pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-10-04 | 3 | Commissioner LoPilato stated the language regarding the role of the Secretary is consistent across all Alameda Boards and Commissions Bylaws; there is always an interest in maintaining specificity to the work of the Commission, but also some uniformity and basic provisions. The City Clerk concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the Secretary is always a staff person; she does not staff all the Boards or Commissions, so typically someone in the related Department is the Secretary noted in the Bylaws as an Officer fulfilling said role. Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Mr. Garfinkle's position to allow members of the public to be invited to participate in the work of subcommittees; she feels it is a good goal to incorporate in the Bylaws; the review and analysis of Public Records Act (PRA) requests should be an essential goal of the Commission included as an order of business; it is good preparation and streamlining process to include a section in the agenda on Standard Commission Business; review of prior meeting meetings could be something the Chair could work with the City Clerk to streamline the process; allowing time for the Commissioners to respond to public comments is a good practice. Chair Tilos inquired whether there are glaring issues that need to be addressed before moving forward. Commissioner Chen stated Commissioners are not allowed to hold debates with public speakers under non-agenda public comment; inquired whether it would be a violation of the Brown Act. The City Clerk responded the rule is actually in the Code of Conduct which applies to all the Boards and Commissions; stated every Commissioner signs that they will follow the Code of Conduct, which states public comment is not to be a debate. Commissioner Reid stated the intention behind it is not debate, but for clarification purposes; speakers should not be excluded just for time limitations if they have something else to say on a topic. Vice Chair Shabazz suggested the basis for discussion be the revisions proposed by Commissioner LoPilato; stated particular things could be added from Commissioners and Mr. Garfinkle; he has nothing to add to the work done by Commissioner LoPilato, other than the clarification question around process and majority requesting a meeting; he is prepared to make a motion. The City Clerk stated the Bylaw provision Vice Chair Shabazz asked about is actually replicated based on the City Council; either the Chair or three members can call a special meeting; the reason it exists is so the Chair does not have the ultimate authority to block something Commissioners wants to hear; it is a practice that has not been used during her time, but it does exist. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 4, 2021 3 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf |