pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 3 | the agendas; inquired that the Chief Assistant City Attorney or City Clerk give some specificity with respect to what the Commission has reviewed. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded basically both sides in each complaint have the option to present written arguments, which can take any form; the written argument submitted on behalf of the City appears more legal in nature because the City has retained outside counsel; another document would perhaps be titled proposed decision or suggested decision; the form of the document looks like a final Commission decision; the document is prepared by outside counsel; it is the conclusion that the outside counsel is urging, but it is not a requirement that the Commission needs to agree with it. The City Clerk stated the City has always prepared a draft decision and presented it to the Commission for every single case; the draft decision gives the Commission a starting point; there have been times where the Commission has taken the opposite position than what was in the draft decision; going forward, it could be made clear that the decision is just a recommendation from the City and not final. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the staff report is actually by special counsel and not the staff recommendation or Chief Assistant City Attorney's framing of the issue; and whether it is an advocacy piece it is a position statement by the attorney's representing the City in the adversarial adjudication. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the staff report is an adversarial piece and the waters are a bit muddied because it is also the City's position; in this particular instance, the staff report is the position of the City and the particular department within the City. The City Clerk stated the City has always presented the staff report from its viewpoint. Commissioner Reid inquired why staff and special counsel prepare a decision before the Commission hears a case; stated that she understands is has been common practice, but wonders if the Commission wants to continue the practice; further inquired whether the prepared decisions ever held the position of sustaining a complaint; stated it is important to know if the practice will continue; requested that the Chief Assistant City Attorney read the specific Public Records Act (PRA) Section 6250 3C Mr. Morris included in his complaint. Chair Tilos stated the Commission could address Commissioner Reid's question whether to continue the draft decision process during Commissioner Communications. Commissioner Chen concurred with Commissioner Reid; stated it seems like the deck is already stacked to reject the complaint from the get go; her understanding is that Commissioners should have an open mind when cases are presented; the staff report states that someone filed a complaint and it was already resolved; the complaint is not seen until the third or fourth document; it is not a fair process for residents who go through the trouble of filing a complaint to have all of these opposing documents in the beginning; Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 3 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |