pages
420 rows where body = "OpenGovernmentCommission"
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
date (date) 28 ✖
- 2021-04-05 25
- 2021-07-19 23
- 2021-03-01 22
- 2021-05-03 20
- 2018-03-05 19
- 2021-02-01 19
- 2021-11-01 17
- 2021-12-06 17
- 2020-06-24 16
- 2021-10-04 16
- 2021-09-20 13
- 2019-12-18 11
- 2020-11-16 11
- 2018-02-05 10
- 2018-11-14 9
- 2022-01-11 9
- 2022-02-07 9
- 2020-02-03 8
- 2021-08-02 8
- 2018-12-17 7
- 2019-07-23 7
- 2020-08-03 7
- 2019-02-04 6
- 2020-12-14 5
- 2018-10-01 3
- 2018-08-21 1
- 2019-10-07 1
- 2020-06-01 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 3 | Chair Dieter stated that she would not recommend conflating affordable housing into an infrastructure bond measure or future surveys; it dilutes the issues and is a little confusing to the public. 3-C. Review the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Vice Chair Little inquired whether the Commission should go through the list of items that was provided by the Council subcommittee; stated that she has questions and comments throughout the list; going through the list one item at a time might be easiest. Chair Dieter stated that she has a motion that she would like to make which might clarify how the Commission moves forward. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding the agenda title, the City Clerk stated the Commission's feedback will be provided to the City Council; the review encompasses the Commission's discussion, which will be passed onto the City Council. Chair Dieter inquired whether the complete rules of order do not exist as one document, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the resolution has been amended. Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules are posted on the City's website, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the resolutions are all posted separately. Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules of order and order of business are two separate things, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Chair Dieter stated the Commission is discussing the rules of order tonight, which is how to conduct meetings; inquired whether the Commission could also provide input on how the public could easily access the rules in the future. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated said matter is the first thing that should be addressed. Stated that he had not paid attention to the details of running meetings or heard of Rosenberg's Rules of Order; discussed the two methods for counting an abstention; stated one counts an abstention as a no; the other method, called present an… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 4 | Chair Dieter stated that she would like to make a motion to repeal the original resolution and any resolution amending it altogether, introduce a new resolution that adopts Rosenberg's Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rule adopted by resolution of the City Council, and where Rosenberg is silent, provisions would be added to the resolution; in other words, standard parliamentary rules would be adopted and special rules would be passed as needed; further stated to try to guide the discussion, she would share a handout with follow Commissioners because it is in writing and will be made part of the public record. The City Clerk inquired whether the motion would be to make a recommendation to have Council repeal the resolutions because Council has to repeal its resolutions, to which Chair Dieter responded correct. Chair Dieter stated what she has handed out includes her outline of Rosenberg's Rules of Order, which is part of the staff report, and clauses needed in the new resolution; the items Rosenberg's Rules is silent on and the City Council has taken a position on are in the list of clauses; the first is counting votes, which the public speaker addressed; read the proposed clauses; stated that she reviewed the daisy chain of resolutions and included what she considered to be important or missing and came up with the list of clauses that the Commission could consider adding to Rosenberg's Rules or Order; stated that is her motion. Commissioner Foreman requested the motion be read back. Chair Dieter stated the motion is to consider suggesting that the City Council repeal the original resolution and any resolutions amending it and introduce a new resolution adopting Rosenberg's Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rules adopted by resolution of the City Council; where Rosenberg's Rules is silent, add provisions to the resolution which she specifically named. Commissioner Foreman stated the handout is simply an outline of how to attack the matter and does not necessarily become part o… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 5 | might be able to support the general motion, which really does not include the outline; however, if voting for the motion is for the limited outline, he would have troubles. Chair Dieter stated that she envisions Rosenberg's Rules of Order as part of the new resolution; the special rules would be at the bottom to add items which are applicable to the City of Alameda; rather than reinvent the wheel, Rosenberg's entire text should be adopted; then, the special rules should be added to the end; it would all be one resolution. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether items which contradict Rosenberg's Rules would be included, to which Chair Dieter responded correct. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the motion is Rosenberg's Rules, plus whatever the Commission decides as a group, not necessarily the list, to which Chair Dieter responded correct. Vice Chair Little stated something in Rosenberg's Rules that might not be applicable to what is happening could be scratched; she loves the spirit of Chair Dieter's proposal; trying to figure out which version was the most current gave her a headache; she would love to see a new version in one document; when she was doing her research, Rosenberg's versus Robert's, she appreciates the more simplistic, user friendly Rosenberg's Rules; however, the current City Council structure is run a little differently; if the Commission is going to make a recommendation tonight, she is not comfortable and would want to go through the finer points to ensure nothing is being missed; for example, Rosenberg's Rules recommends that the presiding officer take a less active role, defer to others and speak last, which is not necessarily how the City Council is currently being managed; she would want to make sure that the Commission goes through the provisions with a little more detail; her understanding was that the intent of going through the Rules of Order was to ensure that City Council meetings do not go until 3:19 a.m.; a wide gamut of recommendations could be proposed to the City Council tha… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 6 | the Council asked the Commission to do; that he does not think he will be able to support doing it the way proposed. Chair Dieter inquired whether there is any special rule that she forgot to include, to which Commissioner Foreman responded that he cannot answer that because he did not have an opportunity to compare; stated that he is worried something will be missed; history has to be respected; starting with the original document makes more sense; it should be repealed and codified in one document. Commissioner Henneberry inquired what was the genesis for the matter coming forward and what the City Council wanted out of it. The City Clerk responded the matter was raised via a referral; Councilmember Matarrese brought it forward to have changes made. Commissioner Henneberry questioned whether Councilmember Matarrese thought meetings were going too long; stated the rules are not the problem. Chair Dieter stated the impetus was there was a question about public comments non- agenda. The Assistant City Attorney outlined the public comment issue that lead to the referral. Commissioner Henneberry stated the entire issue came out of a specific arcane item; he has been dealing with Robert's Rules of Order for 30 years; the rules are not the issue if there is concern about the length of meetings, which is due to the Chair and meeting participants; he thinks Rosenberg's Rules look pretty good, clean and like a nice breath of fresh air compared to Robert's Rules; he does not want to go through every resolution because there was a non-agenda comment issue. Chair Dieter stated when looking at the issue, Councilmember Matarrese noticed there were other rules which are not being followed because they are not clear, such as Councilmembers are only allotted three minutes to speak; there was a whole host of things; it is great that the Council subcommittee looked to Rosenberg's Rules of Order; the League of California Cities (LCC) recommends Rosenberg's Rules; the City is pretty much following Rosenberg's Rules already and just … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 7 | what Rosenberg is recommending and the current rules to make sure nothing missing; for meeting hours, Chair Dieter's list recommends midnight; she saw it was 11:00 p.m., then midnight and back to 11:00 p.m.; she thought the current time is 11:00 p.m. now. The City Clerk stated midnight is not reflected as the time in the Sunshine Ordinance; amending the ending time and the 10:30 p.m. vote to consider remaining items would require an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Foreman stated it does not matter if the Commission proceeds as he is suggesting or as the motion is suggesting, except he does not see a way to not go through article by article; he opposes adopting the proposal; the review needs to be done as a group; he is willing to support the motion, but he is still going to want to go through every item. Chair Dieter stated the Commissioners all like Rosenberg's Rules of Order; the Commission wants to make sure it has not missed anything for only the special rules; she went line by line through it; suggested coming back again with the special rules to give Commissioners an opportunity to study the resolutions to see if anything has been missed. Commissioner Foreman stated the suggestion makes sense; that he would be more comfortable and the Commission might save time. Chair Dieter stated there is a motion and a second; perhaps the Commission should take a vote. Commissioner Henneberry stated that he has a timing question; the Commission is scheduled to meet twice per year; the next meeting is October; however, the Commission can meet in the interim if there is a reason to meet; inquired whether a vote of the Commission decides scheduling. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The City Clerk stated the Commission's meetings are typically held the first Monday; in the past, the Commission met the next month to continue review. Commissioner Foreman moved approval of tabling the motion until the next meeting in the next 30 days. Chair Dieter inquired whether the meeting would be held the first M… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 8 | The Assistant City Attorney responded perhaps later in February or mid-March. Commissioner Foreman rephrased the motion; moved approval of the same motion with the meeting date being the first Monday in April. Vice Chair Little seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a subcommittee would go over the matter prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Foreman stated the Commissioners could all share their comments with each other prior to the next meeting, which cannot be done. The Assistant City Attorney stated each Commissioner can send comments to the City Clerk for distribution, but the Commissioners cannot collectively discuss the matter until the meeting. Chair Dieter inquired whether she could have sent her list to the City Clerk after the agenda was posted, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated communications should be sent to the City Clerk to be sent out to everyone at the same time; after communications are sent out, three members cannot discuss the matter outside of a meeting. The City Clerk noted communications are posted and made public. Chair Dieter stated that she will withdraw her motion. Commissioner Foreman inquired why the motion is being withdrawn; stated that he is tabling Chair Dieter's motion. Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether it would be permissible to have a two person subcommittee of Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Henneberry stated the subcommittee could put something together for distribution to the rest of the Commission prior to the next meeting. Vice Chair Little and Chair Dieter both expressed a willingness to do so. Chair Dieter stated there is a motion to table the matter until the next meeting. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.] Chair Dieter inquired whether there is another motion to set up a subcommittee. Meeting of the Open Government Com… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 9 | Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a motion is needed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded a motion should be done to determine the subcommittee membership and direction. Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of having a subcommittee comprised of the Chair and Vice Chair Little to put together a proposal, provide it to the City Clerk and have it distributed to the Commission prior to the next meeting. In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the meeting packet goes out seven days prior to the meeting, which would be March 26th. Vice Chair Little stated that she thought the meeting would be in March. Commissioner Foreman stated the Assistant City Attorney is not available. The Assistant City Attorney stated if the Commission would rather meet in March, someone else from the City Attorney's office could attend. Commissioners Henneberry and Little stated that they would prefer to meet in March. Commissioner Foreman noted the Commission already voted on the motion. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission is considering forming a subcommittee and could direct the matter be brought back the first Monday in March. Commissioner Henneberry clarified the motion is to form the subcommittee and meet the first Monday in March. Commissioner Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.] 3-D. Recommendation to Approve the Records Retention Schedule The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Chair Dieter inquired whether the retention schedule is considered the Public Records Index (PRI). The City Clerk responded the two were separated; stated the League of California Cities (LCC) index, which provides a general guide of the documents that are open or closed, was adopted by the City Council; the retention schedule informs when records, which are listed by department, would be destroyed. Chair Dieter inquired whether the City has two different retention schedules: the PRI and one by each department. Meeting of the … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 10 | The City Clerk responded the PRI is used to disclose whether documents are public or partially public. Chair Dieter inquired whether the PRI does not include when to destroy records, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Chair Dieter inquired whether the schedule does not need to come before the Open Government Commission, to which the City Clerk responded the schedule was presented to the Commission in the past. Chair Dieter stated the Sunshine Ordinance does not require the schedule to come before the Commission; inquired where the standards come from and whether there are different types of records; stated the Secretary of State, with the LCC, came up with guidelines; the City Clerk's Association also has guidelines; inquired where the City's standards for disposing of documents was formed. The City Clerk responded the last column has the statutory reference and draws on many different sources, such as the Government Code and Elections Code; stated each department draws from different Codes; the citation of the statutory reference would be very similar in the City's schedule versus the Secretary of State guidelines; the City tried to whittle down its list to inform the public what documents the City has and retains. Chair Dieter stated the schedule is not arbitrary; inquired whether the department heads are not just deciding how long to keep something and actually turn to a statutory reference. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the City exceeds statutory reference in some instances, but it is never shorter. Chair Dieter stated sidewalk repair requests would be deleted after five years, which means the records could be destroyed before the repair is done. The City Clerk stated the clock starts ticking after the issue is resolved. The Assistant City Attorney stated citizens' complaints for Police Officers have a five year retention period and start at the complaint date as opposed to resolved; the general rule is what the City Clerk indicated, but there are some situations where… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 11 | The City Clerk stated there are retention codes at the bottom of the page; provided an example of current year end, which is very specific. Chair Dieter stated the main thing is for the public to understand; suggested adding footnotes for some about when the time starts. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the Commission needs to approve the schedule. The City Clerk responded the City Council will be informed if the Commission takes action. Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of approving the Records Retention Schedule. Commissioner Foreman seconded the motion. Under discussion, Chair Dieter stated that she plans on voting no because she does not think that technology should be driving public policy; if there were other reasons for wanting to change five years to three years, it would make more sense to her; just because the City does not have storage capacity is a bad precedent. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Foreman, Henneberry and Little - 3. Noes: Chair Dieter - 1. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.] COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Foreman inquired whether Municipal Code amendments prior language goes away and the Code reflects the current law, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether resolutions could be codified; stated the new rules of order will be neat, but could end up with the same mess. The Assistant City Attorney responded the way to handle the matter would be to repeal the entirety and adopt a new resolution with all changes; stated discrete pieces of the original resolution were changed by just amending the section; the point is well taken-it makes it difficult to go to one document and figure out the rules. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether that is the only way, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded as a practical matter. Chair Dieter stated the City Council current version could have a legislative history with previous versions underneath. Meeting of th… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,12 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 12 | The City Clerk stated the issue can be discussed when the matter returns to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 5, 2018 12 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY - - MARCH 5, 2018 7:00 P.M. Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Foreman, Henneberry, Little, Schwartz and Chair Dieter - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Review the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings Chair Dieter made brief introductory comments and provided background information. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, the City Clerk agreed that staff would not provide a report and would raise questions as the Commission reviews the subcommittees proposed recommendations. Commissioner Foreman stated the subcommittee is proposing the current rules be repealed, and Rosenberg's Rules of Order be adopted along with special rules; inquired whether or not the subcommittee went through each individual section of the current rules. Chair Dieter responded the subcommittee went through all the resolutions and pulled out all of the existing rules and reworded them, which are the nine special rules; stated the subcommittee tabled two rules; if Commissioner Foreman found something that the subcommittee forgot, the Commission can address it. Commissioner Foreman stated Council's charge was to review and update the rules; instead, it looks like the Commission is writing its own set of rules without specific reference to the existing rules; for instance, there are six different items under public discussion under the old rules; under the supplemental rules, there are a lot less; the same thing for Council deliberations; he has a problem with the structure; he anticipated the subcommittee would be going through each of the existing sections. Chair Dieter stated a lot of the existing rules are already in Rosenberg's Rules of Order; the subcommittee did not want to duplicate the rule. Vice Chair Little stated one of the subcommittee tasks was to go through the existing rules; she did a line by line comparison of the five different versions of the current rules Meeting of t… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 2 | and Rosenberg's Rules; the only time the subcommittee added a supplemental rule was when Rosenberg's Rules were silent; the current rules of order required looking in five different resolutions; after doing the comparison, Rosenberg's Rules are much more accessible to the average person to understand; items were accounted for by identifying and adding in special rules; she feels confident, the document is complete. Stated the adjournment time should be switched back to midnight; three meetings per month could be held, but he does not know how the 10-day advance notice could be done; if there are concerns over late meetings crimping public participation, the public can submit a letter to the City Council starting 10 days before any meeting; letters can be longer than what someone can say in three minutes; waiting until 11:00 p.m. to speak is bad; sitting through a meeting and not having the item called is worse: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Stated Council meetings are painful; comments on matters is often not heard until 9:30 p.m.; it does not feel democratic; urged the Commission to do anything it can to guide the Council; stated items should be moved to action or delayed for more study or additional hearings; outlined her experience with an item not being heard; stated the Council should have to make motions to discuss and either approve or vote down; stated the Planning Board could also use the rules; suggested a training session be held and there be guidance regarding referrals and hearing referrals faster: Pat Lamborn, Alameda. Chair Dieter suggested the Commission go through the nine special rules one at a time; started with Counting Votes. Commissioner Foreman inquired where Counting Votes is in the existing rules. Chair Dieter responded it is not in the existing rules; stated it is in the City Charter. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether three affirmative votes are require for any action, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language is straight from the Charter. Commissioner … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 3 | Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little expressed that they could not think of such an instance. The City Clerk provided a scenario of someone speaking on the same topic under Public Comment at the closed session and again under Oral Communications Non- Agenda on the regular meeting the same night. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee discussed the matter; non-agenda items are only for matters not on an agenda, whether closed session or not; the subcommittee wanted to be clear. The City Attorney provided a specific example prohibiting a speaker from commenting under non-agenda items on the regular agenda after having an opportunity to comment on the agenda item at a prior closed session meeting the same night; Council wants to hear from the Commission on the issue. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee's intent was to do so; questioned whether language should be added to clarify speakers can comment once on a particular night. There was consensus to add language. The City Attorney stated limiting speakers would not be fair if the meetings were on different nights. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether someone wanting to comment after the closed session announcement is a legitimate non-agenda item. Chair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the person is commenting on the closed session item, which is on the agenda. Commissioner Foreman stated the speaker would not be given an opportunity to comment after the Closed Session action is announced. The City Attorney stated comments are given prior to Council going into closed session; provided an example. Commissioner Foreman stated the public having to be present to comment at the start of the closed session is fine. Vice Chair Little stated the language should be tightened up. Commissioner Foreman stated that he is opposed to the restriction about ceding time; he could support the Mayor getting assurance that the person ceding time is present; there are better ways to shorten meetings; inquired why public comments not being a debate has not been included. Meeting of t… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 4 | Chair Dieter responded the matter is addressed in Rosenberg's Rules of Order. Commissioner Foreman stated that he has not seen it. Vice Chair Little stated Rosenberg's Rules specifically talks about public comment not being a debate. Chair Dieter concurred; stated Rosenberg's Rules address what is debatable and not debatable. Commissioner Foreman stated it is not included the short version. Chair Dieter concurred; stated it is in the long version. Vice Chair Little stated the subcommittee thought it was reasonable. Commissioner Foreman stated that he does not read Rosenberg's Rules as relating the issue to public comment; it relates to Council discussions. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Commissioner Foreman stated language exists; he does not like the language; under non-agenda comment, a sentence says City staff or members of the body may briefly respond, but no action or discussion follows at the meeting; there is not a provision covering agenda items; public comment takes place before the motion; the language in Rosenberg's Rules relates to debate on a motion, which is not the same thing; there needs to be guidelines one way or another. Chair Dieter stated a sentence could be added. Commissioner Foreman suggested adding the same language under public comment non-agenda items: "staff or members of the body may briefly respond;" a clarifying question could be asked; Council typically does not respond to speakers; people want a response, not a debate; once in a while a response is appropriate. Vice Chair Little expressed concern if 30 other people are waiting to speak. Commissioner Foreman stated public comment is not time for a debate; a clarifying comment would be appropriate. Vice Chair Little stated adding a sentence to clarify there is no debate during public comment would be okay. Commissioner Foreman stated language has been included for non-agenda items; inquired why language would be included for one and not the other. Meeting Open Government Commission March 5, 2018 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 5 | The City Attorney responded a decision cannot be made about non-agenda items because the matter has not been publically noticed; stated the rule is that the Council and staff do not respond; provided an example of the City Manager indicating someone would follow up with the speaker; questioned whether interrupting the speaker would count towards the speaker's three minutes. Commissioner Foreman stated the situation is not easy; he is trying to make it more interactive; he does not know how it should be done. Vice Chair Little stated the rules are to set the public's expectation; allowing response does not provide a clear expectation. Commissioner Schwartz stated including the sentence about responding under non- agenda items opens the door for chaos without qualifying brief response; suggested making it clearer, such as a response of 60 seconds or less on logistical concerns. Chair Dieter suggested removing the last sentence from Rule 3; stated both would match. Commissioner Foreman stated then there would be no guidelines at all. Chair Dieter stated City staff rarely has to interrupt; questioned why something should be written down that rarely ever happens; stated Rules 2 and 3 were addressed together. The City Clerk clarified the first agenda section of non-agenda comment is limited to 15 minutes; stated the additional section at the end of the meeting is for further comment. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the second section of non-agenda comment is unlimited, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the Sunshine Ordinance moved non-agenda comments to the beginning of the agenda, but limited the first section to 15 minutes in order to get to business. Chair Dieter stated that she did not know there was no time limit at the end of the meeting; stated clarifying language be added. The City Clerk inquired whether the Commission would like to address speakers only being able to speak under one section of Oral Communications, not both. Commissioner Foreman responded that is pretty much und… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 6 | Chair Dieter stated that she has spoken under both sections on two different topics. The matter was briefly discussed to clarify that a speaker could comment under each section, but not on the same topic. The City Clerk noted the non-agenda section could be moved after Council referrals to address the concern about not getting to referrals. Commissioners Foreman, Schwartz and Little expressed support for doing so. The City Clerk noted the order of business of the meetings would have to be amended via resolution. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Vice Chair Little outlined the changes: 1) the last line under the Supplemental Rule 3 would be deleted, 2) language that specifies a speaker can only speak for a maximum of three minutes on one topic would be added, and 3) the second section of oral communications is considered a continuation of the first. The City Clerk inquired whether the Commission has an interest in limiting the speaker time limit in the instances when there are many speakers. Vice Chair Little responded the subcommittee discussed the issue. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee decided to leave the matter at the discretion of the Chair; the Chair should be encouraged to make the judgement call; questioned whether the Commission thinks a recommendation is needed to lower the time limit to two minutes for items with over 20 speakers. Commissioner Foreman stated that he has seen Council vote to change the time limit. The City Attorney stated Council can modify any of the rules; noted trying to decide to make changes during the meeting takes time; a policy might make it simpler. Chair Dieter stated any member could make a motion to suspend the rules to lower the time limit; the Chair would be overruled if the super majority agrees. Commissioner Schwartz stated pre-establishing guidance would do the Chair a favor. Commissioner Henneberry stated when he was on the Planning Board, if there were multiple items with lots of speakers, the limit would be two minutes; there was not a hard and fast rule; if… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 7 | In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Henneberry stated the Planning Board would discuss the speaker time limit. Commissioner Foreman stated that he thinks the Council should vote on the time limit. Chair Dieter stated it can be voted on under the proposed rules. Commissioner Foreman inquired what if the Mayor makes a decision which the rest of the Council does not like. Chair Dieter responded the Mayor could be overruled; the super majority can suspend any rule. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would prefer a vote be required. Chair Dieter stated if discretion is not given to the Chair, the rules could still be suspended by super majority; the language could be deleted. Commissioner Schwartz questioned whether the Chair's discretion is being taken away. Commissioner Foreman stated that he could live with having to cut his comments to two minutes if four members of the Council vote on it, rather than just at the discretion of the Mayor. Chair Dieter stated the consensus is to take out the phrase: "at the discretion of the Chair.' In response to Commissioner Schwartz's inquiry regarding the downside of limiting the speakers over a certain threshold, Chair Dieter stated as Commissioner Henneberry pointed out, an agenda might have only two items and there would be plenty of time. Commissioner Schwartz stated the super majority could vote to increase the time. Chair Dieter stated doing so seems more complicated; stated that she hears there is a consensus on everything except Commissioner Foreman does not like the idea about eliminating ceding time; inquired whether anyone else has a problem. Commissioner Henneberry responded that he does not think ceding time should be allowed. Commissioner Schwartz stated that he agrees with the proposal as written. Chair Dieter inquired whether anyone has issues with Rule 4. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 7 March 5, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 8 | Commissioner Schwartz responded the amount of time is tremendous; he does not see why someone would need to speak three times for three minutes on one agenda item; the amount is way too much. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Commissioner Schwartz stated five minutes total is hefty. Chair Dieter stated a Councilmember speaks for 10 minutes and the same person comments on what others have said; time has to be allotted for deliberations to go back and forth. Commissioner Schwartz suggested the times be three minutes, two minutes and one minute. Vice Chair Little stated meetings are the only time the Council can discuss a topic as a group; for a lot of the topics, such as rent control, the public needs to see time is being taken to delve into, engage, interact and respond to some of the comments made; the subcommittee went back and forth about the right amount of time; providing a framework will afford the opportunity to engage in conversation, but puts a limit; only giving three chances to speak would already impact the process. Commissioner Foreman stated compared to what is in writing, a lot more time is being given; compared to what is actually happening at Council meetings, it is a lot less time; the rule is reasonable if it can be enforced. Chair Dieter stated part of why three minutes is being suggested is because the City Clerk will have to enforce the rule. The City Clerk inquired whether the Commission is suggesting a timing system to allow Councilmembers to see the countdown. Commissioners Schwartz, Little and Foreman expressed support for doing so. Commissioner Schwartz stated speaking three times for three minutes each is still a lot. The City Clerk noted staff would be able to execute the recommendation. Vice Chair Little inquired whether the City Clerk would keep track. Chair Dieter responded the timekeeper would have to do it. Vice Chair Little stated Rosenberg's Rules include a rule of decorum and agreeing to a process, so it is on the members to know and stop. Commissioner Henneberry stated th… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 9 | Chair Dieter inquired whether anyone has issues with the rule on ceremonial presentations and proclamations. Commissioner Foreman responded 15 minutes is not doable. Vice Chair Little stated the time can be extended. Chair Dieter stated 15 minutes is the current rule; getting through proclamations the last few meetings has taken one hour; she thinks the rule is important; inquired how proclamations are added to the agenda. The City Clerk responded many proclamations are repeated annually; stated outside groups make requests; work is currently being done to limit proclamations to three per meeting; a suggestion has been made to only read part of the proclamation. The City Attorney noted an excerpt could be read since the proclamations are included in the packet. Vice Chair Little stated the following commentary often tends to go on for a long time. Commissioner Foreman stated no matter what rule is written, it will be ignored; it is very difficult; provided an example. Chair Dieter stated in all fairness to the City Council, she does not think people have been cognizant of the rules; this is a new starting point; she thinks there will be teamwork; the Chair is responsible for keeping the process going. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would be more comfortable with limiting the amount of time to 10 minutes per proclamation. Vice Chair Little stated it is up to the Chair to get through the proclamations in 15 minutes; if there are three, the Chair should explain each gets five minutes; if there is one, it can have the full 15 minutes; creative scheduling might be in order as well. Chair Dieter stated perhaps every person being honored might not speak; recommended deleting the last clause that says the time can be extended by majority vote. Commissioner Foreman stated that he has no problem with that. Chair Dieter moved on to Rule 6 on consent items, which did not have any issues; inquired whether there are issues with Rule 7 regarding referrals. Commissioner Foreman responded referrals are not in the current rul… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 10 | Chair Dieter stated referrals are not in the current rules and have never been adopted by resolution or ordinance. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether referrals have been adopted in any way. Chair Dieter responded referrals were adopted by motion; stated since the issue is being visited, referrals should be codified; before the meeting, the subcommittee decided to add one more element to the provision that is not included: Councilmembers would be limited to three referrals per year, which is important because some items can be done behind the scenes by working with the City Manager, City Attorney or the department head; after a little behind the scenes, the City Manager could agendize the matter if it is important. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would go to the City Manager first if he was on the Council; questioned whether the referral process is not used unless Councilmembers cannot get cooperation. Commissioner Henneberry inquired what are the current rules on referrals; inquired whether there is any limit. Chair Dieter responded there are no limits. Commissioner Henneberry inquired where the limit of three came from, to which Chair Dieter responded sticking with the three on all the rules; everything is three. Commissioner Henneberry stated that he thinks three is too limited. Commissioner Foreman concurred. Chair Dieter stated three referrals per Councilmember is 15 referrals per year that would have to come back 15 more times, which is more referrals than there are meetings per year since there are 22 meetings. Commissioner Henneberry inquired how many referrals are being made by each Councilmember. The City Clerk responded she could do a tally; stated some do more than three. Commissioner Henneberry stated the number would be useful; three seems low. Commissioner Schwartz stated the rule feels distinct from everything else being done, which are explicitly about time management in meetings; limiting referrals seems far afield; the matter could be addressed separately after further investigation; he w… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 11 | Chair Dieter stated the start of the process has been geared toward the orderly conduct of meetings and nothing that goes on outside meetings; Commissioner Schwartz is right that the subcommittee stepped over the line a little bit. Commissioner Foreman stated dealing with referrals altogether stepped over the line. Chair Dieter stated not really because the public never knows what to expect from a Council referral; right now, a matter may come back or be decided on that night; the agenda title gives the impression that a decision could be made that night; provided an example; stated that she thinks Council referrals are out of hand; a lot of time is spent on the merits of an issue and whether the issue is important enough to bring back at another meeting, which was the whole impetus of Council referrals; referrals come from one person, rather than have it agenized, Council is supposed to decide if it is important and should come back with a staff report. The City Clerk stated Council did not want to be limited and wanted to be able to take action under the Council referrals section of the agenda; the 2007 staff report, which was provided, clearly states the Council can take dispositive action if sufficiently noticed. Commissioner Foreman inquired what is sufficient information, to which the City Clerk responded said determination is made by the City Attorney. The City Attorney provided an example of supporting State legislation; stated Chair Dieter's examples are something that would need analysis. The City Clerk stated the current Council adopted a new referral form and reiterated the three options at the top of the form: 1) take no action, 2) refer the matter to staff or 3) take dipositive action; the current Council just reaffirmed that they want to take dispositive action; noted the Commission would be recommending something different than the current Council has said they want. Commissioner Schwartz suggested tabling referrals for now; stated referrals seem to do less with time management and Rosenberg's Rul… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,12 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 12 | Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Little concurred. Chair Dieter stated the next item is meeting adjournment time. The City Clerk inquired whether the proposal eliminates the requirement to add meetings if three meetings in a row go past 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Foreman responded in the negative; stated the matter is in the Sunshine Ordinance. Chair Dieter stated that she did not know whether the issue belongs in the orderly conduct of meetings and she thinks it is also a side issue. The City Attorney stated concern was raised at the last Council meeting; the Commission does not have to make a recommendation. The City Clerk stated having no new items heard after 11:30 p.m. goes past the 11:00 p.m. meeting deadline. Chair Dieter stated under the proposal, a vote would not be done until 11:30 p.m.; the Council would know they are not going to address any more items and the matter would not have to be discussed; the meeting would continue smoothly until 11:30 p.m. The City Clerk stated the Sunshine ordinance would have to be modified to do so and a decision needs to be made about the three times in a row requirement. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee is suggesting the current requirement be repealed and the rule be replaced. Commissioner Foreman inquired where is the requirement about three meetings in a row, to which the City Clerk responded the Sunshine Ordinance. Chair Dieter stated it is not currently in the rules; it is a separate ordinance. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance has to be amended by ordinance; the rules or order cannot modify an ordinance regulation; outlined the current ordinance; stated the requirement to add more meetings is unclear and has never been triggered; the rules of order saying there is only one vote and new items can be taken up to 11:30 p.m. modifies the ordinance; the question is if the Commission is recommending the ordinance be modified. Chair Dieter responded that she is only recommending changing … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,13 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 13 | Commissioner Foreman stated the Commission was told to review the rules of order, not rewrite the Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission rewrote the Sunshine Ordinance about two years ago; they are two different things. Chair Dieter stated not codifying the Sunshine Ordinance requirement in the rules of order was a mistake; lots of things in the Sunshine Ordinance do not apply to the rules of order. Commissioner Foreman stated the subject is clearly covered in the Sunshine Ordinance. Chair Dieter stated the proposed rules allow the public to review one document to see the whole rules of order. The City Attorney stated if the Commission is not looking to modify the Sunshine Ordinance, then the rules should reflect the Sunshine Ordinance provision, which differs from what is being suggested; the Commission can suggest a modification to the ordinance. Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little stated that is what they are suggesting. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee is suggesting modifying the ordinance; the Council might not like the rule; if the Council likes the rule, the Sunshine Ordinance will have to change to reflect a different time frame. The City Attorney inquired whether the rules of order change would delete the 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. votes and the requirement to add a meeting if three go past 11:00 p.m. Chair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the requirement to add the meeting is not being removed; inquired whether only the first two sentences could be amended. The City Clerk read the ordinance language; stated the idea is to combine the vote to one and keep the requirement for three meetings in a row. Vice Chair Little responded in the affirmative. Chair Dieter stated that she does not want any votes to happen until 11:30 p.m. Vice Chair Little stated there is a conversation at 10:30 p.m. about whether or not to address more agenda items, which takes 15 to 20 minutes; then, at 11:00 p.m., there is another conversation about whether or not the meeting should continue; essentially 45 minutes to an hour… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,14 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 14 | The City Clerk suggested removing the language since a supermajority vote is already required to suspend the rules and the vote would just be suspending the rules. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee did note that acceptance of the rule would require changing the ordinance; the subcommittee was going to let staff figure out how to make the change. The City Clerk stated that she did not know what to tell the Council because the subcommittee was silent on three meetings in a row. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would make the matter not debatable, so the Council would just vote. Commissioner Schwartz concurred with removing the language requiring a supermajority vote; inquired why 11:30 p.m. was selected; stated running a meeting does not have to take so long; suggested using the current time of 10:30 p.m. Chair Dieter stated for almost two decades the rule set the time at midnight; the public knew the routine of the previous Council always voting to go past 11:00 p.m.; this Council is totally erratic; no one knows when meetings will continue; the proposal is fair to the public and Council, and is an effort to get through City business; the current problem is the Council is not getting through City business, which representatives are elected to do; she can only imagine how the City Manager feels; she thinks the proposal returns it to the way it was for two decades, which worked fine; with the accumulation of all of the changes, meetings might not go so late; the proposal prevents deliberating on the actual agenda timing for 45 minutes. Commissioners Foreman and Little concurred. Commissioner Foreman stated the goal is to make meetings shorter; many things can be done to shorten meetings; the time set is not going to shorten meetings; former Councilmember deHaan informed him there were never long staff presentations in the past; time was limited; staff provides a detailed description two weeks before the meeting and goes over everything again in a presentation at the meeting; he does not understand why the staf… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,15 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 15 | Commissioner Schwartz questioned why the proposal cannot be 10:30 p.m. instead of 11:30 p.m. Chair Dieter responded the Council is not getting through business; stated the City Council may decide to make it 10:30 p.m.; the public has plenty of time to submit letters and write op-ed pieces on any issue; representatives should make decisions and not worry about who can remain in the audience. Commissioner Foreman stated a very simple rule is being proposed; legal staff would have to change the ordinance. The City Attorney inquired whether the Sunshine Ordinance should be changed to say no new items can be considered after 11:30 p.m., with the meeting continuing and not triggering a need for additional meetings. The City Clerk inquired whether the three meetings in a row rule would be eliminated, to which Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated the Council would not stop in the middle of addressing something. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry about language, the City Attorney stated there is no set adjournment time; rather the Commission is saying no new business is taken up after 11:30 p.m. Vice Chair Little inquired whether the Commission should add if three meetings in a row go past, then additional meetings would be needed. Chair Dieter responded said language should not be added. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the issue is addressed in the Brown Act, to which the City Attorney responded the matter is not a Brown Act issue. Chair Dieter stated the more the issue is discussed, she would not require adding meetings. The City Clerk inquired whether the language should read: "time after which no new business is heard,' to which Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated that he can live with the recommendation; an item which starts at 11:29 p.m. could continue. Chair Dieter stated if the Council is tired and does not want to consider an item, a vote could be taken to suspend the rules. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 15 March 5, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,16 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 16 | The City Attorney stated the change will take an ordinance amendment; staff will pass the recommendation along to Council. Commissioner Foreman inquired about the debate language. Chair Dieter responded the language would be removed. In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, Chair Dieter stated Rosenberg's Rules includes that there is no debate on a motion to suspend the rules. Commissioner Schwartz stated that he is the only member who thinks the time should be 10:30 p.m. Chair Dieter stated the time has been tried for a couple of years and has not worked; the new rules might cause meetings to end earlier. Commissioner Schwartz stated perhaps 10:30 p.m. could be used a starting point. Chair Dieter inquired whether there are any issues with suspension of the rules. There were none. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee rejected the existing rules on appeals and written communications, but wanted to address them; the focus should be on the orderly conduct of meetings and nothing outside of meetings; the appeals might be pertinent if there are time limits; anything in place should be included in the rules of order. The City Attorney stated the various Code sections on appeals address when the matter must be heard on an agenda; there is no rule on how an item is handled at the meeting. Chair Dieter inquired whether there is enough of an issue that a rule should be included. The City Attorney provided an example of a recent appeal. Chair Dieter inquired whether the Commission wishes to address the matter. Commissioner Foreman responded the problem is there are various kinds of appeals; stated one time limit might not work for all appeals; the matter could remain under the Council's discretion; perhaps notice could be given to the parties before the meeting. Commissioner Schwartz stated that he concurs with the proposal to table the matter. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether there are matters, other than appeals, that are quasi-judicial and whether public hearings might qualify, to which the City Attorney respo… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,17 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 17 | Commissioner Foreman stated Councilmembers are familiar with items that are quasi- judicial and know not to speak about the matter. There was consensus to drop the matter. Chair Dieter stated the existing rule on written communications seems to be separate. Commissioner Schwartz stated that he agrees with the proposal to omit it. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the rules include things such as a Councilmembers requesting comments to be put in the record. Vice Chair Little responded the suggestion is not to include anything. Chair Dieter stated the matter has nothing to do with the orderly conduct of meetings. In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, Chair Dieter stated a statement that is read can be submitted to the City Clerk for the record. The City Clerk noted it never happens. Commissioner Foreman inquired why it should be eliminated. Chair Dieter stated the Commission needs to decide; she is hearing a consensus to omit it. Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a Councilmember who wants a verbatim statement put in the record could still give it to the City Clerk, to which Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Forman inquired where the language comes from, to which Chair Dieter responded Resolution 12567. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of adopting the subcommittee's proposal with the amendments offered. Commissioner Henneberry seconded the motion. Under discussion, Chair Dieter recommended that the subcommittee incorporate the changes and provide the document to the City Clerk. The City Clerk stated the recommendation will go back to the Council subcommittee, which requested a report back. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 17 March 5, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,18 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 18 | On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Henneberry, Little, Schwartz and Chair Dieter - 4. Abstention: Commissioner Foreman - 1. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Chair Dieter stated when a member of public writes to the public on an agenda item, sometimes the correspondence is attached and sometimes it is not; inquired how it happens and how the public knows. The City Clerk responded if the person copies her, the correspondence is included; stated that she will also include the correspondence if staff or Councilmember forwards it to her; anything she receives she includes; if she is not included in the loop, the correspondence does not get included. Commissioner Foreman stated sometimes it is not received in time. The City Clerk stated that she attempts to include anything received before the meeting begins. Chair Dieter stated the public is not aware; suggested the Councilmembers' website pages include: "Any correspondence regarding an agenda item that you would like attached to the staff report, please send to the City Clerk,' or something similar. The City Clerk stated that she would work with the City's website coordinator. Commissioner Schwartz suggested a button be added: "To contact a Councilmember about an agenda item, click here;' then, it will go to the Council and copy the City Clerk. Chair Dieter inquired whether the letter would remain attached if an item is continued to another meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Chair Dieter suggested the adopted rules of order be posted to the website with a link to a meeting guide with the order of business. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Meeting Open Government Commission March 5, 2018 18 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,19 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 19 | The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 19 March 5, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-08-21.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-08-21 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY AUGUST 21, 2018 - 7:00 P.M. The meeting was cancelled. Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 August 21, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-08-21.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-10-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 1, 2018 - - 7:00 P.M. Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Henneberry, Little, and Chair Dieter - 3. [Note: Commissioner Little was present via teleconference from 321 17th Street, Denver, CO 80202] Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of Commissioner Little serving as Chair. Chair Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye; Ayes: 3. [Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.] Chair Dieter moved approval of Commissioner Henneberry serving as Vice Chair. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye; Ayes: 3. [Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.] 3-B. Minutes of the February 5, 2018 and March 5, 2018 Meetings Chair Dieter moved approval of the February 5, 2018 minutes. Commissioner Henneberry seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye; Ayes: 3. [Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.] Chair Dieter moved approval of the March 5, 2018 minutes. Commissioner Henneberry seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye; Ayes: 3. [Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.] Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 October 1, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-10-01 | 2 | 3-C. Accept the Annual Report Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of accepting the annual report. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye; Ayes: 3. [Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.] COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Chair Dieter stated that she wanted to follow up on two items after rereading the minutes: 1) changing the City Council webpage to let the public know to copy the City Clerk on meeting correspondence they want it published; 2) adding an asterisk for deviating records retentions timeframes; she does not feel super strongly about it, but thought it might be helpful for items that are not clear; gave a report on the City Council adopting most of the Commission's suggestions on the Rules of Order; outlined changes, including Council giving themselves nine minutes and cutting comment time to two minutes for matters with seven or more speakers; she and Commissioner Little sent a letter to Council, which was included in the record; the Council also decided to end meetings at 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Little expressed concern over Council reducing the time for speakers; stated that she disagrees with automatically reducing the time. Chair Dieter stated that she was dissatisfied that matters in the letter were not included; using Rosenberg's Rules of Order is turning out to be a really good thing. Commissioner Little inquired whether the recommendations seem to be working and whether there has been training and education. The City Clerk responded a nine minute timer for Council has been implemented; the Mayor explains the time limit to the public when the speaker threshold is reached so that they are aware before speaking; the Council has voted to suspend the rules and hear additional items past 11:00 p.m. a couple of times. Chair Dieter stated the two things she has noticed is the Chair needs to ask for a motion right away once public comment is closed and three motions can be o… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-10-01 | 3 | Commissioner Little noted seven speakers with three minutes totals 21 minutes and eight speakers with two minutes totals 16 minutes; two minutes should suffice when there are many speakers, but it seems like a limitation on the public's ability to comment. Chair Dieter stated Councilmember Matarrese suggested trying it out and changes can be made if needed; encouraged the Commission and members of the public to contact the City Council or Commission if something should be changed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 3 October 1, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 14, 2018 - 7:00 P.M. Chair Little convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Dieter, Foreman, Henneberry, Schwartz and Chair Little - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the October 1, 2018 Meeting Commissioner Dieter noted a change to Council Communication to clarify that she had two follow up items and the third item was reporting out; stated that she would also provide the Clerk correct typographical corrections. Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of minutes with the changes. Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed October 30, 2018 Serena Chen, Complainant, gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether there were copies of the original agendas, to which Commissioner Schwartz responded copies were included in the packet. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether Ms. Chen attended and spoke at the November 7th City Council meeting. Ms. Chen responded in the affirmative; stated the basis of her complaint was that when a meeting is noticed and Council radically changes something on the agenda, it does not seem fair. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether anything in the staff report indicated removing the cap. Ms. Chen responded in the negative; stated that she was clear what the changes were going to be since she attended the July City Council meeting; when she saw the Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 November 14, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 2 | October 16th agenda, it was a reflection of what was discussed in July and she decided not to attend. Commissioner Foreman stated the staff report reinforces his understanding about the delivery-only dispensary. Ms. Chen concurred with Commissioner Foreman; stated after she read the October 16th staff report, she was satisfied with the terms of the ordinance and felt confident of the vote; however, she has a problem with the number of dispensaries being doubled without any public notice. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether there was any consideration by the Council of Ms. Chen's views after her public comment at the November 7th meeting, to which Ms. Chen responded in the negative; stated the item was pulled from the Consent Calendar so she could speak; she had already sent a letter to Council regarding her concerns, but the issue was not addressed further. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether Council discussed the item further and provided rationale or just voted on the matter at the November 7th meeting. Ms. Chen responded that she did not feel her questioning caused a quandary; stated she respects Council and staff's professionalism but disagrees with the City's position. Commissioner Henneberry stated that he understands Ms. Chen's complaint; inquired what, in her view, would resolve the issue. Ms. Chen responded the resolution she has experienced before any other board is that if there are any changes to the language that has been proposed, staff is directed to come back to Council with changes for Council to introduce the ordinance, have a first reading and vote; there should be adequate notification for the public and an opportunity for people to be involved. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether Ms. Chen's remedy would be that the matter be re-noticed and come back to the Council, to which Ms. Chen responded in the affirmative; stated that she understands marijuana has been legalized in the State, but cities are responsible for their own regulations. Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission takes Ms. … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 3 | The Assistant City Attorney responded he did not think there would be any harm; stated the Council asked whether or not the Ordinance would comply and if they could proceed; since the answer was affirmative, Council chose to move forward. In response to Commissioner Schwartz inquiry on who answered affirmatively, the Assistant City Attorney stated the Acting City Attorney. Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether the Acting City Attorney explained the basis of his opinion. The Assistant City Attorney responded the Acting City Attorney explained that the attorneys had opined on the matter and communicated to Council that proceeding with a second reading was okay; the Acting City Attorney further stated the opinion has not changed. Commissioner Henneberry stated the ordinance talked about delivery-only and was completely flipped on its head at the October 16th meeting by adding two full-service dispensaries with deliveries; inquired how doing so works with the strict and exact standards of agenda noticing. The Assistant City Attorney responded staff's position is that the change was delivery- only to delivery-required; stated the agenda was noticed for an increase in the number of dispensaries; the agenda language did state delivery-only, the Council has authority to modify the ordinance in part because State law does not regulate the businesses any differently and does not have a distinction for delivery-only; the distinction is a local consideration, therefore, the Council has authority; conversely, the Council could decide not to make the distinction and still be compliant, which is precisely what the Council did in this instance. Commissioner Foreman stated that he did not see the term "delivery-required" in either the regulatory or zoning ordinance that came before Council on October 16th The Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Foreman is correct; Council was amending the ordinances to allow the change to happen and directed staff to do so. Commissioner Foreman stated the change was not only delivery-o… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 4 | The Assistant City Attorney responded not exactly; stated the difference between the two is that although they are functionally the same, one does not allow public access; he would not characterize a delivery-only dispensary as a warehouse as it would still have to go through all of the State and local legal requirements. Chair Little stated there was better public notice for the November 7th meeting; inquired whether it is normal circumstance to allow a significant distinction or change in the agenda item between the first reading and second reading. The Assistant City Attorney responded legal counsel's position is that re-setting the first reading due to changes is not an accurate statement of the law, as Ms. Chen asserts; stated it is typical and permissible for Council to give staff direction to make changes and come back; what is not permissible is making substantive modifications at the second reading; in this case, however, resetting does not apply when an agenda is published but Council decides to move in a different direction; Ms. Chen is arguing the meaningful description as opposed to when a Council needs to reset the first reading and start over; the separate issues are conflated because of the remedy Ms. Chen is seeking; the issue before the Commission tonight is to determine whether or not the agenda description is a meaningful description. Chair Little stated it is difficult to know for certain the direction of Council conversation; therefore, it is impossible to predict by way of an agenda description to name everything and cover all of the minutia details that may come up; the intention of the discussion was to have a meaningful conversation about delivery-only dispensaries; the conversation did take place, but then deviated and language was changed; inquired whether public awareness of the change took place in time for the Council to then vote on the item and allow for public comment on November 7th The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Chair Little's statement of even… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 5 | there would be an increase in the number of dispensaries, whether it is delivery-only or delivery-required. Commissioner Dieter stated that she understands that the Assistant City Attorney is in a position of defending the City and that he believes there were no substantive changes; the Commission's role is to defend the public to what a reasonable person would understand; she would consider the changes substantive because a cap on retail businesses was removed; the changes were not included in the staff report or agenda title. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that the legal standard Commissioner Dieter refers to does not apply to the general agenda description because the changes happened before the first reading and before Council introduced the ordinance. Commissioner Foreman stated that he understands substantive or non-substantive is not the issue; inquired whether the City's position would be the same if Council changed the retail cap to eight, as long as they corrected it by the second reading. The Assistant City Attorney responded he does not like to opine on hypotheticals, but responded in the affirmative; stated the standard that applies is the notion that there is a description for the members of the public to decide whether or not they should appear. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether there was a basis to dispute Ms. Chen's claims that community advocates might have attended the meeting had they been aware of the changes. The Assistant City Attorney responded that it would be speculative to speak to that; stated that he has attended every meeting regarding the cannabis issue and is surprised by the amount of support versus the amount of opposition to the issue. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney was aware of a vocal minority of public health advocates who are opposed to the additional public dispensaries, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded Ms. Chen and one other speaker are the only ones he is aware of that attended and spoke at the November 7th mee… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 6 | The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Little; stated regarding Commissioner Dieter's comments, that he cannot speculate on whether or not the public was concerned about the issue. Commissioner Dieter stated that she looked at the July meeting and no one on the Council suggested adding the two retail businesses; Council requested staff bring back a staff report with a cap; the staff report brought at the October meeting reiterated and reaffirmed what Council directed regarding the cap; inquired why the first clause adding two retail business was even included. The Assistant City Attorney responded the report in July provided a status report on the cannabis request for proposals issued in April; Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella suggested adding "delivery only" at that meeting. In response to Commissioner Dieter, the Assistant City Attorney stated the subsequent staff report did not include only the Council direction; additional items were included. Commissioner Dieter inquired what prompted the first clause to add two cannabis businesses. The Assistant City Attorney responded he does not recall; stated that he just remembers it was mentioned. Commissioner Dieter stated as a member of the public reading the ordinance, she would interpret the additional two cannabis businesses as delivery-only businesses since there is nothing in the staff report to suggest otherwise. The Assistant City Attorney stated the staff report was designed to report on outcomes, as opposed to creating a recommendation; staff was seeking direction from Council. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether there would have been any harm to postpone the second reading until after the complaint was heard. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is a current application that is pending and changes in the ordinance may impact the applicant. Commissioner Dieter inquired what happens now if the Commission determines there was a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney staffing the Commission responded p… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 7 | Commissioner Dieter stated it did not make sense to her that the ordinance proceeded to a second reading when a complaint was filed with no opportunity for remedy. In response to Chair Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff reached out to Ms. Chen after his email to her stating that she could still provide comment; Ms. Chen's response to the email was that providing comment would not resolve her complaint. Chair Little stated that she understands the item was pulled; inquired how doing so plays into the process. The Assistant City Attorney responded the item was pulled for discussion but the second reading did take place; stated a further amendment is going forward to clarify definitions. Commissioner Dieter stated the complaint is about the October 16th meeting, not about anything that happened after. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether a motion should be put on the floor, to which the City Clerk responded the Commission is not required to follow Rosenberg's Rules even though the Council does. Chair Little stated the Commission pushed following Rosenberg's Rules; called for a motion. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Commission should deliberate before making a motion, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the negative. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of sustaining the complaint and that Council be ordered to re-notice the meeting so that community advocates can be heard on the issue of two additional dispensaries. Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Foreman stated there are two cannabis ordinances; the zoning ordinance was not impacted by the complaint; suggested an amendment. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Foreman, stated the changes were confined to the business ordinance which contains the definition of "delivery-only." Commissioner Schwartz stated that he does not think the ordinance needs to be amended as long as it is clear when re-noticed that the conversion of delivery-only to delivery-required deserves … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 8 | a longer delay; nothing may change in the end; there could have been a two week delay instead of another first reading and second reading; it is important to do the right thing. The Assistant City Attorney for the Commission stated there was not a time savings as a practical matter; the issue would have been delayed and would have to be re-noticed anyway in the event of the Commission sustaining the complaint. Commissioner Dieter stated the City moving forward even though a complaint was filed looks bad to the public. The Assistant City Attorney for the Commission stated just because a complaint is filed does not mean the decision made at the October 16th meeting was not in order; the opinion did not changed by November 7th. the Commission could have reached a different conclusion; there was not a compelling reason to change the opinion at the November 7th meeting. Chair Little stated the 267 pages of information was confusing; assumptions cannot be made about the decision; comparing what was originally proposed to the eventual outcome of adding the two businesses has a greater weight; she supports the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice votes - 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Dieter stated that she has enjoyed being on the Commission; sitting at the dais is harder than it looks; commends the people who volunteer to sit on the Commission. The Assistant City Attorney for the Commission noted that he will draft a written decision for the Commission to review and edit so a final version can be completed. Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 14, 2018 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 9 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 9 November 14, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY DECEMBER 17, 2018 - - - 7:00 P.M. Chair Little convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Dieter, Foreman, Henneberry, Schwartz and Chair Little - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEM Before addressing the agenda item, Chair Little stated that she does not think the Commission's role as oversight on the Council and City Attorney's actions is appropriately addressed to the Open Government Commission (OGC); if the City Attorney would like to address inadequacies that were written into the law and presented at the last meeting, the issues would be better discussed by the City Council; she would like to propose a motion to table the conversation until after the City Council has been engaged on how the City would like to address the oversight and transparency implications of staff's request. Commissioner Foreman called a point of order on whether or not it is appropriate for the Commission to consider the matter; stated that he believes it is out of order; the Sunshine Ordinance states the Commission had to make a decision within 30 days of the filing of the complaint; the decision was rendered on November 14th; the fact that the City Attorney has not prepared a written confirmation of that decision does not change the fact that the decision was made; the decision was made two days before the cannabis ordinance would have become effective; thus, the ordinance is null and void; there is no basis to proceed; as a consequence, the only thing left to do is write the written report required by law which should have been done by November 28th; what needs to be done tonight is to ask the City Attorney to assist the Commission with writing the opinion which confirms what has already been done; the matter should be done tonight because he and Commissioner Dieter will be termed out by tomorrow. Commissioner Foreman moved approval of dismissing the reconsideration on the basis that it is out of order and requesting th… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 2 | Commissioner Henneberry seconded Commissioner Foreman's motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Dieter stated that she is uncomfortable with ignoring the people who showed up tonight to speak; the Commission should at least hear speakers; she is also uncomfortable with tabling the item because the implication is it will come back under the same conditions; she would like to continue with the agenda item and allow the citizens to speak; the outcome may be the same, but at least a motion would be made after public comment. Commissioner Foreman stated the vote on the motion could be done after public comment. Commissioner Dieter concurred. In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry, Commissioner Foreman stated that he does not want to hear the staff report because it is out of order; he is not opposed to public comment and is adamantly opposed to tabling the matter because it would mean surrendering the Commission's authority. Commissioner Henneberry stated that he does not see a point in public comment if the staff report is not going to be heard; if the issue has to go back to Council, there will be many opportunities for public comment and there was public comment at the last meeting. Commissioner Foreman stated if the motion passes, it does not remove the possibility that the City Attorney's office may advise City Council that the Commission did not have the authority and City Council may agree with the determination; while the issue may end tonight at the Commission level, it may not be over. Chair Little stated as the Sunshine Ordinance is written, she interprets that the Commission had every right to make the November 14th decision; the Commission was advised by the City Attorney that the decision was one the Commission could make; she was surprised to have to the issue return for another meeting; she is unclear why the Commission was told they could make a decision, then three weeks later, the authority is rescinded. Commissioner Foreman concurred with Commissioner Henneberry; stated as much as he would lik… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 3 | Commissioner Foreman stated his motion included dismissing the reconsideration of the matter. Chair Little inquired whether the motion should also include having the item re-noticed by City Council, to which Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated that he thinks staff report Attachment B would suffice with some changes. The Interim City Attorney stated Attachment B could be easily word-smithed to carry out what the Commission would like with respect to the matter; further stated that he is not going to agree with Commissioner Foreman's position that the ordinances in question are null and void; the decision will have the effect of providing direction to the Council to have said result come about; as indicated in his memo to the Commission, he does not think the Commission has the legal authority to render a legally adopted ordinance null and void. Chair Little stated the Commission was told that the timing of their deliberations and delaying the second reading of the ordinances in order for the Commission hearing to take place first did not matter; inquired whether the issue came about because the Commission deliberated on the issue after the second reading of the ordinances. The Interim City Attorney responded the matter proceeded on November 7th; at the October 16th meeting, the City Attorney advised the City Council that it was appropriate to introduce the ordinance with the amendment in question and that it did comply with the Sunshine Ordinance; Council relied on said advice and made the decision to proceed on November 7th notwithstanding the fact that a complaint had been filed on October 30th Council adopted the ordinances on November 7th which went into effect on December 6th. it is his understanding that the Commission would like to have the ordinances re-noticed, and the two ordinances would be repealed. Commissioner Dieter made a friendly amendment to the motion that the Commission affirm its November 7th decision. Commissioner Foreman stated that is basically his… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 4 | On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Little, Foreman, Dieter, Henneberry - 4. Absent - 1 (Commissioner Schwartz). In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry about drafting the report, the Interim City Attorney stated amending Attachment B of his analysis would be the easiest. Commissioner Dieter stated that she has two amendments to propose; inquired whether it was important to treat the decision like a legal opinion. The Interim City Attorney responded he followed the format the Commission has used before; stated the Commission could do something different. Commissioner Dieter stated if the format is maintained, the entire paragraph on page 8 that starts with "Turning now to the question.. through the three provisions, should be deleted. In response to the Interim City Attorney's inquiry about what to do on the next page if the paragraph is deleted, Commissioner Dieter stated the third sentence stating "In order to carry out the decision could be deleted. Chair Little clarified that if the paragraph and three provisions on page 8 are deleted, along with the third sentence on page 9, the Commission would end up with the same decision made on November 14th Commissioner Dieter concurred with Chair Little. Commissioner Foreman stated the Commission has to state the direction; suggested the sentence to read, "In order to carry out the decision, the Commission directs that the ordinances passed on October 16, 2018 are hereby null and void and that "the City Council may re-introduce the two ordinances following a properly noticed public hearing.. " Commissioner Henneberry suggested allowing the City Council to do whatever they need to do; the complaint was sustained, the Council should re-notice and re-hear the ordinances. Chair Little stated that she does not want to allow room for the Council to make the decision; the Commission should make it clear that the Council must to re-notice and re- introduce the ordinances. Commissioner Henneberry inquired whet… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 5 | Chair Little concurred with Commissioner Henneberry; stated that is what the Commission is trying to do. The Interim City Attorney stated without waiving his previous arguments, suggested including the amendments as the three provisions rather than deleting them altogether. Chair Little stated that she would like the language to read, "the Council must re-notice " and delete the word "consider" as she does not want Council to be able to consider the decision, and rather just be directed to do it. The Interim City Attorney stated the Commission does not have the authority to direct the Council's action. Commissioner Foreman stated the Commission has made the ordinances null and void; the Council can choose to re-notice the ordinances if desired; he does not think the Commission should force Council to reconsider. Commissioner Henneberry stated the Commission's job is done upon Council being informed of the mistake. The Interim City Attorney reiterated the language revisions to include deleting the word "circumscribed" in the fourth sentence, and having the Commission "directing" rather than "recommending" the following: 1) Ordinances 3227 and 3228 are null and void; and 2) the City Council may consider re-introducing the two ordinances in question following a properly noticed public hearing. Commissioner Foreman stated the provision regarding the agenda title is not needed and can be deleted. The Interim City Attorney affirmed Commissioner Foreman's statement. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would like to make a change to a paragraph on page 8; the last sentence should just read: "the Commission finds that there was a violation of Section 2-91.5, and the complaint is thereby sustained.' Commissioner Dieter stated that she does not think a full legal opinion is necessary in the future because it could be biased since it promotes a certain viewpoint. The Interim City Attorney read the amended language and the Commission concurred with the changes. Commissioner Foreman stated that he was concerned about the Commi… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 6 | City Attorney is in the middle, should be advising the Commission and has a conflict; further stated the City should consider hiring independent, private counsel to represent the Commission when a complaint is heard. In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry regarding who has authority to request a re-hearing, the Interim City Attorney stated the request could come from a number of different sources; in this case, because the City Attorney's office did not do an accurate job of laying out what the Commission could do, it was incumbent upon the City to provide the information to the Commission and the Council so that the issue could be fully vetted and addressed. The Commission agreed to hear the public comments. 3-A. Hearing on the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed October 30, 2018 and the November 14, 2018 Open Government Commission Hearing and Decision, Including Scope of Legal Authority of the Open Government Commission to Impose Certain Penalties under the Sunshine Ordinance and Potential Next Steps. Stated he is satisfied with the outcome of tonight's meeting and does not feel the Commission's decision encroaches on the Council's legislative authority: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Read the League's letter supporting the Commission's decision: Karen Butter, League of Women Voters. Thanked the Commission for reaffirming his faith in government: Bill Smith, Alameda. Commissioner Foreman stated what the Commission did tonight is not an exercise or delegation of legislative power; it is a quasi-judicial function and the same penalty that would have been suffered under the Brown Act. In response to Chair Little's inquiry regarding calling the question, the City Clerk stated she already called the question and the previous decision was upheld: 4 to 1 with Commissioner Schwartz absent. 3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed December 4, 2018. [Withdrawn without prejudice] COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Chair Little thanked Commissioners Foreman and Dieter for their service; stated having them participate in… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 7 | Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 7 December 17, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 4, 2019 7:00 P.M. Chair Little convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Schwartz, Shabazz, Tilos and Chair Little - 4. [Note: Commissioner Shabazz arrived at 7:41 p.m.; he had provided notification that he would be late due to a previous engagement.] Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Paul Foreman, Alameda, stated he is concerned about the ability of the Commission to function under the current circumstances; Section 2-93.8 of the Sunshine Ordinance states that the Open Government Commission (OGC) decides complaints and can direct Council action; however, the Interim City Attorney has stated the Section is in violation of the Alameda Charter and State law; he disagrees with the Interim City Attorney; the issue is a real problem. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Tilos moved approval of having Commissioner Henneberry serve as Chair. Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioners Henneberry and Shabazz - 2.] Commissioner Tilos moved approval of having Commissioner Schwartz serve as Vice Chair. Chair Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioners Henneberry and Shabazz - 2.] 3-B. Minutes of the November 14, 2018 and December 17, 2018 Meetings Not heard. 3-C. Accept the Annual Public Report Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the Annual Report. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 February 4, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 2 | [Absent: Commissioners Henneberry and Shabazz - 2.] 3-D. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed January 25, 2019 Serena Chen, Complainant, gave a brief presentation. The Interim City Attorney gave a brief presentation. Chair Little stated a comprehensive summary provided by former Commissioner Foreman outlines the issue. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether the powers of the Commission is a topic that needs to be addressed, to which Chair Little responded the discussion needs to be separate. In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated Ms. Chen's complaint is that not attaching the Commission's decision to a January 15th report is a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance; the City's position is that not attaching the decision to the report is not a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance since the Commission did not direct that the decision be part of any subsequent action or report; Ms. Chen secondarily contends that the agenda title was deficient with respect to describing the item the Council was going to consider; the City's position is the title more than adequately described the item which was the re-introduction of the cannabis ordinances and the repeal of the ordinances which the OGC rendered null and void. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Interim City Attorney's position is that the January 15th meeting was a first or second reading of the ordinance. The Interim City Attorney responded had the Council majority voted to re-introduce the ordinance, it would have been the first reading. Chair Little inquired whether the failure of the Council to make a decision maintains the circumstance that the ordinances are still null and void as decided by the OGC. The Interim City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Council has been advised that the ordinances will remain in full force and effect unless and until Council repeals the ordinances. Commissioner Schwartz inquired what information was given to the public and Council about the impact of keeping the ordinanc… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 3 | In response to Commissioner Schwartz's inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated Attachment 3 of the report includes the information regarding the impacts. Commissioner Schwartz inquired where the report state that the previously null and void ordinances are back in effect. The Interim City Attorney responded the City's position is that the ordinances never went out of effect. Commissioner Tilos stated the ordinances were never null and void because the Commission did not have the power to do so. The Interim City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated if the Commission did not have the authority to render the ordinances null and void, by definition, they were still in full force and effect. Chair Little stated that she is concerned the Commission is entering into a slightly different conversation by arguing the merits of whether or not the Commission has the right to render any Council action null and void; she would like to focus on the complaint before the Commission tonight; inquired whether there are technical questions; inquired what was the rationale behind not including the Commission's decision. The Interim City Attorney responded there was no purposeful thought of not attaching the document; stated when the item was drafted, it seemed agenda report adequately described the issue and paraphrased the Commission's decision. Chair Little stated stating information in the background and paraphrasing created the situation tonight; the Commission's purpose is to make sure issues are made available publicly and not just in the background. Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, read a letter the League submitted on the matter. Paul Foreman, Alameda, stated the failure to attach the decision is a technicality; the real problem is the title misled the public because it was not clear; the process should be two steps: 1) repeal the ordinances, and 2) re-introduce the ordinances. Irene Dieter, Alameda, concurred with Mr. Foreman; stated there was no way for the public to figure out that any no vote was just… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 4 | opportunities to come out and speak; the OGC's concern was heard but just did not get the votes. The Interim City Attorney stated with respect to Ms. Chen's comment about the decision not being issued, it was issued that night and was compliant with the 14 days as required by the Sunshine Ordinance; regarding the structure of the ordinances, one section dealt with repealing Ordinances 3227 and 3228; there was nothing that prevented the Council from deciding not to re-introduce the ordinances and rather just repeal them; the Council chose not to repeal the ordinances; the issue brought up by the League of Women Voters recommending that the Commission has its own legal counsel to deliberate matters which may have internal conflict makes sense and he has made a recommended to the Council for that to occur. Chair Little moved approval of sustaining Ms. Chen's complaint. Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Shabazz stated, for the record, he attends the Quba Mosque on Haight Street which is adjacent to one of the proposed dispensaries; if at any point he feels there may be a conflict, he would recuse himself from the discussion. In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry regarding the status of the discussion since he arrived late, the City Clerk provided a brief summary. Commissioner Schwartz thanked Ms. Chen and Mr. Agabao for their comments; stated he takes no position on the underlying issue of the ordinance; the Commission should be completely process-oriented and be totally without regard for the underlying content; his concern is with transparency and democracy and whether the public had an opportunity to be heard; the process is needs to be looked at; the process was not clear and the public was confused; transparency is an important value that the City has and everything should have been put out on the table; the Commission's decision should have been included in the staff report and executive summary; the exact status of the ordinances and impacts of passing a new ordin… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 5 | underlying issues regarding cannabis and everything to do with transparency in government and making sure the public does not have to hunt for information; the Commission made a decision based on the Sunshine Ordinance to make a Council action null and void, yet it is still unclear whether or not the Commission does have that authority, and it is left for the Council to decide; ultimately she would like to ask the City Council three things: 1) make a determination based on the OGC's decision in December to make the ordinances null and void, 2) the null and void clause of the Sunshine Ordinance needs review with the next City Attorney; if it is deemed unconstitutional, the Commission needs to have some method of oversight, and 3) the Commission needs to have separate legal counsel. The Interim City Attorney requested the Commission review and provide a written decision concerning the matter. Commissioner Schwartz stated redlining the decision on the fly does not make sense; the decision should simply state that the complaint is sustained; if the ordinance does not get sent back for a first reading, the City could potentially be faced with a lawsuit; suggested starting fresh and re-introducing the ordinances. The Interim City Attorney stated the proposed decision could be amended to state there was a violation of Section 2-93.2-B and 2-91.5 and the complaint should therefore be sustained. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the decision adding that the Commission based their findings on information presented during the hearing on the matter, including, but not limited to, the fact that the Commission's prior decision was not included in the January 15, 2019 City Council packet, causing average members of the public, or even a well-informed members, to be confused about what the Council was voting on. Commissioner Shabazz requested a friendly amendment; stated that he would not include Commissioner Schwartz comment regarding "average members of the public" as it is an assumption and he wants to remain as factual… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 6 | Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of requesting follow-up on the items regarding the legal counsel conflict, as well as the authority of the Commission over City Council decisions. In response to Chair Little's inquiry regarding the follow-up items, the Interim City Attorney stated the items are not technically on the agenda, but the topic has come up within the context of the issue so a motion would be appropriate; the Council is aware of the Commission's concerns and there will be some movement on the issues raised. Commissioner Schwartz stated the Commission should heed its own advice and not have motions at the meeting on issues that were not noticed; he feels confident that the Council will hear the message from tonight's OGC meeting. Chair Little concurred with Commissioner Schwartz. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Chair Little welcomed Commissioners Shabazz and Tilos to the Commission; stated she enjoyed serving as Chair and expressed appreciation to former Commissioners Paul Foreman and Irene Dieter for their guidance. Commissioner Shabazz thanked the members of the public for communicating their issues to the OGC; inquired who determines whether there is a conflict of interest. The Interim City Attorney responded once a complaint is received, based on the nature of the complaint, if it would appear that one of the outcomes of the complaint would be contrary to what the law provides and what the Commission is authorized to do, that would trigger having outside counsel advise the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 4, 2019 6 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY JULY 23, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. Chair Henneberry convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Little, Shabazz, Tilos and Chair Henneberry - 4. Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the February 4, 2019 Meeting Commissioner Shabazz requested that the minutes include that prior to the meeting, he had informed staff he would be late. Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.] 3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Concerning Alleged Failure to Respond Timely to Public Records Act Request Chair Henneberry noted that Commissioner Shabazz would have to recuse himself since he filed the complaint. The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation. In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry regarding the hundreds of requests per year, the Assistant City Attorney stated approximately 30 to 40 come through the City Attorney's office to determine if records could be disclosed; the other vast number of requests are handled routinely without the involvement of the City Attorney's office. Commissioner Tilos inquired how requests are tracked, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded there is a designated paralegal who tracks the requests manually and assigns the matter to the respective attorney; stated he did not know why the request from the complainant was not tracked appropriately. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 July 23, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 2 | In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated all requests are tracked manually, with exception of the City's SeeClickFix online system which is used primarily for Public Works maintenance requests, i.e. request to fix potholes, etc. Chair Henneberry inquired whether the same system is used in the City Attorney's office, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office does not receive the requests initially, only the ones that need further evaluation regarding whether certain documents can be disclosed. Chair Henneberry inquired whether a request is automatically acknowledged. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative for most cases; stated sometimes the acknowledgement includes a time extension to provide a response depending on the request. Commissioner Henneberry stated the complaint before the Commission tonight was skipped over in terms of all the deadlines and acknowledgements. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Henneberry, stated the complainant's request was not handled timely or appropriately, unfortunately. Commissioner Little inquired whether there is a standardized set of regulations that determine what can be disclosed and what cannot. The Assistant City Attorney responded there are several exemptions under the Public Records Act that are not subject to disclosure based on the category; there are always gray areas in interpreting the categories; there is a catch-all provision as well about privacy interest that would be impacted by disclosure substantially outweighing the obligation to disclose, which is also a grounds not to provide the information; the requestor needs to be informed why information is not being disclosed. Commissioner Little inquired whether there were no records to even review for this request, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Police Department found no records responsive to the request. Commissioner Little inquired whether there is now a process for makin… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 3 | Commissioner Little inquired what processes have been put into place since this incident happened to make sure no more records requests are lost and whether the process is consistent or needs tightening up. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is always room for improvement; stated the City Attorney's office is not aware that the situation happens routinely; Commissioner Shabazz's email from today indicates otherwise, but he is not aware of other incidents; the City Attorney's office will look into the incidents even though there was not a complaint filed at the time and to review why there was not a timely response on a couple of matters. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether it was fair to say the City Attorney's office's response to public records request is to wait for a complaint to be filed before providing information. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that he would not categorize the process in that way; the person designated to track the requests is usually very diligent and makes sure the requests are handled in a timely manner; this particular request seems to be an anomaly. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether follow-up on the other records requests have been done to ensure they were answered timely, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he cannot answer definitively. Chair Henneberry stated it can be assumed that the other requests have been fulfilled because there have not been any complaints filed; the City would certainly be hearing from KQED and the East Bay Times if requests were not fulfilled. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Henneberry, stated most people submitting a records request that is not fulfilled would not just ignore it; he is not certain whether or not the other requests have been followed-up but a review of the other requests can be done. In response to Chair Henneberry's inquiry regarding when an email was sent by the City Attorney's office to the complainant, the Assistant City Attorney stated the email was sent on May 29, … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 4 | The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative, stated the voluminous requests he mentioned were not a specific incident, requests were for any incident which fell into the new categories. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the complainant made a request for a broad variety of incidents. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Rasheed Shabazz, Complainant, stated there were multiple experiences where he did not received responses in a timely manner. Mr. Shabazz gave a brief presentation providing background information on Senate Bill, facts related to his complaint, relevant State law related to Police records; commented on the importance of transparency and perception; and provided recommendations to make local government accessible to the public. Commissioner Tilos stated he would like to see the statistical reporting regarding the public records requests; he would like to see some sort of penalty imposed on the agencies or departments that do not provide responses in a timely manner. Chair Henneberry stated the Commission's decision does not go far enough and does not establish the framework for avoiding the situation from repeating itself; he is not comfortable signing it as is; it is not comprehensive enough; there should be guarantees from the City departments that when a citizen makes a request, it will be acted on in a timely manner; 39 out of 40 requests may have been fulfilled, but dropping the ball on one request in this egregious manner is not acceptable. Commissioner Tilos stated the number of requests not been confirmed; the actual number could be lower. Commissioner Little concurred with Chair Henneberry; stated that she is not comfortable signing off on the decision as it does not outline the expectation for making sure there are procedures put into place so that the situation does not end up back before the Commission. In response to Chair Henneberry's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the staff report and decision points out th… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 5 | Commissioner Little stated she thinks it is important to bring up the topic of conflict of interest again; she is curious how legal counsel, which is the same counsel defending the incident, can advise the Commission. The Assistant City Attorney stated part of the responsibilities of the City Attorney's office is to advise all boards and commissions, as well as the City Council; typically, the kinds of issues that may come up before the Open Government Commission are ones the City Attorney's office can advise on; conflict of interest has been discussed with the new City Attorney and he feels there is no conflict of interest; the City Attorney's role is to give legal advice; the Commission may accept the advice or not, but it does not mean there is a conflict of interest; it may just mean the City Attorneys has a different opinion than the majority of the Commission; unless the City Council indicates that it wishes the Open Government Commission to have outside Counsel, the intent is to continue to provide legal advice to the Commission. Commissioner Little whether Commissioner Shabazz's circumstances as the complainant create a conflict of interest, yet the City Attorney's office involvement does not. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a complainant, by definition, is not in a position to decide his or her own complaint; the City Attorney's office recognized in this particular case that the request did not get fulfilled and that there was a violation; the City Attorney's office has been up front about it and does not see a conflict of interest. Commissioner Tilos concurred with Commissioner Little; stated it could be safe to say the conflict of interest is perceived but not real; he believes the Commission is powerful enough to consider the legal advice given by the City Attorney's office without conflict and be able to form its own opinions regarding the advice. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated his office provides legal advice; the City Council a… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 6 | Chair Henneberry concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated the request is reasonable considering the volume of record requests made annually; he would like to emphasize the need for an immediate acknowledgement of requests made. Commissioner Little inquired whether an excel spreadsheet is used for the tracking, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he is not certain of the tracking method but will provide information at the next meeting. Commissioner Little stated that she would like the City Attorney's office to review its processes and come up with internal suggestions. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he has notes of the well-founded suggestions and will draft the changes to the decision. The City Clerk added that her office usually always double-checks when copied on requests and has already included the new practice going forward. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the City Clerk stated often times the requests which come through the SeeClickFix system to the Clerk's office are not public records requests and are Code Enforcement or other requests, which the office has to reassign; the actual public records requests that come through to the Clerk's office are typically fulfilled within the 10 days because most of the information is not confidential and does not require extra review. Chair Henneberry stated the direction is for staff to go back to the drawing board to restructure the decision so that the situation does not repeat itself. The City Clerk clarified that the hearing will be continued to a date certain, October 7, 2019 for the decision to be reviewed. Chair Little inquired whether the Commission would receive the revised draft decision prior to the agenda packet, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that he will provide the draft soon so that the Commission will have an opportunity to provide comments and it can be close to final form ahead of the October 7th meeting. In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry, the Assistant City… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 7 | Commissioner Shabazz stated he will not be able to attend the upcoming Sunshine Ordinance training, but will watch the video. Commissioner Little stated that she, too, will not be able to attend the Sunshine Ordinance training. The City Clerk stated the Sunshine Ordinance Training will be on August 13th at 10:30 a.m. in Council Chambers; the training will be recorded so those who are unable to attend will be able to watch the recording online. Chair Henneberry stated that he may not be able to attend the training as well, but will watch the video. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 7 July 23, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-10-07.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-10-07 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 7, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. The meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum. Irma Glidden Assistant City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 October 7, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-10-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 18, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. Acting Chair Schwartz convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Little, Shabazz, Tilos and Acting Chair Schwartz - 4. Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael Roush; Assistant City Attorney John Le; and City Clerk Lara Weisiger] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDAITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the July 23, 2019 Meeting Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Shabazz stated that he submitted correspondence with corrections to the minutes; inquired the practice regarding including information on presentations in the minutes and requested changes be made. The City Clerk stated the changes can be done to expand the minutes. Commissioner Shabazz stated the changes include a summary; noted the minutes included a comment about speaking to other Commissioners; requested clarification of the Brown Act. The City Clerk stated the comment was about contacting one other Commissioner; stated a quorum, or three Commissioners, cannot have a discussion about an agenda item. Acting Chair Schwartz inquired the practice of summarizing comments. The City Clerk responded if someone gives a presentations on something that is in writing, the minutes typically state a presentation was given; adding more detail is acceptable. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice votes - 4. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 December 18, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 2 | 3-B. Action on Open Government Commission's Written Decision Following a Hearing on a Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Concerning a Failure to Respond Timely to a Public Records Act Request Acting Chair Schwartz inquired whether Commissioner Shabazz is recusing himself. Commissioner Shabazz responded in the affirmative; inquired at what time is he required to recuse himself, during voting or discussion. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded as the Complaintant, Commissioner Shabazz would be required to recuse himself from the vote and discussion, but could present to the Commission as the Complainant. In response to Acting Chair Schwartz's inquiry regarding public comment, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the Complaintant is given an opportunity to verbalize their position; the Commission can ask questions; the City would make its presentation and have an opportunity to respond; the Commission could then have discussion and reach a decision regarding the issue. Mr. Shabazz stated he would like to clarify that he filed his complaint as a member of the public and not as a Commissioner; he would like to address two specific issues: 1) the efforts to resolve the issue informally and any additional facts that existed, and 2) the statement that there is no evidence of subsequent violations, which is inaccurate; cited examples of potential violations included in the staff report; expressed concern about resolving violations informally discouraging folks from bringing issues before the Commission; stated that he chose to move it forward just to set a precedence; inquired how the City Attorney's office could improve its internal process for an increased sense of transparency. Acting Chair Schwartz requested more details about Mr. Shabazz's requests from February 22 and 27, 2018. Mr. Shabazz responded on February 27, 2018 he made a request for bodycam footage of an incident that occurred on August 21, 2017 regarding a robbery and Alameda Police drawing firearms; stated the response he was given from the Police De… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 3 | Mr. Shabazz agreed the issues discussed at the last meeting are separate. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the draft decision was revised per the Commission's direction, which included removing objectionable language, adding a reminder that the City needs to do a better job with timely responses, and requiring an annual report on records requests; the changes were added to the findings sustaining the complaint; hopefully, the revised decision meets the Commissions requirements and the Commission will sign it. Commissioner Little stated this is the first time a staff report has been provided regarding records requests; the report revealed an additional item; she is satisfied that the City Attorney's office did a nice job of capturing and cataloguing the requests; she would like to move forward by acknowledging that there are appropriate checks and balances in place; if the pattern continues, the Commission can revisit the issue. Commissioner Tilos stated data should be provided by department to determine if there is a pattern and to allow tracking and addressing of timely responses; expressed support for the provisions added to the decision. Acting Chair Schwartz stated it takes courage, persistence, and incredible amount of civic engagement to raise the issue to the Commission; expressed appreciation to Mr. Shabazz and the City Attorney's office for taking the matter seriously; proposed some amendments to the decision language: removing the phrase "in light of the facts changing the phrase to "no evidence in the record of a subsequent similar violation to "though limited evidence suggests similar violations, the Commission does not assess a fine " and adding a sentence "However, the Commission will not hesitate to assess a fine in the future if similar violations are reported" to make it clear how seriously the Commission takes the matter; after the sentence, "we sustain the complaint," he would like to remove the phrase, "no other remedy is necessary." Commissioner Little stated at the time the decision … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 4 | Mr. Shabazz stated the issues and information, including the spreadsheet, being discussed tonight were included in the October meeting; regardless of whether the Commission has reached the item on the agenda, the information was sent out to the public and the information is readily available. Commissioner Tilos concurred with Mr. Shabazz; stated his point was the Commission was ready to make the decision coming into the meeting in October, after having the information and data from the July meeting. Acting Chair Schwartz reiterated the amendments. Commissioners Little and Tilos suggested amending the language to "no evidence in the record of a subsequent similar violation. " to add "since that time." Commissioner Little moved approval of the decision with the amendments noted. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioner Shabazz - 1.] 3-C. Report Concerning Responses to Public Records Act (PRA) Requests Referred to the City Attorney's Office Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of accepting the report. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Little stated it is important to make sure the public understands there is an Open Government Commission, a Sunshine Ordinance and the City has a responsibility to address public records requests; inquired whether the Commission has an obligation to follow up on public records request to prevent another instance of requests falling through the cracks. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the Sunshine Ordinance is prominent on the City's website and is included on every Board, Commission, and Council agenda; the record shows that public records requests are responded to timely; the City Attorney's office can work with the City Clerk to explore other avenues to make the information more available to the public. Commissioner Little stated that she concurs with Mr. Shabazz regarding having an educational component about the Public Records Act; she appreciates the time and responsiven… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 5 | regarding timing and responses related to his own requests; offered beneficial suggestions, including requesting the City Attorney's office assign a number to each public records request, using the year and number of the request; stated that would like to incorporate the data in an annual report; recommended a method for other departments to have consolidated and central tracking of requests. The City Clerk stated See Click Fix has not been a great tool for records requests; the Clerk's office is working with the Public Information Officer on alternative, more efficient online way to submit public records requests. Commissioner Little stated that she would like a column added to the spreadsheet which indicates the number of days between when the request was received and when responsive information or documents were produced. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 3-D. Accept the Annual Report The Chief Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Shabazz stated that he was not a member of the Commission at the time previous complaints were filed and wanted to confirm with the other Commissioners that the information in the report is accurate. Acting Chair Schwartz inquired what happened with the "null and void" decision on the ordinances, to which the City Clerk responded in January 2019, the Council decided to rescind the ordinances, which were re-introduced and finally passed. Acting Chair Schwartz requested adding a few sentences after the statement to indicate there was effective Commission action regarding the ordinances. Acting Chair Schwartz moved approval of accepting the annual report. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Acting Chair Schwartz proposed hearing item 3-F. before 3-E. Commissioner Shabazz inquired whether the Commission has a set meeting cut-off time, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative. Commissioner Shabazz inquired whether a formal motion is required to change the order of… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 6 | Acting Chair Schwartz stated the selection of Chair and Vice Chair is based on seniority; since Chair Henneberry stepped down, he is next in line for Chair; inquired whether Commissioner Tilos would then be next for Vice Chair. Commissioner Tilos stated he was not aware of the selection precedence and suggested opening the discussion; requested staff remind the Commission of meeting logistics; expressed concerns about not having a quorum the last meeting, which wasted time and resources. The City Clerk stated the Commission's two regular meetings are the first Monday in February and October at 7:00 p.m.; meetings are also scheduled within 30 days if a complaint is filed and as needed. Commissioner Shabazz inquired which Commissioner would be interested in the Chair or Vice Chair roles and why. Acting Chair Schwartz responded that he is interested in taking on the Chair role; stated he regrets not being able to attend the October meeting due to an emergency appendectomy and the last-minute July meeting was called while he was away on international travel; with those two exceptions, he has attended all the meetings and plans to going forward; he is proud of the work the Commission does; giving access to the public as well as helping the City Council function more effectively is why he would like to continue to serve on the Commission; the Commission has achieved many meaningful things; having proper disclosure is important; he would like to continue being proactive going forward. Commissioner Tilos moved approval of appointing Commissioner Schwartz as the Chair. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Acing Chair Schwartz moved approval of nominating Commissioner Tilos as the Vice Chair. Commissioner Little stated the selection is a rotating process; she has already been Chair and Vice Chair; she feels it is a good way for appointed members to gain experience; she supports Commissioner Tilos as Vice Chair. Commissioner Tilos stated he is humbled by the nomination and woul… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 7 | Commissioner Shabazz inquired whether the rotational selection process is a formal process that has been codified, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the selection process is informal; selecting the Chair and Vice Chair is at the Commission's discretion. Commissioner Little stated participation in previous meetings would be a factor for her in the nomination process; she would bypass a Commissioner who was absent for a majority of the meetings. Commissioner Shabazz stated that he is fine with the informal process but would like to consider making it more formal in the future; discussed the example of the School Board changing its process. Commissioner Tilos concurred with Commissioner Shabazz; stated the School Board situation had the necessary votes to change the process. 3-E. Consider Further Revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance by Amending Various Provisions of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter II (Administration), Including Provisions Related to Public Access to Public Meetings and Public Records, and Sunshine Ordinance Enforcement. Commissioner Shabazz stated he is interested in how revising the ordinance is coming forward now. Acting Chair Schwartz stated the City Attorney's office claims the ordinance has been around for a decade and is being cleaned up; it felt like revising the ordinance was in response to the Commission nullifying two City Council actions and the fact that the City Attorney's office seemed to dispute whether the Commission has the authority to do so; it seems that the City Attorney's office wants change to the ordinance to take the authority away from the Commission; all of the other modifications to the ordinance seemed like gravy poured over the real issue. Section 2-93.8 The Assistant City Attorney stated the use of the Null and Void remedy was historic in a sense that it had not been used prior; when it was used, Councilmembers wanted the City Attorney's office to look into revising the Sunshine Ordinance; from said direction, the … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 8 | ensure proper procedure is taken away, there is no point in having an Open Government Commission or a Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner Tilos concurred with Commissioner Little, stated the Commission needs the authority in order to be an effective body. Chair Schwartz moved approval of rejecting the changes to Section 2-93.8. Meeting of the Open Government Commission December 18, 2019 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 9 | Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion. Under discussion, the Chief Assistant City Attorney clarified that the Commission would like Section 2-93.8 to remain unchanged. The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the Commission's recommendation is that not only are the changes rejected, there are no alternative proposed changes to Section 2-93.8, to which Acting Chair Schwartz responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Commissioner Shabazz stated he would like the Commission to use how making changes to the Sunshine Ordinance makes government more accessible as a framework to evaluate the changes. Section 2-91.1 Commissioner Shabazz inquired whether an ad hoc Charter Review Committee appointed by the Mayor would be considered a passive meeting body as defined in the Sunshine Ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated it is a typical ad hoc meeting body and not a passive meeting body; an example of a traditional ad hoc committee is similar to a ballot argument ad hoc committee where two members of the Council convene to come up with a revised ballot argument. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it is defined in the ordinance that a passive meeting body shall not include an ad hoc committee appointed for a single purpose; concurred with the Assistant City Attorney that the Charter Review Committee would not be considered a passive meeting body. In response to Commissioner Shabazz inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated a meeting body that includes City employees and outside agency staff would not be considered a passive meeting body and would be an exception. There was no Commission discussion of Section 2-91.5 Section 2-91.12 Commissioner Shabazz inquired what is the impetus for the section [regarding Closed Sessions] being amended, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded a Councilmember requested the change. Commissioner Shabazz stated it would be helpful for elected officials to clarify Closed Session … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 10 | Section 2-91.15 In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Council adopted new Rules of Order eliminating the ceding of time, which was also approved by the Open Government Commission and a Council subcommittee. Commissioner Little stated the change in policy was a result of trying to streamline the Council meetings; there were complaints that the same members of the public and Council were talking about the same issues repeatedly. Acting Chair Schwartz stated it does not create greater public access when decisions on important issues that people come to hear about are not getting heard until late in the evening or postponed to another meeting because people are talking too long. Section 2-92.2 Commissioner Shabazz inquired who are the designated custodian of records. The City Clerk responded any person within the City can accept a public records request from anybody; stated the custodian of records is the staff person responsible for tracking requests within the department; each department designates one person so requests can be filtered directly to the department's custodian of records. Section 2-92.4 Commissioner Shabazz inquired what are the benefits of posting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and other environmental documents on an external consultant's website as opposed to just posting it on the City's website. The Assistant City Attorney responded the practice is not common, but sometimes the documents are very large, especially when building an administrative record, and hosting the documents on the City's website can be cumbersome. Acting Chair Schwartz inquired whether a link is posted on the City's website in the event the consultant hosts the documents, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he is not absolutely certain, but believes posting a link is a standard practice. Acting Chair Schwartz requested confirmation of the accessibility to the documents be included in the changes. There was no Commission discussion of Section 2-92.9 Section 2-93.2 In respons… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 11 | Acting Chair Schwartz stated it might be helpful to add a sentence to emphasize the point, such as: "every reasonable attempt will be made to reach the individual through all available contact information and all attempts will be documented.' In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry about re-submitting a complaint, the City Clerk responded the timelines in the Sunshine Ordinance would not allow a re-submission. There was no Commission discussion of Section 2-93.7. The City Clerk summarized the changes the Commission agreed to; stated there were slight revisions to 2-92.4 requiring a link be posted and 2-93.2 requiring outreach; the changes have been noted and staff will work to draft the language. Chair Schwartz moved approval of adopting the recommendations with the two amendments. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Shabazz expressed his appreciation for all the work of staff regarding his complaint as a member of the public; stated he would like to use his role as a Commissioner to make the Public Records Act more available to Alamedans and welcomes suggestions from other Commissioners and staff on ways to do that. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff could agendize the issue at the February meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Schwartz adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 11 December 18, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 3, 2020 7:00 P.M. Chair Schwartz convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Little, Pauling, Shabazz, Tilos and Chair Schwartz - 5. [Note: Commissioner Shabazz arrived at 7:25 p.m.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael Roush and City Clerk Lara Weisiger] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he emailed the Commission; discussed the City Attorney's office rendering opinions and interpreting rent laws. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the December 18, 2019 Meeting Chair Schwartz expressed his appreciation for the comprehensive minutes; outlined corrections to the minutes; inquired about the statement: the Chief Assistant City Attorney clarified that the Commission would like Section 2-93.8 to remain as it is written. The City Clerk responded the minutes could be amended to read: "as currently written" to clarify the Commission did not want the section revised. Chair Schwartz proposed using "unamended." The City Clerk stated she would revise the minutes to clarify. Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed the format of the minutes; suggested minutes include the name of staff members and written testimony be attached. In response to Mr. Garfinkle's inquiry regarding the record request report, Chair Schwartz clarified the report is part of the next agenda item. In response to Chair Schwartz's inquiry, the City Clerk stated staff titles have always been used in the minutes; the meeting videos are posted online; the practice has been not to include names. Chair Schwartz inquired whether there is any downside to including a name the first time Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 February 3, 2020 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 2 | a title is listed, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative. Commissioner Tilos suggested the staff be listed on the first page under roll call. Chair Schwartz concurred; inquired whether the change could be made across commissions, the City Clerk responded that she could pass on the suggestion; stated each commission adopts bylaws, rules and practices, and would make its own decision. Chair Schwartz stated when the suggestion is passed on, commissions should be informed that in response to a public request, the Open Government Commission feels it would increase transparency to list the staff present at a meeting; inquired whether the minutes being approved could also be amended. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tilos moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Pauling seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Little inquired whether she should second the motion since Commissioner Pauling was not in attendance. Chair Schwartz stated Commissioner Pauling can second the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: None. [Absent: Commissioner Shabazz - 1.] 3-B. Accept the Annual Public Report and Report Concerning Responses to Public Records Act Requests Referred to the City Attorney's Office in 2019 Chair Schwartz expressed appreciation for the report and table, which is a great addition to transparency, and for Commissioner Shabazz getting the ball rolling. Commissioner Little stated that she requested a column showing the number of days be added, so people do not have to do math and can determine if the response was timely. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that he recalls the request; stated that he was unclear whether the number should reflect the days between first receiving the request contrasted with the day the documents were produced. Commissioner Little stated that she wants an easy way to determine which complaints were out of co… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 3 | The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office can add a line item in the next report. Chair Schwartz inquired whether the count starts on the day the request was received or acknowledged. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the date received; stated the ordinance requires requests be acknowledged within a certain period of time; the time to provide a response starts the day the request was received. Chair Schwartz inquired about the deadline for acknowledgement, to which Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that he believes a request is supposed to be acknowledged within three days. Chair Schwartz stated two counters may be needed; the number of days to acknowledge the request and number of days to respond. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff can do that. Chair Schwartz inquired whether a number of complaints are being acknowledged late, to which the City Clerk responded acknowledgement might happen outside of the chart if the request is received in another department; the department might acknowledge the request and forward it to the City Attorney's office; capturing when another department acknowledges a request could be difficult. Commissioner Little stated that she would want to ensure weekends and holidays are considered. The City Clerk stated the response is 10 calendar days. Chair Schwartz noted typically, in rules of civil procedure, weekend and holidays are excluded from three days. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated a date acknowledged column will be added; other departments often acknowledge the request; typically, the City Attorney's office will also acknowledge the request, but it may be outside of three days; the Attorney's office will add the column and remind departments about the short timeframe to acknowledge receipt of the request. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether the date acknowledged is the first calculation, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether the ordinance require… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 4 | requestor about what is going to happen within 10 days; stated staff generally tries to provide the documents, but sometimes there is a delay. Chair Schwartz inquired whether there is an opportunity to request an extension, like the State's Public Records Act statute. The Chief Assistant City Attorney Responded in the Affirmative; stated extensions happens when documents are voluminous or take significant time to review to determine whether documents are privileged; the requestor is informed additional time will be needed; ideally, there is a 14 day window in which to provide the response; at times, the requestor is informed it will take additional time; staff tries to work within the 24 day window to provide the documents. Commissioner Little inquired whether a notes column should be added at the end for transparency or if there is another mechanism to clarify circumstances and explain why the records request was not complied with within the timeframe. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that is a very good point; stated the reasons for response outside of the timeframe can be added to the note column; the request is good and easy enough to do. Chair Schwartz stated the table should be sufficiently simple to be digestible, but on the other hand the notes would help explain issues; the next go round could have a mechanism that shows when extensions were required. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff can do that. Commissioner Shabazz expressed appreciation for the table, which allows people to understand what documents the City is producing and the amount of requests; encouraged staff to utilize notes to help with processing and tracking; knowing SeeClickFix is not the best solution, collaborative software should be used to communicate between different parties and should having tracking. Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he has another non-agenda items to discuss. Chair Schwartz stated the Commission is currently addressing the agenda item. Mr. Garfinkle stated that he was surprised about case… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 5 | responsive documents; stated a distinction should be made if something is exempt; discussed his request; discussed a Police Department tasing incident, Senate Bill 1421 and a request he made; stated after a District Attorney's investigation was closed, he was told the information was available; initially, he was told nothing fell within the areas which are supposed to be disclosed, but the material was actually not disclosed because there was an active investigation; a distinction should be made whether there are no records that exist or the records are exempt based on whatever law, such as a personnel matter or active investigation; he is grateful the information is being incorporated in the annual report, which is not part of the Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether there is need to codify that the public records requests information be provided in the future; he understands the matter is not on the agenda, but wanted to make the point. Chair Schwartz stated it could be noticed on the next meeting and is a great idea. Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of accepting the annual report and report concerning responses to the Public Records Act requests referred to the City Attorney's office in 2019. Chair Schwartz seconded the motion, with the caveat that he is hopeful the additional information discussed by everybody can be included, which the Chief Assistant City Attorney has graciously agreed to do. The motion carried unanimously by the following roll call vote: Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: None. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Sunshine Ordinance Amendment Commissioner Little inquired whether anyone from the Commission will be in attendance at the City Council hearing tomorrow night when the proposed revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance will be discussed. Chair Schwartz stated that he submit a written communication and hopes to attend. Commissioner Little stated that she is out of town; she also submitted a letter to the City Council. Commissioner Pauling… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 6 | make a policy, not legal, decision to eliminate the null and void provision; artful amendments and looking at other cities could be considered to address concerns in a transparent, open and honest way; expressed concern over the amendment being presented as a legal imperative, which is not supported by case law; discussed process and duties of the Commission. Commissioner Little stated that she has faith the current City Council would seriously consider Open Government Commission recommendations and hopefully reach conclusions the Commission recommends, which might not always be the case; expressed concern over the provision being removed without having other safeguards. Public Records Act Forum Commissioner Shabazz stated that he wanted to follow up on a previous request for an agenda item at the next Commission meeting about organizing a forum or method of communicating about the Public Record Act; if the matter needs to be placed on an agenda to make it happen, he would like it done; if not, he would be interested in working with staff to host something to inform the community about the Public Records Act. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office would be happy to work with Commissioner Shabazz to set it up; the matter can be placed on the agenda or Commissioner Shabazz could meet with the Attorney's office to figure out something; the Attorney's office would be happy to do it. Chair Schwartz stated that he would welcome having an agenda item if there is a proposal for something the Commission could do; he is open to any kind of proposal; it is a great idea. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated both can be done; Commissioner Shabazz can meet with the Attorney's office and the matter can be placed on an agenda to do something more formal. Commissioner Shabazz stated that he shared the suggestion at the last meeting and did not follow up to make sure it was on the agenda tonight; he does not know the level of detail needed for an agenda item. Commissioner Tilos stated something mig… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 7 | Commissioner Shabazz responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Pauling inquired whether a subcommittee can be formed. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that he is a little reluctant to have the Commission create a subcommittee because the matter is not on the agenda; he suggests meeting with Commissioner Shabazz to set something up that could involve the Commission; the forum could be noticed as a Commission meeting; the forum could be done in June if desired. Chair Schwartz stated having a subcommittee could be included as part of a proposal at the next meeting. Commissioner Little inquired whether Commissioner Shabazz is interested in educating people; stated that she would not want to stand in the way of Commissioner Shabazz doing outreach; questioned the need for a formal process. Chair Schwartz stated a formal process is not needed, but the next agenda could include a formal Public Records Act communications project or subcommittee if desired by Commissioner Shabazz. Commissioner Shabazz stated the distinction is wanting to utilize the platform of the Open Government Commission to educate people about the Public Records Act; stated that he will follow up with the City Attorney's office; hopefully the entire Commission can be invited. Public Comment Commissioner Shabazz inquired whether Oral Communications needs to be opened in response to a request to speak. Chair Schwartz stated the member of the public already spoke under Oral Communications. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of adjourning the meeting. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Garfinkle asked to raise a point of order; stated he brought up some points which were not discussed; questioned what is accomplished by mentioning things. Chair Schwartz stated full Commission comment is not typical for items not on the agenda; the Commission would not have been prepared to address the issue; Mr. Garfinkle's specific minutes request was addressed. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 7 February 3, 2020 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 8 | Mr. Garfinkle stated that he suggested quality assurance analysis of record logs; inquired whether it goes any place or accomplishes anything. Commissioner Tilos stated it accomplished something; the Commission heard the suggestion and can consider it when making decisions; stated the spreadsheet is evolving; Mr. Garfinkle's comments have been listened to and can be considered. Commissioner Pauling stated that she understood Mr. Garfinkle's comments; the Commission is addressing quality when talking about timeliness of response; the initially, timeframe is going to be used as a red flag; she heard Mr. Garfinkle. Mr. Garfinkle discussed conversations with the Police Department; stated that he is trying to learn the process on interacting with the Commission. Chair Schwartz stated Commissioners were interested in the remarks, but are not prepared to take further actions on the particular remarks right now; he would welcome a more detailed proposal. Mr. Garfinkle stated that he has a suggestion about exhibits; he does not know whether the matter should go through the Commission; discussed policies. Chair Schwartz stated there has been a motion and second to adjourn. Commissioner Shabazz called the question, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. There being no further business, Chair Schwartz adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 3, 2020 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-01.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY JUNE 1, 2020 - 7:00 P.M. The meeting was continued to June 24, 2020. Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 June 1, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY JUNE 24, 2020 - 7:00 P.M. Chair Schwartz convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Little, Pauling, Shabazz, Tilos and Chair Schwartz - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael Roush, Assistant City Attorney John Le, and City Clerk Lara Weisiger] Oral Communications None. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Minutes of the Meeting Held on February 3, 2020 Stated that he is unsure how Board or Commission members make recommendations to specific parties, other than relying on the minutes; he would like the names of staff included in the minutes as discussed at the February 3rd meeting; also suggested a mechanism for statistical analysis of the data collected by the Police Department: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. Chair Schwartz stated the recommendation was to include the names of officials and staff at the beginning of the meeting minutes; he thanked the Clerk for doing so and hopes other Commissions would do the same. The City Clerk stated she passed the recommendation on to the other Boards and Commissions on behalf of the Open Government Commission (OGC). Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes, with the addition of identifying staff with their names rather than titles. The City Clerk clarified the recommendation was to identify staff by name at the top of the minutes and use titles throughout the rest of the minutes. Vice Chair Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5. Meeting of the Open Government Commission June 24, 2020 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 2 | 3-B. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code, as Amended, Concerning the Replacement of the "Null and Void" Remedy. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Stated that he is concerned that the matter of the OGC authority has been an issue for almost two years; he is upset that the extent of the collaboration was to scrutinize his submission: Paul Foreman, Alameda. Stated he would like to speak on the noticing requirements for special meetings: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. Chair Schwartz stated there are many issues regarding the Sunshine Ordinance that will be addressed; the first issue is the Commission's authority over violations; the second is noticing requirements for special meetings, which is later on in the agenda. Commissioner Shabazz requested that Chair Schwartz or staff briefly summarize each agenda item while progressing through the agenda. Chair Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Shabazz's request and briefly summarized the first item regarding the Commission's authority. Commissioner Tilos stated he was leaning toward Vice Mayor Knox White's suggestion about having the issue re-agendized on the next reasonable agenda; the issue would allow another opportunity for public comment. Commissioner Little concurred with Commissioner Tilos's comments; stated that she appreciates the efforts of Councilmember Vella and Paul Foreman; the one aspect she feels is missing is how the Commission could pause the situation to avoid being in the same spot as two years ago; she would also appreciate including the language provided by Vice Mayor Knox White. Chair Schwartz stated that he was under the impression, as suggested by the City Attorney, that Vice Mayor Knox White's language is the sole amendment to be re- agendized and that Mr. Foreman's proposals be rejected. Commissioner Little stated she would like to see some sort of combination between the two; there is a lot of good language in Cou… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 3 | opposed to Councilmember Vella's and Mr. Foreman's submission or a combination of both. Commissioner Shabazz stated the Commission needs to think about the objective, find the solution between the various proposals and ideas which can still enable the ability for the public to participate in meetings, and some remedy to ensure that people have that opportunity. Commissioner Pauling stated the Commission has to be able to move quickly to resolve issues, especially time sensitive ones; public comment does not get responded to by the Council and does not change a vote that has already been recorded and moved forward. Chair Schwartz stated he echoes Mr. Foreman's comments that the City Attorney's comments are not sufficient to confer with the Commission on viable ways to provide teeth to the statute; the comments were more focused on that the Commission does not have the right to do so; he continues to disagree with the advice provided by Counsel; the ship has sailed, but he does not think Commissioners are limited in what they are allowed to do; simply asking Council to re-agendize something at their convenience is insufficient to address the seriousness of a failure in the City's legislative process based on the Sunshine Ordinance; now is not the time to be squashing transparency; it is time to increase transparency; the best way to do that is to provide some consequence to a failure to have a public process as required by the Sunshine Ordinance that makes it difficult for the City to have such a failure; Mr. Foreman's suggestion has two parts that the Commission should pay close attention to: 1) delay action that does not usurp the Council's legislative authority; if the Council is interested in empowering the OGC, they need to consider that; it does not make the OGC the legislative body, the Commission is not writing new legislation or weighing in on the merits of any legislation, the Commission is making sure the process is as transparent as it needs to be; 2) in Section 2-93.8 regarding penalties, Council accep… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 4 | In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated Chair Schwartz's summary of Mr. Foreman's explanation is correct; quoted Mr. Foreman's comments rationale for striking it: "I struck the penalties because they are ridiculous, it is the tax payers who would be paying them." Commissioner Shabazz inquired whether Mr. Foreman's comment regarding the tax payers paying the penalty is accurate. Chair Schwartz responded in the affirmative; stated the penalty would be against the City, which is funded by tax payer's dollars. The Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Schwartz; stated the penalty is included as a deterrent, but whether it has any real practical effect is for the Commission to decide, as well as whether or not to leave in the provision. Commissioner Tilos stated that he supports removing the provision, it is just a slap on the wrist and immaterial. Chair Schwartz stated it bothered him that the proposal endorsed by the City Attorney's office wanted to keep the $250 fine, but removed the more significant deterrent like delaying, or not allowing, legislation that was passed without the proper proceedings to go into effect. Commissioner Tilos stated the power was taken away from the Commission; the Commission was clear and Council was clear on taking the power away; he shares the frustration with Mr. Foreman that this topic has been unresolved for two years now. Chair Schwartz clarified that the rationale articulated by the City Attorney which the City Council needed to obey was that nullifying a Council action improperly usurped the authority of an elected body to legislate to an appointed body, which is not the same as delaying it and asking for another vote; for the Commission to cancel an ordinance passed by the Council is stronger; he agrees that the Council rejected that proposal; he does not think the Council rejected the idea of delaying implementation of an ordinance and asking for a supermajority. Commissioner Shabazz stated referring to the teeth metaphor t… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 5 | the perceived conflict of interest; the City Attorney's office responded that they were not asked to do so; he agrees with the City Attorney's office that it is not within the charge of the OGC to tell the City Council to retain independent legal counsel. The Assistant City Attorney stated the comments provided by the City Attorney's office to Mr. Foreman's proposal is just preliminary thinking; the Office plans to do a more thorough analysis once concrete direction is received from the Commission; the supplemental memo from the City Attorney's office should be considered as a starting point for the Commission to work with the City Attorney's office in developing a satisfactory proposal that can be repackaged for the Council; it would be helpful to staff for the Commission to weigh in on each item, so the City Attorney's office is clear on how to draft the proposal. Chair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney; stated that he would like to address each item; suggested breaking down into a few parts: 1) Section 2-92.2 of Mr. Foreman's proposal that further action on an agenda item shall be delayed until the complaint is resolved; 2) Section 2-93.8, Council shall accept the recommendation unless 4 Councilmembers reject it; 3) keep or eliminate the monetary penalty. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated the discussions can include the Vella/Foreman proposal; added a fourth category regarding timing issues in general, which would encompass the rest of the changes; a fifth category could be discussed regarding independent legal counsel; regarding the timing issue, a member of the public commented that there will not be time for the public to weigh in if things are rushed. Commissioner Pauling stated that she agrees with Commissioner Little and would like to work through the list item by item rather than bouncing around. In response to Chair Schwartz's inquiry regarding timing, Commissioner Pauling stated that she concurs with the proposal to delay action on the second reading… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 6 | the public and the leadership with guidance on what the Commission can still do about said items. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the concern in the City Attorney's office is the longer period of time someone has to file a complaint, things might move forward; to be able to undo it becomes problematic; the Commission can decide to extend or shorten the timeframe, but there have been no problems with the current 15-day window and keeping items within the Commission's jurisdiction. Commissioner Little inquired what the difference is between the 10 and 15-day timeframe, to which the City Attorney responded according to Mr. Foreman's proposal, the section dealing with public meetings and problems with public participation, as those tend to move forward more quickly, the 10-day rule would apply in that situation; the 15-day rule would apply to other violations because there would likely be no timing issues with an additional five days. Commissioner Pauling inquired if the Commission votes on this, would it give power to recommend the Council delay the second vote for final passage. Chair Schwartz responded Mr. Foreman's proposal would delay action until the complaint is resolved or rejected by a supermajority of the Council; Vice Mayor Knox White's proposal would ask the Council to review the Commission's recommendation and render a final decision. In response to Commissioner Pauling's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated the timing issue has to do with the timing of complaints and timing for the hearing. Commissioner Little suggested combining Items A through F as one, rather than going through line by line. Chair Schwartz concurred; inquired whether there is support for amending the timing requirements with respect to complaints and hearings as proposed by Mr. Foreman. Commissioner Little moved approval of adding Items A through F of the Vella/Foreman proposal to the Sunshine Ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that the days for filing the complaint are calendar days, and the days for the hearing are… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 7 | Commissioner Little accepted the amendment. The City Clerk stated that changing 10 calendar days to 10 business days would put the hearing past the next Council meeting, so a complaint could come in after final passage of an ordinance; she believes the 10 calendar days was intended to ensure there is opportunity between introduction and final passage. Commissioner Little withdrew her last motion and moved approval of her original motion to add Items A through F to the Sunshine Ordinance, and clarify in Items A and B that it is calendar days. Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Abstain. Ayes: 4; Abstentions: 1. Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of substituting the word "chance" in Item C to the word "opportunity.' Chair Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5 Chair Schwartz moved approval of adopting the recommendation on Item G. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Shabazz inquired what significant prejudice means, to which Chair Schwartz responded it is open to interpretation; stated there is a concept of prejudice that the City Attorney included in the supplemental memo regarding the statute of limitations; typically prejudice can be thought of as some right being sacrificed. The Assistant City Attorney stated he does not want to speak for the drafter, but his thought is that the prejudice is an impact of 'harm' to the City. Chair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney, stated that is how he reads "significant prejudice" as well. In response to Chair Schwartz' inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated that he understands the clarification, but was also wondering how the phrase will be interpreted a year from now. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commission… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 8 | Chair Schwartz moved approval of not recommending the Chair request the Council to retain independent legal counsel as it over-reaches the Commission's authority. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff understood that the process tonight would be collaboration with the Commission and draft a proper analysis to be brought back to the Commission which reflects the direction given. Commissioner Little seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5 Chair Schwartz moved approval of Mr. Foreman's recommendation for Section 2-93.8-C. Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5 Chair Schwartz moved approval of accepting the Foreman proposal of striking the monetary penalty. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5 The Assistant City Attorney clarified Section C regarding the Council accepting OGC recommendations actually applies to Section 2-91, not 2-92; both sections involve a cure and correct, he just wants to make sure that was the motion and that staff has proper direction. Chair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney, stated the motion was applicable to Section 2-91 regarding public access of meetings. Commissioner Little inquired whether there should be any conversation regarding Item D under the penalties section; she reads that section as someone bringing forward an issue simply to disrupt the process. Chair Schwartz responded that Item D is not a redlined item and there are no changes to the section. 3-C. Set the First Monday of Each Month, Excluding September, as Established Meeting Dates Chair Schwartz moved approval of accepting the proposal on meeting dates. Commissioner Little seconded the motio… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 9 | Under discussion, Commissioner Shabazz stated one of the reasons he was on the OGC was because there were not as many meetings as the other Boards and Commissions; he organizes a program that also meets on first Mondays and may have potential conflicts. Chair Schwartz stated it would be difficult for him to meet every month as well due to child care and other responsibilities; he agrees with Commissioner Shabazz wholeheartedly regarding the monthly meetings, but also understands holding a set date on the calendar so no one has to be chased around. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5. 3-D. Report to the Commission concerning Public Record Act (PRA) Requests that are Referred to the City Attorney's Office. Chair Schwartz stated he read the report and appreciates the efforts of the City Attorney and City Clerk's office in drafting the report; it is very helpful for transparency to have the data; he appreciates Commissioner Shabazz in moving this forward; he appreciates that the City made the information on the Mali Watkins arrest available immediately on the City website; it fosters public debate and discussion at a time when it is important for the public to be able to have the discussion. Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of accepting the report. Commissioner Pauling seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Shabazz stated that he appreciates how the report layout; suggested adding a number to the PRAs which includes the year, so it is easier to track how many are occurring in a calendar year. In response to Chair Schwartz' inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated adding a number can be done, because the PRA's are referrals to the City Attorney's office from various departments, the City Attorney's office will assign a number to them as they are received. In response to Commissioner Shabazz inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Sunshine Ordinance includes e… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 10 | Commissioner Shabazz stated he would like to ensure that the PRA report be included in all the annual Sunshine Ordinance reports that go before the Council. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated his office is handing it administratively and will work with the City Clerk's office to make sure the PRA report is provided to the Council along with the other requirements under the Sunshine Ordinance. On the call for the questions, the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5 3-E. Discuss Organizing a Forum or Method of Communication to Inform the Alameda Community about the Public Records Act (Commissioner Shabazz) Commissioner Shabazz made brief comments regarding the referral. In response to Commissioner Tilos's inquiry regarding the steps required to make this happen, Commissioner Shabazz stated he would also like to know if a vote on the process is necessary to move the issue forward; he likes the idea of having something that anyone on the Commission, or staff, can present; he would also like to identify a time when the forum can happen. Chair Schwartz inquired whether the idea of having a subcommittee could be considered, to which Commissioner Shabazz responded it just depends on which method would be the most effective; the intention is to ensure people are aware of the Public Records Act and how they can use it in the context of City government; the method used to achieve that would be to do a presentation to outline what it is and the process; he agrees with Commissioner Tilos's idea of creating a presentation that anyone can present so even after his time on the Commission, the vision could be expanded and be done in a way that is effective to reach the goal; his initial idea involved doing a live presentation, but under the circumstances, a virtual presentation could work. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney office does Sunshine Ordinance training every three years; his… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 11 | Commissioner Pauling concurs with Commissioner Little; stated that she believes a presentation by Commissioner Shabazz would be accessible and focused for the public; it is at the heart of what the Commission stands for, which is to protect the transparency of local government; partnering with the City could afford benefits such as free meeting space; she fully supports Commissioner Shabazz moving forward. In response to Chair Schwartz inquiry regarding next steps, Commissioner Shabazz stated he will continue working on his slides if there are no objections from the Commission; he will work with the City Attorney's office and with staff to move forward and hold a public forum. Chair Schwartz stated it is apparent that there is full support from the OGC; he would also be happy to support further action needed in the future. In response to Commissioner Shabazz inquiry of anyone else wanting to be involved, Commissioner Little stated she would like to participate as well as introduce Commissioner Shabazz to another person who was instrumental in the PRA process with the Police Department regarding a recent incident. Chair Schwartz stated he would also like to be involved as time permits; it is a very important topic. 3-F. Discuss Noticing Requirements for City Council Discussions of Proposed Charter Amendments (Chair Schwartz) 3-G. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code, as Amended, Concerning Special Meetings, Including the Setting and Noticing of Such Meetings Chair Schwartz recommended Items 3-F and 3-G be heard together. Stated he is concerned with the way Council uses special meeting; suggested special meetings be permissible only if the topic being discussed cannot be reasonably put off to the next regular agenda; also suggested when items run over during a meeting, they should be put onto the next regular meeting agenda and not onto a special meeting the next day; Council invoked the … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,12 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 12 | The City Clerk stated regular agendas are distributed 12 days in advance, but with current COVID related issues, sometimes items that were not anticipated have has seven day notice and a special agenda has been sent out to take place on the regular meeting night; the seven-day noticing requirement prevails whether or not it falls on a regular meeting night. Chair Schwartz stated methods of dissemination of information need to be brought into the present, especially during COVID; how the issue came about was a Charter amendment item had less notice than an ordinary meeting; as a result, a lot of people who may have wanted to speak on it did not learn about it and there was inadequate participation; the Commission should adopt new standard ways to disseminate information into the current day and current times; another point to consider is the Mayor's comments that meetings go very late and public access is not increased when important issues are being discussed at ten in the evening, or midnight, or two the morning. Commissioner Little stated there needs to be a distinction between a special meeting that is dedicated to one topic, versus a special meeting that is urgent in nature; the distinction would help to sift through and provide a little more guidance and flexibility with public noticing. Chair Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Little; stated making the distinction is a great point; he agrees with Mr. Foreman that special meetings and urgent meetings being lumped together is counterproductive. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether a special meeting, as used now, is anything that is not a regular meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated there is a further distinction in the section that special meetings do not apply just to the City Council, it applies to any special meeting of all bodies; the only body that is different is the City Council which requires a 12-day notice for regular meetings and seven-day notice for any special meetings. Commissioner Pauling inquired whether a thi… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,13 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 13 | The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Schwartz; stated one of the concerns the City Attorney's office would have is that the status quo of closed sessions remains in place. Commissioner Shabazz stated it is interesting that the issues which brought this up in the first place were two very controversial items in Alameda, referring to the City Manager incident and Measure A; the Planning Board meeting regarding the same topic was noticed a month out, so there was a lot of public participation and robust discussion; considering the constraints of closed sessions and also considering the challenges of participation now, some people do not have access to the meetings; the principle should be what will allow people to participate, no matter what the meeting is labeled; what is the maximum way for people to know about the meetings. Chair Schwartz moved approval to recommend four parts: 1) expand communications as to all meeting types to include social and new media; 2) for special meetings, meaning those meetings about discreet topics that require extensive discussion, that they are noticed 12-days out; 3) emergency meetings continue to be on the seven-day timeframe; and 4) closed session items continue on the seven-day timeframe. Commissioner Little inquired whether there will ever be a circumstance where noticing cannot be within seven days for emergency items, to which the City Clerk responded when the first declaration of emergency was issued, the Brown Act exception of 24 to 48 hour noticing was used when the issue was beyond the control of the City; maintaining that policy would also be helpful and can be done under the emergency section. Commissioner Little suggested an amendment to the motion which would be that special meeting notices would align with the regular meeting noticing timeframe for each particular body. Chair Schwartz stated he accepts the friendly amendment that there would be some carve-out for a statutorily authorized 24 hour period for noticing for exigent circumstances; regarding the… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,14 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 14 | Chair Schwartz stated it is a worthy consideration; he would suggest that, since the Commission is being asked for recommendations at this point, that he still recommends the 12-day noticing rule for special meetings and that the Commission be advised if it is not a good idea for any of the Commissions before there is a final resolution; the recommendation could be to increase public access and public transparency, and special meetings be held to the 12-day noticing requirement. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office would bring back draft language that reflects comments and direction from the Commission. Commissioner Tilos stated there are accessibility issues and accessibility is lowered even more during this pandemic; important and controversial issues, such as Charter amendments, should not be noticed in special meetings during a pandemic when participation is low. Commissioner Little disagreed; stated business has to continue; there is no idea how long the pandemic will last and City business cannot continue to be postponed; she would also argue that although the format of virtual meetings has been limiting to some people, it can also afford greater accessibility to the public who might not otherwise be able to attend a meeting and engage from home instead of in person; there are positives and negatives, but what is critical is expending all efforts to communicate and make sure the public has every opportunity to be aware of the various meetings and agendas that will be happening. Commissioner Tilos stated he would like to add to Chair Schwartz's first recommendation regarding communication; he would like to implore technology be used, including text notifications and allowing citizens to opt in to receive notification about specific meetings. Commissioner Little stated it would be an easy list since there are a number of Alamedans who already receive text notifications from the City regarding COVID updates. Chair Schwartz stated that he would like to move toward a vote if there … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,15 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 15 | Commissioner Tilos stated any situation that would prevent people from showing up, including a shelter-in-place order. The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether Commissioner Tilos would like something more specific than just a declaration of local emergency and a situation which would involve a shelter-in-place, to which Commissioner Tilos responded he is not opposed to a declaration of local emergency in the broader context. The City Clerk requested clarification that the Commission recommendation would be that those items just not be on special meetings. Commissioner Tilos stated his recommendation would be that such items would not be on any meeting agenda during local emergency situations. The City Clerk noted the City Council has already taken action to move two ballot measures forward in July; she just wants the Commission to be clear that items are in process right now. The motion failed due to a lack of second. Commission Communications Commissioner Shabazz stated with the recent arrest of Mali Watkins, there are some issues that overlap with the Commission; he probably has a slightly different perspective than Chair Schwartz regarding the amount of transparency regarding the information, considering his attempts to get information from the Police Department; there is list of demands for information from a group of young people which the OGC may be interested or able to address: 1) quarterly release of Police use of force; 2) independent oversight of Police review; and 3) the call for an audit of the Police budget; to what extent does the OGC want to make sure the people understand the City budget and the taxpayers funding; he wanted to raise these issues and see if there is a place for the OGC to better understand and make recommendations around the matters. Chair Schwartz stated he appreciates that there was no legal compulsion regarding the release of the information, it was voluntarily released for public access within two weeks; he would be interested in police review, but does not think it … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,16 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 16 | The City Clerk stated the next City Council meeting regarding the police topic is scheduled on Monday, June 29, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. Adjournment Commissioner Little moved approval of adjourning the meeting. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: No; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission June 24, 2020 16 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-08-03 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY AUGUST 3, 2020 7:00 P.M. Chair Schwartz convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Little, Pauling, Tilos and Chair Schwartz - 4. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Commissioner Shabazz joined the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael Roush, Assistant City Attorney John Le, and Assistant City Clerk Irma Glidden] Oral Communications None. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Minutes of the Meeting Held on June 24, 2020 Chair Schwartz stated he appreciates how detailed the minutes are and is impressed that everything was captured from the long meeting. Commissioner Pauling moved approval of the minutes. Vice Chair Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Commissioner Shabazz - 1] 3-B. Discuss and Provide Recommendations to the City Council Concerning Potential Amendments to Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code, as Amended, Concerning Special Meetings, Including the Setting and Noticing of Such Meetings Chair Schwartz stated the Commission was asked to provide input on the process of noticing special meetings; there was controversy regarding a special meeting on a proposed charter amendment and allowing full transparency and access; the Commission made recommendations. Stated he is concerned with the way Council uses special meetings and using an emergency to justify having a special meeting; the meetings have short notice and most Meeting of the Open Government Commission August 3, 2020 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );