pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 5 | Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. Commissioner LoPilato suggested addressing the provision adding a Subsection D to the complaint procedures, which would harmonize the Sunshine Ordinance language with the statutory language elsewhere in the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) laying out the duties of the OGC; stated that she drafted a possible way to capture it under the complaint procedures; it would be non-binding recommendations and a vehicle for the Commission to do something beyond merely finding something substantiated or unsubstantiated. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated his understanding of Commissioner LoPilato's proposal is that she is tying back to the duties of the Commission as set forth in AMC Chapter two; requested clarification if the additional language is put into the ordinance, there would still be a finding as to the merits of the complaint; then, rather than using the cure and correct remedy, it would be an alternative. Commissioner LoPilato responded the existing process would be retained; stated the Commission would make a finding on the specific complaint; the finding may include a cure and correct remedy; there are many instances where, even if the Commission finds something substantiated, there is no appropriate cure and correct remedy; the issue could seemingly be resolved, but the underlying complaint is substantiated; she wants to create an alternative path where the Commission could take a majority vote as to whether there are also some informal resolution options that might be beneficial; she is open to making adjustments if there are legal concerns. The Assistant City Attorney stated that is how he interpreted Commissioner LoPilato's proposal; there could be a scenario where the Commission could have a decision as to the merits and order a cure and correct; a footnote could be added about informal ways to deal with the complaint or how to anticipate future problems in the same decision; there could be a scenario that does not use the cure and correct, but rather an alternative remedy. Commissioner LoPilato concurred with Assistant City Attorney's summary of her proposed process; stated that she discussed a slight modification that envisions dealing with a different path to be able to make recommendations outside of the decision; she is very flexible about whether people feel better about confining everything to one decision and getting it done in one meeting; she envisions a scenario where the Commission makes a decision, hammers out the points of the finding and whether there is a cure and correct or put a pin in the issue and take a vote as to whether it is something that needs to be pursued further. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Code permits simply agendizing an issue if it needs to be heard further; additional language would not be necessary to do so. Meeting of the Open Government Commission May 3, 2021 5 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf |