pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 11 | her concern is if there is just going to be a legal fight deep in the weeds, she would just like to get out the weed whacker and ask the question of how to make it so all the public boards and commissions follow the intent of the Brown Act, which is recognizing that it is the people's government; it is the people's business they are conducting; when legislative bodies decide to make decisions without adequately noticing the public, there has to be some recourse; she would like to move forward with a solution that works for everyone; one where there is trust in Councilmembers and Commissioners to do their due diligence; she feels trust was lost and would like to find a way to rebuild it. Vice Chair Shabazz noted Roberts Rules of Order requires a motion and second prior to having a conversation, which was his intention in making the motion, not to subvert the new Commissioners from providing input; acknowledged the research done by Commissioners LoPilato and Chen to go through and better understand the issue; he concurs with Commissioner Chen's comments regarding rebuilding trust; inquired whether if something else is found to be in violation of the Charter, will it be addressed; stated that he is interested in hearing from the Council whether or not the supermajority requirement is legal; the Charter was recently cleaned up so he is surprised if this issue was missed. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission does not have to strictly adhere to Roberts Rules of Order; the Council adopted using Roberts Rules of Order, which was reviewed by the OGC, but the OGC did not specifically adopt adhering to it; according to the rules, it is correct to state the motion in the beginning to have a discussion, and substitute motions can also be made. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she would like to suggest taking the best parts of what was offered up in December, parts that are streamlined and elegant from the Knox White proposal, and then adding in some other creative items to add some meat; the City Attorney's flagging of some issues tells her that City Council may have some issue with it as well; she would like to consider having an opportunity to ask other questions of the City Attorney's office and bring the item back next month; maybe an alignment can be reached tonight on a modified proposal; she is concerned that the language in the subcommittee proposal would make it impossible to make a complaint about a noticed agenda item because of the timing; she understands the proposal was pushed through with a desire to be done with it, but there are still issues she would like to discuss; a compromise could be coming up with a way to make votes very public; a way for the public to see whether the City Council or other Boards or Commissions are running roughshod over the OGC's recommendations; she believes there may be other options that may have sharper teeth without running into legal issues; she does not support moving forward with the December proposal because she sees problems with it and it is not as strong as what the Commission could potentially put forward with further thought. Vice Chair Shabazz withdrew his motion. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry regarding timing, the Assistant City Attorney stated it depends on what the Commission, as a whole, feels needs to be addressed prior to the Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2021 11 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |