pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 2 | publicly state that he will not be recusing himself, but will make impartial decisions based upon the facts that are presented tonight and also the information that he has reviewed. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office legal opinion is that Vice Chair Shabazz should recuse himself; she wants to give more context to some specifics on the basis for the recommendation; Vice Chair Shabazz did recommend Mr. Morris file a complaint with the OGC publicly via Twitter; it is the City Attorney's opinion that the comment suggested to Mr. Morris that Vice Chair Shabazz would be a receptive audience to Mr. Morris's complaint and that it went beyond just giving information to the public about the complaint process; she is informing the entire Commission of the basis for the advice because of the fact that, should the Commission take action regarding Mr. Morris's complaint and should that action be reviewed by a court, courts do find and do examine the propriety of recusals and whether a recusal was made or not; the City Attorney's office believes that the decision handed down by the Commission could be imperiled or weakened on a judicial review because of the fact that Vice Chair Shabazz has a basis for recusal; she indicated to Vice Chair Shabazz that it is his decision whether to recuse himself and he indicated that he would not recuse himself. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding how to proceed with Vice Chair Shabazz' recusal issue, the City Clerk stated that there is not anything specific in the bylaws directing it, which she will check quickly. Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he understood the bylaws that someone should state what the concern is and then they can continue; in preparation of Ramadan, he will be stepping away from the meeting briefly to break his fast but will be joining the discussion. The City Clerk stated she just briefly looked though the bylaws and did not see specific direction on recusals. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether there could be some clarity on the exact verbiage that should be used when evaluating the nature of complaints; for example, is it binary between sustaining a complaint or finding it unfounded or whether a complaint is sustained and has merit or not. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded based on the text of the Sunshine Ordinance, it is not a binary; a complaint can be sustained that has merit is one option; another option is, after examination of the facts, there is a vote that the complaint does not have merit so it is not sustained; there is yet a third option where a decision is made that the complaint is unfounded, which was the Commission's March meeting vote; it was discussed at that meeting that there is no definition within the Sunshine Ordinance of unfounded, so the Commission needs to make the definition for each complaint; there are ramifications of a complainant having two unfounded complaints within a specific timeframe. Commissioner LoPilato stated it would be helpful for Commissioners and the public to have a better sense of authorship and purpose of each of the documents enclosed with Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 2 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |