pages
420 rows where body = "OpenGovernmentCommission" sorted by text
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/2021-02-01.pdf,14 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 14 | 2011 through 2019; urged working together to figure out what would be an effective replacement for the null and void remedy; he would like whatever the solution is to encourage transparency and accessibility. Commissioner Chen there was an accountability that was completely removed and the Commission just wants to see what that accountability can look like. The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether there is any desire to bifurcate the items directed to staff; stated the issues related to the annual report can be at a subsequent meeting; the null and void questions posed by Commissioner LoPilato and Vice Chair Shabazz can be discussed at a next meeting. Chair Tilos responded both subjects are pretty meaty and concurred with the Assistant City Attorney; inquired whether two separate, dedicated meetings could be done. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative, stated since there is no requirement on follow-up with respect to the annual report, the item can be on an April meeting; the null and void remedy item can be the focus of the March meeting so no momentum is lost; he suggests converting the questions that have been posed by Commissioner LoPilato and Vice Chair Shabazz in a motion to direct staff to come back with a staff report to address the items; addressing Vice Chair Shabazz's comments, once information is laid out regarding other jurisdictions, it might provide the Commission with some ideas about the universe of options out there. Vice Chair Shabazz stated he likes the suggestion of finding other jurisdictions and other possible options; he is willing to put some energy collaboratively towards drafting a flow chart; seeing it visually may assist with understanding the process at each step. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry regarding consensus on bifurcating the topics at two separate meetings, Vice Chair Shabazz stated he is opposed to having the next meeting solely on the null and void issue; there is currently an effort to do some police reform to address racial equity and subcommit… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf,16 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 16 | 2019 meeting; the term ad hoc committees is not defined and does not exist anywhere in the Brown Act; the use of the term ad hoc has no relevance to the Brown Act; he suggests the Commission put together a play book or set of instructions and guidelines for members of the public: Matt Reid, Alameda. Stated that he is concerned about ad hoc committees being exempt from the Brown Act; it is clear that they cannot be legally exempt; provided an example as to where transparency could help out with respect to the Police Reform committee; an online survey that has no scientific validity was put out by the committee; the survey results cannot be trusted; the public needs to be able to see and comment on groups operating officially as part of the government and doing the work of the people; he was disappointed in a tweet by Vice Chair Shabazz that the ad hoc committee issue was racially motivated: Michael Divine, Alameda. Stated that his main concern is the lack of transparency in much of the government activities; he is thrilled that Commissioner Reid brought her proposal forward; the Commission should concentrate on making it work to improve transparency; urged the Commission to set up a working group comprised of members of the public and two members of the Commission to find ways to improve transparency and allow public oversight access of all committees: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. Stated the City Attorney has already confirmed that ad hoc committees are not subject to the Brown Act; the formation of committees is different than the terminology the Brown Act covers; the formation of the Police Reform committee was done by staff and endorsed by the City Manager, it was not an action of a legislative body: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Stated it is clear that the creation of ad hoc committees seems like a major loophole and very controversial: Amy Lee, Alameda. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the item is similar to the Council Referral process; because the Council directs the work plan of the Commission… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.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/2020-06-24.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 2 | 3-B. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code, as Amended, Concerning the Replacement of the "Null and Void" Remedy. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Stated that he is concerned that the matter of the OGC authority has been an issue for almost two years; he is upset that the extent of the collaboration was to scrutinize his submission: Paul Foreman, Alameda. Stated he would like to speak on the noticing requirements for special meetings: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. Chair Schwartz stated there are many issues regarding the Sunshine Ordinance that will be addressed; the first issue is the Commission's authority over violations; the second is noticing requirements for special meetings, which is later on in the agenda. Commissioner Shabazz requested that Chair Schwartz or staff briefly summarize each agenda item while progressing through the agenda. Chair Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Shabazz's request and briefly summarized the first item regarding the Commission's authority. Commissioner Tilos stated he was leaning toward Vice Mayor Knox White's suggestion about having the issue re-agendized on the next reasonable agenda; the issue would allow another opportunity for public comment. Commissioner Little concurred with Commissioner Tilos's comments; stated that she appreciates the efforts of Councilmember Vella and Paul Foreman; the one aspect she feels is missing is how the Commission could pause the situation to avoid being in the same spot as two years ago; she would also appreciate including the language provided by Vice Mayor Knox White. Chair Schwartz stated that he was under the impression, as suggested by the City Attorney, that Vice Mayor Knox White's language is the sole amendment to be re- agendized and that Mr. Foreman's proposals be rejected. Commissioner Little stated she would like to see some sort of combination between the two; there is a lot of good language in Cou… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.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/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/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/2021-11-01.pdf,16 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 16 | 4-C. Report to City Council on Issues Arising from Implementation of the Sunshine Ordinance Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she does not think the report is quite in shape to send to the City Council; it was a huge undertaking; she is refining her thoughts on it; the Commission is required to do the reports at least once annually; Complaints are still coming in for 2021; suggested moving the plan to finalize the report closer to January; she is mindful that certain things already feel outdated; specifically Recommendation #3, the City already is publishing the legislative agenda. Commissioner Chen stated work on the Complaint Procedure and form took out half of the recommendations; she feels the relationship with the City Attorney's office is much improved; the report can be updated on an ongoing basis; she concurs with Commissioner LoPilato regarding the timing. Chair Tilos stated the Commission could hold off until January. Commissioner Chen stated things can be lost during the turnover of members; the report is a living document like the Bylaws. Commissioner LoPilato stated the report should be grounded in the statute; some of the recommendations read like directives; leading with an explanation and background of what the Sunshine Ordinance actually says may be a better approach; the recommendations could be reviewed item-by-item; it is important to look at the accuracy and weight that is given to some of the language; the Commission's role should be neutral; the report seems more like an advocacy piece; it might be better received and more effective if it is more neutral and has a gatekeeper tone; the City Council needs to give direction to the Commission and staff on what work the Commission should do in addition to hearing Complaints; the expectations of what the Commission does is a bit limited. *** In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated a vote was needed to consider new items at 10:30 p.m. but since it was missed, the next item could be b… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.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/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/2018-11-14.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 9 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 9 November 14, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-02-04 | 4 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner Wong moved adjournment at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Tilos 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 February 4, 2013 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.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/2016-02-01.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 5 | Acting Chair Foreman stated a Councilmember might want to look at a Google map regarding rezoning a piece of land. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether Commission Tuazon would be offended by said Councilmember. Commissioner Tuazon responded in the affirmative; stated homework should be done in advance. Acting Chair Foreman inquired about the Assistant City Attorney's view on the quasi- judicial issue; further inquired whether he is being too legalistic. The Assistant City Attorney responded that he thinks the way the first sentence has been redrafted is probably broad enough to cover the quasi-judicial issue; in an abundance of caution, language could be added; however, in the staff report to Council, he could indicate that implicit in the language is honoring the notion that quasi-judicial matters have to be observed. The Commissioners expressed consensus. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he understands the introductory non-substantive sentence would be deleted. Acting Chair Foreman inquired what section the Assistant City Attorney is referring to. The Assistant City Attorney responded Section 2-91.4H; stated the sentence would state: in order to ensure that all communications to policy board members presented in a public meeting are shared with the public, members are prohibited from communicating electronically with others during public meetings that pertain to the business thereof. Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether staff would go to the Commission or Council, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded based on the outcome tonight, he will prepare an agenda report that will go to Council that would reflect the Commission direction. Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is regarding submitting comments when a policy body member is not present at a meeting. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission discussed the matter before and felt comfortable that if a member was not present at a meeting, the member should not be able to submit comments on the item; the City Council did not agree a… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 7 | Acting Chair Foreman stated the only problem he has with the issue is that the matter was brought up because of the problem of moving the meeting; nobody has asked the Commission to change the archive section; when the Commission went over the entire Code, the decision was to leave in 10 years; that he is not saying the issue should not be reviewed; however, he questions whether this is the time to do so; a separate section addresses keeping records; the Commission reviewed the matter and voted on 10 years; some Commissioners might have voted against it but it was kept at 10 years; the matter was sent back to the Commission because of the live streaming issue. The City Clerk noted Section 2-91.4C reads for a period of at least 10 years. Acting Chair Foreman inquired about the written record, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the Commission talked about Section 2-92-4, which requires documents to be posted on the website for at least four years; stated some modifications have been made. Acting Chair Foreman inquired where the 10 years is coming from, to which the City Clerk responded the original ordinance. Acting Chair Foreman stated 10 years is underlined like it is new language, inquired whether the current section says 10 years. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the section states: the City shall make such audio or video recordings available via live streaming, as well as archived in a digital form, in a centralized location on the City's website within 72 hours from the date of the hearing and for a period of at least 10 years after the date of the meeting. Acting Chair Foreman stated the language is not new. The Assistant City Attorney stated the idea is that 10 years would be referenced in the following sentence. Acting Chair Foreman inquired why the matter is being raised. The Assistant City Attorney responded the issue of allowing meetings to be held at places where live streaming is not available arose because of the hiccup when trying to locate a meeting outside of City Ha… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 11 | Acting Chair Schwartz stated it might be helpful to add a sentence to emphasize the point, such as: "every reasonable attempt will be made to reach the individual through all available contact information and all attempts will be documented.' In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry about re-submitting a complaint, the City Clerk responded the timelines in the Sunshine Ordinance would not allow a re-submission. There was no Commission discussion of Section 2-93.7. The City Clerk summarized the changes the Commission agreed to; stated there were slight revisions to 2-92.4 requiring a link be posted and 2-93.2 requiring outreach; the changes have been noted and staff will work to draft the language. Chair Schwartz moved approval of adopting the recommendations with the two amendments. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Shabazz expressed his appreciation for all the work of staff regarding his complaint as a member of the public; stated he would like to use his role as a Commissioner to make the Public Records Act more available to Alamedans and welcomes suggestions from other Commissioners and staff on ways to do that. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff could agendize the issue at the February meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Schwartz adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 11 December 18, 2019 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 6 | Acting Chair Schwartz stated the selection of Chair and Vice Chair is based on seniority; since Chair Henneberry stepped down, he is next in line for Chair; inquired whether Commissioner Tilos would then be next for Vice Chair. Commissioner Tilos stated he was not aware of the selection precedence and suggested opening the discussion; requested staff remind the Commission of meeting logistics; expressed concerns about not having a quorum the last meeting, which wasted time and resources. The City Clerk stated the Commission's two regular meetings are the first Monday in February and October at 7:00 p.m.; meetings are also scheduled within 30 days if a complaint is filed and as needed. Commissioner Shabazz inquired which Commissioner would be interested in the Chair or Vice Chair roles and why. Acting Chair Schwartz responded that he is interested in taking on the Chair role; stated he regrets not being able to attend the October meeting due to an emergency appendectomy and the last-minute July meeting was called while he was away on international travel; with those two exceptions, he has attended all the meetings and plans to going forward; he is proud of the work the Commission does; giving access to the public as well as helping the City Council function more effectively is why he would like to continue to serve on the Commission; the Commission has achieved many meaningful things; having proper disclosure is important; he would like to continue being proactive going forward. Commissioner Tilos moved approval of appointing Commissioner Schwartz as the Chair. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Acing Chair Schwartz moved approval of nominating Commissioner Tilos as the Vice Chair. Commissioner Little stated the selection is a rotating process; she has already been Chair and Vice Chair; she feels it is a good way for appointed members to gain experience; she supports Commissioner Tilos as Vice Chair. Commissioner Tilos stated he is humbled by the nomination and woul… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf,23 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-07-19 | 23 | Adjournment Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 23 July 19, 2021 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-08-03 | 7 | Adjournment Commissioner Little moved approval of adjourning the meeting. Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5. The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 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 August 3, 2020 7 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 11 | Adjournment Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of adjourning the meeting. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. Commissioner Shabazz withdrew his motion since a motion is not needed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 17, 2020 11 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 5 | Attorney can present proposals to the Council and allow Council to decide; in his opinion, the Council will be deciding whether or not to have teeth in the Sunshine Ordinance and a real transparent legislative process; what Council has said months ago was that they adopted the City Attorney opinion that a null and void provision usurped the legislative process, but they still wanted real teeth in the ordinance; the Commission's proposal would do that; he disagrees that there is anything unlawful about it; suggested forming a subcommittee to put forth the Commission's proposal to the City Council; stated undoubtedly, the Council will also have the considered opinions of the City Attorney. Commissioner Shabazz expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Little about confusion in the language; stated the current proposal does not meet the criteria of putting teeth back into the Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether staff will still bring a proposal forward to the City Council for approval even if the Commission declines to move forward with it. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded staff would bring forth any proposal the Commission approves, either through a subcommittee or other process; depending on what the proposal says, he cannot say whether or not the City Attorney's office would recommend it, which is not an unusual situation for Commissions; without knowing precisely what the Commission may come up with, the City Attorney's office cannot say whether or not they would recommend it; it is fair to say if it involves a delegation issue, the City Attorney's office would not be in a position to recommend it because it is not authorized by the Charter; people can disagree, but Council will make the ultimate decision. Commissioner Shabazz stated that he appreciates the legal analysis; there is a desire to have something substantive to replace what was lost with the removal of null and void; depending on where people may be, maybe move to recommend the Foreman proposal to the City Council. Commissioner Tilos sta… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.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/2021-08-02.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-08-02 | 8 | COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner LoPilato suggested receiving updates from Commissioners at subsequent meetings of correspondence any member has sent to Council; she would like to be aware of what is going out under the Commission's name. The City Clerk stated she forwarded correspondence to the Council and can also forward it to the Commission offline; there is no need to wait until the next meeting. Commissioner Chen stated the Commission should think ahead about what the table of contents should be on the Annual Report; she would like both Commissioners and staff to begin thinking about it; she feels some members would like to see a more robust annual report; she would like to agendize brainstorming the table of contents. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission should not express any consensus under this issue because it is not agendized. Adjournment Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission August 2, 2021 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,13 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 13 | Chair Aguilar inquired whether there are meeting minutes for the committee that created the Ordinance which might shed some light on the matter, to which the City Clerk responded the minutes were action minutes and were not detailed. Chair Aguilar inquired whether the minutes will not necessarily be that helpful as to why certain things were followed, to which the City Clerk responded that she does not know if policy body was heavily discussed; it might have just been the wording that was in that section of what [City] the Task Force was cutting and pasting from; she can research the history. Commissioner Dieter stated before moving on to the next section, at the last meeting [former] Chair Cambra noted that policy body is being defined at a later time then when it is used and suggested moving that definition up under definitions; that she still thinks that is a good idea. Vice Chair Foreman stated it is under definitions. Commissioner Dieter stated the Assistant City Attorney indicated alphabetical order is the reason for where the definition is; the term is used numerous times before defining it; there was talk about just not paying attention to alphabetical order; maybe that definition should be moved to B rather than keeping it D. Vice Chair Foreman inquired where it is used before the Section, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the definition of meeting under Section 2-91.1, the term policy body shows up there and a number of different places and that was a little bit of a concern but it is the definition section. Vice Chair Foreman stated ordinarily definitions are put in alphabetical order because if someone is researching it, they are going to have a hard time finding it if it is not in alphabetical order. Chair Aguilar stated that she agrees that it needs to stay in alphabetical order; even if it is above, someone would look in the definitions to see if it is defined. Commissioner Dieter stated other than that, she is fine with that section; the Commission can move onto the next one called… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 8 | Chair Aguilar stated she does not have the Brown Act in front of her so she does not know if legislative body and policy body are synonymous. The Assistant City Attorney responded they are; stated that he is surmising that if the term legislative body had been used, people might be confused that it is just the City Council and not advisory bodies, so policy bodies was used instead; if agreeable to the Commission, a definition of policy bodies could be added because he is not sure if it is defined. Vice Chair Foreman stated it is defined. Chair Aguilar stated it is Subsection 2-91.1(b)(3). Vice Chair Foreman stated all it would say is the term is intended to be synonymous with the term legislative body as defined in the Brown Act; stated using policy bodies was a good idea; all bodies are not legislative bodies; policy bodies is smarter. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the change stated. Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3 The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the Commission wants to make a motion to adopt all the changes, including the changes made tonight; stated an overall motion should be made to take forward to the Council. Commissioner Dieter moved approval of recommending to City Council the adoption of the changes that have been approved tonight and previously. Vice Chair Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3 COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission is supposed to report to the City Council at least once a year in writing on any practical or policy problems encountered; read the Section of the Ordinance; inquired how the Commission plans on doing so; stated perhaps staff wants to bring back a proposal on how to accomplish doing so; the Commission only meets twice a year; she is not sure if it is possible for the Commission to write an annual report; the Sunshine Ordinance says that the Open Government Commission shall review public notices to ensure that they conform to the requirements of… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.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/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/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/2018-03-05.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 3 | Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little expressed that they could not think of such an instance. The City Clerk provided a scenario of someone speaking on the same topic under Public Comment at the closed session and again under Oral Communications Non- Agenda on the regular meeting the same night. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee discussed the matter; non-agenda items are only for matters not on an agenda, whether closed session or not; the subcommittee wanted to be clear. The City Attorney provided a specific example prohibiting a speaker from commenting under non-agenda items on the regular agenda after having an opportunity to comment on the agenda item at a prior closed session meeting the same night; Council wants to hear from the Commission on the issue. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee's intent was to do so; questioned whether language should be added to clarify speakers can comment once on a particular night. There was consensus to add language. The City Attorney stated limiting speakers would not be fair if the meetings were on different nights. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether someone wanting to comment after the closed session announcement is a legitimate non-agenda item. Chair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the person is commenting on the closed session item, which is on the agenda. Commissioner Foreman stated the speaker would not be given an opportunity to comment after the Closed Session action is announced. The City Attorney stated comments are given prior to Council going into closed session; provided an example. Commissioner Foreman stated the public having to be present to comment at the start of the closed session is fine. Vice Chair Little stated the language should be tightened up. Commissioner Foreman stated that he is opposed to the restriction about ceding time; he could support the Mayor getting assurance that the person ceding time is present; there are better ways to shorten meetings; inquired why public comments not being a debate has not been included. Meeting of t… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 9 | Chair Dieter inquired whether anyone has issues with the rule on ceremonial presentations and proclamations. Commissioner Foreman responded 15 minutes is not doable. Vice Chair Little stated the time can be extended. Chair Dieter stated 15 minutes is the current rule; getting through proclamations the last few meetings has taken one hour; she thinks the rule is important; inquired how proclamations are added to the agenda. The City Clerk responded many proclamations are repeated annually; stated outside groups make requests; work is currently being done to limit proclamations to three per meeting; a suggestion has been made to only read part of the proclamation. The City Attorney noted an excerpt could be read since the proclamations are included in the packet. Vice Chair Little stated the following commentary often tends to go on for a long time. Commissioner Foreman stated no matter what rule is written, it will be ignored; it is very difficult; provided an example. Chair Dieter stated in all fairness to the City Council, she does not think people have been cognizant of the rules; this is a new starting point; she thinks there will be teamwork; the Chair is responsible for keeping the process going. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would be more comfortable with limiting the amount of time to 10 minutes per proclamation. Vice Chair Little stated it is up to the Chair to get through the proclamations in 15 minutes; if there are three, the Chair should explain each gets five minutes; if there is one, it can have the full 15 minutes; creative scheduling might be in order as well. Chair Dieter stated perhaps every person being honored might not speak; recommended deleting the last clause that says the time can be extended by majority vote. Commissioner Foreman stated that he has no problem with that. Chair Dieter moved on to Rule 6 on consent items, which did not have any issues; inquired whether there are issues with Rule 7 regarding referrals. Commissioner Foreman responded referrals are not in the current rul… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 4 | Chair Dieter responded the matter is addressed in Rosenberg's Rules of Order. Commissioner Foreman stated that he has not seen it. Vice Chair Little stated Rosenberg's Rules specifically talks about public comment not being a debate. Chair Dieter concurred; stated Rosenberg's Rules address what is debatable and not debatable. Commissioner Foreman stated it is not included the short version. Chair Dieter concurred; stated it is in the long version. Vice Chair Little stated the subcommittee thought it was reasonable. Commissioner Foreman stated that he does not read Rosenberg's Rules as relating the issue to public comment; it relates to Council discussions. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Commissioner Foreman stated language exists; he does not like the language; under non-agenda comment, a sentence says City staff or members of the body may briefly respond, but no action or discussion follows at the meeting; there is not a provision covering agenda items; public comment takes place before the motion; the language in Rosenberg's Rules relates to debate on a motion, which is not the same thing; there needs to be guidelines one way or another. Chair Dieter stated a sentence could be added. Commissioner Foreman suggested adding the same language under public comment non-agenda items: "staff or members of the body may briefly respond;" a clarifying question could be asked; Council typically does not respond to speakers; people want a response, not a debate; once in a while a response is appropriate. Vice Chair Little expressed concern if 30 other people are waiting to speak. Commissioner Foreman stated public comment is not time for a debate; a clarifying comment would be appropriate. Vice Chair Little stated adding a sentence to clarify there is no debate during public comment would be okay. Commissioner Foreman stated language has been included for non-agenda items; inquired why language would be included for one and not the other. Meeting Open Government Commission March 5, 2018 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 10 | Chair Dieter stated referrals are not in the current rules and have never been adopted by resolution or ordinance. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether referrals have been adopted in any way. Chair Dieter responded referrals were adopted by motion; stated since the issue is being visited, referrals should be codified; before the meeting, the subcommittee decided to add one more element to the provision that is not included: Councilmembers would be limited to three referrals per year, which is important because some items can be done behind the scenes by working with the City Manager, City Attorney or the department head; after a little behind the scenes, the City Manager could agendize the matter if it is important. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would go to the City Manager first if he was on the Council; questioned whether the referral process is not used unless Councilmembers cannot get cooperation. Commissioner Henneberry inquired what are the current rules on referrals; inquired whether there is any limit. Chair Dieter responded there are no limits. Commissioner Henneberry inquired where the limit of three came from, to which Chair Dieter responded sticking with the three on all the rules; everything is three. Commissioner Henneberry stated that he thinks three is too limited. Commissioner Foreman concurred. Chair Dieter stated three referrals per Councilmember is 15 referrals per year that would have to come back 15 more times, which is more referrals than there are meetings per year since there are 22 meetings. Commissioner Henneberry inquired how many referrals are being made by each Councilmember. The City Clerk responded she could do a tally; stated some do more than three. Commissioner Henneberry stated the number would be useful; three seems low. Commissioner Schwartz stated the rule feels distinct from everything else being done, which are explicitly about time management in meetings; limiting referrals seems far afield; the matter could be addressed separately after further investigation; he w… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 6 | Chair Dieter stated that she has spoken under both sections on two different topics. The matter was briefly discussed to clarify that a speaker could comment under each section, but not on the same topic. The City Clerk noted the non-agenda section could be moved after Council referrals to address the concern about not getting to referrals. Commissioners Foreman, Schwartz and Little expressed support for doing so. The City Clerk noted the order of business of the meetings would have to be amended via resolution. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Vice Chair Little outlined the changes: 1) the last line under the Supplemental Rule 3 would be deleted, 2) language that specifies a speaker can only speak for a maximum of three minutes on one topic would be added, and 3) the second section of oral communications is considered a continuation of the first. The City Clerk inquired whether the Commission has an interest in limiting the speaker time limit in the instances when there are many speakers. Vice Chair Little responded the subcommittee discussed the issue. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee decided to leave the matter at the discretion of the Chair; the Chair should be encouraged to make the judgement call; questioned whether the Commission thinks a recommendation is needed to lower the time limit to two minutes for items with over 20 speakers. Commissioner Foreman stated that he has seen Council vote to change the time limit. The City Attorney stated Council can modify any of the rules; noted trying to decide to make changes during the meeting takes time; a policy might make it simpler. Chair Dieter stated any member could make a motion to suspend the rules to lower the time limit; the Chair would be overruled if the super majority agrees. Commissioner Schwartz stated pre-establishing guidance would do the Chair a favor. Commissioner Henneberry stated when he was on the Planning Board, if there were multiple items with lots of speakers, the limit would be two minutes; there was not a hard and fast rule; if… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 4 | Chair Dieter stated that she would like to make a motion to repeal the original resolution and any resolution amending it altogether, introduce a new resolution that adopts Rosenberg's Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rule adopted by resolution of the City Council, and where Rosenberg is silent, provisions would be added to the resolution; in other words, standard parliamentary rules would be adopted and special rules would be passed as needed; further stated to try to guide the discussion, she would share a handout with follow Commissioners because it is in writing and will be made part of the public record. The City Clerk inquired whether the motion would be to make a recommendation to have Council repeal the resolutions because Council has to repeal its resolutions, to which Chair Dieter responded correct. Chair Dieter stated what she has handed out includes her outline of Rosenberg's Rules of Order, which is part of the staff report, and clauses needed in the new resolution; the items Rosenberg's Rules is silent on and the City Council has taken a position on are in the list of clauses; the first is counting votes, which the public speaker addressed; read the proposed clauses; stated that she reviewed the daisy chain of resolutions and included what she considered to be important or missing and came up with the list of clauses that the Commission could consider adding to Rosenberg's Rules or Order; stated that is her motion. Commissioner Foreman requested the motion be read back. Chair Dieter stated the motion is to consider suggesting that the City Council repeal the original resolution and any resolutions amending it and introduce a new resolution adopting Rosenberg's Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rules adopted by resolution of the City Council; where Rosenberg's Rules is silent, add provisions to the resolution which she specifically named. Commissioner Foreman stated the handout is simply an outline of how to attack the matter and does not necessarily become part o… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 3 | Chair Dieter stated that she would not recommend conflating affordable housing into an infrastructure bond measure or future surveys; it dilutes the issues and is a little confusing to the public. 3-C. Review the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Vice Chair Little inquired whether the Commission should go through the list of items that was provided by the Council subcommittee; stated that she has questions and comments throughout the list; going through the list one item at a time might be easiest. Chair Dieter stated that she has a motion that she would like to make which might clarify how the Commission moves forward. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding the agenda title, the City Clerk stated the Commission's feedback will be provided to the City Council; the review encompasses the Commission's discussion, which will be passed onto the City Council. Chair Dieter inquired whether the complete rules of order do not exist as one document, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the resolution has been amended. Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules are posted on the City's website, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the resolutions are all posted separately. Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules of order and order of business are two separate things, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Chair Dieter stated the Commission is discussing the rules of order tonight, which is how to conduct meetings; inquired whether the Commission could also provide input on how the public could easily access the rules in the future. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated said matter is the first thing that should be addressed. Stated that he had not paid attention to the details of running meetings or heard of Rosenberg's Rules of Order; discussed the two methods for counting an abstention; stated one counts an abstention as a no; the other method, called present an… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 11 | Chair Dieter stated the start of the process has been geared toward the orderly conduct of meetings and nothing that goes on outside meetings; Commissioner Schwartz is right that the subcommittee stepped over the line a little bit. Commissioner Foreman stated dealing with referrals altogether stepped over the line. Chair Dieter stated not really because the public never knows what to expect from a Council referral; right now, a matter may come back or be decided on that night; the agenda title gives the impression that a decision could be made that night; provided an example; stated that she thinks Council referrals are out of hand; a lot of time is spent on the merits of an issue and whether the issue is important enough to bring back at another meeting, which was the whole impetus of Council referrals; referrals come from one person, rather than have it agenized, Council is supposed to decide if it is important and should come back with a staff report. The City Clerk stated Council did not want to be limited and wanted to be able to take action under the Council referrals section of the agenda; the 2007 staff report, which was provided, clearly states the Council can take dispositive action if sufficiently noticed. Commissioner Foreman inquired what is sufficient information, to which the City Clerk responded said determination is made by the City Attorney. The City Attorney provided an example of supporting State legislation; stated Chair Dieter's examples are something that would need analysis. The City Clerk stated the current Council adopted a new referral form and reiterated the three options at the top of the form: 1) take no action, 2) refer the matter to staff or 3) take dipositive action; the current Council just reaffirmed that they want to take dispositive action; noted the Commission would be recommending something different than the current Council has said they want. Commissioner Schwartz suggested tabling referrals for now; stated referrals seem to do less with time management and Rosenberg's Rul… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 6 | Chair Henneberry concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated the request is reasonable considering the volume of record requests made annually; he would like to emphasize the need for an immediate acknowledgement of requests made. Commissioner Little inquired whether an excel spreadsheet is used for the tracking, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he is not certain of the tracking method but will provide information at the next meeting. Commissioner Little stated that she would like the City Attorney's office to review its processes and come up with internal suggestions. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he has notes of the well-founded suggestions and will draft the changes to the decision. The City Clerk added that her office usually always double-checks when copied on requests and has already included the new practice going forward. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the City Clerk stated often times the requests which come through the SeeClickFix system to the Clerk's office are not public records requests and are Code Enforcement or other requests, which the office has to reassign; the actual public records requests that come through to the Clerk's office are typically fulfilled within the 10 days because most of the information is not confidential and does not require extra review. Chair Henneberry stated the direction is for staff to go back to the drawing board to restructure the decision so that the situation does not repeat itself. The City Clerk clarified that the hearing will be continued to a date certain, October 7, 2019 for the decision to be reviewed. Chair Little inquired whether the Commission would receive the revised draft decision prior to the agenda packet, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that he will provide the draft soon so that the Commission will have an opportunity to provide comments and it can be close to final form ahead of the October 7th meeting. In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry, the Assistant City… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 5 | Chair Little concurred with Commissioner Henneberry; stated that is what the Commission is trying to do. The Interim City Attorney stated without waiving his previous arguments, suggested including the amendments as the three provisions rather than deleting them altogether. Chair Little stated that she would like the language to read, "the Council must re-notice " and delete the word "consider" as she does not want Council to be able to consider the decision, and rather just be directed to do it. The Interim City Attorney stated the Commission does not have the authority to direct the Council's action. Commissioner Foreman stated the Commission has made the ordinances null and void; the Council can choose to re-notice the ordinances if desired; he does not think the Commission should force Council to reconsider. Commissioner Henneberry stated the Commission's job is done upon Council being informed of the mistake. The Interim City Attorney reiterated the language revisions to include deleting the word "circumscribed" in the fourth sentence, and having the Commission "directing" rather than "recommending" the following: 1) Ordinances 3227 and 3228 are null and void; and 2) the City Council may consider re-introducing the two ordinances in question following a properly noticed public hearing. Commissioner Foreman stated the provision regarding the agenda title is not needed and can be deleted. The Interim City Attorney affirmed Commissioner Foreman's statement. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would like to make a change to a paragraph on page 8; the last sentence should just read: "the Commission finds that there was a violation of Section 2-91.5, and the complaint is thereby sustained.' Commissioner Dieter stated that she does not think a full legal opinion is necessary in the future because it could be biased since it promotes a certain viewpoint. The Interim City Attorney read the amended language and the Commission concurred with the changes. Commissioner Foreman stated that he was concerned about the Commi… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 3 | Chair Schwartz inquired whether Mr. Harrison did not find any cases within the last 50 years which prohibit a commission from sending an ordinance back to Council for further review. Mr. Harrison responded in the affirmative; stated the Commission certainly has power to make recommendations; he is not aware of any cases that would preclude making recommendations. Chair Schwartz inquired whether any cases preclude a supermajority requirement in certain instances; for example, to reject the recommendation of a City's appointed Commission. Mr. Harrison responded as to said point, they were relying on the City's Charter which specifies that the Council takes action by a vote of three members unless the Charter specifies a different threshold. Chair Schwartz stated the Charter does not say anything about this particular situation where an appointed Commission makes a recommendation to City Council regarding the voting quorum that is necessary. Mr. Harrison stated the Charter specifies that Council action occurs by a vote of three members unless the Charter specifies elsewhere; he would not expect to find anything in the Charter because in the absence of anything else, three votes are required. Chair Schwartz inquired whether the Charter has any instances where it allows for a supermajority vote, to which Mr. Harrison responded in the affirmative; stated in cases of urgency ordinances, a four-fifths vote is required, which is in Section 3-12 of the Charter. Chair Schwartz inquired whose responsibility is it to approve a Charter provision; gave the example of the Commission recommending to the City Council that a supermajority be required to adopt something against the recommendation of the Commission to reagendize the matter; inquired whether the City Council could vote to adopt that as an amendment to the Charter. Mr. Harrison responded Charter amendments would have to be placed on a ballot and approved by the voters. In response to Chair Schwartz inquiry regarding the non-delegation notion, Mr. Harrison stated he ind… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 8 | Chair Schwartz moved approval of not recommending the Chair request the Council to retain independent legal counsel as it over-reaches the Commission's authority. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff understood that the process tonight would be collaboration with the Commission and draft a proper analysis to be brought back to the Commission which reflects the direction given. Commissioner Little seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5 Chair Schwartz moved approval of Mr. Foreman's recommendation for Section 2-93.8-C. Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5 Chair Schwartz moved approval of accepting the Foreman proposal of striking the monetary penalty. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5 The Assistant City Attorney clarified Section C regarding the Council accepting OGC recommendations actually applies to Section 2-91, not 2-92; both sections involve a cure and correct, he just wants to make sure that was the motion and that staff has proper direction. Chair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney, stated the motion was applicable to Section 2-91 regarding public access of meetings. Commissioner Little inquired whether there should be any conversation regarding Item D under the penalties section; she reads that section as someone bringing forward an issue simply to disrupt the process. Chair Schwartz responded that Item D is not a redlined item and there are no changes to the section. 3-C. Set the First Monday of Each Month, Excluding September, as Established Meeting Dates Chair Schwartz moved approval of accepting the proposal on meeting dates. Commissioner Little seconded the motio… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,14 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 14 | Chair Schwartz stated it is a worthy consideration; he would suggest that, since the Commission is being asked for recommendations at this point, that he still recommends the 12-day noticing rule for special meetings and that the Commission be advised if it is not a good idea for any of the Commissions before there is a final resolution; the recommendation could be to increase public access and public transparency, and special meetings be held to the 12-day noticing requirement. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office would bring back draft language that reflects comments and direction from the Commission. Commissioner Tilos stated there are accessibility issues and accessibility is lowered even more during this pandemic; important and controversial issues, such as Charter amendments, should not be noticed in special meetings during a pandemic when participation is low. Commissioner Little disagreed; stated business has to continue; there is no idea how long the pandemic will last and City business cannot continue to be postponed; she would also argue that although the format of virtual meetings has been limiting to some people, it can also afford greater accessibility to the public who might not otherwise be able to attend a meeting and engage from home instead of in person; there are positives and negatives, but what is critical is expending all efforts to communicate and make sure the public has every opportunity to be aware of the various meetings and agendas that will be happening. Commissioner Tilos stated he would like to add to Chair Schwartz's first recommendation regarding communication; he would like to implore technology be used, including text notifications and allowing citizens to opt in to receive notification about specific meetings. Commissioner Little stated it would be an easy list since there are a number of Alamedans who already receive text notifications from the City regarding COVID updates. Chair Schwartz stated that he would like to move toward a vote if there … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.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/2021-03-01.pdf,18 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-03-01 | 18 | Chair Tilos and Commissioner LoPilato suggested talking in terms of "sustained" and "unsustained.' The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that Mr. Foreman is correct; there is a provision in the Sunshine Ordinance that if a person files two complaints in a 12-month period that are "unfounded," they would be prohibited from filing a complaint for five years; he is incorrect in that there is no definition of "unfounded" in the Sunshine Ordinance that would give it a different definition than "unsubstantiated" or "denied;" there is a penalty for having two unfounded complaints, but there is no requirement that the OGC reaches some special finding to declare it unfounded. Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of determining the complaint to be unfounded on the basis that it is not a question properly before the Commission because it requires legal analysis and requests a remedy beyond the scope of the Commission's authority for resolving Sunshine Ordinance complaints and because it is untimely; even if the complaint was properly before the Commission and timely, there was substantial compliance with the Brown Act and any alleged violation was cured by the multiple noticed, properly agendized meetings. Chair Tilos requested the motion be re-stated more concisely. Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of finding the complaint unfounded primarily on procedural grounds. Commissioner Chen seconded the motion. Under discussion, Chair Tilos stated there is gray line between ad hoc and legislative body; the ad hoc committee had one clearly defined mission and was reporting to the legislative body; at the end of the day, it is the legislative body that has the final say; the ad hoc committee does the research and helps out; the OGC formed an ad hoc committee to deal with the null and void issue and he sees the Renaming Committee as a similar situation; the spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance is to bring more people into the discussion; clearly, there was already a renaming policy and ARPD or the RPC could have just renamed the p… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 10 | Chair Tilos called a recess at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:12 p.m. *** Chair Tilos summarized part two of the complaint regarding the City's response to the Nextdoor issue. Commissioner Montgomery stated she needs more clarification on what constitutes City work as opposed to a personal statement made by a Councilmember on any social platform. In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry regarding whether the City of San Jose case could be used as guidance, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the case law statutes have not caught up yet with reality and social media; the City of San Jose case is instructive, but it is not precedent in the sense that it does not address the situation here; the Commission is trying to grapple with the issue of whether or not the private social media of a public official is a public record; the law does not give a lot of guidance; cases from an Appellate Court or Supreme Court in California do not exist yet; the factors provided in the City of San Jose case evaluate whether or not certain communications constitute public records. Chair Tilos stated as a non-lawyer, his thought process is what could the City have provided; he is not comfortable making a decision based on what the Chief Assistant City Attorney's statement regarding unchartered territory; the City Attorney's office and City Council should give the Commission guidance; the City's account is open; information should have been provided. Commissioner LoPilato stated the issue is an emerging legal area; the Commission making precedent decisions regarding social media disclosures would probably be improper; the language in the San Jose case which she cited is a bit more permissive as to what analysis the Commission could undertake tonight; however, she thinks Chair Tilos's comments are well taken into consideration and the Commission may not need to go in that direction; stated there is a reference in the Assistant City Attorney's October 28th email about a record being apparent on the City's official agen… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.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/2021-04-05.pdf,19 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 19 | Chair Tilos responded questions and comments only at this time, inquired whether Commissioner Reid had questions for Mr. Garfinkle or Ms. Rogers. Commissioner Reid responded she would hold her questions for now. Commissioner LoPilato stated her understanding of the procedure; inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle verified that Mr. Hofer is a registered lobbyist or if he was just using the term in reference that he was part of a non-profit organization. Mr. Garfinkle responded that he drafted the resolution and presented it to several cities; whether or not he is a registered lobbyist is not the issue; he is acting as a lobbyist and is not a random member of the Alameda community. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle was speaking on behalf a group of citizens when using the word "our" in presentation materials, to which Mr. Garfinkle responded it is editorial. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the legislative agenda is typically done as a consent calendar item, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated it is on the consent calendar every year. Commissioner Reid inquired a definition of what items are allowed to be on the Consent Calendar. The City Clerk responded items that are considered routine. Commissioner Reid inquired whether it could be said that non-controversial items can be on the Consent Calendar. The City Clerk responded she would not make that statement because some people might find spending money on a vehicle controversial and some people might not. Commissioner Reid stated she found the definition in Robert's Rules and just wondered if it aligned with Alameda's policy for its Consent Calendar. The City Clerk stated if there was an item that would bring out the public, it would be definitely placed on the Regular Agenda. Ms. Rogers further clarified that Council or a member of the public could pull an item off the February 16, 2021 Consent Calendar for discussion and had opportunity to do so during the Council meeting. Mr. Garfinkle stated he has issues with the use … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 5 | Chair Tilos 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. Commissioner LoPilato suggested addressing the provision adding a Subsection D to the complaint procedures, which would harmonize the Sunshine Ordinance language with the statutory language elsewhere in the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) laying out the duties of the OGC; stated that she drafted a possible way to capture it under the complaint procedures; it would be non-binding recommendations and a vehicle for the Commission to do something beyond merely finding something substantiated or unsubstantiated. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated his understanding of Commissioner LoPilato's proposal is that she is tying back to the duties of the Commission as set forth in AMC Chapter two; requested clarification if the additional language is put into the ordinance, there would still be a finding as to the merits of the complaint; then, rather than using the cure and correct remedy, it would be an alternative. Commissioner LoPilato responded the existing process would be retained; stated the Commission would make a finding on the specific complaint; the finding may include a cure and correct remedy; there are many instances where, even if the Commission finds something substantiated, there is no appropriate cure and correct remedy; the issue could seemingly be resolved, but the underlying complaint is substantiated; she wants to create an alternative path where the Commission could take a majority vote as to whether there are also some informal resolution options that might be beneficial; she is open to making adjustments if there are legal concerns. The Assistant City Attorney stated that is how he interpreted Commissioner LoPilato's proposal; there could be a scenario where the Commission could have a decision as to the merits and order a cure and correct; a footnote could be added about informal ways to deal with… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-09-20 | 4 | Chair Tilos stated he would like to see how the new PRA system goes as it would address many of the issues Commissioner Reid brought forward; after a few months, there can be a check in with the public. Commissioner LoPilato read the ordinance language; stated presenting an actual recommendation for action is ideal; the Commission is safely within compliance with its statutory duties by simply surfacing an issue as a heads-up; the Commission does not need to spend a ton of time thinking of exactly how to solve every PRA bottleneck before preparing the report. Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Commissioner Chen; it would be great to get feedback from the public; suggested a public survey. Commissioner Chen stated the survey could be included in the recommendation as an action item; she will meet with Vice Chair Shabazz to draft a memo as part of the report; she appreciates all the feedback and realizes the City is launching the new system for PRAs and there will be a sorting-out period to get the kinks out. Commissioner Reid stated the Commission should try to shoot for the maximum possible to be delivered to the public; encouraged Commissioner Chen to make a motion. Commissioner Chen stated that she would get together with Vice Chair Shabazz and a report would come to the Commission next month to go to Council as part of the annual report. Commissioner LoPilato stated the report that is prepared will go on the agenda; there will be opportunity for public comment; suggested Commissioner Reid make the public aware of the item as opposed to creating a survey since there already will be space for public engagement. 3-C. Report from Subcommittee on Draft Bylaw Revisions Commissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation. The City Clerk stated the report was shared with the League of Women Voters (LWV) along with a link to join the meeting; the LWV knows the item is being addressed tonight and have access to the meeting. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she had… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-09-20 | 9 | Chair Tilos stated if a person has two unfounded cases, they should not bring more complaints. Commissioner Reid stated the penalties are harsh. Commissioner LoPilato stated the penalties are rooted in the Sunshine Ordinance, which the Commission does not have the ability to revise, nor is it the topic of the agenda item; she thinks it might be instructive to describe the different type of findings; listed examples. Commissioner Reid stated it is overdone and should be much more simplified and fair for the public. Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Reid's comments are noted. Commissioner LoPilato stated the Commission needs to deal with the pre-hearing submission timeline. Chair Tilos concurred; stated the decision to have monthly meetings is all new and the timing need to be hashed out. The City Clerk discussed scheduling. Commissioner LoPilato stated she could work with the City Clerk and Chief Assistant City Attorney between now and the next meeting to streamline a solution; the individual from the City Attorney's office supporting the OGC needs sufficient time to review the materials and prepare something for the Commission, while also working to prevent off-cycle meetings; the goal is to give everybody a clear and transparent process and timeline; the language could be a little more vague to say: "based on the complaint submission timing, the City Clerk will advise all parties of when written submissions will be due. " or something along those lines. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated there are timing requirements for scheduling a complaint hearing; prior to setting the monthly Mondays, staff always tried to schedule the hearing for the next meeting; it was quicker because all that was needed was the complaint and staff report; hearings sometimes had to be set on a different date based on the schedules of the Commissioners and/or Complainant. Chair Tilos inquired whether bringing the item back on October 4th is a reasonable timeframe, to which Commissioner LoPilato responded that she cou… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,12 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 12 | Chair Tilos stated the 10 days refers just to the response, not to the providing of the documents, so it is a false motion. Commissioner Reid restated her motion to sustain the complaint based on the lack of receiving a response within the required 10 day allotment through the California PRA. The Chief Assistant City Attorney noted there is actually a provision in the California Discovery Act that If the last day to perform or complete any act of discovery falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the time limit is extended until the next court date closer to the trial date. Vice Chair Shabazz seconded the motion. Commissioner Chen stated somehow the Commission wants to punish the wrongdoing by acting on this motion, which really does not get to the heart of the problem; she thinks the Commission has to go another route to get to the heart of the problem and needs to separate whether or not the Sunshine Ordinance was violated as per the complaint; the Commission is bending over backwards to count 10 days and try to use a mechanism that will not allow doing something, which should be done at a later date. Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated the Commission knows something is wrong but are basing the motion on a technicality where he thinks the Commission needs to dig deeper to find out what is really wrong and form that into a motion. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the last time, the Commission actually continued the hearing; the matter was continued and there was not a quorum, so it ended up on a subsequent agenda; the Commission could continue the item to a specific date and formulate the decision on that day in order to get to the other agenda items. Chair Tilos inquired whether the item could be continued to the next meeting or to next Monday, to which the City Clerk responded the timeline is 30 days to formulate the decision. Commissioner Reid withdrawing her previous motion; moved approval of just sustaining the complaint. Vice Chair Shabazz stated there is a motion… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,17 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 17 | Chair Tilos stated the next step is to draft the decision. Vice Chair Shabazz stated as a point of order, he is more interested in the restoring part or what happens next; it is also important to address so the same issue does not happen again. Chair Tilos stated the issue can be addressed with a letter to City Council, as Commissioner Chen suggested, on how to make changes to the policy. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she wants to confirm that to the extent that there is going to be any recommendation from the Commission as to any policy change, it will be a request to the Council to make that policy change and should definitely be agendized. *** Chair Tilos called a recess at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:59 p.m. *** 3-C. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed by Jay Garfinkle on February 25, 2021 Complainant Jay Garfinkle gave a brief presentation. Special Counsel Kristen Rogers gave a brief presentation. The City Clerk stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items. Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of considering the remaining items in order to get a response back to City Council. Commissioner Chen seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Chair Shabazz stated it is great that the City wants a response but he does not know whether it should motivate the Commission's agenda, goals and priorities, which is partially why he suggested the Commission collectively agree on its goals and priorities; he does not know if the Commission would be able to have the substantive discussion within the context of the Brown Act. Chair Tilos stated that he is leaning toward that route as well; he would like to give Mr. Garfinkle his time so he will not vote to consider the next item. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: No; Chair No: Aye. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. *** Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 17 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 6 | Chair Tilos suggested approving the report as is, with a motion for the voluntary suspended complaint be agendized for the next meeting to check the status with the City Attorney office. Vice Chair Shabazz stated a complaint dated May 12, 2020 was for APD Arrest Information; Request 20-40 dated April 15, 2020 was for APD Arrest Information; inquired whether the request was the PRA that lead to the "voluntary suspended" complaint, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of deferring the approval of the report to the next meeting in order to have the City Attorney provide information about the specific instance and to provide any additional context regarding the withdrawn cases as consistent with previous annual reports. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz re-stated his motion: to defer the acceptance of the annual report with the direction to the City Attorney's office to provide additional context and factual information regarding the "voluntary suspended" case, and, as consistent with previous annual reports, provide any additional context about the withdrawn complaints. Commissioner Chen seconded the motion. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated there is no specific deadline; the annual report has typically been presented at the Commission's first meeting of the year in February. Vice Chair Shabazz stated he really likes the table and does not want to mandate the format, but asks that the information be accurate. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission can provide a specific date to hear the matter; the first Monday of every month is now reserved in case the Commission has business; this issue can be considered business and does not have to wait until the specific established date of February or October; an… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf,20 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 20 | Chen related to trust and some revelations relating to the Police Department, particularly the use of facial recognition technology after it was banned, combined with the press release regarding Mario Gonzales; expressed concern that said issues reaffirm and reinforce the lack of trust related to APD operations. Commissioner LoPilato stated in the formation of the practical and policy problems report, she would urge that there is some attention paid to the hotspots with respect to transparency in the Police Department. Adjournment Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission May 3, 2021 20 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 6 | City Attorney is in the middle, should be advising the Commission and has a conflict; further stated the City should consider hiring independent, private counsel to represent the Commission when a complaint is heard. In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry regarding who has authority to request a re-hearing, the Interim City Attorney stated the request could come from a number of different sources; in this case, because the City Attorney's office did not do an accurate job of laying out what the Commission could do, it was incumbent upon the City to provide the information to the Commission and the Council so that the issue could be fully vetted and addressed. The Commission agreed to hear the public comments. 3-A. Hearing on the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed October 30, 2018 and the November 14, 2018 Open Government Commission Hearing and Decision, Including Scope of Legal Authority of the Open Government Commission to Impose Certain Penalties under the Sunshine Ordinance and Potential Next Steps. Stated he is satisfied with the outcome of tonight's meeting and does not feel the Commission's decision encroaches on the Council's legislative authority: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Read the League's letter supporting the Commission's decision: Karen Butter, League of Women Voters. Thanked the Commission for reaffirming his faith in government: Bill Smith, Alameda. Commissioner Foreman stated what the Commission did tonight is not an exercise or delegation of legislative power; it is a quasi-judicial function and the same penalty that would have been suffered under the Brown Act. In response to Chair Little's inquiry regarding calling the question, the City Clerk stated she already called the question and the previous decision was upheld: 4 to 1 with Commissioner Schwartz absent. 3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed December 4, 2018. [Withdrawn without prejudice] COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Chair Little thanked Commissioners Foreman and Dieter for their service; stated having them participate in… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-07-19 | 5 | Commission distinguishes it from others; how officers are selected accounts for that; there is also a habit in the order of appointment, which, should be codified if it will be the practice. Commissioner LoPilato stated the comments are helpful; she will tinker with some options and bring it back to the group; continued her presentation. Commissioner Reid stated that she was going to suggest no new items be considered after 10:00 p.m. unless a supermajority of the Commission votes to allow the items to be heard; this would facilitate more communication with the public so the meetings do not go too long with the potential for losing participants. Chair Tilos stated he could support either 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. Vice Chair Shabazz stated his main concern is the public's ability to participate; if the practice is to have Commissioner Communications as the mechanism to get things on the agenda, he would be concerned about things that do not get on the agenda; the Commission takes a long time to have discussions and go over details; he would encourage having only three minutes for Commission Communications and have that section first; it depends on the composition of the group. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she will do a little research on the other bodies that do it in a similar way. The City Clerk stated the section in the original bylaws matched a deleted section of the Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner LoPilato stated it would be great to allow non-agenda items to be a space to encourage community members to come forward outside of the complaint process with issues they are facing; inquired whether there are strong preferences on the minutes section. Commissioner Reid stated the bylaws state draft minutes should be available in 10 days; inquired whether it would be possible to publish the draft minutes as soon as possible. The City Clerk responded the deadline of 10 business days for draft minutes is always met; stated unapproved minutes are not published in the agenda database because members of the public could … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 6 | Commission should stand by a position that they had taken in the past to the extent that the doctrine of stare decisis applies; decision 19-02 would not be a precedent because the issue about timeliness was not decided; it was never raised and, therefore, never decided; the notion that the City is bound because timeliness was not previously raised is not something the City would ever support. Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether the records produced were from the individual custodian of records or from a third party, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded they were from a third party. Mr. Shabazz stated the email he received was from Alamedanonymous; Anonymous Anonymous, is present at this meeting, along with Councilmember Herrera Spencer, so it is not likely they are the same person, would suggests the records were not from the custodian of records. Mr. Shabazz gave a Closing Statement. The Assistant City Attorney, City/Respondent, gave a Closing Statement. Speakers: Jenice Anderson, Alameda, stated the City needs a new social media policy for Councilmembers; she does not have access and was blocked from using Nextdoor without an appeals process; she does not know what Councilmembers are doing or the business being conducted; other Councilmembers use Twitter, which any members of the public can see; City officials should not be able to use the Nextdoor platform and should be required to produce records of communications, especially if talking about constituents. Anonymous stated that he has no relationship to AlamedaAnonymous; he is from San Francisco; quoted State law regarding PRAs; according to State law, the Councilmember is a local agency and is required to produce the requested records; urged the Commission to resolve the ambiguity in favor of public access. Michael Devine, Alameda, stated the term doxing, a criminal act of revealing private information through hacking or other illegal means, should not be used, as it is inflammatory and misleading; the content posted to Nextdoor is not doxing any … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.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/2015-10-14.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 6 | Commissioner Bonta stated Mr. Cohen did respond via email within the three day time period and followed up with a phone call to get clarifying information; the height of customer service is to actually speak to someone directly and try to get the information. Mr. Klein stated it is difficult to understand said reasoning when the rule clearly states within three days the requester will get a response with regarding to when, how and by whom the request will be fulfilled. Vice Chairman Foreman stated that is the issue; Mr. Klein is not complaining about not getting the documents; his formal complaint is limited to the three day rule; that he leans toward the three day rule was violated; what bothers him is that Attorney Cohen may have a perfectly good explanation, but is not here; Attorney Cohen is the one who wrote the email and the Commission is supposed to be having a hearing about the email. Mr. Klein inquired whether the other party is supposed to present, to which the Assistant Attorney responded he is present on Mr. Cohen's behalf because the documents speak for themselves; the Commission has enough information to determine whether or not there was or was not a violation of the ordinance; that he does not think intent, except as read through the email, is relevant. Vice Chair Foreman stated that is a good point; it is not a question of intent. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of finding that there was a violation of the three day rule and [staff] did not comply with the requirements thereof; the needed clarification could have easily been satisfied in three days. Chair Aguilar stated the City met "by whom:" the City Attorney would be responding on behalf of the Councilmembers; "when" was going to be discussed; the Attorney could not answer "when" because he needed information on the timeframe; he needed to know where to start and stop gathering information; maybe the Attorney could have put the timeframe of the documents in the email or maybe he could not have; maybe he thought it was going to take a lot mor… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-01-11 | 5 | Commissioner Cambra stated he would be happy to help prepare the language. Vice Chair LoPilato stated as long as the Commission is framing it as encouragement for Council and the City Attorney's office to consider; her guess as to the origin of the 15-day statute of limitations was from the need to look forward with open meetings violations, making sure the complaint process happens quickly and perhaps the implications on a PRA request did not come into play; she wants to give some deference to the drafters of the statute in case there was some brilliant reason behind it that the Commission is missing; Commissioner Cambra's points are well taken, but it strikes her as that it incentivizes complaints; the more ways to find informal resolutions, the better. The City Clerk stated as part of the complaint form revision, the Commission gave direction to include that members of the public could attend OGC meetings and raise an issue without filing a complaint; the language is included at the top of the revised form; it could also be placed in other places throughout so that the public knows the Commission also exists to hear them. Chair Tilos stated the report should be wrapped up; new comments and ideas could go into next year's report. Commissioner Chen stated that she will bring the best of everything back at the meeting in February; unless there is something highly egregious, she is hoping the Commissioners will adopt it and a new subcommittee could be set up for the next report. Commissioner Cambra stated there was a situation at the December 6th hearing regarding a recusal; inquired whether the Commission should address the issue or make the Council aware; stated it has the impact of potentially having the Commission's decision come under judicial review. Commissioner Chen responded in an earlier iteration of the report, she included the recusal issue asking for clarification on when it is appropriate for a Commissioner to recuse themselves from a vote; she could put it back into the report. Commissioner Cambra s… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-01-11 | 9 | Commissioner Chen moved approval of the paper form matching the online form. Commissioner Montgomery 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. STAFF UPDATE The City Clerk made an announcement regarding the Sunshine Ordinance training held on December 15, 2021. COMMISSION AGENDA REQUESTS None. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 7-A. Communication from Commissioner Cambra Commissioner Cambra stated that he wanted to provide his background information as the new Commissioner and he is honored to be back on the OGC. *** NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission January 11, 2022 9 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-08-02 | 5 | Commissioner Chen responded in the negative; stated she thought the form was very simple and even hand-wrote hers. Chair Tilos stated that he does not want to over-complicate the form; the form is really just the first step; subsequent steps in the process get more complex. Commissioner LoPilato concurred with Chair Tilos, stated the form should continue to be simple; the only concern she had was the physical address requirement; complainants should be made aware that the complaint form is made public. Commissioner Reid inquired whether a member of the public could make an anonymous complaint, if it had been done in the past and if it could be included in the process. Chair Tilos stated he would not want to accept anonymous complaints; if someone is filing a complaint, they should step up; it also opens up the door for more complaints. Commissioner Reid stated the City of San Francisco's Sunshine Task Force hears anonymous complaints; she would like the process to be more open and comfortable for people; there are some details on the form that seem inconsistent, including how to file the complaint; the consideration of an online form would be beneficial and bring Alameda into the 21st century. Commissioner Chen stated she finds it difficult to see how the Commission could take an anonymous complaint and yet have the person present their complaint to the OGC. The City Clerk noted the Sunshine Ordinance requires that the complainant attend the hearing. Commissioner Chen stated unless the City Council changes the Sunshine Ordinance, anonymous complaints are not accepted; concurred with Commissioner Reid regarding the inconsistencies in the documents; stated that she will rely on Commissioner Reid's eagle eyes to point out what needs to be fixed. In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated there are digital options at the City's disposal that are easy to use; many forms have been converted to an online submission; the form has not been changed since 2012 and not everyone was emailing back th… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-08-02 | 7 | Commissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. [Absent: Vice Chair Shabazz - 1] Under discussion, Commissioner LoPilato stated any feedback from Commissioner Reid would be welcome. Commissioner Reid stated if the Commission is taking a collaborative approach, members should work together; if Commissioners are willing to work on a certain topic, the Commission should welcome it. Chair Tilos stated Commissioners are welcome to share their thoughts. 3-B. Staff Update The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the OGC proposals for the Sunshine Ordinance revisions submitted to the City Council for the July 20th meeting has been continued to the September 7th meeting. The City Clerk announced that Next Request, the City's new PRA system, went live today; staff will be given a little bit of adjustment time before going out with a full press release. 3-C. Determine Next Meeting Date (Due to September Holiday) The City Clerk stated the first Monday in September is the Labor Day holiday; inquired whether Commissioners wanted to select a date tonight, or have her do offline individual polling; the proposed dates are: 9/1, 9/8, 9/15, 9/20, or 9/28. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she would like a date as far away from the holiday as possible. Chair Tilos stated his concern is if the OGC meets on September 28th, they would have to come back in a few days for the October 4th meeting. The City Clerk stated the September and October meetings could be combined as one meeting. The Chief Assistant City Attorney noted she is not available on September 28th, although another attorney in her office could fill in. Chair Tilos stated it seems like people would like more time to think about the date. The City Clerk stated she will conduct offline polling; she just wanted to make it publicly known that there will be no meeting on September 6th since it is a holiday. Meeting of the Open Government Commission August … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-10-04 | 9 | Commissioner Chen stated in light of what Vice Chair Shabazz said, she is okay if the Commission approves sending it on; it is an ongoing process; moved approval of accepting the report. The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the draft of the report which was attached to the agenda has additional language. Vice Chair Shabazz responded the staff report has blanks where information needed to be inserted or facts cited; stated the clean document he sent at the start of the meeting includes the information. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she has concerns; the Commission would be voting to approve a document that was not in the packet and people are having trouble locating; it would not be a good idea to consider voting on a document that was provided so late. Commissioner Reid stated it seems there is a lot of confusion about the document and perhaps would be wise to table it until the next time and Commissioner Chen would have an opportunity to clean it up a bit. Commissioner Chen withdrew her motion. Vice Chair Shabazz suggested deferring the item to the next meeting. Chair Tilos concurred; stated it will be brought back on the next agenda November 1st 3-C. Adopt Proposed Complaint Procedure Commissioner LoPilato gave a brief presentation. Speaker: Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, inquired whether the process addresses complaints about the Commission. Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, clarified what he meant regarding the term steamrolling; stated when members of the Commission have a lot of momentum, it is impossible to change their mind on issues he believes they misunderstand; he feels the complaint process is heavily tipped toward protecting the actions of City staff and elected officers; submitted suggestions on how to tip the process in favor of the public; urged the Commission to table consideration of the process until the next meeting. Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of adopting the proposed complaint procedures. Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion. Meeting of the Open Governm… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 9 | Commissioner Chen stated none of the possible changes are a done deal; decisions will require hearings; the hearings will give the entire community, especially the neighbors, an opportunity to weigh in as the Council deliberates on whether or not to change the zoning or allow a development; it is obvious the Union Pacific attorneys just wanted to get more out of the deal; they are doing their jobs; it is all part of a legal game; there are many more times to get a bite of the apple; the process is not closed; the community has opportunities; everyone will be on alert to practice their democratic rights. Commission Montgomery stated the public could address the matter by speaking at a Council meeting on a non-agenda item or could write a letter to Council; inquired what would be the value of reagendizing the item. Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Montgomery's understanding is correct; reagendizing the item would just be reopening the discussion; the Complainants just want the Council to be more on record about why they made their decisions; it is not an effective use of the Council's time and taxpayers' dollars. The Chief Assistant City Attorney directed the Commissioner's attention to the issue at hand, which is precisely if they have concluded whether there is a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance or the Brown Act; stated there is a litigation exception for conferring with legal counsel regarding pending litigation when discussion in an open session would likely and unavoidably prejudice the position of the City; anyone making a motion should frame it with this specific provision in mind; if there were to be a vote to sustain, there should be a finding of how this falls outside of the litigation exception. Commissioner Reid stated Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-91.10, Council is not required to hold a Closed Session; she is leaning toward sustained to open up the process, let the public weigh in and not close the gates. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the way the Complaint Procedure is w… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,21 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 21 | Commissioner Chen stated open government has to allow comment about the issue; she does not think people had a chance to be part of the discussion. The City Clerk stated there is a speaker waiting and there needs to be a vote before 11:00 p.m. to continue the meeting. Vice Chair Shabazz concurred with the City Clerk; suggested moving to public comment. Public Comment: Stated there was a great example of how this was done properly last summer at the July 21st City Council meeting regarding eight measures of police reform; to suggest support of specific items was jumping the gun; it is up to the City Manager's Office to determine which SBs apply: Matt Reid, Alameda. Vice Chair Shabazz stated in 2018, he attempted to go to the County Registrar of Voters to run for Sheriff, but he was turned away because he does not have any law enforcement background; he would refer to Mr. Hofer and Secure Justice as advocates as opposed to lobbyists; part of the reason he wanted to run for Sheriff was that the current Sheriff at the time had exhibited ties to White supremacist groups, was involved with things related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and certain detainees and also the squalid conditions of the County jails; there was a campaign to audit the Sheriff's Office; whether or not these issues align with principals around reforms, he would say very much so and there will be a race in 2022; he does think that the legislative agenda outlines the various principals; the issue of it being on the Consent Calendar and then being pulled from the Consent Calendar, there was opportunity for people to speak; he is on the fence about it; part of him wants to find the complaint unfounded because it was clear from the legislative agenda that these items and general principles would be discussed; he is concerned that there is not generally a practice for specific legislation to seemingly come before the public; the questions are what are the specific positions Alameda takes on State and federal legislation; what is done if th… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf,22 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-03-01 | 22 | Commissioner Chen stated regarding the null and void topic, she saw a marriage between Commissioner LoPilato and Councilmember John Knox White's suggestions and would like to see it in one document for the OGC to review; having fresh eyes on it is of great benefit. Commissioner Reid noted that she submitted a null and void remedy. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the City Clerk stated she would caution the Commission that the public was told that the null and void topic was not going to be heard, so any further discussion or suggestions should be submitted for the next meeting. The Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with the City Clerk. Adjournment Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission March 1, 2021 22 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf,21 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-03-01 | 21 | Commissioner Chen stated that she was going with Commissioner LoPilato's initial long list as it puts in the public record why the OGC made the decision; under the Brown Act, there is an assumption that government moves so quickly and is so intricate that there will be violations of certain aspects, but if they turn around and correct the violations, they do a self-cure and correct, the Brown Act has that kind of elasticity in it to allow that to happen; even if it is found that the RPC violated the Brown Act, they already cured and corrected it and there is no case. Commissioner LoPilato restated her original motion with the following basis: 1) the complaint was not properly before the Commission on a procedural level, 2) it requires legal analysis outside the scope of the Commission's authority, 3) it requested a remedy beyond the Commission's authority to resolve a Sunshine Ordinance complaint, and 4) if analysis is limited to actions that occurred and whether they violated the Sunshine Ordinance, the complaint itself is untimely under Section 2-93.2a; separately, despite all these factors, there are various indications in the record that the Sunshine Ordinance was complied with in full and any alleged violation was cured. Chair Tilos and Commissioner Chen indicated their consensus with Commissioner LoPilato's comments. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated once the document is compiled, the three voting members will sign it. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated a renewed motion should be made to make it abundantly clear that all Commissioners voted on that basis. Commissioner LoPilato moved for a renewed motion on the basis as just set forth. Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3 - Absent: 2 (Commissioners Reid and Shabazz). 3-D. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,25 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 25 | Commissioner Chen suggested a process for complaints; stated that she hopes there is a list collected of all the Commission's lengthy conversations about all the ways the Sunshine Ordinance is practiced. Commissioner LoPilato suggests two avenues: 1) Section 2-22.4 indicates one of the Commission's duties is to report in writing to the Council at least once annually on any particular policy problems encountered in the administration of the Sunshine Ordinance; she agrees with Commissioner Chen that the Commission is spending about 90% of time on it; the Commission should probably establish a cadence on this in the context of a subcommittee; it should be assumed that complaints will continue to be received and should be explored; 2) Section 2-92.4 states that the Commission shall review public notices to ensure they conform to the requirements of the article and work to improve publicly accessible information databases; suggested welcoming staff's thoughts on what the Commission could best be doing to comply with both those aspects; stated there might be a way to get some suggestions about how the Commission could handle these issues offline in an efficient way; having some cadence may have quicker meetings which would give appropriate time for public comment; noted the great work Vice Chair Shabazz did in his PRA workshop. Commissioner Reid inquired whether it would be possible to hold a special meeting to discuss the null and void remedy, to which Chair Tilos responded he would not like to do so. Vice Chair Shabazz thanked people for attending his PRA workshop; stated he likes the suggestion about a subcommittee with clear goals; suggested exploring having the City Council timer feature and guidelines on what type of questions can be asked in advance of meetings. Commissioner Reid inquired whether it would be possible to establish a subcommittee to discuss some questions that may be relevant to the Sunshine Ordinance. The City Clerk responded it cannot happen tonight since it is not on the agenda; stated the Comm… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,12 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 12 | Commissioner Dieter added another example of when the Del Monte project was addressed, the Council indicated the City would open itself up to litigation if the ordinance was repealed; the ordinance was not repealed; seeing the legal reasoning behind the matter would be interesting; it is important that the City Attorney include the matter regarding closed session minutes in the report on the Council's Consent Calendar. Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter would draw something up to review in October. Commissioner Dieter responded the first thing is to have the Assistant City Attorney talk to the City Attorney to ensure that the report on documents that are determined to be undisclosed will be added to the Consent Calendar. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 2-91.8A refers to any closed session minutes being exempt from disclosure based on whether the disclosure would be detrimental to the City and a report should be provided to Council. Commissioner Dieter stated the report should be on the Consent Calendar for the public; that she would provide ideas to incorporate in a staff report for the Commission to figure out 1) criteria for disclosure, 2) the process to determine risk, 3) who decides the risk, and 4) a mechanism for the public. Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter had a chance to talk to the Assistant City Attorney about the fact that the Sunshine Ordinance requires that there be a new Chair every year; stated the matter is not on the agenda; inquired how to handle the matter. The Assistant City Attorney responded it would probably be best to place the item on the October agenda. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether it would be okay to wait until October to work on the other part [disclosing documents]. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a special meeting could be held assuming there is Commission interest and space availability. Commissioner Dieter stated City staff has to prepare a report; disclosing documents is a big deal … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 10 | Commissioner Dieter inquired about an issue on the last page of the Sunshine Ordinance, which is not on the agenda, regarding providing training for City employees and officials. The City Clerk responded training is recorded and available. Commissioner Tauzon inquired whether every employee has to go through the training, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. 3-C. Adopt the Annual Public Report Acting Chair Foreman stated the Annual Public Report is posted on the City's website; the report addresses alleged violations brought to the Commission's attention during the previous calendar year; inquired what Commissioners think about the wording. Commissioner Dieter responded the wording is fine; suggested adding reference to Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-93.6. Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether the Commission concurred. Commissioner Tauzon inquired whether a report would need to be filed if there is nothing to report, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative. Acting Chair Foreman stated the public wants to know whether or not complaints have been filed. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he wanted to ensure the item is responsive to what Commissioner Dieter is looking for. 3-D. Informational Report Concerning Disclosure of Documents that have been Determined to be Public After Previously Determined as Unavailable to the Public Commissioner Dieter stated two relevant sections deal with City Attorney reports: Sections 2-91.8 and 2-91.12E inquired whether a report would be presented to Council on the Consent Calendar as a public report. The Assistant City Attorney responded the report, which makes reference to a list of various litigation, claims etc., goes to Council twice a year. Commissioner Dieter stated Section 2-91.8 addresses making a determination about whether documents can be disclosed; inquired whether the matter would also go to Council on the Consent Calendar. The Assistant City Attorney responded that he does not know; stated he would bring the matter to… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 5 | Commissioner Dieter inquired whether no one else had any suggested changes [to the October 7, 2013 minutes], to which Chair Aguilar responded in the negative. Commissioner Dieter stated in the next one [the October 6, 2014 minutes] on page 5 under 3-B [Consider potential revisions to the City's Sunshine Ordinance], the paragraph says: "Commissioner Spanier stated that potential revisions seemed to be housekeeping; suggested the Commission review the list and decide about controversial items;" actually, what Commission Spanier said was: "to table controversial items for the next Commissioners;' delete the words "decide about" and make it "table;" down a couple of paragraphs it says: "The Interim Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation;" again it does not say what the presentation was; she suggests adding a few words to explain what that [the presentation] was: "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;" down near the bottom of the page it says: "The Interim Assistant City Attorney responded the matter could be clarified;" that she thinks the Commission needs to clarify that sentence and add to the end of it: "to include advisory committee or advisory body;" stated that she is not trying to be petty; she is just trying to shed some sunshine on the minutes for the public; she thinks it is really important for this body to lead by example; the next to the last paragraph "and not noticed" could include: "does not require an agenda;' that she is going to let a few things go; on the top of page 7 the last part of the end of the second paragraph, she thinks what needs to be added is: "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;" longer [farther] down under Item 3 it says: "The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the language should remain;" it is unclear about what language; that she watched the video ab… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 7 | Commissioner Dieter stated it did not make sense to her that the ordinance proceeded to a second reading when a complaint was filed with no opportunity for remedy. In response to Chair Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff reached out to Ms. Chen after his email to her stating that she could still provide comment; Ms. Chen's response to the email was that providing comment would not resolve her complaint. Chair Little stated that she understands the item was pulled; inquired how doing so plays into the process. The Assistant City Attorney responded the item was pulled for discussion but the second reading did take place; stated a further amendment is going forward to clarify definitions. Commissioner Dieter stated the complaint is about the October 16th meeting, not about anything that happened after. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether a motion should be put on the floor, to which the City Clerk responded the Commission is not required to follow Rosenberg's Rules even though the Council does. Chair Little stated the Commission pushed following Rosenberg's Rules; called for a motion. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Commission should deliberate before making a motion, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the negative. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of sustaining the complaint and that Council be ordered to re-notice the meeting so that community advocates can be heard on the issue of two additional dispensaries. Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Foreman stated there are two cannabis ordinances; the zoning ordinance was not impacted by the complaint; suggested an amendment. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Foreman, stated the changes were confined to the business ordinance which contains the definition of "delivery-only." Commissioner Schwartz stated that he does not think the ordinance needs to be amended as long as it is clear when re-noticed that the conversion of delivery-only to delivery-required deserves … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 6 | Commissioner Dieter stated that she is fine with the City Council's recommendation; she listened to their deliberation and it made sense to her. The Commissioners expressed consensus. Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is requiring all City Council meetings to be live streamed. The Assistant City Attorney stated live steaming is a new issue that came up as a result of a rent control meeting; the matter became an issue regarding not being able to move the meeting location because of the inability to live stream; the public safety issue needed to be addressed; the idea was to bring some amendments to the Commission to allow for relocating a meeting even though the proceedings could not be live streamed; hopefully, these situations will be few and far between; public safety has to be paramount to live streaming; the audio and video would be recorded and available, but the meeting would not be live streamed. Commissioner Dieter stated that she read the matter over and had a question at the very beginning; the ordinance states meetings shall be audio or video recorded; she does not know whether it should actually say live streamed recorded; it is fine the way it is; her recommendation to make it a little shorter has been provided to the Assistant City Attorney; rather than spelling out due to the nature of the item or items under discussion, one sentence should read: meetings held outside City Hall may not be available via live streaming; instead of spelling out audio and video every time, it should just say all recordings will be archived; that she looked back at the minutes from a year ago and understands why archiving for 10 years was used; when storage becomes an issue, the matter might come back to the Commission; right now, the matter is not an issue; 10 years should be changed to indefinitely. Acting Chair Foreman inquired how the City Clerk feels about the recommended changes, to which the City Clerk responded the way that technology and storage capacity is going, videos will probably be kept indefinite… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 4 | Commissioner Dieter stated that she is open to scratching the entire thing and starting over; she tried to rewrite the provision; the language already addresses receiving information relative to the subject matter at hand. The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the two suggestions could be combined; stated language could state: in order to ensure that all communications to policy board members presented in a public meeting are shared with the public, communicating electronically with others during public meetings is prohibited when pertaining to the business thereof. Commissioner Dieter and Acting Chair Foreman stated said language is fine. Acting Chair Foreman stated the Commission agrees on the language except he still thinks separate language is needed for quasi-judicial proceedings. Commissioner Dieter stated that she does not think that the general public will know what quasi-judicial means. Acting Chair Foreman stated that he is not concerned about the general public not knowing; the term can be explained; the important thing is the City has to let Councilmembers know that they cannot refer to anything that is not in public view at a quasi-judicial hearing. Commissioner Dieter stated she has no problem if someone wants to look up a word. The Assistant City Attorney stated a conditional use permit would be a good example; if somebody applies to sell liquor at a gas station, a conditional use permit would be needed and would come before the Planning Board; if the use is denied, the applicant would have to appeal the matter to the City Council. Acting Chair Foreman stated the applicant has no idea what the Councilmember is checking; the applicant has the right to know everything being considered in a quasi- judicial proceeding. Commissioner Dieter stated the problem lies with communicating to outside people which is the intent behind the provision; anyone can be at home and look up anything so nothing would be hidden from the public; the main issue is not having people communicate with others. Commission… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,27 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 27 | Commissioner Dieter stated the City Manager might make a statement that does not necessarily represent the City. Vice Chair Foreman added or the Mayor or a Councilmember or a member of the Planning Board; stated they have a right to state their opinion, but questioned not to be disciplined or reprimanded for it; someone can state any opinion on anything and it can be as out in left field and prejudicial to the City, but if you state it as an individual, not as a member of the body, it is not disciplined; there is case law about statements that can be made and not be disciplined under freedom of speech; however, the language is kind of carte blanche. The Assistant City Attorney stated similar to the previous section, the issue is very difficult and contentious; the courts bound around about whether or not a person is bringing forth a matter that is of public concern, which one has the right to do, notwithstanding the fact that the person is an employee, versus bringing forth something that is really just complaining about one's job, which the person does not have the right to do in a public forum; he is just trying to clarify the existing language; that is the only purpose of making the amendments; he attempted to work with what was initially adopted rather than trying to write a very nuanced dissertation about when an employee can and cannot be disciplined. Vice Chair Foreman stated his thoughts would be to not have the Section at all; leave it to the courts to determine in individual situations because the cases are all over the place. The City Clerk stated the intent of the Sunshine Task Force adding the section was so that employees or board and commission members would not feel like if they had an opinion on a project as an individual, they could not come to a Council meeting [to express the opinion]; people would be getting up as an individual and allowed to still have an opinion on a specific project. Vice Chair Foreman stated there is no such thing as the Mayor getting up in public and making a statement a… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,29 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 29 | Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission was provided a full copy of the Sunshine Ordinance; having the complete Sunshine Ordinance include redlines would be easier to follow versus going back and forth; when there is a redline suggested including a notation, such as moved to versus deleted in its entirety; the City Council would also really appreciate knowing what has been deleted and what has just been rearranged. In response to Commissioner Bonta's inquiry regarding the meeting date, the City Clerk responded the meeting could be held May 4th Commissioner Bonta inquired whether the meeting have to be held on the first Monday, to which the City Clerk responded the Council Chambers are available the first Monday; that she could check availability for other dates. The Commission agreed to hold the next meeting March 30th. Commissioner Dieter addressed the minutes; inquired whether new agenda items could be on a new line; stated it was extremely difficult to read a new line item at the end of the previous line on the current minutes; if the Commission is discussing a particular Section, have it start on a new line; even the agenda item itself could be listed; in this particular one, there was no explanation for potential revisions; in the future, suggested copying and pasting from the agenda into the minutes so the public would know what the actual agenda item was. The City Clerk inquired whether Commission Dieter is asking for example: "3-C Potential Revisions to the City Sunshine Ordinance," to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative. The City Clerk stated it [the agenda title] is always carried over. Commissioner Dieter stated on the minutes we just approved they were not there. The City Clerk responded it was there. Commissioner Dieter stated that she would show the City Clerk after the meeting. Vice Chair Foreman inquired how Commissioners can add things to the agenda; inquired who does the agenda. The City Clerk responded the City Attorney's Office and City Clerk's office staff the Commission … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 11 | Commissioner Dieter stated the public would realize nothing has been declassified even though it is required semiannually. The Assistant City Attorney stated said matter can easily be included with the report. Commissioner Dieter stated at least once annually, the Commission also needs to report to the Council, in writing, any practical or policy problems encountered in the administration of the Sunshine Ordinance; that she is wondering if the issue of declassifying documents should be reported to the City Council; it is difficult for the Open Government Commission to weigh in on documents being declassified because the provision is not clear; things need to be spelled out and perhaps included in the Sunshine Ordinance, which the Council can discuss; clarification is needed on the criteria for disclosure, the process to determine the risk of disclosing documents, who decides to take the risk--the Council or City Attorney, and who decides when something can be disclosed; a mechanism needs to be put in place for community members to request classified documents to be declassified; a Commissioner or Councilmember might want something to be declassified; a mechanism needs to be in place for the public to ask for something and get a response about why something may or may not be able to be disclosed. The City Clerk stated in the past on several occasions, the Council has voted to allow closed session information to be disclosed; when a request is made from a member of the public, staff will provide the legal reasoning why the information is not being disclosed; provided an example of the recent hiring of the City Manager; stated an explanation is given to the requestor. Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission does not know the criteria used to judge the matter; something should be added to the Sunshine Ordinance to make things more transparent so that the Commission can handle complaints. The Assistant City Attorney stated the sentence in question says: the Commission shall report, in writing, to the City Council at… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,20 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 20 | Commissioner Dieter stated this is for the old VHS because for the new videos, the City has a contract with no limit; the City could keep videos for 40 or 50 years. The City Clerk stated the way technology and capacity are increasing, she would assume that the City would be able to keep that up; at this point, the City does not have 10 years, but videos would be kept up once the City goes past the 10 years. Vice Chair Foreman stated he is okay with leaving it the way it has been changed. The Assistant City Attorney stated the other part of Section 7 is that with the dissolving of redevelopment agencies, the Community Improvement Commission is now the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission; a technicality in terms of the name of that particular policy body. Commissioner Dieter stated there are two references in the Sunshine Ordinance to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) which has been disbanded; the City does not even have that anymore. The Assistant City Attorney stated he asked the Community Development Director about whether that should stay and she suggested that it stay in there. Commissioner Bonta stated if the City is keeping videos from the prior 10 years, the ARRA did exist at that time; this is to make sure that the City keeps the ARRA videos. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 8 on Public Comment by Members of the Policy Body has some language added at the end to make it clear that while members of policy bodies certainly have the right to voice their opinion, it is not intended to prohibit the City Council from removing members if the Council feels the member has gone beyond their assigned duties. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he is not sure why it is in there; if it is a constitutional right, it is a constitutional right; questioned why does it have to be codified; stated what bothers him about it is there are certain things that City Council members cannot comment on as a matter of law if Councilmembers are playing a judicial role; for instance the rules … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,12 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 12 | Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Little concurred. Chair Dieter stated the next item is meeting adjournment time. The City Clerk inquired whether the proposal eliminates the requirement to add meetings if three meetings in a row go past 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Foreman responded in the negative; stated the matter is in the Sunshine Ordinance. Chair Dieter stated that she did not know whether the issue belongs in the orderly conduct of meetings and she thinks it is also a side issue. The City Attorney stated concern was raised at the last Council meeting; the Commission does not have to make a recommendation. The City Clerk stated having no new items heard after 11:30 p.m. goes past the 11:00 p.m. meeting deadline. Chair Dieter stated under the proposal, a vote would not be done until 11:30 p.m.; the Council would know they are not going to address any more items and the matter would not have to be discussed; the meeting would continue smoothly until 11:30 p.m. The City Clerk stated the Sunshine ordinance would have to be modified to do so and a decision needs to be made about the three times in a row requirement. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee is suggesting the current requirement be repealed and the rule be replaced. Commissioner Foreman inquired where is the requirement about three meetings in a row, to which the City Clerk responded the Sunshine Ordinance. Chair Dieter stated it is not currently in the rules; it is a separate ordinance. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance has to be amended by ordinance; the rules or order cannot modify an ordinance regulation; outlined the current ordinance; stated the requirement to add more meetings is unclear and has never been triggered; the rules of order saying there is only one vote and new items can be taken up to 11:30 p.m. modifies the ordinance; the question is if the Commission is recommending the ordinance be modified. Chair Dieter responded that she is only recommending changing … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,17 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 17 | Commissioner Foreman stated Councilmembers are familiar with items that are quasi- judicial and know not to speak about the matter. There was consensus to drop the matter. Chair Dieter stated the existing rule on written communications seems to be separate. Commissioner Schwartz stated that he agrees with the proposal to omit it. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the rules include things such as a Councilmembers requesting comments to be put in the record. Vice Chair Little responded the suggestion is not to include anything. Chair Dieter stated the matter has nothing to do with the orderly conduct of meetings. In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, Chair Dieter stated a statement that is read can be submitted to the City Clerk for the record. The City Clerk noted it never happens. Commissioner Foreman inquired why it should be eliminated. Chair Dieter stated the Commission needs to decide; she is hearing a consensus to omit it. Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a Councilmember who wants a verbatim statement put in the record could still give it to the City Clerk, to which Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Forman inquired where the language comes from, to which Chair Dieter responded Resolution 12567. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of adopting the subcommittee's proposal with the amendments offered. Commissioner Henneberry seconded the motion. Under discussion, Chair Dieter recommended that the subcommittee incorporate the changes and provide the document to the City Clerk. The City Clerk stated the recommendation will go back to the Council subcommittee, which requested a report back. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 17 March 5, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 3 | Commissioner Foreman stated his motion included dismissing the reconsideration of the matter. Chair Little inquired whether the motion should also include having the item re-noticed by City Council, to which Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated that he thinks staff report Attachment B would suffice with some changes. The Interim City Attorney stated Attachment B could be easily word-smithed to carry out what the Commission would like with respect to the matter; further stated that he is not going to agree with Commissioner Foreman's position that the ordinances in question are null and void; the decision will have the effect of providing direction to the Council to have said result come about; as indicated in his memo to the Commission, he does not think the Commission has the legal authority to render a legally adopted ordinance null and void. Chair Little stated the Commission was told that the timing of their deliberations and delaying the second reading of the ordinances in order for the Commission hearing to take place first did not matter; inquired whether the issue came about because the Commission deliberated on the issue after the second reading of the ordinances. The Interim City Attorney responded the matter proceeded on November 7th; at the October 16th meeting, the City Attorney advised the City Council that it was appropriate to introduce the ordinance with the amendment in question and that it did comply with the Sunshine Ordinance; Council relied on said advice and made the decision to proceed on November 7th notwithstanding the fact that a complaint had been filed on October 30th Council adopted the ordinances on November 7th which went into effect on December 6th. it is his understanding that the Commission would like to have the ordinances re-noticed, and the two ordinances would be repealed. Commissioner Dieter made a friendly amendment to the motion that the Commission affirm its November 7th decision. Commissioner Foreman stated that is basically his… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,13 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 13 | Commissioner Foreman stated the Commission was told to review the rules of order, not rewrite the Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission rewrote the Sunshine Ordinance about two years ago; they are two different things. Chair Dieter stated not codifying the Sunshine Ordinance requirement in the rules of order was a mistake; lots of things in the Sunshine Ordinance do not apply to the rules of order. Commissioner Foreman stated the subject is clearly covered in the Sunshine Ordinance. Chair Dieter stated the proposed rules allow the public to review one document to see the whole rules of order. The City Attorney stated if the Commission is not looking to modify the Sunshine Ordinance, then the rules should reflect the Sunshine Ordinance provision, which differs from what is being suggested; the Commission can suggest a modification to the ordinance. Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little stated that is what they are suggesting. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee is suggesting modifying the ordinance; the Council might not like the rule; if the Council likes the rule, the Sunshine Ordinance will have to change to reflect a different time frame. The City Attorney inquired whether the rules of order change would delete the 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. votes and the requirement to add a meeting if three go past 11:00 p.m. Chair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the requirement to add the meeting is not being removed; inquired whether only the first two sentences could be amended. The City Clerk read the ordinance language; stated the idea is to combine the vote to one and keep the requirement for three meetings in a row. Vice Chair Little responded in the affirmative. Chair Dieter stated that she does not want any votes to happen until 11:30 p.m. Vice Chair Little stated there is a conversation at 10:30 p.m. about whether or not to address more agenda items, which takes 15 to 20 minutes; then, at 11:00 p.m., there is another conversation about whether or not the meeting should continue; essentially 45 minutes to an hour… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 9 | Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a motion is needed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded a motion should be done to determine the subcommittee membership and direction. Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of having a subcommittee comprised of the Chair and Vice Chair Little to put together a proposal, provide it to the City Clerk and have it distributed to the Commission prior to the next meeting. In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the meeting packet goes out seven days prior to the meeting, which would be March 26th. Vice Chair Little stated that she thought the meeting would be in March. Commissioner Foreman stated the Assistant City Attorney is not available. The Assistant City Attorney stated if the Commission would rather meet in March, someone else from the City Attorney's office could attend. Commissioners Henneberry and Little stated that they would prefer to meet in March. Commissioner Foreman noted the Commission already voted on the motion. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission is considering forming a subcommittee and could direct the matter be brought back the first Monday in March. Commissioner Henneberry clarified the motion is to form the subcommittee and meet the first Monday in March. Commissioner Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.] 3-D. Recommendation to Approve the Records Retention Schedule The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Chair Dieter inquired whether the retention schedule is considered the Public Records Index (PRI). The City Clerk responded the two were separated; stated the League of California Cities (LCC) index, which provides a general guide of the documents that are open or closed, was adopted by the City Council; the retention schedule informs when records, which are listed by department, would be destroyed. Chair Dieter inquired whether the City has two different retention schedules: the PRI and one by each department. Meeting of the … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2020-06-24.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 7 | Commissioner Little accepted the amendment. The City Clerk stated that changing 10 calendar days to 10 business days would put the hearing past the next Council meeting, so a complaint could come in after final passage of an ordinance; she believes the 10 calendar days was intended to ensure there is opportunity between introduction and final passage. Commissioner Little withdrew her last motion and moved approval of her original motion to add Items A through F to the Sunshine Ordinance, and clarify in Items A and B that it is calendar days. Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Abstain. Ayes: 4; Abstentions: 1. Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of substituting the word "chance" in Item C to the word "opportunity.' Chair Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5 Chair Schwartz moved approval of adopting the recommendation on Item G. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Shabazz inquired what significant prejudice means, to which Chair Schwartz responded it is open to interpretation; stated there is a concept of prejudice that the City Attorney included in the supplemental memo regarding the statute of limitations; typically prejudice can be thought of as some right being sacrificed. The Assistant City Attorney stated he does not want to speak for the drafter, but his thought is that the prejudice is an impact of 'harm' to the City. Chair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney, stated that is how he reads "significant prejudice" as well. In response to Chair Schwartz' inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated that he understands the clarification, but was also wondering how the phrase will be interpreted a year from now. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commission… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 3 | Commissioner Little inquired what processes have been put into place since this incident happened to make sure no more records requests are lost and whether the process is consistent or needs tightening up. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is always room for improvement; stated the City Attorney's office is not aware that the situation happens routinely; Commissioner Shabazz's email from today indicates otherwise, but he is not aware of other incidents; the City Attorney's office will look into the incidents even though there was not a complaint filed at the time and to review why there was not a timely response on a couple of matters. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether it was fair to say the City Attorney's office's response to public records request is to wait for a complaint to be filed before providing information. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that he would not categorize the process in that way; the person designated to track the requests is usually very diligent and makes sure the requests are handled in a timely manner; this particular request seems to be an anomaly. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether follow-up on the other records requests have been done to ensure they were answered timely, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he cannot answer definitively. Chair Henneberry stated it can be assumed that the other requests have been fulfilled because there have not been any complaints filed; the City would certainly be hearing from KQED and the East Bay Times if requests were not fulfilled. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Henneberry, stated most people submitting a records request that is not fulfilled would not just ignore it; he is not certain whether or not the other requests have been followed-up but a review of the other requests can be done. In response to Chair Henneberry's inquiry regarding when an email was sent by the City Attorney's office to the complainant, the Assistant City Attorney stated the email was sent on May 29, … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-10-01 | 3 | Commissioner Little noted seven speakers with three minutes totals 21 minutes and eight speakers with two minutes totals 16 minutes; two minutes should suffice when there are many speakers, but it seems like a limitation on the public's ability to comment. Chair Dieter stated Councilmember Matarrese suggested trying it out and changes can be made if needed; encouraged the Commission and members of the public to contact the City Council or Commission if something should be changed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 3 October 1, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 5 | Commissioner Little stated she thinks it is important to bring up the topic of conflict of interest again; she is curious how legal counsel, which is the same counsel defending the incident, can advise the Commission. The Assistant City Attorney stated part of the responsibilities of the City Attorney's office is to advise all boards and commissions, as well as the City Council; typically, the kinds of issues that may come up before the Open Government Commission are ones the City Attorney's office can advise on; conflict of interest has been discussed with the new City Attorney and he feels there is no conflict of interest; the City Attorney's role is to give legal advice; the Commission may accept the advice or not, but it does not mean there is a conflict of interest; it may just mean the City Attorneys has a different opinion than the majority of the Commission; unless the City Council indicates that it wishes the Open Government Commission to have outside Counsel, the intent is to continue to provide legal advice to the Commission. Commissioner Little whether Commissioner Shabazz's circumstances as the complainant create a conflict of interest, yet the City Attorney's office involvement does not. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a complainant, by definition, is not in a position to decide his or her own complaint; the City Attorney's office recognized in this particular case that the request did not get fulfilled and that there was a violation; the City Attorney's office has been up front about it and does not see a conflict of interest. Commissioner Tilos concurred with Commissioner Little; stated it could be safe to say the conflict of interest is perceived but not real; he believes the Commission is powerful enough to consider the legal advice given by the City Attorney's office without conflict and be able to form its own opinions regarding the advice. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated his office provides legal advice; the City Council a… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2021-05-03.pdf,15 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 15 | Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether Commissioner Reid wants to address anything specific regarding the inaccuracies of the report. Commissioner Reid responded that she would propose there be a full review; she cannot approve something when she knows there are mistakes. Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of accepting the report concerning responses to the Public Records Act. The City Clerk inquired whether the motion includes both record request exhibits, to which Vice Chair Shabazz responded it included Exhibit 2. Commissioner LoPilato proposed an amendment to the motion to add an additional footnote saying the OGC is highly concerned regarding the lack of tracking of denials occurring within the APD. Chair Tilos seconded the motion. Vice Chair Shabazz accepted the friendly amendment to the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4-A. Correspondence from Commissioner Reid Not heard. 4-B. Consider Preliminary Proposal to Address Possible Open Government Commission (OGC) Procedure/Bylaw Revisions and Ensure OGC's Substantive Compliance with Governing Ordinance via Subcommittee Formation (Commissioner LoPilato) The Chief Assistant City Attorney noted items placed on the meeting agenda must be received by the Secretary at least 10 working days prior to the scheduled meeting date; inquired whether the item was indeed received by the secretary within said timeframe, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Commissioner LoPilato stated this is an attempt to draw together different conversations and do it in a way that is compliant with the ordinances and move the Commission forward in an efficient way; it is an ambitious proposal which, the Commission could collectively whittle down to what feels interesting and manageable; staff feedback would be great if the vote is to agendize any of the items; there is room in the proposal to make some space to do some good work … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-09-20 | 10 | Commissioner LoPilato stated getting the Bylaws done by the October meeting might make sense; the complaint procedures could move to November, but the Commission could attempt to get it on the next agenda. Complaint Form The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Reid stated the City Clerk's form is an online form and hers is the paper version; the forms are modeled after San Francisco's form; her revision includes a worksheet to help people indicate which section of the Sunshine Ordinance may have been violated; a hyperlink to the Sunshine Ordinance could be included in the online form; references could also be posted on the City's webpage; requested the Chief Assistant City Attorney sure all the references are correct; suggested cleaning up the forms for the next meeting. Commissioner Chen stated the revised form may actually reduce the amount of complaints; in answering the questions on the form, the person may realize that they are answering "no" to most of the questions and what they really should do is come to the meeting to speak under public comment. Commissioner Reid concurred with Commissioner Chen's comments; stated it is another way to educate the public. Commissioner LoPilato stated the worksheet reminds her of the self-help legal access center of the court system; the specific breakdown of the sections assists individuals in articulating claims, which is also helpful for the decision-makers it is definitely a nice option to consider; she would like to hear from the City Attorney's office to make sure there are accurate statements of the law and requirements; in the spirit of encouraging public comment during the meeting, it may be beneficial to include a statement at the end of the worksheet that people are welcome to share their concerns with the OGC if they are no longer interested in filing a complaint. Commissioner Chen concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the form should lead with encouraging public attendance and comment during the OGC meetings; she feels two of the complai… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf,12 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-09-20 | 12 | Commissioner LoPilato stated if there are other items on the October agenda, the Commission could proactively put the complaint procedures on a future agenda; if both items can go in October, there may not be a need for a November meeting. The City Clerk stated Commissioner Chen and Vice Chair Shabazz's subcommittee report would return in October. Commissioner Reid stated that she would be happy to bifurcate the procedures and the form; they do not need to be on the same agenda item; suggested having the item done in October. Chair Tilos summarized that agenda items for the October meeting: the Bylaws and the Sunshine Ordinance practical and policy problems, with the complaint procedures and form on the November agenda. Commissioner Reid stated that she is fine with the schedule. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4-A Consider Communication regarding Informational Report on Disclosure of Documents (Vice Chair Shabazz) The City Clerk stated Vice Chair Shabazz requested that she pass on his intention: he thinks the report should come back before the Commission again as an agenda item; the report went to the Commission on February 1, 2016 in response to a Commissioner raising questions at the time; the City Attorney reported back on the issue; the subject has not changed and an identical report would come back; Vice Chair Shabazz thought it would be good to have the report on another agenda. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her understanding of the communication is that Vice Chair Shabazz is asking for the same information the City Attorney's Office provides in the twice yearly report to the City Council, which has already been done once this year. Commissioner LoPilato stated Vice Chair Shabazz's email includes a request for information about how State laws like Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748 have changed City requirements for disclosure and let the Commission know where the information is available on the website. Chair Tilos stated since there are some clarifying questions from the Chief Assistant City Att… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 3 | Commissioner LoPilato stated references to 2019 should be changed to 2020; inquired whether the PRA chart only shows requests that actually rise to the City Attorney's office, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the chart encompasses requests that went to the different departments; the City Attorney's office reviews the requests to determine whether or not an exemption applies; the City Attorney's office has reviewed every request on the chart. The City Clerk clarified requests that trickle up to the City Attorney's office require review; simple PRAs handled by other departments are not included on the chart; each department responds to many other requests that do not need review by the City Attorney's office. Vice Chair Shabazz stated three out of four complaints were withdrawn; from his own experience in filing a complaint, there was encouragement to withdraw his complaint; inquired whether there was any communication with the complainants to withdraw their complaints. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the process when a complaint is filed involves staff trying to work with the complainant to resolve the issue to get them satisfaction without having to go before the OGC. Vice Chair Shabazz inquired what a voluntary suspension is, to which the City Clerk responded it was a request for records with an agreement to do some follow-up; stated the request was suspended until the follow-up was completed, rather than withdrawn. The Assistant City Attorney concurred; stated the request involved records, which the complainant decided to voluntary suspend until further notice. Vice Chair Shabazz inquired what the status of the suspended request is now and whether there was further communication from the complainant. The Assistant City Attorney responded his understanding is that the Attorney assigned to the request reached out to the complainant and has not heard back. Stated the two reports … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf,14 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 14 | Commissioner LoPilato stated she is concerned about balancing privacy considerations and does not think specific addresses, even with regard to permit issues, is relevant enough to be included in the materials and could simply be redacted. The City Clerk explained that when there is a well-known address of interest, requestors will use the address when submitting their PRAs; gave the example of the McKay property. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees it is fine for addresses for properties that are the subject of public discourse, but she sees some listed that are calls for service at specific addresses that seem to be residential. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the last issue he wants to address is the supplemental documents compiled related to individual Departments requests; shared that when he submitted a PRA, the City Attorney's office addressed him as Commissioner Shabazz; he does not want to receive special treatment because he is on the OGC; he is concerned and hopes all community members are being treated equally based on the law; described the example of two separate requests for SB 1421 information where one requestor, the District Attorney, received 18.8 gigabytes of information, whereas the other requestor's was labeled non-applicable; he would like to ensure that people have access to the same information. Commissioner LoPilato concurred with Vice Chair Shabazz; stated it seems one requestor is the District Attorney and the other requestor looks like a plaintiff-side personal injury law firm; one thing to consider is the extent to which PRAs may differ depending if there is active litigation; alternatively, it could be something less straight forward; she wants to highlight how helpful it is to see the requesting party; going forward, more clarifications should be built around the requestor so trends can be tracked. The City Clerk stated the tracking and reports that can be run in the new system will be very verbose and drilling for the details will be possib… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 9 | Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is troubled by the same patterns; requested the Chief Assistant City Attorney to clarify what the timeliness requirement is with respect to calendar or business days under the law. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated her understanding is that the Public Records Act does not specify a calendar versus business days and that general principles of law indicate that absent a denomination of either of those terms, the default is calendar days; in this case, the request was made on Wednesday, April 15th and the 10 day period would have been on a Saturday, the 25th, so the 27th was the first business day. Commissioner LoPilato stated there is a heightened privacy interest in the differences and types of information someone can request from a Police Department; she does see privacy interest in arrest records relative to calls for service which sounds to be a reasonable premise on which the case law may have developed to have a slight delineation between whether it makes sense to have a temporal limitation on arrest records because there is countervailing privacy interests; from a common sense and societal concern standpoint, it is important to balance transparency and privacy interests. Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of redacting personal information in the May 12, 2020 attachment, which contains the arrest record log; stated that she was troubled to see the information with respect to names and addresses on the website for the purposes of tonight's hearing; it is important to have a mechanism from the transparency standpoint to redact the information. Chair Tilos seconded the motion. In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated it is an appropriate motion and is fine from a legal standpoint. The City Clerk concurred; stated the redaction can be done. Under discussion, Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he appreciates and supports the motion; his intention for forwarding the materials he received was to share some of the dialogue that… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-10-04 | 3 | Commissioner LoPilato stated the language regarding the role of the Secretary is consistent across all Alameda Boards and Commissions Bylaws; there is always an interest in maintaining specificity to the work of the Commission, but also some uniformity and basic provisions. The City Clerk concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the Secretary is always a staff person; she does not staff all the Boards or Commissions, so typically someone in the related Department is the Secretary noted in the Bylaws as an Officer fulfilling said role. Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Mr. Garfinkle's position to allow members of the public to be invited to participate in the work of subcommittees; she feels it is a good goal to incorporate in the Bylaws; the review and analysis of Public Records Act (PRA) requests should be an essential goal of the Commission included as an order of business; it is good preparation and streamlining process to include a section in the agenda on Standard Commission Business; review of prior meeting meetings could be something the Chair could work with the City Clerk to streamline the process; allowing time for the Commissioners to respond to public comments is a good practice. Chair Tilos inquired whether there are glaring issues that need to be addressed before moving forward. Commissioner Chen stated Commissioners are not allowed to hold debates with public speakers under non-agenda public comment; inquired whether it would be a violation of the Brown Act. The City Clerk responded the rule is actually in the Code of Conduct which applies to all the Boards and Commissions; stated every Commissioner signs that they will follow the Code of Conduct, which states public comment is not to be a debate. Commissioner Reid stated the intention behind it is not debate, but for clarification purposes; speakers should not be excluded just for time limitations if they have something else to say on a topic. Vice Chair Shabazz suggested the basis for discussion be the revisions proposed by Commis… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.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/2020-06-24.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 11 | Commissioner Pauling concurs with Commissioner Little; stated that she believes a presentation by Commissioner Shabazz would be accessible and focused for the public; it is at the heart of what the Commission stands for, which is to protect the transparency of local government; partnering with the City could afford benefits such as free meeting space; she fully supports Commissioner Shabazz moving forward. In response to Chair Schwartz inquiry regarding next steps, Commissioner Shabazz stated he will continue working on his slides if there are no objections from the Commission; he will work with the City Attorney's office and with staff to move forward and hold a public forum. Chair Schwartz stated it is apparent that there is full support from the OGC; he would also be happy to support further action needed in the future. In response to Commissioner Shabazz inquiry of anyone else wanting to be involved, Commissioner Little stated she would like to participate as well as introduce Commissioner Shabazz to another person who was instrumental in the PRA process with the Police Department regarding a recent incident. Chair Schwartz stated he would also like to be involved as time permits; it is a very important topic. 3-F. Discuss Noticing Requirements for City Council Discussions of Proposed Charter Amendments (Chair Schwartz) 3-G. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code, as Amended, Concerning Special Meetings, Including the Setting and Noticing of Such Meetings Chair Schwartz recommended Items 3-F and 3-G be heard together. Stated he is concerned with the way Council uses special meeting; suggested special meetings be permissible only if the topic being discussed cannot be reasonably put off to the next regular agenda; also suggested when items run over during a meeting, they should be put onto the next regular meeting agenda and not onto a special meeting the next day; Council invoked the … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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 |
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]) );