pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-02-07 | 8 | to make sure he interpreted the statute correctly; the options are discussion points and recommendations the Commission could consider. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she would like to reserve any substantive discussion for the next meeting; it would be a bit premature for her to start rendering opinions; as a broad-brush assessment, she read Commissioner Cambra's comments and thought the topic could be discussed at a future meeting. In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, Commissioner Cambra stated that he prefers to keep it broad so that each of the Commissioners would have an opportunity to be creative and suggest things; he wants to make sure everyone understands the statutory scheme and the Commission's authority versus Council's authority. Vice Chair Chen moved approval of agendizing a discussion of the statutory hearing dates at a future meeting. Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Tilos inquired about Commissioner Cambra's timeline. Commissioner Cambra responded he is not married to having it on the March agenda. Commissioner Tilos stated that he would like to make a friendly amendment to have the item agendized after March. Vice Chair Chen stated her motion was for a future meeting; if the training is scheduled in March and would only take one hour, the item could take only a half hour to be done rather than waiting until April or May. Chair LoPilato offered a substitute friendly amendment to add: "at the next scheduled Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 7, 2022 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf |