pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 16 | 2019 meeting; the term ad hoc committees is not defined and does not exist anywhere in the Brown Act; the use of the term ad hoc has no relevance to the Brown Act; he suggests the Commission put together a play book or set of instructions and guidelines for members of the public: Matt Reid, Alameda. Stated that he is concerned about ad hoc committees being exempt from the Brown Act; it is clear that they cannot be legally exempt; provided an example as to where transparency could help out with respect to the Police Reform committee; an online survey that has no scientific validity was put out by the committee; the survey results cannot be trusted; the public needs to be able to see and comment on groups operating officially as part of the government and doing the work of the people; he was disappointed in a tweet by Vice Chair Shabazz that the ad hoc committee issue was racially motivated: Michael Divine, Alameda. Stated that his main concern is the lack of transparency in much of the government activities; he is thrilled that Commissioner Reid brought her proposal forward; the Commission should concentrate on making it work to improve transparency; urged the Commission to set up a working group comprised of members of the public and two members of the Commission to find ways to improve transparency and allow public oversight access of all committees: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. Stated the City Attorney has already confirmed that ad hoc committees are not subject to the Brown Act; the formation of committees is different than the terminology the Brown Act covers; the formation of the Police Reform committee was done by staff and endorsed by the City Manager, it was not an action of a legislative body: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Stated it is clear that the creation of ad hoc committees seems like a major loophole and very controversial: Amy Lee, Alameda. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the item is similar to the Council Referral process; because the Council directs the work plan of the Commission, the action the Commission could possibly take is to seek Council direction on whether or not the Commission should take up the issue; the concept from the individual Commissioner is being presented and shared tonight; the Commission as a whole can decide whether or not there is enough interest in the proposal to seek Council advice on whether to pursue any changes. Chair Tilos inquired whether the next move is to ask Council if the Commission should make a move on the issue, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the Council provides direction on whether or not to move forward on an issue brought forward by a Commission. The Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with the City Clerk; stated the City Council will be the final body to determine a work plan, namely if the City Attorney's office will be asked to develop any analysis or staff report. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2021 16 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |