if the Commission declines to move forward with it. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded staff would bring forth any proposal the Commission approves, either through a subcommittee or other process; depending on what the proposal says, he cannot say whether or not the City Attorney's office would recommend it, which is not an unusual situation for Commissions; without knowing precisely what the Commission may come up with, the City Attorney's office cannot say whether or not they would recommend it; it is fair to say if it involves a delegation issue, the City Attorney's office would not be in a position to recommend it because it is not authorized by the Charter; people can disagree, but Council will make the ultimate decision. Commissioner Shabazz stated that he appreciates the legal analysis; there is a desire to have something substantive to replace what was lost with the removal of null and void; depending on where people may be, maybe move to recommend the Foreman proposal to the City Council. Commissioner Tilos stated there are two different battles; whatever the Commission drafts will likely not be recommended by the City Attorney's office; if the Commission goes directly to the Council, they will probably not approve it either; it is an uphill battle both ways; the question becomes which battle to choose: the endless two year circle of rewriting a proposal to get endorsement from the City Attorney's office or go directly to Council just to be rejected. Chair Schwartz stated it is a real concern, but does not necessarily have to go that way; it will be a different Council and a different moment; after the Council asked specifically to put teeth back into the ordinance and the Commission comes back with something that does so, it is something different than straight null and void; the arguments that were raised by the City Attorney which gave the City Council pause about an absolute null and void do not have the same force with respect to the proposal the Commission has already agreed and voted on; the Commission is not nullifying or usurping any legislative function of the Council, which is the argument the Council made; the Commission has to be true and decide what is best for transparency; the Commission was charged with putting teeth Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 17, 2020 5 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf |