pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf, 19
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-03-01 | 19 | arguments on each side. Commissioner LoPilato stated Commissioner Chen's phrase "outside the scope of the OGC" is spot on; that is the primary place she lands on the issue; all the facts inform the decision, but looking at the scope is very important; one of the significant things is there is nothing in the ordinance that gives the Commission power to re-write the ordinance or recommend re-writing the ordinance in response to a Sunshine Ordinance complaint; this seems more like a request to avoid future harm rather than a complaint about an action that was taken; the request has gone to staff and City Council where it belongs; she concurs with Commissioner Chen that perhaps, in some separate capacity outside of the complaint, if there ever is a collaborative review of the ordinance, the OGC could be the institutional knowledge about the definition of ad hoc; as it is right now, there is an ad hoc exception in the ordinance, that is what the OGC is charged to review; she wants to be careful not to overstep the authority granted to the Commission by delving into case law and legal analysis; it is not appropriate for the Commission to research case law, particularly since at the outset, the Commission does not have access to the ability to do their own research; cautioned against having legal citations in any written decision; stated the OGC is allowed to be the regulatory body of the Sunshine Ordinance; when looking at the ordinance, not just the academic question of whether it is in conflict with the Brown Act, there is the ad hoc exception; there is no dispute that this was an ad hoc committee; when the language in the Brown Act is looked at separately, the choice to find the complaint unfounded still holds up; she does not think the Commission even needs to get there; she worries that engaging in discussion that involve interpreting case law or complaints that involve lengthy legal analysis would create a chilling effect on those willing to serve on the OGC; a person should not have to be an attorney to be on the Commission; the practical lived experience of having gone through the processes is very relevant; she does not see a way to go forward under the Sunshine Ordinance with anything other than dismissing the claim as unfounded given the timeliness and scope issues and the lack of authority the OGC has to opining on inconsistencies with the Brown Act. *** Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Chair Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3 - Absent: 2 (Commissioners Reid and Shabazz). Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner LoPilato that a person should not have to be a lawyer to serve on the OGC. Commissioner LoPilato stated the implication of nefarious or malicious intent by the volunteers that are serving on the committees is very harmful to the community and the argument about openness has been weaponized; she wants to acknowledge and appreciate that Mr. Foreman has been very clear throughout all of this and does not seek Meeting of the Open Government Commission March 1, 2021 19 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf |