pages
420 rows where body = "OpenGovernmentCommission" sorted by page
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: page
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2015-02-02 30
- 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
- 2016-02-01 13
- 2021-09-20 13
- 2018-02-05 12
- 2015-03-30 11
- 2019-12-18 11
- 2020-11-16 11
- 2018-11-14 9
- 2022-01-11 9
- 2022-02-07 9
- 2014-10-06 8
- 2015-10-14 8
- 2020-02-03 8
- 2021-08-02 8
- 2018-12-17 7
- 2019-07-23 7
- 2020-08-03 7
- 2012-05-07 6
- 2019-02-04 6
- 2020-12-14 5
- …
Link | body | date | page ▼ | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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/2021-11-01.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY NOVEMBER 1, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Montgomery, Reid, Shabazz and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger] NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMPLAINT HEARINGS 3-A. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed on September 21, 2021 Dorothy Freeman, Complainant, and Paul Foreman gave an Opening Statement and Presentation of Facts. Bradford Kuhn, Nossaman, City/Respondent, gave an Opening Statement and Presentation of Facts. Mr. Foreman gave a Reply to the City/Respondent Opening Statement and Presentation of Facts. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether correspondence was submitted for the September 7, 2021 Closed Session; stated a written submission encouraged purchase of the entire 2.8 acres. Ms. Freeman responded in the affirmative; stated that she probably made a statement; she has made so many that she cannot remember. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the term "pre-development agreement" is a technical term. Mr. Foreman responded in the negative; stated legally, there is no such thing as a pre- development agreement; a City ordinance states what has to go in to a Development Agreement (DA); two or three of the terms in the Settlement Agreement (SA) would also be in a DA. Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 1, 2021 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-02-04 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 4, 2013 7:00 P.M. The meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Aguliar, Cambra, Spanier, Tilos, Wong - 5. Absent: None. 1-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioner Spanier moved approval of nominating Commissioner Cambra as Chair. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Aguliar, Spanier, Tilos, and Wong - 4. Abstention: Commissioner Cambra - 1. Commissioner Spanier moved approval of nominating Commissioner Aguliar as Vice Chair. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Approve the October 1, 2012 Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Wong moved approval of the Minutes. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-B. Review the City of Alameda Public Records Index. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Tilos inquired about the City of Berkeley's numbering system. The City Clerk responded Alameda would not use Berkeley's numbering system; the Index would be customized for Alameda. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 4, 2013 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-10-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MONDAY OCTOBER 1, 2012 - - - 7:00 P.M. The meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Jensen, Oddie, Peterson, Spanier, and Wong - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA 2-A. Matthew James Fitzgerald, Alameda, introduced himself. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Approve the May 7, 2012 Meeting Minutes. Commission Jensen moved approval of the minutes with correction to the spelling of her last name on page 3. Following Commissioner Spanier's comments, the City Clerk clarified that agendas need to go out twelve days before a City Council meeting; stated a noticing complaint could be filed before a meeting is held. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-B. Receive a Status Update on the Public Records Index. The City Clerk stated the Public Records Index is required by the Sunshine Ordinance and would be posted on the City's website to inform people about the types of documents maintained in each department; the Sunshine Ordinance requires that documents be labeled "Open,' "Partially Open," or "Has been determined Exempt;" the list has been drafted and staff is finalizing the documents' open or exempt status; the Index would be brought back to the Commission once the status has been finalized. Commissioner Jensen inquired whether current City website documents would need to be categorized or just the new documents, to which the City Clerk responded all documents would be categorized. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS 4-A. Commissioner Peterson discussed the public's lack of awareness of the Commission; stated the Sunshine Ordinance should be added to the Open Government section on the website; future meeting dates should be on the calendar now; that he is still concerned with not having Commissioners' email addresses on the website; he Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 October 10, 2012 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-08-02 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY AUGUST 2, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid and Chair Tilos - 4. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: Vice Chair Shabazz - 1. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger] Oral Communications None. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Review of the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Form and Procedure Commissioner LoPilato gave a Power Point presentation. Commissioner Reid thanked Commissioner LoPilato for the excellent presentation; suggested the Commission consider an online complaint form process as well; stated the most streamlined approach is something as simple as possible for the average member of the community to be able to reach out to file a complaint; another important issue is what independent outside counsel would look like and who would decide; suggested considering a provisional approach such as having outside counsel for the next six months or for specific number of complaints; noted that she has questions regarding what a prehearing process and an informal complaint process would look like. Chair Tilos summarized Commissioner Reid's questions and comments. Commissioner Chen stated reading Commissioner LoPilato's report and seeing the visual presentation was very helpful; she compared it to having jury instructions, receiving a neutral presentation of the parameters and being able to decide whether or not a complaint matches up with the Commission's duties under the Sunshine Ordinance; she would really value having "jury" instructions as the Commission is the jury and not the judge. Chair Tilos thanked Commissioner LoPilato for the hard work; stated he is leaning towards having an impartial and neutral outside attorney guide the Open Government Commission (OGC), rather than someone from the City Attorney's office. Commissioner Chen stated she would like to test out having a neutral memo to see if it Meeting of the O… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 14, 2015 - - 7:00 P.M. Chair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Bonta, Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and Chair Aguilar - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the March 30, 2015 Meeting Commissioner Bonta stated she would pass on a few typos to the City Clerk. Commissioner Dieter moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Vice Chair Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-B. Hearing of Sunshine Ordinance Complaints filed September 15, 2015 The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation. John Klein stated he is embarrassed about needing to be present and thought about withdrawing the complaint because it seems trivial; however, it is not trivial; through the whole process, which has been skeletal, the response has not been as it should be; he submitted five individual records requests directly to the Mayor and each Councilmember because that is the way he wanted to do it; if the City Attorney wanted to consolidate the response, it would have been fine; however, the City Attorney's response on the 11th does not even say who he is responding for; the City Clerk is the custodian of records; that he did not know why he was getting an email from the City Attorney; he thought maybe it is on behalf of the Mayor, but did not know; while the response was timely, it did not include the information the rule requires, which is: when the documents will be ready, how the documents will be delivered and by whom; said information is not in the City Attorney's September 11th response; he did not know who the Attorney was responding for and the required information was not included in the three day response; the Attorney said he needed clarification; the City Attorney inquired if they could talk Wednesday; when they did talk Wednesday, the clarification the Assistant City Attorney needed was the timeframe of the requested documents; questione… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-02-06 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 6, 2017 7:00 P.M. Chair Foreman convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Aguilar, Dieter, Little, and Chair Foreman - 4. Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the October 3, 2016 Meeting Vice Chair Dieter moved approval of the October 3, 2016 Minutes. Commissioner Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] 3-B. Accept the Annual Public Report Vice Chair Dieter stated she thinks the agenda title, "Accept the Annual Public Report" is unclear; she suggested adding the words "on alleged violations of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Number of Public Records Requests" to the title the next time the report is on the agenda, so that the public will know exactly what the report is when reading the agenda title. The Assistant City Attorney took note of Vice Chair Dieter's comments. Commissioner Aguilar moved approval of accepting the annual report. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Vice Chair Dieter inquired the time frame of the Semi-Annual and Annual Reports, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded she does not know at the moment, but will provide the answer at the next meeting. Vice Chair Dieter requested a copy of the revised Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 6, 2017 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-12-14 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY DECEMBER 14, 2020 - - 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Little, Pauling, Shabazz, Schwartz and Chair Tilos - 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 November 16, 2020 Meeting Commissioner Schwartz stated he noted some changes in the minutes. The City Clerk acknowledged and confirmed the edits. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Little seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Schwartz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. 3-B. Consider the Subcommittee Proposal Regarding Potential Amendments to Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code to Replace the Null and Void Remedy and Consider Sending the Proposal to the City Council as the Commission's Recommendation Commissioner Schwartz expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Pauling, the City Clerk, and the Chief Assistant City Attorney for working with him on the proposal; stated the proposal captures all the issues discussed at the June 2020 meeting; thanked former Commissioner Paul Foreman for his ideas which lead to drafting the amendments; stated that he did additional research into the argument that the Commission could not implement a requirement of a supermajority vote via an ordinance; he researched the issue extensively and found it is incorrect; the Charter actually states: "the vote of three members of the Council, except as otherwise provided, shall be necessary for any act of or by the Council;" the phrase is very important because it does not create a sacred Meeting of the Open Government Commission December 14, 2020 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY APRIL 5, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz, and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger; Special Counsel Kristen Rogers, Olson Remcho; Police Captain Jeff Emmitt, Assistant City Attorney Alan Cohen] Oral Communications None. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Minutes of the March 1, 2021 Meeting Commissioner Chen stated Amy Gong Liu's name was misspelled; the City Clerk noted it will be corrected. Commissioner Reid stated at the end, she made comments regarding submitting a null and void remedy. Commissioner LoPilato stated she had small edits which she emailed to the Clerk's office and shared them with the Commission. Vice Chair Shabazz stated his changes clarifying why he stated he was recusing himself from the Jackson Park Committee because he was invited to be a part of the Committee. Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the minutes with the clarifications. Commissioner Chen seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. 3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed by Scott Morris on May 12, 2020 Vice Chair Shabazz stated it was suggested by the City Attorney's office that he recuse himself; he publicly commented on Mr. Morris's initial request via Twitter; he wants to Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 2015 7:00 P.M. The City Clerk convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Bonta, Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and Chair Aguilar - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Dieter requested an explanation of the responsibilities of the Chair and Vice Chair. City Clerk Weisiger stated the Chair runs the meetings and the Vice Chair would run the meetings in the Chair's absence. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether it [the Chair and Vice Chair responsibility] is only at the meetings, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tuazon suggested that the Chair and Vice Chair be the representatives appointed by the Mayor and Vice Mayor. Commissioner Foreman noted that he was appointed by the Mayor; inquired who was appointed by the Vice Mayor. Commissioner Dieter responded that she was appointed by the Vice Mayor. Commissioner Bonta inquired how long Commissioner Aguilar has served on the Commission, to which Commissioner Aguilar responded one year. Commissioner Bonta inquired how long others have served, to which Commissioners Foreman and Dieter noted they were newly appointed. Commissioner Bonta stated that she would like to have Commissioner Aguilar serve as the Chair. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the Commissioners suggested are interested in serving as the Chair. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 6, 2014 - - 7:00 P.M. [Note: Revisions made by Commissioner Dieter and approved by the Commission at the February 2, 2015 meeting are reflected in bold and by strikethrough.] Chair Cambra convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Spanier, Tuazon, and Chair Cambra - 3. Absent: Commissioner Aguilar and Wong - 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Approve the October 7, 2013 Meeting Minutes. Continued. In response to Chair Cambra, City Clerk Weisiger stated the minutes could be continued to the next meeting. 3-B. Consider potential revisions to the City's Sunshine Ordinance. Chair Cambra stated two commissioners are missing and the commission membership might change after the election; inquired whether the matter should be addressed. Commissioner Spanier stated the potential revisions seemed to be housekeeping; suggested the Commission review the list and decide about table any controversial items. Commissioner Tuazon inquired whether five members need to be present, to which Chair Cambra responded the three members present represent a quorum. Interim Assistant City Attorney Roush gave a brief presentation about some housekeeping and substantive changes to the Sunshine Ordinance were needed and to ask for direction to send to the City Council. In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry about numbering issues, the Interim Assistant City Attorney stated that he was using the on-line version, which differed. The City Clerk stated the City's codifiers made an error, which is being corrected. The Interim Assistant City Attorney clarified the numbers. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 6, 2014 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2016 7:00 P.M. Acting Chair Foreman convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Dieter, Tuazon, and Acting Chair Foreman - 3. Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the October 14, 2015 Meeting Commissioner Dieter moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.] 3-B. Consider Further Revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance Amendments Acting Chair Foreman outlined the packet documents; inquired how the Commission should review the items. The Assistant City Attorney responded the City Council concurred with the changes that the Commission made with the exception of the items identified in the staff report. Acting Chair Foreman stated there are four items: 1) use of electronic communication devices; 2) submitting comments when a policy body member is not present at a meeting; City staff disagreed with the Commission's recommendations on said two items; 3) requiring all City Council meetings to be live streamed; and 4) responding to public records requests. The Assistant City Attorney stated there is also an item about public comments by members of policy bodies and opinions of public concern; with respect to the use of electronic communication devices, staff recommended a rule that the Council thought would prevent use of any type of device except iPads or laptops when accessing agenda materials; the Commission felt the provision was too restrictive and thought that there should be a little more leeway; the City Council agreed; staff has divided the item into three parts: 1) when a policy body is considering a general legislative matter, the use of devices would be strongly discouraged, but not prohibited; 2) when the policy body is considering a quasi-judicial matter, electronic communication devices would be Meeting of the Open Gover… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.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/2015-03-30.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY MARCH 30, 2015 7:00 P.M. Chair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Dieter, Foreman, and Chair Aguilar - 3. Absent: Commissioners Bonta, Tuazon - 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the February 2, 2015 Meeting Chair Aguilar stated there were a couple places in the meeting minutes said Vice Mayor which should say Commissioner and the Sunshine Ordinance should be capitalized, in a few places. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as amended. Commissioner Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. 3-B. Potential Revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance Assistant City Attorney Roush gave a brief presentation outlining the changes in the redlined version of the Sunshine Ordinance. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he was the one who raised the issue; he is satisfied with the changes. Commissioner Dieter thanked the Assistant City Attorney for the layout of the revisions; stated it is easier to follow. The Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation. Commissioner Dieter stated that she has problems with Section 2-91.17; the title is: "Public Comment by Members of Policy Bodies;" in general, the Section is not about public comment by policy bodies; it is about individuals, which led her to reread this clause again; she expressed concern at the last meeting and continues to have the same concern; the issue is not a sunshine issue; the role and limitations of boards and commissions is spelled out in the Charter; the last sentence which addresses appointed policy bodies should be deleted. Meeting of the Open Government Commission March 30, 2015 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 5, 2018 7:00 P.M. Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Foreman, Henneberry, Little, and Chair Dieter - 4. Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the October 2, 2017 Meeting Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of the minutes with a comment; noted that he made comments about his experience on the Planning Board prior to the nomination of Chair and Vice Chair; requested the comment be included in the October 2, 2017 minutes. Vice Chair Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Henneberry, Little and Chair Dieter - 3. Abstention: Commissioner Foreman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.] 3-B. Presentation on Repairing Alameda's Aging Infrastructure and Related Survey The Public Information Officer gave a Power Point presentation. In response to Vice Chair Little's inquiry regarding local funding options, the Public Information Officer stated nothing has been proposed at this point; a question was included in the telephone survey. Vice Chair Little stated infrastructure improvements are dependent on development; inquired whether there are alterative ideas if development, such as the Del Monte or Alameda Point projects, are not able to acquire funding. The Public Information Officer responded that she is not sure, but she would ask the Public Works Director and provide a response. Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether Alameda really has the third oldest park system in the nation, to which the Public Information Officer responded that she is sure it is true; stated the City should have more information about it online, which she would add to the City's website. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 February 5, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-10-07 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 7, 2013 - - 7:00 P.M. [Note: Revisions made by Commissioner Dieter and approved by the Commission at the February 2, 2015 meeting are reflected in bold and by strikethrough.] Chair Cambra convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Aguilar, Spanier, Tilos, and Chair Cambra - 4. Absent: Commissioner Wong - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Approve the February 4, 2013 Meeting Minutes. Vice Chair Aguilar noted a correction on page 2, paragraph 3: "Vice Mayor Aguilar" should be "Vice Chair Aguilar". Assistant City Clerk Glidden noted the change. Vice Chair Aguilar moved approval of the Minutes with the change. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 3-B. Status Update on the Public Records Index. The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation that stated that Alameda follows Berkeley's Index; it has two parts; that everything will be kept for five years at a minimum; disclosures would be added at a later date and will go to Council for approval. Assistant City Attorney Cohen stated there may be minor changes to the retention schedule; the City Attorney's office will cross check the schedule to the Secretary of State and City of Berkeley general guidelines. Chair Cambra inquired if a column which indicates the status of items would be added to the schedule, to which the Assistant City Clerk responded in the affirmative. In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated that adding the statutory references is a work in progress and may not be complete before the matter is brought to Council. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 4, 2013 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY MAY 3, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz, and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger; Assistant City Attorney John Le] Oral Communications None. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Minutes of the April 4, 2021 Meeting Commissioner LoPilato made a correction to the Police Captain comments; inquired about redactions. The City Clerk stated the redactions were missed and will be done. Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the corrected minutes. Commissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. 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, to Replace "Null and Void" Remedy. The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Reid stated her position proposes to include Commissioner LoPilato's suggestions; her main concern is in the penalty section; inquired whether Commissioner received her last correspondence; inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney would review the proposed amendments section by section or using another method. Chair Tilos stated there are some pretty big pieces of the proposal, but the meat of it is how to correct the null and void; suggested Commissioners identify the top five sections Meeting of the Open Government Commission May 3, 2021 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-06-27.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-06-27 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY JUNE 28, 2015 - 2:00 P.M. A Special meeting was called to allow the Commission to attend a Small Group Discussion is being conducted by the League of Women Voters concerning the Governmental Transparency. Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission June 27, 2015 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-06-27.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/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/2021-07-19.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-07-19 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY JULY 19, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz, and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger] Oral Communications Paul Foreman, Alameda, stated regarding Section 2-93.8, a quasi-judicial decision is not a policy decision; it is an application of City law to the facts in the Sunshine Ordinance; the current proposal language drafted by Councilmember Knox White and Commissioner LoPilato appropriately deals with the issue; urged the Commission to support the conclusions. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Minutes of the May 3, 2021 Meeting Commissioner Chen stated she would like to review the video to see whether she used the term superheroes as reflected in the minutes as she did not recall saying it. The City Clerk stated the sentence could just be struck from the minutes. Commissioner Reid stated that she wanted to make a correction that she had her hand raised but Vice Chair Shabazz spoke out of turn; it should be noted that Chair Tilos did call on her and she did not have an opportunity to speak; she also wanted to remind the Commission of the Rosenberg's Rules of Order and the courtesy of decorum where it is always best for only one person at a time to have the floor. Vice Chair Shabazz stated as a point of order the item of discussion is the minutes and is not the appropriate time for Commissioner Reid's comments. Commissioner Reid stated it is appropriate because it is best for every speaker to be first recognized by the Chair before proceeding to speak; it is a relevant point that should be made and pertains to a particular point in the minutes. Chair Tilos stated he does not remember the incident and apologized if something was done out of order; there was some confusion with the phones and raised hands but he Meeting of the Open Government Commissio… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.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 |
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/2017-10-02.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-10-02 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 2, 2017 - - - 7:00 P.M. Vice Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Henneberry, Little, Schwartz, and Vice Chair Dieter - 4. Absent: Chair Foreman - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the February 6, 2017 Meeting Vice Chair Dieter stated the minutes should reflect a minor change to correct her suggested title to "Accept the Annual Public Report on Alleged Violations of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Number of Public Records Requests." The Assistant City Clerk took note of Vice Chair Dieter's comments. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the February 6, 2017 Minutes. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.] 3-B. Select Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Little inquired what the discussion was at the February 6 meeting regarding the election of officers. The Assistant City Clerk responded that in response to an inquiry by Chair Foreman about when the election of officers took place, it was determined that the election takes place in February, according to the by-laws; however, the last election was in October, 2016; the Commission could do the election tonight or wait until February 2018. Vice Chair Dieter stated that she recommends doing the election tonight since there are no other agenda items. Commissioner Henneberry stated that on most of the Boards and Commissions he has served, the Vice Chair steps up to the Chair, and then another member, usually the most senior person on the Board, fills the Vice Chair seat; stated he is prepared to make a motion. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 2, 2017 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.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/2012-05-07.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-05-07 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY-MAY 7,2012--7:00 P.M. The meeting was convened at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Jensen, Oddie, Peterson, Spanier, and Wong - 5. [Note: Commissioner Jensen arrived at 7:15 p.m.] Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Approve Commission By-Laws. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Spanier stated that she envisions the Commission as a body that would respond to complaints; the purpose of the Commission would be to develop an infrastructure that would include goals; that she would like to understand the overwhelming thrust of the Commission. The City Clerk stated the Commission's purpose was taken from the Sunshine Ordinance; the Sunshine Ordinance established the role of the Commission. Commissioner Spanier stated the Commission has quite a few duties and responsibilities; regular meetings will be held, goals will be set, and the Commission will be somewhat involved in a lot of other committee work. The City Clerk stated the Commission is required to meet semi-annually and as complaints are filed; the Commission would tally up complaints and report back to Council; the Commission would review how the ordinance is working. In response to Commissioner Oddie's inquiry regarding review of notices, the City Attorney stated the Commission could look back in six months to ensure that staff is meeting the Sunshine Ordinance requirements; review would not be needed after every meeting. The City Clerk stated a particular section of the Sunshine Ordinance addresses language and timing of particular notices; the Commission would review the boiler plate format. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 May 7, 2012 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-07-14.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-07-14 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY JULY 14, 2016 10:00 A.M. A Special meeting was called to allow the Commission to attend Sunshine Ordinance Training. Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission July 14, 2016 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-07-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY DECEMBER 6, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Montgomery, Reid, Shabazz and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Assistant City Attorney John Le; Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger] NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT Anonymous [not able to speak; spoke under second section of Non-Agenda Public Comment] COMPLAINT HEARINGS 3-A. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed on September 21, 2021 Rasheed Shabazz, Complainant, gave an Opening Statement and Presentation of Facts. The Assistant City Attorney, City/Respondent, gave an Opening Statement and Presentation of Facts. Mr. Shabazz gave a Reply to the City/Respondent Opening Statement and Presentation of Facts. Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether the Commission should be considering the documents produced at the time the complaint was made or documents produced at the time the complaint reaches the Commission on the hearing date. The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the question is about the two alleged violations being considered separately in terms of the statute of limitations argument. Vice Chair LoPilato responded in the negative; stated that she is curious about whether a violation would be moot if it is cured before the hearing. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it is up to the Commission's discretion; whether or not there was a technical violation that has now been cured versus no violation is a factor to weigh; it is at the Commission's discretion to make either finding. Vice Chair LoPilato stated screenshots provided today have been referenced; she has Meeting of the Open Government Commission December 6, 2021 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.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/2021-02-01.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz, and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie, Assistant City Attorney John Le; and City Clerk Lara Weisiger] Oral Communications None. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Minutes of the December 14, 2020 Meeting. Chair Tilos stated that since only he and Commissioner Shabazz were present at the December meeting, one of the new Commissioners can be the third vote if they read the minutes. The City Clerk concurred with Chair Tilos, stated that a new Commissioner could watch the video and confirm the minutes are accurate. Commissioner Reid stated that she watched the meeting video and moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner LoPilato stated she also watched the video and is comfortable voting on the minutes. Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion. Chair Tilos made brief comments on the minutes regarding his method of running the meetings; requested clarification about the Commission's recommendation to bring an item [subcommittee enforcement proposal] before the Council, which did not happen. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated he interpreted the item as it was the intent of staff to bring the item back to the OGC for the opportunity to provide input on the recommendations. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2021 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-10-03 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 3, 2016 - - 7:00 P.M. p Chair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and Chair Aguilar - 4. Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Dieter moved approval of nominating Commissioner Foreman as Chair. Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] Chair Foreman moved approval of nominating Commissioner Dieter as Vice Chair. Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] 3-B. Minutes of the February 1, 2016 Meeting Commissioner Dieter noted that she provided some corrections to the February 1 minutes to the Assistant City Clerk. Commissioner Aguilar moved approval of the minutes with the corrections. Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] 3-C. City Attorney Semi-Annual Reports to the City Council The City Attorney stated her office complied with the Sunshine Ordinance requirement and is showing evidence of the same in the staff report. Vice Chair Dieter inquired whether the discussion about the closed session minutes remaining exempt from disclosure is included under the background or discussion section of the staff report. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 3, 2016 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.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/2021-09-20.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-09-20 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid and Chair Tilos - 4. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: Vice Chair Shabazz - 1. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger] Oral Communications None. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Minutes of the July 19, 2021 and August 2, 2021 Meetings Commissioner LoPilato proposed changes to the July 19 minutes; stated on Page 12, her main point was that the percentage allocation for internal OGC structural issues should be small and not a big chunk of the report; on Page 15, Vice Chair Shabazz talked about a public ethics commission report and she does not know if the discussion was clear that the report was from the City of Oakland; on Page 16, she was delineating things that seemed right for inclusion which got lumped together; she will send brief language corrections to the Clerk; on Page 19, there is a typo: Sacrament instead of Sacramento; on Page 23, there should be more context regarding when the Chief Assistant City Attorney sent an email instead of just stating she gave an overview. Commissioner Reid stated she made comments at the last meeting and wants to reiterate that her changes were noted properly. Commissioner Chen moved approval of the July 19, 2021 minutes as amended. Commissioner Reid seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Chair Shabazz - 1] Commissioner Reid stated the minutes mention that she offered to work with the City Clerk and it was followed through. Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of the August 2, 2021 minutes. Commissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Meeting of the Open Government Commission September 20, 2021 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-01-11 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY JANUARY 11, 2022 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:11 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Cambra, Chen, Montgomery, LoPilato and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger] NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMPLAINT HEARINGS None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4-A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, Chair Tilos summarized the selection process. Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of electing Vice Chair LoPilato as Chair and Commissioner Chen as Vice Chair. Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. 4-B. Minutes of the December 6, 2021 Meeting Vice Chair LoPilato outlined minor corrections. Commissioner Chen moved approval of the minutes with the corrections. Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair LoPilato. Ayes: 5. Meeting of the Open Government Commission January 11, 2022 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY NOVEMBER 16, 2020 7:00 P.M. Chair Schwartz convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Little, Pauling, 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, Attorney James Harrison; and City Clerk Lara Weisiger] Oral Communications Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he was concerned about the way the Commission functions; that he was told he could only submit a complaint via oral communication; he is frustrated the October meeting was cancelled and there is lack of coordination; requested clarification on first and second readings of ordinances. The City Clerk stated that she explained to Mr. Garfinkle that since he was not submitting a Sunshine Ordinance complaint, his matter could go before the Commission under Oral Communications; when he filed a complaint, which was later withdrawn and then refiled, it was past the deadline. Chair Schwartz stated that Mr. Garfinkle could file a complaint or submit a letter prior to the next meeting if he wishes; the October meeting cancelation was not as a decision of the Commission and he shares the frustration. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Minutes of the Meeting Held on August 3, 2020 Chair Schwartz stated he would like to strike the part where Commission members were joking about ear injection technology; clarified a sentence to state why "an item could not be added." The City Clerk noted the changes. Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes. 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. Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 17, 2020 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.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/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/2021-10-04.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-10-04 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 4, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom and Vice Chair Shabazz arrived at 7:04 p.m.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger] Oral Communications None. Regular Agenda Items 3-B. Adopted Proposed Amendments to the Bylaw Commissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she has no further comments as to any legal aspects of the Bylaws with exception of referencing the blank in Section 4-B.3 regarding procedures for complaint hearings; she wants to make sure it gets completed if there is a future motion; at the last meeting, she mentioned that she wanted to verify the revision regarding the 15-minute public comment time limit; she is comfortable with the insertion. Commissioner Reid stated that she had a chance to read the correspondence submitted by Jay Garfinkle; acknowledge the extensive work; recommended taking additional time to digest it and allow other members of the public an opportunity to comment and take the ideas into consideration; stated her take-away from his letter are optimizing transparency and participation; Mr. Garfinkle's suggestions address said values. Commissioner LoPilato continued her presentation. Speaker: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he put a lot of effort in reviewing the proposed revisions; he thinks both the original Bylaws and complaint processes are very lacking; the public should have every opportunity to participate in the process; what matters now is the revisions by Commissioner LoPilato and the suggestions he submitted; his offerings are extensive and are based on many years experience in parliamentary procedure; urged the Commission to make every effort to optimize enhancing the openness and Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 4, 2021 … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-02-03.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-02-03 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 3, 2014 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 February 3, 2014 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-02-03.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/2021-03-01.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-03-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY MARCH 1, 2021 7:00 P.M. Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz, and Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger; Transportation Planner Lisa Foster; and Special Counsel James Harrison, Olson Remcho] Oral Communications None. Regular Agenda Items 3-A. Minutes of the February 1, 2021 Meeting Commissioner Reid stated noted there is missing information which should be added into the minutes. Commissioner Shabazz stated he sent an email to the City Clerk with clarifications to the minutes regarding: a suggestion from Mr. Garfinkle regarding information in the Annual Report, the selection of the Chair and Vice Chair, his statement about never having all- nighters, Commissioner Communications and a point of order. Commissioner Reid stated she would like public comments to be preceded with a "Public Comment" heading to make it clear, to which the City Clerk stated the heading can be added to the minute format. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding Commissioner Shabazz's correspondence being in the minutes, the City Clerk stated the correspondence would not be included in the minutes because it is already attached to the item as part of the record. Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes with the clarifications. Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. Meeting of the Open Government Commission March 1, 2021 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-02-07 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 7, 2022 7:00 P.M. Chair LoPilato convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Cambra, Chen, Montgomery, Tilos and Chair LoPilato - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. [Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie; City Clerk Lara Weisiger] NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he feels the Commission just rubber-stamps whatever the City Attorney or outside counsel says; Commissioners do not have much training for their position; discussed the First Amendment Coalition, a non-profit organization of attorneys who are experts in the Brown Act; suggested Commissioners purchase guides; a guide addresses the social media issue. COMPLAINT HEARINGS None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4-A. Minutes of the January 11, 2022 Meeting Commissioner Tilos moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Cambra seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5. 4-B. Approval of the Annual Report on Issues Arising from the Implementation of the Sunshine Ordinance and Consider Agendizing a Discussion to Review the 30 Day Mandatory Hearing Chair LoPilato requested the recommendation from Commissioner Cambra be considered separate under agenda Section 6. Commissioner Chen gave a presentation. *** Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 7, 2022 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.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/2019-02-04.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/2021-11-01.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 2 | Commissioner LoPilato inquired how an eminent domain proceeding can be resolved via settlement if certain segments have to be discussed in open session. Mr. Foreman responded the actual negotiation has to be done in Closed Session; stated once negotiations are completed, the City Attorney could simply ask to present the SA at an open meeting of the City Council for consideration and public input; if it is not accepted, it would start over again; compared the matter to labor negotiations. Commissioner LoPilato inquired how the matter would be agendized, to which Mr. Foreman responded it would have to be agendized for the next meeting; stated in February, the City indicated an agreement was reached in principle; he would not be worried about a two-week delay between a Closed Session and the final presentation. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding appraisals, Mr. Foreman stated the question is not germane to the issue, but he could answer if there is no objection from the Commission; he attended a neighborhood meeting at Jean Sweeney Park where Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft explained the original appraisal was approximately $1 million and that the railroad came back with $8 million; the Mayor further explained that due to the large disparity, the Council got a second appraisal, which was significantly higher and led Council to believe the City could not afford to purchase the entire property; he asked the Mayor about the second appraisal; the Mayor said the City Attorney instructed it cannot be revealed. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Mr. Kuhn stated there was a confidential exchange of appraisals between the City and Union Pacific in the middle of litigation; pursuant to an agreement signed by the parties, the City is not allowed to disclose the valuation information presented by Union Pacific; he is able to say that the second appraisal was significantly higher; the Closed Session was necessary to discuss the risks of litigation on the potential exposure; he does not see any way to have candid d… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-02-04 | 2 | Vice Chair Aguliar inquired whether the list presented tonight would be on the City's website. The City Clerk responded the list would be posted on the website following City Council review. Chair Cambra stated having an Index which the average citizen can understand is important; questioned whether the Index should be available in other languages; stated there should be a brief explanation in layman's terms for why a document would be "Exempt;" some records, such as autopsies and real estate transactions, might require a split status that changes from "Exempt" to "Open;" some documents are prevented [from disclosure] by operation of law, such as personnel records; however, the "Exempt" status of some records might be discretionary, which should be reviewed. Vice Chair Aguliar stated citations to Code Sections should be included. The City Clerk stated said citations are required by the Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner Tilos suggested a hyperlink be created when the list is posted to the website. Chair Cambra inquired whether a hyperlink would incur increased costs, to which the City Clerk responded additional staff time would be needed. Chair Cambra stated everyone needs to be mindful of the possible burden of increased staff time and costs. The City Clerk stated there are going to be costs to develop a new Citywide digital records program; staff is identifying funding; records management is a Council priority. Commissioner Tilos noted translating the Index into other languages would be an extra cost. Chair Cambra stated Google has a language conversion tool; however, the City would have an obligation to ensure translation is accurate. Vice Chair Aguliar inquired whether Chair Cambra is suggesting that only the explanation of the Index be translated into different languages. Chair Cambra responded that he would want to know what the expense would be to translate the entire Index. Vice Chair Aguliar suggested only translating the explanation and not translating the entire Index. Chair Cambra stated that he would l… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-10-01 | 2 | does not believe public correspondence should go through the City Clerk's office but should go directly to the Commission; not having Commissioners' email addresses on the website by now is inexcusable and unacceptable; that he has addressed said concern with the Deputy City Manager. Commissioner Jensen concurred with Commissioner Peterson; urged adding Commissioner e-mail addresses and fax number on letterhead; stated Commissioner email addresses should be unique rather than using the City Clerk's office email address to ensure continuity and privacy. Chair Oddie noted the Commission's meeting date and minutes are listed on the City's website. Commissioner Petersen stated no one attended tonight's meeting; that he does not understand why Commission meeting dates are only calendared on the City's website shortly before a meeting. The City Attorney stated Commissioner Petersen's concern [regarding email addresses] would be restated to the Deputy City Manager; a major revamp of the City's website is underway; domain names have been discussed; clarified that the City Clerk is the repository of all City records and complaints need to go through the City Clerk's office. Chair Oddie inquired whether any complaints have been filed, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated a meeting would have been scheduled if a complaint was filed. Commissioner Jensen requested that the City Clerk's email address be placed on the next agenda. The City Clerk stated all agendas contain said contact information. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Wong moved approval of adjourning the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 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 2 October 10, 2012 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-08-02 | 2 | works; she is not convinced either way whether outside legal counsel is needed or whether it could be done in-house with City Attorney staff; if the Commission is not satisfied with the product, then the alternative could be tried; all attorneys are trained to argue multiple sides of any issue; she would like to see a neutral memo first. Commissioner Reid stated the Commission's task is to ask what is the best way for the OGC to serve the public; the OGC needs to ensure that someone who is bringing forward a complaint receives the best chance of being heard and understood; suggested having outside, independent counsel for the next few meetings to see what that would look like; stated the complaints heard this year already took the other approach with the City Attorney's office drafting resolutions, which had a lot of confusion; she would like to try the outside counsel approach, but would like to know a cost estimate first. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she does see the two paths as the most desirable; she is leaning towards the option of what the City Attorney's office proposed because it is an incremental step; there has actually never been a neutral memo come from the City Attorney's office; everything has always been viewed by everyone writing it as an advocacy piece; the City Attorney's office prefers to structure it with the Chief Assistant City Attorney providing advice to the Commission and having outside counsel when necessary; suggested leaning into trust and seeing what that looks like; the memos would be put forth publicly; the Commission would be very aware if they are not neutral; she would also like more guardrails in place and a commitment that the OGC would be receiving an instructional memo. Chair Tilos stated that he would be supportive of trying out a restructured process of having a walled-off Chief Assistant City Attorney, along with providing a neutral memo; it would be a marginal step towards building trust between the OGC and City Attorney's office. Commissioner LoPilato stated it is … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 2 | disingenuous; he did not need to deal with a particular Attorney; if an Attorney is out of the office for three days, the City should assign someone else to be responsible for a response; eight days into the ten day period after the conversation with the Attorney, a 14 day extension was requested because the request was voluminous; the conversation was at 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon, by 5:30 p.m., the Attorney knew that the response was voluminous; questioned how he learned so much so quickly; following the emails provided, the Attorney was asked about the definition of voluminous and never replied; the September 11th response was inadequate because it did not include when, how and by whom; if the City's position is that the complaint is frivolous, he suggests timelines mean something under the rule; provided an example of timeliness involved with receiving a parking ticket; timeliness should mean something in this instance and should be more meaningful for the City Attorney; the responsibility to timelines does not decrease as it goes up, but rather includes all of the responsibilities and assumes a much higher standard; that he is a consumer of public records; he has done a number of public record requests with the City Clerk; it is never an issue; rather than getting an email in three days telling him when he will receive the documents, he gets the documents; he is never told the documents will be provided next week; by the end of three days, he has the documents; he submitted a records request this week; 12 minutes later, he received an email from the City Clerk telling when, by whom and how; timelines matter; the complaint is not trivial given all the other incidentals of the interaction and the disingenuous nature of how the request was handled by the Attorney. Vice Chair Foreman inquired if Mr. Klein has received the documents, to which Mr. Klein responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Foreman inquired if he received the documents on October 2nd, to which Mr. Klein responded that he received them on Octobe… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-02-06 | 2 | The Assistant City Clerk stated she would provide copies to all Commissioners. In response to Chair Foreman's inquiry about when he was elected Chair, the Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission meets twice a year and he was elected in October 2016. Chair Foreman stated he thought the election of officers takes place at the first meeting in February. The Assistant City Attorney stated she will check on the practice, review the by-laws, and inform the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden Assistant City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 6, 2017 2 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-12-14 | 2 | requirement of three votes for all matters that cannot be changed without a Charter amendment; the proposal lays out a host of other examples requiring a supermajority; things as basic as the Council suspending Rosenburg's Rules of Order, which governs proceedings, needing a four-fifths vote; there are other instances in the Charter that specifically include the phrase "except as otherwise provided;" discussed the sparse authorities that were presented against the proposals; stated the case authorities do not suggest that the Commission cannot make such a proposal; in fact, in some ways the arguments support the proposal. Chair Tilos stated that he appreciates all the examples provided to defend the subcommittee's proposal; it gives the Council a lot to support the recommendation. In response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry regarding the proper meeting process, Chair Tilos stated since it is more cumbersome with Zoom, he prefers to chair the meetings more informally and will not require Commissioners to raise hands or to be called to speak; he will open up the discussion for Commissioners to make opening comments; then, after the presentations, will allow Commissioners to jump into discussion. Commissioner Shabazz stated that he is interested in asserting directly what the Commission is attempting to do with the proposal rather than getting into the details. Commissioner Little stated she appreciates how clear and concise the proposal is; thanked the subcommittee for finding another legislative statute for the Commission to proceed with teeth in the ordinance; stated that she fully supports the proposal. Commissioner Pauling acknowledged Commissioner Schwartz for his efforts in the legal aspects of the proposal and the City Clerk for clarifying the timeline; stated that she is thrilled with the final product and fully supports it. Commissioner Schwartz stated the proposal accomplishes what Commissioner Shabazz wanted by presenting the basics before getting into the weeds. Commissioner Shabazz clarified his commen… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 2 | publicly state that he will not be recusing himself, but will make impartial decisions based upon the facts that are presented tonight and also the information that he has reviewed. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office legal opinion is that Vice Chair Shabazz should recuse himself; she wants to give more context to some specifics on the basis for the recommendation; Vice Chair Shabazz did recommend Mr. Morris file a complaint with the OGC publicly via Twitter; it is the City Attorney's opinion that the comment suggested to Mr. Morris that Vice Chair Shabazz would be a receptive audience to Mr. Morris's complaint and that it went beyond just giving information to the public about the complaint process; she is informing the entire Commission of the basis for the advice because of the fact that, should the Commission take action regarding Mr. Morris's complaint and should that action be reviewed by a court, courts do find and do examine the propriety of recusals and whether a recusal was made or not; the City Attorney's office believes that the decision handed down by the Commission could be imperiled or weakened on a judicial review because of the fact that Vice Chair Shabazz has a basis for recusal; she indicated to Vice Chair Shabazz that it is his decision whether to recuse himself and he indicated that he would not recuse himself. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding how to proceed with Vice Chair Shabazz' recusal issue, the City Clerk stated that there is not anything specific in the bylaws directing it, which she will check quickly. Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he understood the bylaws that someone should state what the concern is and then they can continue; in preparation of Ramadan, he will be stepping away from the meeting briefly to break his fast but will be joining the discussion. The City Clerk stated she just briefly looked though the bylaws and did not see specific direction on recusals. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether there could be some clarity on t… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 2 | Commissioner Aguilar and Foreman both responded that they are interested. Commissioner Dieter stated that she would be fine with being the Vice Chair. Commissioner Bonta moved approval of selecting Commissioner Aguilar as the Chair. Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion since Commissioner Aguilar is more experienced. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Dieter moved approval of selecting Commissioner Foreman as the Vice Chair since he was appointed by the Mayor. Commissioner Tuozon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-B. Approve the October 7, 2013 and the October 6, 2014 Meeting Minutes The City Clerk noted that she asked Commissioners to view videos in order to weigh in [on the minutes] since there was change in the majority [of the Commission membership]; stated hopefully, at least three members are prepared to vote on the minutes. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether everyone read the minutes and watched the video, to which the Commissioners responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Dieter stated that she finds it disturbing for the Open Government Commission that one of the meetings was two years old; the Commission should not let that happen; that she hopes this Commission tries to approve the minutes at the consecutive meeting immediately following; plus, if it is close to an election cycle, she would not mind having a special meeting just to approve the minutes so that the next Commissioners that take our place are not faced with trying to understand the intent behind other people and what they were saying to approve the minutes. The City Clerk stated unfortunately the meeting last February ended up being canceled due to lack of a quorum; for the October meeting, two members ended up being absent and Commissioner Tuazon was new; staff did not anticipate that [absences] and did not request members to view [the video] ahead of time; apologized for the circumstance; stated that she appreciated the suggestion to hold a specia… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 2 | Chair Cambra inquired whether the numbering has been corrected, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Chair Cambra suggested each item in the staff report be addressed individually; noted Section 2-91.1.d defines policy body, but policy body is referred to before the definition. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated clarification could be done. In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry regarding Section 2-91.1.c. defining occasion, the City Clerk stated the definition is to address what is not a meeting. Chair Cambra stated "passive meeting body" should be a definition of the people that make up the body, not the event; suggested ceremonial occasions be addressed under the meeting section. The Interim Assistant City Attorney responded the matter could be clarified to include advisory committee or advisory body. The City Clerk stated the definition ties into Section 2-91.2; noted the definition attempts to capture what is noticed and not noticed, does not require an agenda. Chair Cambra stated the intent is understood, but the Section should be moved. The City Clerk stated Section 2-91.2 would also have to be revised; "passive meeting body" is social and does not require an agenda. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated staff could work on the language; reviewed the first item in the staff report: use of electronic devices. In response to Commissioner Spanier's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Council uses iPads to view the packet. Chair Cambra inquired whether a phone call could be made and whether the iPads have internet access, to which the City Clerk responded the iPads do have internet access and could be used to text or email. Chair Cambra inquired whether the internet access could be disabled. The City Clerk responded the packet is on the internet and one Councilmember uses a computer. Commissioner Tuazon inquired whether a phone call could be made, to which Chair Cambra responded the device could be used to email and text. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 7, 2013 2 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 2 | prohibited except for accessing agenda materials; and 3) not withstanding those admonitions, devices could be used for innocuous purposes, such as a calculator, looking up a date or contacting a family member; the provision would be largely self- policing. Acting Chair Foreman provided a handout; stated after he reviewed the October Council staff report, which rejected the Commission's more liberal approach, he took it upon himself to attend the Council meeting and defend the Commission's language; he also presented his personal view that the language should be even broader, should not tie into devices, and should address what is prohibited; suggested the language at the bottom of his handout; stated the language does not say what can be done, rather it says what cannot be done with devices; the only thing that should be prohibited is receiving or sending private communications about the meeting; outlined the City Council discussion from the minutes; stated the majority of the Council provided direction to staff; however, staff has come up with something that is almost directly contradictorily to what at least three Councilmembers want; he has drafted a paragraph in line with what a majority of Council requested; he talked with the Assistant City Attorney who raised the issue of quasi-judicial matters; provided the example of the Commissions' quasi-judicial complaint hearing; stated the complainant and public have a right to see everything Commissioners consider in making a decision; suggested a two tier system: one for general legislative matters and one for quasi-judicial matters; stated his recommendation is much shorter and does not provide the rationale. Commissioner Dieter provided a handout; stated that she listened to the City Council discussion; everyone agrees the purpose of the provision is to prohibit communicating electronically with others during meetings because of the appearance it gives; rather than spelling out all of the different allowable scenarios, the provision should be kept general and sa… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.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/2015-03-30.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 2 | Vice Chair Foreman concurred; stated the Section should be deleted it in its entirety; that he does not need to be told he has a constitutional right to speak out; he does not know why the Section would be in the Sunshine Ordinance; everyone has the right to speak out as individuals as long as long as speaking for themselves; boards and commissions have the right to speak out as a body even if disagreeing with Council; the only control Council should have is to relieve members of duties; the Section does not add anything. Chair Aguilar sated the Section is not just indicating members have a constitutional right to speak out; inquired if Vice Chair Foreman wants to remove the entire Section, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded in the affirmative. Chair Aguilar inquired if Commissioner Dieter want to remove the last sentence, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Foreman read the Section; stated if Council disagrees with a Commission on something the only right is what they have in the Charter, to relieve members of duties; that he does not have any idea what the second sentence accomplishes; in the next part simply restates what is in the Charter; he does not see a purpose served by any of it. Commissioner Dieter stated that she does not mind having everybody know that they can speak out for themselves; she does not have a problem reminding folks that just because they are on a board or commission does not mean they do not have a voice in the community; what she does have a problem with is telling policy bodies that they cannot take a position that contradicts a policy or decision of the City Council, which is the opposite of the intent of Boards and Commissions that exist to advise Council; for instance, if the City Council decides not to implement bus rapid transit on the West End and the Transportation Commission strongly opposes the position, they should have a right to address or send a letter to the City Council; the whole purpose of Boards and Commissions is to advise even … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 2 | Vice Chair Little noted Jean Sweeney Park will be one of the largest inner City Parks, which should also be honored as part of the process. Commissioner Dieter inquired why the survey is posted at two different online locations. The Public Information Officer responded the survey is posted in a number of places; stated there are several versions of the Survey Monkey survey and links to the main survey have been posted on social media; outlined other users who have received surveys, such as See Click Fix and Peak Democracy; stated a mailer was sent to people across Alameda; the survey has also been publicized in the newspaper; the City has tried to give access to as many people as possible and did not want to limit it to just people who would take a survey on Survey Monkey; over 3,500 responses have been received. Commissioner Dieter inquired about the outreach online; stated the City's website survey has been discussed verbally, but there have only been tweets about Peak Democracy. The Public Information Officer responded some people like Peak Democracy and others do not; stated whether people want to fill out the survey on Survey Monkey, Peak Democracy or via the mail is a personal choice; the data is being collected in the exact same way for everyone who responds. Commissioner Dieter stated there is also a telephone survey for an infrastructure parcel tax that would cost $23 per month per $100,000 of assessed valuation; inquired whether the surveys are related. The Public Information Officer responded in the affirmative; stated the telephone survey just started. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the City is doing the survey in order to move forward in a campaign, to which the Public Information Officer responded not necessarily; stated the City is trying to figure out options to pay for infrastructure needs; once the City has collected the data from all of the surveys, the City will present the results to Council for Council to decide if and how to move forward. Commissioner Dieter stated thoughts on infrast… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-10-07 | 2 | Chair Cambra inquired whether the Council would know what the document will look like before it is posted on the City's website. Assistant City Manager Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated the key goal is to have the policy and schedule completed with an ongoing update of the reference categories. The Assistant City Attorney added that the Open Government Commission will see the document before it goes to Council. Chair Cambra inquired if the schedule will include an index page, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the schedule will have a table of contents. The Assistant City Manager noted that Alameda's schedule is in line with other cities; the key distinction is that Alamoda has decided to increase the minimum retention to five years instead of the two years required by law. 3-C. Discuss and Comment on City Council Agenda Titles. Chair Cambra clarified that he requested this item be placed on the agenda as information to educate the public; stated it was not brought to the Commission as a complaint. The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation; stated that a meaningful description of the item should be included in plain English. The Assistant City Attorney summarized the section in the Sunshine Ordinance regarding agenda title description. Chair Cambra inquired where the summary caption would originate. The Assistant City Attorney responded the summary would originate from the City Attorney's office. The Assistant City Clerk clarified the summary caption would be included in layman's terms preceding the agenda title. The Assistant City Attorney stated the goal is for agenda titles to be concise and understandable to the general public, but also include enough information so the public knows the precise actions Council will be taking. Commissioner Spanier stated a good editor could find middle ground. Commissioner Tilos stated with the popularity of Twitter, the City could develop a similar system using abbreviations. Meeting of the Open Government Commission Oc… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 2 | and start discussion from there; stated that he would like to go away from the supermajority and is leaning towards Councilmember Knox White's proposal to re- agendize the issue; he also likes Commissioner LoPilato's piece about posting the Commission's decisions on the internet for transparency; said items are his top three topics he would like to vote on. Vice Chair Shabazz stated part of the ordinance enables people to challenge meetings shifting from using the phrase "required" to "recommended;" what the Commission is attempting to achieve got lost in the language, particulars and supermajorities; there were some lessons from what happened with Commissioner Chen's complaints. Commissioner Chen stated that she has been worn down because the issue has been going on so long; she read the materials and found the null and void piece came directly from the Brown Act; no one has ever thoroughly won a case on the Brown Act; she thinks what the Commission really wants is to have City government and Departments accountable for their decisions, how they make their decisions and transparency; she likes Commissioner LoPilato's recommendations to shine a light to assist the City in adhering to the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission is not here to further any disagreements people have with the decisions the City Council and other commissions make, but whether or not the correct process was followed to reach decisions; the Brown Act is merely a tool to shame or embarrass the leaders into following the rules; the Commission should be practical and realistic; she supports posting the Commissions' recommendations to cure and correct any violations brought before them on the City's website or issuing a press release; every Commissioner wants to represent the best interest of the community; no Councilmember wants it publicized that they are always voting against the Commission; the Commission is calling people out and saying this is how it should be done; when things happen that are not transparent, trust is lost; s… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.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/2021-07-19.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-07-19 | 2 | always strives to grant the floor to whoever is asking to speak; thanked Commissioner Reid for calling it out. The City Clerk clarified when people raise their hands to speak is not reflected in the minutes. Commissioner Reid stated that she feels it should be included that Chair Tilos did call on her because it reads strangely in the minutes as she asked to participate in the subcommittee during her turn to speak. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated Commissioner Reid's comments will be noted in the minutes for this meeting. Vice Chair Shabazz stated the comments are debatable and he would like to review the video before voting to approve the minutes; inquired whether the minutes from the last meeting need to be approved before continuing with the agenda. The City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the Commission could defer approval of the minutes to the next meeting; suggested capturing the current discussion in this set of minutes instead of modifying the other set; stated the minutes could be brought back to the next meeting if the Commission would like to consider further revisions. Vice Chair Shabazz stated in light of the comments, he would like to ensure the accuracy of the minutes and find ways to better the practices so everyone can participate. Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the deferring the approval of the minutes to the next meeting. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated she would capture the discussion in this set of minutes because she does not know where it would be inserted in the May 3rd set. Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the May minutes. Commissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. 3-B. Preliminary Report from Subcommittee on Bylaw Revisions Commissioner LoPilato reviewed the items outlined in her report. Vice Chair Shabazz thanked Commissioner LoPilato for … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-08-03 | 2 | of the public is not even aware of the meetings, which results in very little public input and oversight; it is important to facilitate public input; encouraged allowing more speaking time for the public instead of reducing time; stated the Open Government Commission is an important body and he thinks some people on the Council are abusing the urgency ordinance: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. Stated that she supports the need for improved public information ahead of time regarding special meetings; she was alarmed to read about meetings in the paper after the meetings were already held; very substantive issues were discussed and she had no idea the meetings were happening; requested that a push-notification system be implemented for the public: Kathleen Sullivan, Alameda. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the purpose of the amendment is to give a lengthier time before a special meeting would be held and encompass social media and other types of platforms so a larger group of people will be aware and can be heard; staff understood the direction and has attempted to include the changes in the ordinance. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry regarding emergency noticing raised by Mr. Foreman in his correspondence, Chair Schwartz stated to address the situation where there is a serious emergency the amendment allows seven-days notice or permitted by applicable statute. The Chief Assistant City Attorney further clarified staff would still require the seven-days notice in a more urgent situation unless there is something very dire, in which case the noticing could be less; the language is proposed in the amendment and covers the concern raised by Mr. Foreman. Commissioner Little inquired whether such situation would require a supermajority vote for a lesser noticing time. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the way it is written, the Presiding Officer or City Manager could call a special meeting on very short notice; the premise is that it would be on very rare occasion and may be difficult to assemble a… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.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/2017-10-02.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-10-02 | 2 | Commissioner Henneberry nominated Vice Chair Dieter as Chair and Commissioner Little as Vice Chair. Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.] COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Schwartz stated there was a recent California Supreme Court case that directly addresses the California Public Records Request Act; inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney could share more information on the case. The Assistant City Attorney stated the California Supreme Court ruled on whether or not an email on a personal electronic device is considered public record; the California Supreme Court stated public records requests need to involve factual findings and materials from a personal device may be reviewed so long as it is relevant to the inquiry; further stated that Alameda has not had such a request since the Supreme Court ruling. Commissioner Schwartz stated a balancing test would eventually be developed so requests are not overly invasive, especially for public officials and volunteer commissioners/board members. Chair Dieter inquired the time frame of the annual report, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the report will be provided at the next meeting. Chair Dieter stated the City Council discussed bringing its Rules of Order to the Open Government Commission for feedback; inquired the status. The Assistant City Attorney responded a Council subcommittee will review the Rules of Order and plans to do so in conjunction with the Open Government Commission; stated it has not happened due to the current Council workload; the City Manager placed the item on the referral status spreadsheet; he will provide a status update to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Schwartz inquiry on the time frame, the Assistant City Attorney stated he will have a better idea of the time frame once the Council is able to begin addressing the items on the spreadsheet; hopefully, it will be reviewed and placed on the next Open Government Commission meetin… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.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/2012-05-07.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-05-07 | 2 | Commissioner Peterson inquired whether the Commission would need to review a complaint the following Monday after a complaint has been brought to the Commission's attention, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the matter would need to be reviewed within thirty days. Commissioner Peterson suggested providing some type of notice that the Open Government Commission exists. The City Attorney stated that the Brown Act requires the Commission to discuss each item as agendized; staff is requesting the Commission to adopt he By-laws; after adoption of the By-laws, a Chair needs to be assigned; then, the Commission would be able to have a complete discussion on complaint procedures. In response to Commissioner Peterson's inquiry, the City Attorney stated special meetings can be scheduled; regular meetings are part of the ordinance and would occur twice a year; if additional meetings are necessary there is a provision for special meetings. Commissioner Jensen inquired whether Commissioner Peterson is concerned about meetings not being scheduled. Commissioner Peterson responded his intent is to make sure it is easy for people to be involved with the government. Commissioner Jensen inquired whether scheduling regular, semi-annual meetings should be noted in the By-laws; suggested that the regular meetings be held in March and September; stated special meetings would be scheduled whenever a complaint is filed. Commissioner Jenson moved approval of having regular meetings scheduled in March and September. [Note: September was changed to October due to the Labor Day holiday.] Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Jensen moved approval of the Commission By-laws. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Spanier stated the Commission seems to have a passive and active role. Commissioner Peterson stated that he has a concern with the regular meeting schedule; the Commission is scheduled for two meetin… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 2 | not seen anything come through and the agenda has not been updated; the Commission is totally in the dark about the documents; inquired whether the Complainant can provide insight about what he received and where it came from. Mr. Shabazz responded that he cannot describe that much because he received it this afternoon; screenshots that have an October date from Alamedanonymous were sent to the City on Friday. In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry regarding the screenshots, the Assistant City Attorney stated he was not aware of the document until this afternoon since City Hall is closed on Fridays; he did not review it when he received it, so he is not able to summarize it; he immediately asked that it be provided to the Complainant. Commissioner Chen inquired what the expectations and requirements are of the custodian of records when such a request is received. The Assistant City Attorney stated within about an hour of receipt, the request was provided to a number of individuals inside the City to process the request; according to the California Supreme Court, the nature of the request can be summarized to the custodian of records; since the request was related to social media, it is expected that it would be given to the custodian of records, who is the best person to look at those type of requests; the law says that search can be reasonably relied upon and that is precisely what the City Attorney's office did; the idea that the City Attorney's office did not produce records is inaccurate. Commissioner Chen inquired what date the City Attorney's office received the request, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the request was received on April 21st and provided to the custodian of records. Commissioner Chen inquired about the custodian of records being required to reply. The Assistant City Attorney responded the custodian of records is required to do a search to produce records; in this case, it was social media; the standard practice is when the custodian of records is copied on the request, t… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.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/2021-02-01.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 2 | Chair Tilos provided background to the new Commissioners; stated a decision was made by the Commission to forward an item to the City Council; staff deliberately did not forward the item to allow the new Commissioners to be part of the conversation; expressed frustration that it was not forwarded; inquired whether the City Attorney's office had any comments. Vice Chair Shabazz stated the discussion may not be appropriate right now since this item is the approval of the minutes. Commissioner Chen stated the question is whether the minutes are accurate or not and can be approved; the Commission can then proceed to item 3-C; the fact that an action was not taken is not part of the minutes per se; the minutes are just conveying what the Commission recorded as to what happened at the last meeting. Chair Tilos stated that he wanted to correct his statement recorded in the minutes regarding the OGC's objective to determine and fix anything broken in the Sunshine Ordinance; clarified that he meant to use the word "violation" instead of "broken." Vice Chair Shabazz suggested deferring the minutes and moving on to other business since Chair Tilos has some concerns regarding his own statements in the minutes; stated that he does not feel comfortable with changes being made to what was actually stated although he appreciates and understands the intention of communicating clearly. In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated he would accept the minutes as is, but just wanted to make the clarifications. The City Clerk stated Chair Tilos' clarifications are noted and will be reflected in the next set of minutes. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Abstain; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4 - Abstentions: 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 2020. The Assistant City Attorney stated the report is perfuncto… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-10-03 | 2 | The City Attorney responded the Sunshine Ordinance requires a semi-annual report to determine whether items that were not previously disclosed publicly could be made available for public disclosure or should remain exempt from public disclosure; stated items that are determined not to be disclosed could be made available later. Vice Chair Dieter stated the determination of the items should be placed under the discussion section of the staff report so as not to confuse the public; placing it under the background section implies that items previously not disclosed publicly are forever more undisclosable. The City Attorney stated her office will comply with Vice Chair Dieter's request to place items under the Discussion section. Vice Chair Dieter suggested different language for the title of the semi-annual report: "Recommendation to Accept a List of Documents Which Have been Determined to be made public after being determined not being made available to the public" instead of " Litigation and Liability Claim Settlements. " The City Attorney stated that she is willing to modify language to satisfy the Commission's concerns; it is not necessarily that items are being disclosed that were not previously disclosed, but even before the Sunshine Ordinance, the City Attorney's office was required to submit a semi-annual report on litigation and liability claim settlements; the report also includes settlements; the report has two parts. Commissioner Aguilar stated it may be easier for the public to understand if the report title distinguishes the two parts; suggested the title include numeration i.e., 1) the settlements, and 2) documents disclosable to the public. Vice Chair Dieter concurred with Commissioner Aguilar's suggestion; inquired whether the word "declassified" could be used instead of "disclosed" in terms of the documents. The City Attorney responded the City does not have secret, classified documents, so the term does not apply. Vice Chair Dieter stated that she is concerned that when did an online search of the… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-09-20 | 2 | Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Chair Shabazz - 1] 3-B. Provide Input to the Subcommittee on Practical and Policy Problems Encountered on Administration of the Sunshine Ordinance Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation. The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the report was included in the packet, to which the City Clerk and Commissioner Chen responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Chen continued her presentation. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she strongly believes the Commission should take the internal issues in a very small subheading because the focus of the report should be on external issues heard from the community; one issue that stood out to her was the concerns over the Alameda Police Department (APD) not tracking Public Record Act (PRA) denials; she has general concerns about the treatment of community members at the informal resolution stage of Sunshine Ordinance complaints, specifically the perception of a bullying dynamic; she is on board with the ad hoc language clarification; of the complaints that have surfaced, these are the ones she would prioritize. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the new PRA system that was launched, Next Request, is being used by all the City departments except for the Police; the APD has extremely different reporting requirements and regulations, so the Department is still handling requests directly; APD has received the feedback about the tracking concerns which can be included in the report. Commissioner Reid stated that she submitted correspondence and was hoping to get more feedback from the public moving forward; if the issue is agendized for another meeting, it would be great to get as much public feedback as possible; provided examples of issues included in her correspondence, including agenda revisions; stated it would be helpful if agenda subscribers receive notification when an agenda is revised; she noticed another issue that sometimes attachments are not … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-01-11 | 2 | 4-C. Report to City Council on Issues Arising from Implementation of the Sunshine Ordinance Commissioner Chen gave a presentation. Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of allowing five more minutes for the presentation. Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair LoPilato. Ayes: 5. Commissioner Chen completed her presentation. Commissioner Montgomery stated the orientation packet should be moved to the success portion of the report since she received one when she became a Commissioner. Vice Chair LoPilato thanked Commissioner Chen for her huge undertaking in providing a well-structured and comprehensive report; stated that she would like to add a link to the Brown Act and Public Records Act in the Bylaw; she would like clarification about what the Commission/staff partnership should look like. The City Clerk stated she will add the links to the bylaws. In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry regarding posting the bylaws online, the City Clerk stated the bylaws for Boards and Commissions are not typically posted, but she would be happy to post in on the Commission's webpage. Commissioner Chen stated she would like the bylaws to be posted online. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding the four-year maximum term limit, Vice Chair LoPilato stated the section regarding the term limits is from the original bylaws; it is a piece that the Commission does not have the ability to revise since it requires City Council action; quoted the language, a term that is concurrently linked with the service of the appointing City Council member but in no event shall exceed four years. " The City Clerk stated the key language is that a single term cannot exceed four years. Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she was wondering about development of a ten-year plan; questioned whether problems, such as lack of continuity in institutional memory, might be solved in a less labor-intensive way; she thinks it is a great aspir… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 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, to Replace "Null and Void" Remedy. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated what is being presented tonight is in response to the Commission's comments and recommendations; the City Attorney's office did hire outside counsel, James Harrison, as requested by the Commission to review the proposal put forth by Paul Foreman; Mr. Harrison has provided comments which were incorporated in the agenda report; the item is intended to provide the Commission with the opportunity to respond to what staff has presented; further comments or amendments will be considered and moved forward to the City Council. In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated Mr. Harrison is outside Counsel from Olson Remcho hired by the City Attorney's office. Chair Schwartz stated it appears the chief authorities cited against the Commission's proposal to add teeth to the Sunshine Ordinance, being cited by the City Attorney's office and its outside counsel for the notion that the Commission's proposal would violate the principle of "non-delegation," are a case from 1904 (when 10% of Alameda was 600 people) - where, unlike today, sending back an ordinance would have cost two years - and another case, from over 50 years ago. Chair Schwartz inquired whether the cases are the chief authorities, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Chair Schwartz inquired whether when drafting the recommendation the Chief Assistant City Attorney read the June OGC minutes when the Commission discussed their recommendations for over an hour, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Chair Schwartz stated City Attorney staff weighed in on independent legal counsel even though it was not an issue the Commission put forward; inquired why it was included. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded it was i… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.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/2021-10-04.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-10-04 | 2 | transparency of government activities. Commissioner Reid stated the Commission should acknowledge Mr. Garfinkle's comments; there should not be any rush to revise the Bylaws without careful consideration; reiterated some of the points referenced in Mr. Garfinkle's correspondence, such as the Bylaws being amended by a supermajority vote; stated the role of the City Clerk as the Secretary is confusing and should be clarified; if the Commission wants to continue considering meeting monthly, it should be included in the Bylaws; the suggestion to increase awareness regarding special meetings and updates is important; locations of meetings should be available and accessible to the public. Chair Tilos stated that he does not agree with the speaker's comment regarding steamrolling through issues; nothing has moved that quickly during the entire time he has been on the Commission; he wants to gauge the rest of the Commissioners on making a motion tonight or pushing it out for several more meetings. Vice Chair Shabazz concurred with Chair Tilos regarding the steamrolling comment; stated that he is willing to move to approve the revisions of the Bylaws; the issue has been and can be an ongoing process; he does not think any revisions voted on tonight will be final revisions; if the Commission adopts the provision of a supermajority requirement, it would make it potentially more difficult to make revisions in the future; he agrees with some of Mr. Garfinkle's comments; suggested a simple adjustment to noticing special meetings via electronic communications to add the phrase: "and others" beyond just local media; questioned how a majority of the Commission would call a special meeting, which could be addressed at a later point; stated other issues could also be detailed in a practical way that does not cause obstruction and enables the Commission to function. Chair Tilos stated that he shares Vice Chair Shabazz's sentiments. Commissioner Chen stated that she appreciates Commissioner LoPilato's hard work on the item, as well a… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.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/2021-03-01.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-03-01 | 2 | 3-B. Recommendation to Provide Feedback on Draft Recommendations from the Community-Led Committee on Police Reform & Racial Justice Commissioner Chen recused herself and left the meeting. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Chen made the decision to recuse herself after being advised by the City Attorney's office due to a common law conflict of interest; further clarified that due to the virtual method of the meeting, members who recuse themselves are not participating and are not "in the room." The City Clerk confirmed she is able to move recused members into a waiting room where they are unable to hear or participate in the meeting discussion. Commissioner Shabazz stated at a previous meeting, there was concern about ad hoc committees; he is concerned that tonight's discussion might later be claimed to be in violation; he wants to make sure things are being done in order and requested input from staff on the matter. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the only item agendized is the Subcommittee presentation; the Commission should not go beyond said scope; the item is a presentation from Subcommittee members and not a meeting of the Subcommittee. Chair Tilos clarified that the presentation requires no action and is being presented as an opportunity for Commissioners to provide feedback. Steering Committee Members in attendance: Al Mance, Christine Chilcott, and Jolene Wright Subcommittee Members in attendance: Amy Gong Liu, Andrea Carlise, Ayse Sercan, Bassy Obot, Beth Kenny, Debra Mendoza, Erin Fraser, Gavin Maxwell, Heather Reed, Jennifer Rakowski, Jono Soglin, Madlen Saddik, Melodye Montgomery, and Venecio "Vinnie" Camarillo. Christine Chilcott gave a PowerPoint presentation. Chair Tilos thanked the Steering and Subcommittee members for the presentation and for attending the meeting. In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated Commissioner questions should be done prior to public comment; then, Commissioner discussion is after public comment. Commissioner Shaba… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-02-07 | 2 | Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of giving an additional 5 minutes. Commissioner Cambra seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5. Commissioner Chen completed her presentation. Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether there is a report on Public Records Act (PRA) requests. The City Clerk responded that the Commission received a chart of the PRAs, which has now been superseded by the new Next Request software; a demo will be done tonight [see Item 4-D]; there is no statutory requirement for a PRA report; it was something the Commission requested in the past. In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, Chair LoPilato stated that she thought the report would continue to be prepared annually; her understanding from the City Clerk was that the report was an ad hoc response to a request from the Commission as it is not a requirement in the Sunshine Ordinance; language in the Sunshine Ordinance states the Commission may request a tally of records with advanced notice to the City Clerk as opposed to it being an annual report; if Commissioners are attached to referring to it as an annual report she will not jam up the wheels, but thinks the language could be a little more precise. Vice Chair Chen clarified that she made a logical assumption that the report was annual since she joined when a second PRA report was presented; she can see that the language is incorrect and stands corrected. Commissioner Tilos stated he also shared the same assumption as Vice Chair Chen since the report was presented twice consecutively; inquired whether the Commission will be done with the Annual Report and it does not have to return again once a motion and vote are made tonight. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative, stated the Commission could accept all the edits tonight and that could become the final report, it does not need to come back for another approval without redline; she will publish and … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.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/2019-02-04.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/2021-11-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 3 | limits, which is why there is a provision about R2 in the SA; if the zoning is changed, the land will be a whole lot more valuable than it is today. Ms. Freeman stated approximately 1.7 acres are zoned R2 already, leaving approximately 2.3 acres still zoned for industrial. Mr. Kuhn stated no one is disputing that the SA in no way changes the zoning of the property and somehow eliminates the requirement for Union Pacific to come back to the City Council; Union Pacific has to go through an entire development application process, get public input, and get City approval to develop the property, which is not taken off the table or changed whatsoever by the SA. Mr. Foreman stated that he agrees Union Pacific has to do everything, but the agreement greases the rails; requested the Commission to read it and come to its own conclusion about whether it is germane. Commissioner Reid requested Ms. Freeman to elaborate on the background of the land acquisition and how much community involvement there was up until the Closed Session. Ms. Freeman responded in 2013 when the City started out to develop the Park, she worked with the Recreation and Parks Department on community meetings which had over 300 people attended, as well as 700 to 800 people who participated in an online survey; the survey included options for what people wanted to have in the Park, which was very close to what Jean Sweeney envisioned; as the Park was being developed, it was always understood that the Union Pacific land would become part of the Park; the map portrays that the Union Pacific land is part of the Park, including the bike path; in 2018, the City filed the eminent domain case in public; the case explained that the 1.7 acres zoned R2 was too expensive for the City to purchase; the rest of the 2.8 acres was addressed in public; people believed the Union Pacific land would be added to the Jean Sweeney Park; all the community outreach indicated the land would eventually become part of the Park. Mr. Kuhn clarified a portion of the Union Pacific corri… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-02-04 | 3 | Commissioner Tilos stated that he is leaning toward only having the Index in English. Commissioner Spainer stated that she is not opposed to the idea [of multiple languages], but she concurs with Commissioner Tilos. In response to Commissioner Tilos's inquiry regarding documents with a split status, the City Clerk stated one option would be to list a document as "Partially Open" since a document could change from "Exempt" to "Open." Chair Cambra questioned whether having two separate categories, such as: Real Estate Transactions - Under Negotiation and Real Estate Transactions - Completed might be clearer; further stated records prevented by operation of law could be discussed at a later meeting. Vice Chair Aguliar inquired whether Chair Cambra is suggesting that a record be exempt as a matter of law versus discretionary. Chair Cambra responded State law allows cities to exempt certain documents; however, the City could chose to disclose some of said documents. The Assistant City Attorney stated some cities keep arrest logs, some do not; normally, some arrest related information is contemporaneous and would be subject to the Public Records Act; only a certain amount of information would be released; however, health related information cannot be disclosed. Chair Cambra stated once the final Index is created, documents could be reviewed to determine if the City wants to accept the "Exempt" status. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS 4-A. Chair Cambra stated former Commissioner Petersen addressed having email sent to someone other than City staff and staff was going to research the matter. The City Clerk stated the Commission's email address is pengovcomm@alamedaca.gov; emails would automatically forward to the Chair and Vice Chair so the Chair and Vice Chair would receive any complaints; noted the complaint form is on the website and a meeting has to be called within thirty days of receiving a complaint. Chair Cambra stated the concern was a complaint filed against the City Clerk's Office should not go to the City Clerk on… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-08-02 | 3 | possible vision of what a statement of the case would look like; inquired whether the plan to represent City departments in complaints before the OGC extends to any policy body. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she does not see any difference between policy bodies versus City departments in terms of how the City Attorney's office would represent them. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Chief Assistant City Attorney, as the advisor to the OGC, would be staffing any policy bodies in terms of advising them on Brown Act issues or stepping back from those duties. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office has not determined exactly what her role would be other than she would be stepping back from handling Public Records Act (PRA) requests, which is due to recognition of the fact that at some point one of the productions could be the subject of a Sunshine Ordinance complaint. Commissioner Reid stated that she has concerns about the ethical wall; she is not convinced that the City Attorney's office would be able to truly be a fair and neutral advisor; she wonders if there are other options to explore; suggested considering both outside counsel and a neutral advisor to have a comparison. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the idea of an ethical wall is not a new one; case law has been reviewed to support past practices and anticipated future practices in terms of maintaining an ethical wall so that decisions that come out of the Commission would be legally solid; the concept of an ethical wall is used currently in Civil Service Board matters and in adjudicatory appeals to the City Council; the City Attorney's office is comfortable with the process and suggests the format going forward. Commissioner Chen moved approval of accepting Option 2 [Chief Assistant City Attorney with formalized parameters for ethical wall guardrails and commitment to providing transparent, written instructional memo as resource for the OGC] on a provisional basis. Commissioner LoPilato sec… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 3 | Attorney to do so during the phone call. Vice Chair Foreman stated to understand the complaint, what Mr. Klein is saying now is that he is not objecting to an Attorney responding as opposed to a Councilmember; inquired whether Mr. Klein is objecting to the Attorney not disclosing who he was representing. Mr. Klein responded in the negative; stated when, how and who within three days; the Attorney gave no information and left the office for three days; his request was on ice for eight days; the issue is the response was not adequate with regard to the rule of three days of giving who, when and how, which may seem trivial; however, it is the behavior around it; the Attorney could have said sorry he was late and that he would do his best to get the documents but might need a few more days; it was not like that; the Attorney's response was defensive; he has had a lot of success of rapid turnaround customer service with the City Clerk's office. Vice Chair Foreman inquired if Mr. Klein had ever requested emails before, to which Mr. Klein responded not specifically. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he does not think anyone from his office or the City has indicated that the complaint is trivial or frivolous; looking at Mr. Cohen's response, it says he would like to obtain some clarification on the request and it would be helpful to discuss it; Mr. Cohen stated he would be out of the office until Wednesday morning; that he does not read the email as defensive; it seems reasonable for a person trying to respond to a public record act request to want to better understand what is being requested; when something comes to the Council, there is a responsibility Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 14, 2016 3 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-12-14 | 3 | be voted on tonight would have the Commission refer back to the Council a matter which was not properly noticed to cure and correct the improper notice and for the City Council to reject the Commission's recommendation to cure and correct, it would require a four- fifths supermajority. Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Schwartz's synopsis sums up what the Commission has been dealing with for two years. Commissioner Shabazz stated some of the proposed language refers to the City Council, inquired whether the cure and correct applies to other bodies of the City and what would be the distinction. Commissioner Schwartz responded if the Commission finds a violation, steps necessary to cure and correct can be recommended to the originating body unless it has already been cured and/or corrected. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated the focus has been related to the power of the City Council; he overlooked the language which stated the "originating body;" he is concerned about whether the City Attorney's office would support the Commissions' recommendation. Chair Tilos stated the subcommittee drafted a proposal for the full Commission in order to have more substance than just a recommendation from a subcommittee of two members; he hopes to have a motion on the proposal after Commission discussion. Commissioner Shabazz concurred with Chair Tilos; inquired whether the written analysis will support the recommendation of the Commission or will there be something different when the proposal goes to the City Council. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded, at a minimum, the Commission's recommendation will be taken to the Council; the City Attorney's office will do a deep analysis of what the subcommittee and full Commission proposed; if the Attorney's office finds a legal way to support it, it will make the recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the subcommittee recommendation. Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion which carried by the following roll c… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 3 | the agendas; inquired that the Chief Assistant City Attorney or City Clerk give some specificity with respect to what the Commission has reviewed. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded basically both sides in each complaint have the option to present written arguments, which can take any form; the written argument submitted on behalf of the City appears more legal in nature because the City has retained outside counsel; another document would perhaps be titled proposed decision or suggested decision; the form of the document looks like a final Commission decision; the document is prepared by outside counsel; it is the conclusion that the outside counsel is urging, but it is not a requirement that the Commission needs to agree with it. The City Clerk stated the City has always prepared a draft decision and presented it to the Commission for every single case; the draft decision gives the Commission a starting point; there have been times where the Commission has taken the opposite position than what was in the draft decision; going forward, it could be made clear that the decision is just a recommendation from the City and not final. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the staff report is actually by special counsel and not the staff recommendation or Chief Assistant City Attorney's framing of the issue; and whether it is an advocacy piece it is a position statement by the attorney's representing the City in the adversarial adjudication. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the staff report is an adversarial piece and the waters are a bit muddied because it is also the City's position; in this particular instance, the staff report is the position of the City and the particular department within the City. The City Clerk stated the City has always presented the staff report from its viewpoint. Commissioner Reid inquired why staff and special counsel prepare a decision before the Commission hears a case; stated that she understands is has been common practice, but wonders if… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 3 | present; the minutes do not reflect that [staff names]; under Item 3-B: Status Update of the Public Records Index, it says: "The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation;" she thinks the minutes should stand on their own and a person should not be forced to have to go look at a video to understand what took place at a meeting; she thinks the minutes should say what was said and should say something to the effect of: "The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation that stated that Alameda follows Berkeley's Index; it has two parts; everything will be kept for five years at a minimum;" this is what was said; and [it should say:] "disclosure will be added at a later date and will go to Council for approval;" that way no one is forced to have to go look at the video. The City Clerk suggested that she modify the minutes and bring them back to the Commission at the following meeting; she could capture the presentation, then, the Commissioners could read the minutes ahead of time. Commissioner Dieter stated if there are not enough changes, perhaps the minutes can be approved tonight. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Dieter stated that she is not finished; the very last line says: "The Assistant City Manager noted that Alameda's schedule is in line with other cities;" that she suggests deleting the following clause: "the key distinction is that Alameda has decided to increase the minimum retention to five years instead of two years required by law;' actually, the [Assistant] City Manager talked about various requirements; some are two years, some are three years, and some are ten years, so she thinks it is unnecessary to include that [clause]; it is confusing; unless staff wants to change it to say: "two or three years or other time frames as required by law;" those are the only two changes she has for that meeting [October 7, 2013]. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Chair Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 3 | The City Clerk noted the application uses a wireless signal to view the packet unless the Councilmember has downloaded the packet prior to the meeting. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated if the requirement is moved to the substantive part of the Ordinance, the assumption has to be that the officials are going to abide by it; there would be consequences for not following the requirement; suggested moving the section and staff could come up with appropriate language. In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry whether a vote is needed, the Interim Assistant City Attorney stated only direction is needed; a redline version of the ordinance would be brought to the Commission at the February meeting. The Interim Assistant City Attorney reviewed the second item in the staff report: passive meeting bodies. Chair Cambra stated passive meeting body is defined as an advisory committee; suggested changing the term passive meeting body to advisory committee. Commissioner Spanier stated changing it to advisory committee is very clear. Chair Cambra stated there might be confusion when a policy body has a passive meeting; inquired whether the Council tour of the estuary was a passive meeting. The City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the meeting was noticed; a passive meeting would be when the body is invited to a non-City event and the majority are present but no City business is discussed. Chair Cambra inquired whether said type of events are covered under Section 2- 91.1.b.4.C, to which the Interim Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted advisory committee is the more commonly used term; stated all references would have to be changed and a better definition could be done; the City Clerk said the only future references to the advisory committee were on pages 4 and 5 so it would be easy to correct. The Interim Assistant City Attorney outlined the third item: gatherings. Chair Cambra stated the term "gathering" might have been used in order to not call social events a meeting; noted the Ordinance was… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 3 | Commissioner Tuazon stated the matter is common sense; the public wants 100% attention; questioned why members would be communicating with someone else. Commissioner Dieter stated that is the whole point. Acting Chair Foreman stated everyone agrees on said matter. The Assistant City Attorney stated the language suggested by Acting Chair Foreman or Commissioner Dieter certainly works; the Mayor has asked on a couple occasions whether or not she can use an electronic device calendar or calculator and is wondering whether language should be added to indicate that there is an exception for innocuous use, such as a calendar, calculator, or communicating with a family member; not allowing innocuous use would prohibit calling a spouse; language does not have to be added; he could indicate to Council that it is understood and implicit, but he questions whether it should be expressed. Commissioner Dieter stated it is expressed in the first part. Acting Chair Foreman stated he has a problem with the first sentence. Commissioner Dieter stated the first is not her language, which was already there. In response to Acting Chair Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated that she is suggesting a sentence in place of the language provided by staff. Acting Chair Foreman stated he does not want the first sentence included. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether Acting Chair Foreman would like to eliminate the whole provision and start from scratch. Acting Chair Foreman responded the reason he is opposed is that he does not agree with it at all; stated he made that point to Council and convinced three of them that in this day and age, the use of electronic communication devices does not lead to the public perception that a member is receiving information, everybody uses devices all the time; Commissioner Dieter's language regarding prohibiting electronically communication with others during meetings creates the exact problem that the Assistant City Attorney and the Mayor have referenced; his language includes that members are proh… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.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/2015-03-30.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 3 | Chair Aguilar stated that she is not sure why the second sentence is included; she hesitates because the ordinance has gone through a committee and was accepted by the City Council; she is a hesitant to just start deleting things; stated she does not know that she would necessarily take out the sentences. In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry about the last sentence, Chair Aguilar stated the language is new. In response to Commissioner Dieter's further inquiry, Chair Aguilar responded the second sentence is being discussed. Commissioner Dieter stated in order to reach a compromise she does not mind keeping the language in, as long as that last sentence about policy bodies is removed. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he does not have a problem with said suggestion; the second sentence is meaningless to him; drafters work can be respected; however, he questions why is the ordinance being reviewed if so much respect is given that the Commission cannot improve it; he respects her view and would agree to keep everything except the new sentence. Chair Aguilar inquired if the Assistant City Attorney added the last sentence for a reason. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; provided an example of the City Council adopting a particular policy and a Commission writing a letter to an outside agency that not necessarily contradicted what the Council had done, but certainly raised an issue; there was some concern expressed at the Council meeting about whether or not Commissions should do so; there is not an adopted Council policy concerning the matter; the Section would address the matter, which does not have to be in the Sunshine Ordinance; the City Council could adopt a standalone policy; the Sunshine Ordinance seems an appropriate place to put it, is not necessarily the only place it has to go; if the Commission feels the matter might be better addressed somewhere else then staff will take that recommendation. Commissioner Dieter stated raising the matter with Council is a good idea; that she reca… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
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/2013-10-07.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-10-07 | 3 | The Assistant City Clerk clarified titles are typically submitted in regular and understandable language; stated the issue being addressed is lengthy legislation language. The Assistant City Attorney stated the requirement is that titles be consistent with federal securities disclosure laws. Chair Cambra inquired if the new procedure would comport with State and federal laws, to which the Assistant City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Chair Cambra requested a recap of the Council's decision regarding agenda titles. The Assistant City Clerk stated the Council decided to implement a new practice that if a title is lengthy or contains a lot of legal terms, staff will include a summary sentence above the title to describe the action in plain English. Stated that she doos not agree with using lawyer catch-phrases that she felt the lawyer catch phrases, such as relating thereto and with respect thereto, are not needed; they should not be used; and she supports making all agenda titles clear: Jane Sullwold, Alameda. Chair Cambra inquired if Council is limiting the summary sentences to legislative items only. The Assistant City Clerk responded the matter was discussed at the last Council meeting, but there was no official vote or action taken. Chair Cambra inquired how the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council to expand the practice to all titles. The Assistant City Clerk responded the Commission could submit a referral to have the item placed on the City Council agenda. Commissioner Spanier stated she supports the practice of writing titles less onerous for the public. The Assistant City Attorney stated staff will continue to strive to make the agenda titles more transparent. Chair Cambra inquired if it makes sense to apply the practice of summary sentences to all titles, not just legislation. Commissioner Aguilar pointed out that non-legislative agenda items are already required to be short and clear, having a caption on non-legislative items would be redundant; it is the legislative titles that hav… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 3 | to allow residents to participate at the maximum level possible; she would also like to propose an appeal subcommittee in the event the Council disagrees on a proposal brought by the Commission; the goal would be to draw in as many members of the public as possible; said type of awareness is necessary in open and good government. Vice Chair Shabazz responded that he appreciates Commissioner Chen's point about the objectives of accountability, transparency and restoring trust; if the Commission aligns on said baseline, then it can determine the method in which to achieve the goals. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she likes the idea of grounding in said objectives; the intent behind her proposal as an tracking device; it is a way to see the health of the Open Government Commission (OGC) over the long term and what is done with the recommendations, the result and the action when a complaint comes in; she is open to discussions from the Commission or staff on improvements that could be made to her proposal; how it would look on the website is important to make sure it is effective; thanked staff for the benchmarking report, which was helpful; stated trust-building and trust-restoring is an important piece; a big part is creating a pathway for the Commission to give feedback to the City Council and make recommendations about how to avoid future problems outside the scope of a specific complaint; posting on the website could also accomplish accountability; she likes the language of John Knox White's proposal, which is a good direction for the Commission to go in terms of not getting too into the weeds of details about the complaint process. Chair Tilos summarized the Commission members' comments. Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he would like to have alignment around some general principle goals the Commission hopes to achieve, instead of conceptualizing along some spectrum of trust or punishment. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission could make suggestions about what it wants to do and then a show of hands… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.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/2021-07-19.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-07-19 | 3 | 5, 2018; a subcommittee of Commissioners Dieter and Little had some recommendations related to Rosenberg's Rules and noted the League of Cities does that; he supports utilizing Rosenberg's Rules; another framing that exists is Roberta's Rules; encouraged folks to look back at the March 2018 meeting for the excellent recommendations from their predecessors. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she noticed the subcommittee report prepared in 2018; it was recommended that Rosenberg's Rules be encouraged to be applied to all Boards and Commissions; continued her presentation. In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated her thought was to move away from the existing content in the rules of order section and streamline a much clearer order similar to City Council to follow Rosenberg's with the modifications outlined; she is open to hearing other ideas on modifications; for the sake of consistency and creating a uniform experience for the public in participating, it would be a great step to follow. Chair Tilos stated that he is aligned with Commissioner LoPilato's vision on setting eight minutes for each Commissioner's speaking time with the ability for a majority vote of the Commission to extend it. Commissioner Reid stated that she would like to include a nine minute speaking time to be consistent with City Council and extension by a majority vote. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether there were any objections to nine minutes; there were none. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the timing is done on the Council level and can be done at Commission meetings. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether anyone had opposition to having a limit on presentations. Commissioner Chen responded a 10 minute limit on presentations is fine; stated Commissioner Communications should be discussed in future meetings only needs an explanation long enough so that other Commissioners can agree or not agree to put an item on a future agenda; for presentations under Commissioner Communications… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-08-03 | 3 | Chair Schwartz stated that he is comfortable with the way the amendments are drafted and capture what the Commission discussed. In response to Chair Schwartz inquiry regarding Section 2-91.5, the Assistant City Attorney stated the Section relates to agenda posting requirements and timing, including on the City's website and making agendas available in hard copy at the Main Library and Clerk's office. Chair Schwartz stated that he would add a reference to texting, which was brought up by Commissioner Tilos, but not listed in the Section. The Assistant City Attorney stated the language in the amendment refers to any other electronic means approved by the City Clerk without being more specific; staff did not want to preclude texting as a method as it may be possible in the future; however, a text notification system may not be technologically or financially feasible. Chair Schwartz stated that he would like to suggest including texting as a method of notification; it is technologically feasible and financially would be worth it; having an opt- in list as suggested by Commissioner Shabazz could work. Commissioner Pauling stated making clear the whole process of notification could be part of implementation; technological advances happen quickly; there are upcoming budget restraints; she is wondering whether the ordinance can keep the language as written, but put more specific information on the website and allow people to be on a notification list for a specific topic; that way there is specific guidance rather than just a reference to texting. Commissioner Tilos stated the language of having a subscription to "electronic communication" could be used to mean texting as wells as emails; in the event texting is not financially feasible, emails could be sent. Commissioner Shabazz stated that he understands the need to be more general, but the goal is to maximize public participation and engagement; he recognizes technology does change quickly as Commissioner Pauling stated; he would like to include language that is gener… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.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/2017-10-02.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-10-02 | 3 | Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden Assistant City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 2, 2017 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.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]) );