pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-01-11 | 5 | Commissioner Cambra stated he would be happy to help prepare the language. Vice Chair LoPilato stated as long as the Commission is framing it as encouragement for Council and the City Attorney's office to consider; her guess as to the origin of the 15-day statute of limitations was from the need to look forward with open meetings violations, making sure the complaint process happens quickly and perhaps the implications on a PRA request did not come into play; she wants to give some deference to the drafters of the statute in case there was some brilliant reason behind it that the Commission is missing; Commissioner Cambra's points are well taken, but it strikes her as that it incentivizes complaints; the more ways to find informal resolutions, the better. The City Clerk stated as part of the complaint form revision, the Commission gave direction to include that members of the public could attend OGC meetings and raise an issue without filing a complaint; the language is included at the top of the revised form; it could also be placed in other places throughout so that the public knows the Commission also exists to hear them. Chair Tilos stated the report should be wrapped up; new comments and ideas could go into next year's report. Commissioner Chen stated that she will bring the best of everything back at the meeting in February; unless there is something highly egregious, she is hoping the Commissioners will adopt it and a new subcommittee could be set up for the next report. Commissioner Cambra stated there was a situation at the December 6th hearing regarding a recusal; inquired whether the Commission should address the issue or make the Council aware; stated it has the impact of potentially having the Commission's decision come under judicial review. Commissioner Chen responded in an earlier iteration of the report, she included the recusal issue asking for clarification on when it is appropriate for a Commissioner to recuse themselves from a vote; she could put it back into the report. Commissioner Cambra stated it would be helpful to put it back into the report so the Council is aware; the issue is a refusal of recusal puts the entire Commission decision potentially into question; it would be nice to have the ability to do something about it and have an answer. Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Cambra but recalls there was a reason why it was taken out. Vice Chair LoPilato stated her loose recollection is that there was going to be specific training given to the Commission with respect to their roles in the adjudicatory process; she assumes recusals would fall under the training; the City Council would most likely defer to the City Attorney's office; perhaps the Commission could ask the Chief Assistant City Attorney to include the issue in the upcoming training. Meeting of the Open Government Commission January 11, 2022 5 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf |