pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf, 15
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-03-01 | 15 | and materials he prepared; inquired in what ways, and when, has he shared his concerns with City Council and staff and what was the response. Mr. Foreman responded the reason he shared his concerns was because he very much did not want to be here tonight; stated he wanted to get the issue resolved and thought it was very clear; he thought he should bring it to the attention of the Council and also made a call and wrote a couple emails to the City Manager with copies to the City Attorney; he received no answer from Council and received a phone call back from the City Manager; the City Manager was sympathetic; the letters he wrote to the City Manager were targeted to the City Attorney in the hopes the issue could be resolved; the response was zero; he wrote to the City Attorney again with questions regarding the issue and the response from the City Attorney was that he will find out when he reads the report written by Special Counsel; he is here tonight because he received zero response from the City. In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the case law, Mr. Foreman stated he did not find or research the cases he cited; the cases were researched by a good friend of his who is a California attorney and Alameda resident; he did not ask if the cases were shepardized as he has done work for him before and he is fully competent; Mr. Harrison would have brought that to their attention if it were the case. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether Mr. Foreman feels he has suffered some type of harm from the actions of the Renaming Committee or is it truly more just raising a question of legal interpretation. Mr. Foreman responded that everyone has suffered harm; stated the harm is not caused by the Renaming Committee, they are hardworking people who did what they were asked to do; the harm is that the ad hoc exception has been exercised and it is clearly and unequivocally a violation of the Brown Act; he is afraid that next week, next month or next year there will be a citizens committee for the budget or shutting-down-the-pools these committees violate the law; anytime a law which provides for public access is not abided, it harms the citizens and is a future harm; the committees and the Recreation and Parks Director did good work; he is not retracting from their hard work and efforts one iota. Commissioner LoPilato inquired what Mr. Harrison's position is on whether the complaint is timely under Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-93.2 A; stated it seems the challenged action is the formation of the Renaming Committee; the actions happened back in the summer of 2020; she wonders if there is some type of relation back doctrine or continuing violation doctrine that applies to complaints under the Sunshine Ordinance; she is not aware of any case law; inquired whether the City is asserting a position regarding timeliness. Mr. Harrison responded that the City has not asserted as a defense that the complaint is untimely, largely because Mr. Foreman framed his complaint through allegations that there was a continuing violation because the Recreation and Park Commission (RPC), followed by the City Council, considered the recommendations of the Renaming Committee, and therefore, furthered the violation via a fruits of the forbidden tree theory; Meeting of the Open Government Commission March 1, 2021 15 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf |