pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 10 | investment in the issue; the sequencing on how the work happened is actually a root of the problem; it was not collaborative and became adversarial; she does not think the method was effective in reaching the end point hoped for by the Commission; she is concerned and does not want the Commission to get so bogged down with retaining its enforcement authority or taking the reins back from the City Attorney's office and potentially squandering an opportunity to make a recommendation that is actually going to get adopted by the City Council; in the staff report, the City Attorney's office has stated the super-majority requirement violates the Charter even though the subcommittee proposal did a great job in explaining why it does not; it is clear from the video and also reflected in the minutes that the City Attorney's office stated they would bring the issue to Council if they could find legal arguments for it; where it stands now, the City Attorney's office found legal problems and wanted to bring it back to the Commission for consideration; she is concerned that marching forward with what was done might result in the Commission losing the opportunity to actually provide feedback and craft a replacement remedy which the Commission would like; she would like to discuss issues with the City Attorney's office, as well as some problems she found in the subcommittee proposal; she thinks a lot can be done with the Knox White proposal. Chair Tilos inquired whether the only reason the City Attorney's office did not present the proposal to the City Council was to give the new Commissioners the opportunity to provide their input, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated what the City Attorney's office has said from the onset is that the City Attorney's office is obligated to analyze any proposal the Commission puts forth for potential issues; the City Attorney's office remains committed to conveying the Commission's proposal to the Council subject to legal analysis of its viability. Commissioner LoPilato stated the staff report outlines that the subcommittee's support for the original position requiring the Council to act by super majority runs afoul of the Charter; read the proposal; stated that she also sees reference to special counsel; the packet itself is very confusing; she is hopeful that she did not invent that there are some concerns regarding the super majority requirement. Chair Tilos stated there were concerns in November and the subcommittee addressed the issues in the December meeting. The City Clerk provided context as to why there was no legal opinion on the proposal when it came forward from the subcommittee; clarified that the subcommittee provided the proposal the day the packet was published, so the City Attorney's office had no time to do a legal review; now with the benefit of time, the City Attorney's office was able to weigh in. Commissioner Chen stated that she has spent 30 years going to City Council meetings in the County and beyond representing public health policies; as a professional advocate for public health and watching numerous Council meetings, she strongly feels that all of the actions were voluntary, in terms of Council trying to comply with the true intent of the Brown Act, which provides for transparency and people being notified in a timely manner; Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2021 10 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |