pages
420 rows where body = "OpenGovernmentCommission" sorted by date
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/2012-05-07.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-05-07 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY-MAY 7,2012--7:00 P.M. The meeting was convened at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Jensen, Oddie, Peterson, Spanier, and Wong - 5. [Note: Commissioner Jensen arrived at 7:15 p.m.] Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Approve Commission By-Laws. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Spanier stated that she envisions the Commission as a body that would respond to complaints; the purpose of the Commission would be to develop an infrastructure that would include goals; that she would like to understand the overwhelming thrust of the Commission. The City Clerk stated the Commission's purpose was taken from the Sunshine Ordinance; the Sunshine Ordinance established the role of the Commission. Commissioner Spanier stated the Commission has quite a few duties and responsibilities; regular meetings will be held, goals will be set, and the Commission will be somewhat involved in a lot of other committee work. The City Clerk stated the Commission is required to meet semi-annually and as complaints are filed; the Commission would tally up complaints and report back to Council; the Commission would review how the ordinance is working. In response to Commissioner Oddie's inquiry regarding review of notices, the City Attorney stated the Commission could look back in six months to ensure that staff is meeting the Sunshine Ordinance requirements; review would not be needed after every meeting. The City Clerk stated a particular section of the Sunshine Ordinance addresses language and timing of particular notices; the Commission would review the boiler plate format. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 May 7, 2012 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-05-07 | 2 | Commissioner Peterson inquired whether the Commission would need to review a complaint the following Monday after a complaint has been brought to the Commission's attention, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the matter would need to be reviewed within thirty days. Commissioner Peterson suggested providing some type of notice that the Open Government Commission exists. The City Attorney stated that the Brown Act requires the Commission to discuss each item as agendized; staff is requesting the Commission to adopt he By-laws; after adoption of the By-laws, a Chair needs to be assigned; then, the Commission would be able to have a complete discussion on complaint procedures. In response to Commissioner Peterson's inquiry, the City Attorney stated special meetings can be scheduled; regular meetings are part of the ordinance and would occur twice a year; if additional meetings are necessary there is a provision for special meetings. Commissioner Jensen inquired whether Commissioner Peterson is concerned about meetings not being scheduled. Commissioner Peterson responded his intent is to make sure it is easy for people to be involved with the government. Commissioner Jensen inquired whether scheduling regular, semi-annual meetings should be noted in the By-laws; suggested that the regular meetings be held in March and September; stated special meetings would be scheduled whenever a complaint is filed. Commissioner Jenson moved approval of having regular meetings scheduled in March and September. [Note: September was changed to October due to the Labor Day holiday.] Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Jensen moved approval of the Commission By-laws. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Spanier stated the Commission seems to have a passive and active role. Commissioner Peterson stated that he has a concern with the regular meeting schedule; the Commission is scheduled for two meetin… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-05-07 | 3 | Commissioner Spanier stated that she understood that the Commission would be meeting once per month. The City Clerk stated the Commission would meet the first Monday of the month semi- annually and as needed. In response to Commissioner Oddie's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the public comment period is limited to three minutes. 3-B. Select Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioner Wong moved approval of nominating Commissioner Oddie as Chair. Commissioner Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Peterson moved approval of nominating Commissioner Jensen as Vice Chair. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-C. Review the Form and Process for Filing Sunshine Ordinance Complaints. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. The City Attorney noted that she has provided a substitute page which is the last page just before the Frequently Asked Questions section; stated the last item regarding individual complaints outlined in Item 3 has been changed to: "a person who makes more than two complaints in a twelve-month period determined by the Commission to be unfounded is prohibited from making a complaint for the next five years;" stated everything in the packet is part of the Ordinance. Chair Oddie inquired whether the Commission has the authority to change the process. The City Attorney responded the Commission cannot change what is in the ordinance but can be more specific. Commissioner Peterson inquired whether Item G-3 is part of the Ordinance, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Jenson stated complaints would be filed with the City Clerk; inquired whether the City Clerk would be responsible to meet the thirty-day deadline. The City Clerk responded that she would count out thirty days upon receipt of a complaint to see whether the complaint could be heard on the first Monday with proper seven day noticing; if not, a special meeting could be scheduled. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 3 May 7, 2012 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-05-07 | 4 | Commissioner Peterson stated a website [email address] would be set up in the future for filing a complaint directly with Chair Oddie also. Vice Chair Jensen inquired whether someone might file a complaint on the website and not with the City Clerk's office. The City Clerk responded a generic email address is being set up; stated the email would go the Chair and staff; complaints can also be filed via FAX or walk-ins; she would be happy to accept complaints in any format; the City Manager's office is in the process of setting up Boards and Commissions emails; the matter could be reviewed later. Chair Oddie stated that he thinks a complaint should be emailed to everyone [on the Commission]. The City Clerk stated that she could inform all Commissioners about complaints received and would contact the Commissioners to scheduling a meeting. Vice Chair Jensen inquired about the Commission's responsibility to address Sunshine Ordinance complaints with a quick turnaround time. The City Clerk noted a complaint could be filed before a City Council meeting even occurs because Council agendas are put out twelve days before a Council meeting is held; that she would calculate the thirty days and try to have the complaint addressed on the first Monday. Chair Oddie stated having all Commissioners receive a copy of the complaint would work better; other Commissioners might disagree that the Chair thinks that an issue is not worth holding a meeting. Commissioner Peterson stated what one person might consider important, another might not. The City Attorney stated complaints cannot be discussed unless at a public meeting; complaints would be taken seriously. In response to Commissioner Spanier, the City Attorney stated once a complaint is received, the City Clerk will set a meeting within the thirty day timeframe; there is no need for the Commissioners to discuss the matter prior to the meeting. Commissioner Peterson inquired whether it would be the sole determination of the Commission to determine whether the complaint is a violati… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-05-07 | 5 | that complaints the Commission determines have no merit would be determined to be unfounded and also what happens if a complaint is unfounded. The City Attorney stated a determination is needed when a complaint comes before the Commission; the Commission determination is either the complaint is legitimate or the complaint is unfounded. Vice Chair Jensen stated the determination should have some provision stating that the complaint, while not a violation, has been either unfounded or was a legitimate complaint. The City Attorney stated that she would be happy to add said provision. Chair Oddie stated if the Commission finds there is not violation, there has to be a way to indicate the Commission's finding. The City Clerk noted there would be a learning curve. The City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance complaint form requires picking an alleged violation of public records or a public meeting and the section of the Sunshine Ordinance violated. Vice Chair Jensen moved approval of the form and process with the caveat to review issues at the next meeting. Commissioner Wong second the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-D. Set Next Meeting. Since the first Monday is Labor Day, Commissioner Jensen moved approval of setting October 1, 2012 as the next meeting date and amending the By-laws to October. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Spanier reiterated the proactive role of the Commission. Commissioner Peterson discussed the need for open transparency and having key issues addressed at regular meetings. Commissioner Spanier stated any process has a certain structure to ensure that things happen. Commissioner Peterson stated getting better feedback on what people want would result in improvements. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 5 May 7, 2012 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-05-07 | 6 | Commissioner Wong stated everyone wants open government and wants to be heard; however, the confines have to be right. Chair Oddie noted the Commission's position is not to second guess a judge. Commissioner Peterson stated the Commission should do everything possible to ensure the process is easy and simple. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Oddie adjourned the meeting at 8:19 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 6 May 7, 2012 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-10-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MONDAY OCTOBER 1, 2012 - - - 7:00 P.M. The meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Jensen, Oddie, Peterson, Spanier, and Wong - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA 2-A. Matthew James Fitzgerald, Alameda, introduced himself. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Approve the May 7, 2012 Meeting Minutes. Commission Jensen moved approval of the minutes with correction to the spelling of her last name on page 3. Following Commissioner Spanier's comments, the City Clerk clarified that agendas need to go out twelve days before a City Council meeting; stated a noticing complaint could be filed before a meeting is held. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-B. Receive a Status Update on the Public Records Index. The City Clerk stated the Public Records Index is required by the Sunshine Ordinance and would be posted on the City's website to inform people about the types of documents maintained in each department; the Sunshine Ordinance requires that documents be labeled "Open,' "Partially Open," or "Has been determined Exempt;" the list has been drafted and staff is finalizing the documents' open or exempt status; the Index would be brought back to the Commission once the status has been finalized. Commissioner Jensen inquired whether current City website documents would need to be categorized or just the new documents, to which the City Clerk responded all documents would be categorized. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS 4-A. Commissioner Peterson discussed the public's lack of awareness of the Commission; stated the Sunshine Ordinance should be added to the Open Government section on the website; future meeting dates should be on the calendar now; that he is still concerned with not having Commissioners' email addresses on the website; he Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 October 10, 2012 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2012-10-01 | 2 | does not believe public correspondence should go through the City Clerk's office but should go directly to the Commission; not having Commissioners' email addresses on the website by now is inexcusable and unacceptable; that he has addressed said concern with the Deputy City Manager. Commissioner Jensen concurred with Commissioner Peterson; urged adding Commissioner e-mail addresses and fax number on letterhead; stated Commissioner email addresses should be unique rather than using the City Clerk's office email address to ensure continuity and privacy. Chair Oddie noted the Commission's meeting date and minutes are listed on the City's website. Commissioner Petersen stated no one attended tonight's meeting; that he does not understand why Commission meeting dates are only calendared on the City's website shortly before a meeting. The City Attorney stated Commissioner Petersen's concern [regarding email addresses] would be restated to the Deputy City Manager; a major revamp of the City's website is underway; domain names have been discussed; clarified that the City Clerk is the repository of all City records and complaints need to go through the City Clerk's office. Chair Oddie inquired whether any complaints have been filed, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated a meeting would have been scheduled if a complaint was filed. Commissioner Jensen requested that the City Clerk's email address be placed on the next agenda. The City Clerk stated all agendas contain said contact information. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Wong moved approval of adjourning the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 2 October 10, 2012 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-10-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2013-02-04.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-02-04 | 2 | Vice Chair Aguliar inquired whether the list presented tonight would be on the City's website. The City Clerk responded the list would be posted on the website following City Council review. Chair Cambra stated having an Index which the average citizen can understand is important; questioned whether the Index should be available in other languages; stated there should be a brief explanation in layman's terms for why a document would be "Exempt;" some records, such as autopsies and real estate transactions, might require a split status that changes from "Exempt" to "Open;" some documents are prevented [from disclosure] by operation of law, such as personnel records; however, the "Exempt" status of some records might be discretionary, which should be reviewed. Vice Chair Aguliar stated citations to Code Sections should be included. The City Clerk stated said citations are required by the Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner Tilos suggested a hyperlink be created when the list is posted to the website. Chair Cambra inquired whether a hyperlink would incur increased costs, to which the City Clerk responded additional staff time would be needed. Chair Cambra stated everyone needs to be mindful of the possible burden of increased staff time and costs. The City Clerk stated there are going to be costs to develop a new Citywide digital records program; staff is identifying funding; records management is a Council priority. Commissioner Tilos noted translating the Index into other languages would be an extra cost. Chair Cambra stated Google has a language conversion tool; however, the City would have an obligation to ensure translation is accurate. Vice Chair Aguliar inquired whether Chair Cambra is suggesting that only the explanation of the Index be translated into different languages. Chair Cambra responded that he would want to know what the expense would be to translate the entire Index. Vice Chair Aguliar suggested only translating the explanation and not translating the entire Index. Chair Cambra stated that he would l… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-02-04 | 3 | Commissioner Tilos stated that he is leaning toward only having the Index in English. Commissioner Spainer stated that she is not opposed to the idea [of multiple languages], but she concurs with Commissioner Tilos. In response to Commissioner Tilos's inquiry regarding documents with a split status, the City Clerk stated one option would be to list a document as "Partially Open" since a document could change from "Exempt" to "Open." Chair Cambra questioned whether having two separate categories, such as: Real Estate Transactions - Under Negotiation and Real Estate Transactions - Completed might be clearer; further stated records prevented by operation of law could be discussed at a later meeting. Vice Chair Aguliar inquired whether Chair Cambra is suggesting that a record be exempt as a matter of law versus discretionary. Chair Cambra responded State law allows cities to exempt certain documents; however, the City could chose to disclose some of said documents. The Assistant City Attorney stated some cities keep arrest logs, some do not; normally, some arrest related information is contemporaneous and would be subject to the Public Records Act; only a certain amount of information would be released; however, health related information cannot be disclosed. Chair Cambra stated once the final Index is created, documents could be reviewed to determine if the City wants to accept the "Exempt" status. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS 4-A. Chair Cambra stated former Commissioner Petersen addressed having email sent to someone other than City staff and staff was going to research the matter. The City Clerk stated the Commission's email address is pengovcomm@alamedaca.gov; emails would automatically forward to the Chair and Vice Chair so the Chair and Vice Chair would receive any complaints; noted the complaint form is on the website and a meeting has to be called within thirty days of receiving a complaint. Chair Cambra stated the concern was a complaint filed against the City Clerk's Office should not go to the City Clerk on… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2013-10-07.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-10-07 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 7, 2013 - - 7:00 P.M. [Note: Revisions made by Commissioner Dieter and approved by the Commission at the February 2, 2015 meeting are reflected in bold and by strikethrough.] Chair Cambra convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Aguilar, Spanier, Tilos, and Chair Cambra - 4. Absent: Commissioner Wong - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Approve the February 4, 2013 Meeting Minutes. Vice Chair Aguilar noted a correction on page 2, paragraph 3: "Vice Mayor Aguilar" should be "Vice Chair Aguilar". Assistant City Clerk Glidden noted the change. Vice Chair Aguilar moved approval of the Minutes with the change. Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 3-B. Status Update on the Public Records Index. The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation that stated that Alameda follows Berkeley's Index; it has two parts; that everything will be kept for five years at a minimum; disclosures would be added at a later date and will go to Council for approval. Assistant City Attorney Cohen stated there may be minor changes to the retention schedule; the City Attorney's office will cross check the schedule to the Secretary of State and City of Berkeley general guidelines. Chair Cambra inquired if a column which indicates the status of items would be added to the schedule, to which the Assistant City Clerk responded in the affirmative. In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated that adding the statutory references is a work in progress and may not be complete before the matter is brought to Council. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 4, 2013 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2013-10-07.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-10-07 | 3 | The Assistant City Clerk clarified titles are typically submitted in regular and understandable language; stated the issue being addressed is lengthy legislation language. The Assistant City Attorney stated the requirement is that titles be consistent with federal securities disclosure laws. Chair Cambra inquired if the new procedure would comport with State and federal laws, to which the Assistant City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Chair Cambra requested a recap of the Council's decision regarding agenda titles. The Assistant City Clerk stated the Council decided to implement a new practice that if a title is lengthy or contains a lot of legal terms, staff will include a summary sentence above the title to describe the action in plain English. Stated that she doos not agree with using lawyer catch-phrases that she felt the lawyer catch phrases, such as relating thereto and with respect thereto, are not needed; they should not be used; and she supports making all agenda titles clear: Jane Sullwold, Alameda. Chair Cambra inquired if Council is limiting the summary sentences to legislative items only. The Assistant City Clerk responded the matter was discussed at the last Council meeting, but there was no official vote or action taken. Chair Cambra inquired how the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council to expand the practice to all titles. The Assistant City Clerk responded the Commission could submit a referral to have the item placed on the City Council agenda. Commissioner Spanier stated she supports the practice of writing titles less onerous for the public. The Assistant City Attorney stated staff will continue to strive to make the agenda titles more transparent. Chair Cambra inquired if it makes sense to apply the practice of summary sentences to all titles, not just legislation. Commissioner Aguilar pointed out that non-legislative agenda items are already required to be short and clear, having a caption on non-legislative items would be redundant; it is the legislative titles that hav… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2013-10-07 | 4 | The Assistant City Attorney stated it is the legislative titles that have less flexibility. Chair Cambra concurred with Commissioner Aguilar; stated the Commission will meet again next year, and any additional public concerns regarding agenda titles can be brought to the Commission at that time. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Cambra adjourned the meeting at 7:26 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 October 7, 2013 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2013-10-07.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-02-03.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-02-03 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 3, 2014 7:00 P.M. The meeting was cancelled. Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 3, 2014 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 6, 2014 - - 7:00 P.M. [Note: Revisions made by Commissioner Dieter and approved by the Commission at the February 2, 2015 meeting are reflected in bold and by strikethrough.] Chair Cambra convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Spanier, Tuazon, and Chair Cambra - 3. Absent: Commissioner Aguilar and Wong - 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Approve the October 7, 2013 Meeting Minutes. Continued. In response to Chair Cambra, City Clerk Weisiger stated the minutes could be continued to the next meeting. 3-B. Consider potential revisions to the City's Sunshine Ordinance. Chair Cambra stated two commissioners are missing and the commission membership might change after the election; inquired whether the matter should be addressed. Commissioner Spanier stated the potential revisions seemed to be housekeeping; suggested the Commission review the list and decide about table any controversial items. Commissioner Tuazon inquired whether five members need to be present, to which Chair Cambra responded the three members present represent a quorum. Interim Assistant City Attorney Roush gave a brief presentation about some housekeeping and substantive changes to the Sunshine Ordinance were needed and to ask for direction to send to the City Council. In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry about numbering issues, the Interim Assistant City Attorney stated that he was using the on-line version, which differed. The City Clerk stated the City's codifiers made an error, which is being corrected. The Interim Assistant City Attorney clarified the numbers. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 6, 2014 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2014-10-06.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 3 | The City Clerk noted the application uses a wireless signal to view the packet unless the Councilmember has downloaded the packet prior to the meeting. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated if the requirement is moved to the substantive part of the Ordinance, the assumption has to be that the officials are going to abide by it; there would be consequences for not following the requirement; suggested moving the section and staff could come up with appropriate language. In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry whether a vote is needed, the Interim Assistant City Attorney stated only direction is needed; a redline version of the ordinance would be brought to the Commission at the February meeting. The Interim Assistant City Attorney reviewed the second item in the staff report: passive meeting bodies. Chair Cambra stated passive meeting body is defined as an advisory committee; suggested changing the term passive meeting body to advisory committee. Commissioner Spanier stated changing it to advisory committee is very clear. Chair Cambra stated there might be confusion when a policy body has a passive meeting; inquired whether the Council tour of the estuary was a passive meeting. The City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the meeting was noticed; a passive meeting would be when the body is invited to a non-City event and the majority are present but no City business is discussed. Chair Cambra inquired whether said type of events are covered under Section 2- 91.1.b.4.C, to which the Interim Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted advisory committee is the more commonly used term; stated all references would have to be changed and a better definition could be done; the City Clerk said the only future references to the advisory committee were on pages 4 and 5 so it would be easy to correct. The Interim Assistant City Attorney outlined the third item: gatherings. Chair Cambra stated the term "gathering" might have been used in order to not call social events a meeting; noted the Ordinance was… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 4 | The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the language should remain; noted Item 4 from the staff report would be covered by addressing passive meeting bodies; reviewed Item 5: commissioners submitting written comments when absent. Commissioner Spanier stated that she does not think doing so is a good idea; the written comments could backfire or be awkward because the member is not present to respond to questions or contentious issues; that she does not know whether there is a legal issue. Commission Tuazon concurred; stated the comments could not be challenged or questioned if the person is absent. Chair Cambra requested a review of the deliberative process required before rendering a decision. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the deliberative process drove his analysis; a decision maker is supposed to hear the comments of other members and the public; stated the member could be pre-judging the issue and other board members might give the comments more weight than those submitted by a member of the public; he suggests having a rule that says not being able to attend is like having a financial conflict of interest and participation is not allowed. Chair Cambra outlined a lawsuit that he recalled from law school. The Interim Assistant City Attorney outlined the issue of first amendment rights versus violating due process; noted the member could request the item be continued to another date; if you are not present and have not requested a teleconference, written comments are not entered into the record. The City Clerk noted teleconferencing is another option. In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry regarding agreeing with the staff recommendation, the Commission concurred. The Interim Assistant City Attorney reviewed Items 6: retention of video recordings. The City Clerk provided background in regards to length of time audio recordings must be retained; and that we have the capacity so that we keep everything and starting in [August] 2006, everything has been posted on line. Chair Cambra stated the ordinan… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 5 | Commissioner Spanier inquired whether only the Council videos would be retained. The City Clerk responded all videos are retained, including tonight's meeting, and the meetings of the Planning Board and Recreation and Parks Commission. Commissioner Spanier inquired whether there is a way to prioritize what is kept. The City Clerk responded the current contract does not limit the number of videos which can be kept. Chair Cambra stated the matter could be deferred if there is no financial or storage burden. The Interim Assistant City Attorney concurred; state the matter could be brought back if it becomes an issue; reviewed Item 7: public testimony on an item after being heard by a subcommittee; the [Interim Assistant City Attorney explained that as written the public could not comment on items after being heard by a subcommittee. Chair Cambra provided an example of a Council subcommittee. Commissioner Spanier stated that she can see how the public would be not be happy with the restriction. In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry about the subcommittee reporting back to the Council, the City Clerk stated the matter was prior to the Sunshine Ordinance; public comment was allowed when the subcommittee reported back to the Council. Commissioner Spanier expressed concern that the matter might seem like a backroom deal. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the exception is rarely going to be applied; stated the language should be made clear so that the public can speak. The Commission concurred. The Interim Assistant City Attorney noted Item 8 addresses an absent member commenting, which has already been resolved. Regarding Staff Report Item 9: public information requests, Chair Cambra inquired whether the City has a timeframe to respond that the request has been received and there is another timeframe to actually provide the information. The City Clerk responded the Public Records Act includes the requirement mentioned; the Sunshine Ordinance adopted stricter, faster timelines; stated response is to be Meeting of … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 6 | provided within ten days a few days; there are times the City cannot respond within 10 days. Chair Cambra stated Section 2-92.2 C requires completion within 10 days; Section 2- 92.2.d requires response in three days; there is no mechanism for extending the deadline in Section 2-92.2.c. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the phrase "paid or elected agent" seems unclear. Chair Cambra provided the example of a resident speaking to someone with apparent authority; stated the language makes asking a Councilmember the same as telling staff. The Interim Assistant City Attorney suggested the word agent be changed to employee. The Commission concurred with changing the word. Chair Cambra inquired whether the Commission would like to include language in case the City cannot comply with a 10 day request. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated there has to be some rule of reason when there is a voluminous request; language tracking the Public Records Act could be used to allow for reasonable extension within a specified timeframe. Chair Cambra stated perhaps the term "unreasonable delay" sufficiently protects the City. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated staff could come up with language; stated regarding Item 10, "legislative body" should be changed to "policy body" to be made consistent; reviewed Item 11: moving the State of the City Address. Chair Cambra stated the issue was included in the ordinance to give public notice. Commissioner Spanier stated the suggestion is to move the requirement of the State of the City Address to a different Section of the Ordinance. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated staff would review the matter to see where it belongs. Chair Cambra concurred staff should review the matter to see if there is a better place. The Interim Assistant City Attorney noted Item 12 regarding posting documents on the website for four years could be addressed when storage becomes an issue. Chair Cambra stated having the City documents on the website seems appropriate. Meeting of the Open Go… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 7 | The City Clerk noted "four years" could should be removed because the documents listed would always be posted on the website. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 13 is regarding expressing personal opinions while not on duty; that he was not sure if the item was of concern when the ordinance was drafted; provided an example of union members on duty being given leave to participate in collective bargaining. Chair Cambra stated that he thought the requirement applies to employees on a break, for example. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the Section has not been an issue and could be left alone. Commissioner Spanier provided an example of working for a corporation not releasing information to the media. The Interim Assistant City Attorney outlined public interest versus complaining about the work environment. The Commission concurred with leaving the Section as is. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 14 language could be easily cleaned up. The Commission concurred. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 15 on Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) could be moved to another Section of the Ordinance. Chair Cambra stated that he was not sure whether the requirement was to allow access to the document or to allow people to save on copy costs. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated most EIRs are posted on the City's website; that he could review the matter and determine if it should be moved. The City Clerk noted the language could be moved to Section 2-94.2. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 16 stated Section 2-92.15 should be moved to Section 2-92.2. The Commission concurred. The Interim Assistant City Attorney stated Item 17 would change requiring the training to every three years instead of every year; the training is videotaped; new employees can watch the video; absent major revisions to the ordinance, training could be done every three years. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 6, 2014 7 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2014-10-06 | 8 | In response to Chair Cambra's inquiry regarding live training, the Interim Assistant City Attorney stated the training session took one hour; live training allows an opportunity to ask questions; rather than mandating annual training, three years seems adequate. In response to Commissioner Spanier's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Attorney responded the live training could be done every three years and new hires could watch the video. The Commission concurred. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Bill Smith, on behalf of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, stated the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) agenda does not have public comment; in the Spring, he suggested publicizing what the RRAC does; nothing has happened; the City Attorney told the RRAC not to do anything for a while; the RRAC does not have term limits; asked the Open Government Commission to review RRAC proceedings; stated the RRAC is effective at its core function; however, not enough people know about the function. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Cambra adjourned the meeting at 8:14 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 October 7, 2013 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2014-10-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 2015 7:00 P.M. The City Clerk convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Bonta, Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and Chair Aguilar - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Dieter requested an explanation of the responsibilities of the Chair and Vice Chair. City Clerk Weisiger stated the Chair runs the meetings and the Vice Chair would run the meetings in the Chair's absence. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether it [the Chair and Vice Chair responsibility] is only at the meetings, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tuazon suggested that the Chair and Vice Chair be the representatives appointed by the Mayor and Vice Mayor. Commissioner Foreman noted that he was appointed by the Mayor; inquired who was appointed by the Vice Mayor. Commissioner Dieter responded that she was appointed by the Vice Mayor. Commissioner Bonta inquired how long Commissioner Aguilar has served on the Commission, to which Commissioner Aguilar responded one year. Commissioner Bonta inquired how long others have served, to which Commissioners Foreman and Dieter noted they were newly appointed. Commissioner Bonta stated that she would like to have Commissioner Aguilar serve as the Chair. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the Commissioners suggested are interested in serving as the Chair. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2015-02-02.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 3 | present; the minutes do not reflect that [staff names]; under Item 3-B: Status Update of the Public Records Index, it says: "The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation;" she thinks the minutes should stand on their own and a person should not be forced to have to go look at a video to understand what took place at a meeting; she thinks the minutes should say what was said and should say something to the effect of: "The Assistant City Clerk gave a brief presentation that stated that Alameda follows Berkeley's Index; it has two parts; everything will be kept for five years at a minimum;" this is what was said; and [it should say:] "disclosure will be added at a later date and will go to Council for approval;" that way no one is forced to have to go look at the video. The City Clerk suggested that she modify the minutes and bring them back to the Commission at the following meeting; she could capture the presentation, then, the Commissioners could read the minutes ahead of time. Commissioner Dieter stated if there are not enough changes, perhaps the minutes can be approved tonight. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Dieter stated that she is not finished; the very last line says: "The Assistant City Manager noted that Alameda's schedule is in line with other cities;" that she suggests deleting the following clause: "the key distinction is that Alameda has decided to increase the minimum retention to five years instead of two years required by law;' actually, the [Assistant] City Manager talked about various requirements; some are two years, some are three years, and some are ten years, so she thinks it is unnecessary to include that [clause]; it is confusing; unless staff wants to change it to say: "two or three years or other time frames as required by law;" those are the only two changes she has for that meeting [October 7, 2013]. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Chair Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,19 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 19 | The Commissioners expressed support. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 7 on Video Recording has been revised to add "for at least 10 years" to put the requirement in writing; the City Clerk indicated that videos are probably held longer. Commissioner Dieter stated the previous Commissioners thought that the reference to years should be left out altogether because it is not an issue; the matter could be brought back if it ever becomes an issue; suggested leaving out the references to the time frame at all because it is not a storage issue; questioned why even raise a flag that after 10 years maybe the City will get rid of it. Commissioner Bonta stated the issue was that there was unlimited storage capacity but there could be other reasons. Commissioner Dieter stated the City Clerk indicated everything is kept and capacity is not an issue. Commissioner Bonta stated adding a timeframe makes sense to give guidance about what the limitations should be; there might be a different driver beyond storage capacity. Commissioner Dieter inquired how would the public know if they want to look at something over 10 years ago that the City might have decided to get rid of that information because the Sunshine Ordinance says that the City only had to keep it for at least 10 years. Commissioner Bonta responded that is exactly what the City would want; stated the City would want the public to have some indication about the requirements to store the information for at least 10 years; the fact that there is information beyond that available perhaps is another articulation; it does not make it lower. Commissioner Dieter inquired what is the purpose of including it, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he recalled that there was a 10 year period. The City Clerk stated 10 years was included and is being expanded to at least 10 years because the City is going beyond it; "at least" was clearing up that it was going to go beyond; right now, the City currently has nine years of video posted on the web; starting next … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.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/2015-02-02.pdf,21 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 21 | because it is a judicial matter that they would have to act on; that was wrong because there is an exception that if you are in a campaign, you can comment; but if you are not in a campaign, you cannot comment because you would be disqualifying yourself from making the decision; stated that he does not know why this language is included or needed; stated that he does not need the Code to tell him that he has a constitutional right to say what he wants to say; in this particular case, it may lead a Councilmember to believe that they can make a comment on a zoning matter when they are specifically prohibited from doing so. Commissioner Dieter stated it makes no sense to say that the Council can remove a member; that she is not sure why that is in the Sunshine Ordinance; they also cannot write a letter that contradicts a policy. Vice Chair Foreman inquired why it is in the Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner Dieter concurred; stated the entire Section could be removed; particularly the addition; otherwise it should include that members of the City Council can be removed by referendum and address how they could be removed. Commissioner Bonta stated the general structure is that the City Council appoints other policy bodies that serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and Council; it might be ill placed; Council does have the ability to remove members of a policy body. Vice Chair Foreman stated that does make sense but he does not know why it is in the Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner Dieter inquired what does the section have to do with accessing government, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he thought that revising the ordinance that members of policy bodies can make public comment, it should be clear some right was not being created that would prevent the City Council from removing a member; then, the person could turn around and sue the City under some right that has been now created in the Ordinance; the addition is a protective measure; Vice Chair Foreman makes a good point that the statement is probably br… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,22 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 22 | Vice Chair Foreman suggested that the Commission take the position that the matter is outside of its jurisdiction and refer it back to the City Council; this is not a public access issue. Commissioner Dieter concurred. Vice Chair Foreman stated it has to do with Council's power to go over agencies they create; it has nothing to do with sunshine. Councilmember Dieter stated if that is a motion, she seconds it. Vice Chair Foreman stated that is a motion. Commissioner Bonta inquired whether Vice Chair Foreman is referring to the second or third clause, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded that he is referring to the whole section; stated it is not wrong, it is misplaced; it is outside of the Commission's purview. Commissioner Bonta stated every policy body member retaining the constitutional right to comment publically has relevance to how a member of a policy body might continue to speak in public; having something in full transparency and openly available that members are able to speak their mind, which is the intent, is a helpful thing to have in the Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner Dieter suggested a compromise: leaving in the first part of the provision that was already there that goes with sunshine; the addition added by staff does not belong in the Sunshine Ordinance and actually causes problems. Commissioner Bonta stated the intent is that the City would not have any future liability from exercising its right to remove members. Commissioner Dieter stated that should go somewhere else, such as the City Charter. Commissioner Bonta stated reading the section, people would understand they would be able to speak their mind even sitting on a policy body; after choosing to speak their mind, if the City removed the member, it would not be because they choose to speak their mind; there is a relationship; that she would recommend the language be redrafted. Vice Chair Foreman concurred the language needs to be redrafted; stated that he is worried about the first line; if the Planning Board has to approve a development… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,23 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 23 | redrafted pretty easily to say that members cannot comment on items they are going to make a judicial decision on. The Assistant City Attorney stated this area of the law is murky; development plan in Alameda are legislative acts, not quasi-judicial, so the judicial rules would not apply; however, for a use permit, which is quasi-judicial, the point is well taken; on the other hand, courts recognize that elected and appointed officials are out in the community; part of being an elected official is listening to the community; the community wants to hear official's opinions on matters; there is a fine line between expressing interest and listening to people, but not showing improper bias; the line can be difficult to draw; drafting something may be difficult, but he will take a stab to try to address the issue more clearly. Commissioner Dieter requested the Assistant City Attorney to explain the last sentence: appointed policies bodies moreover may not take formal action nor undertake activities such as writing a letter that contradicts a policy or a position that the City Council has adopted or expressed. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he has seen situations were an advisory body takes formal action, such as writing a letter, that is contradictory to what the City Council has done; it cases the City and City Council some embarrassment; the idea is to put into written form that advisory bodies are not to do that; it is a policy decision; the language can be left or removed; he has seen it cause difficulty for a City Council in the past, so he put it in. In response to Commissioner Bonta's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the line is not always bright; a commission can express reservation about a City Council policy or action; however, the commission communicating in a formal way is what this is intended to say should not be done. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether it has ever happened in Alameda, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he does not know if it has happened in Alameda… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,24 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 24 | The City Clerk stated by majority [Council] vote. Vice Chair Foreman stated his compromise would be to leave in the first part and leave out the last part; the particular sentence is not sunshine and has to do with when you can and cannot remove a member from a body. The City Clerk stated the Section was added to inform a member of a body; since sunshine is about providing information, the Attorney's idea is to put more information out there and inform them if they have not read the other provisions that they could be taken off because they might not be aware. Vice Chair Foreman stated inform them in the right section of the law; inquired why it would it be here. The City Clerk responded every board and commission member is required to read the ordinance; they are not required to read the other sections of the law; they are all annually required to read it. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he would redraft and bring back some language that might be more acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Dieter stated out of all of the Sections, this is the one that is being tabled all together; there is a problem with it. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 9 the first sentence under 2-92.2 has been moved to the front of the ordinance; in October, the Commission talked about the fact that sometimes the 10 day rule could not always be met and that there are circumstances when additional time is needed; he pulled the language out of the Public Records Act and put it into Subsection C to allow additional time for the custodian of records to respond as long as they gave the reasons for the extensions and the date on which the determination was supposed to be provided. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether there was a typo with the part that was added in Section D should it say employee "or" elected official rather than "of," to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Attorney stated the new Subsection G has been moved up from a different Section; Section 10 on Responsib… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,25 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 25 | The Assistant City Attorney continued the sentence: four years after they are filed or adopted; stated the items may be kept, but it is a matter of whether they should be kept on the City's website all the time; it is not that they would not exist, but they would not be on the City's website. Commissioner Dieter stated at the last meeting, discussion was that there is no problem with keeping items on the City's website; space is not a problem; questioned whether agendas and minutes would be removed after four years, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in terms of the website, correct. Commissioner Dieter inquired why it says agendas and minutes would be removed after four years if there is no capacity problem, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded information would be stale after said length of time. The City Clerk stated some of the things that would change over time would be the Executive Management Work Plans, Capital Improvement Plans and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), which are very large and could be removed after the project has been approved and completed; said documents get updated so retaining them for a long period might be harder; agendas and minutes are in a database; maybe agendas and minutes can be removed from the Section. Vice Chair Foreman noted the Planning Board never post minutes; inquired if it is violation of the Section, to which the City Clerk responded that she would follow up on the matter. Commissioner Bonta stated there seem to be some things, such as the Alameda Municipal Code, which have the current version, not the prior version for four years past, to which the City Clerk concurred. Chair Aguilar stated the addition should be added at the bottom [of the Section]. Vice Chair Foreman and the Assistant City Attorney concurred. The Assistant City Attorney stated the items could be asterisked with an explanation at the bottom; agendas and minutes will not be asterisked; the rest will because they change after four years. Chair Aguilar inquired whether what woul… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,26 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 26 | Commissioner Tuazon stated it is still stored somewhere, just out of the website. Commissioner Dieter stated she is glad agendas and minutes are going to be removed; she also has a problem with EIR's, which can take up a lot of space because they are often big; however, when a project is still being built, people may want to go back to that, Alameda Point in particular, which was just passed last year; chances are the City will not move forward with building anything for a couple more years; in four years when the City is getting ready to start with one section, the EIR will already have been removed from the website; it makes more sense to remove it from the City's website once the project is final and has been built out. The City Clerk stated the Alameda Point EIR would be an exception and would be left up; people are going to be referring to it during all the phases; the Section is addressing the more typical EIR for a smaller project that would be completed within one year. Commissioner Dieter inquired could the language be that the EIR would be removed [from the website] when the project has been completed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded staff can get terminology from Community Development to reflect the concept, which is a valid point. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 12 on Public Records Index, struck language that was supposed to happen within 12 months from the enactment of the ordinance has been accomplished; there is no reason to keep it in the ordinance any longer; Section 13 on Matters of Public Concern, the attempt was to rework the language without changing the substance; the concern was it was not particularly clear; basically saying that an employee or policy board member can express an opinion as long as it does not materially misrepresent the position of the City or the department or the policy by which a member belongs. Commissioner Dieter inquired if it is similar to the one that the Commission tabled, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded it is similar but … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.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,28 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 28 | private cause of action or offense to disciplinary action" is really good language, except it has been negated in the first sentence; the last sentence says an employee can be disciplined and this first sentence says cannot. Commissioner Bonta stated the first sentence says an employee cannot be disciplined for expression of personal opinions when not materially misrepresenting their position as an employee of the City. The Assistant City Attorney stated this area of the law is not clear; a person has certain constitutional rights; the idea is that the ordinance should not create additional rights beyond that which is already recognized by law; in other words, the ordinance would not give a separate cause of action if someone expresses an opinion and is disciplined for it; the City does not want the fifth cause of action to be a violation of Section 2-92.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code. Commissioner Bonta suggested the Section be redrafted perhaps adding the language provides "additional rights" to the last clause. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 14 is just housekeeping, clarifying language; Section 15 has been moved to the Section on posting of information; Section 16 has been moved into a previous section dealing with providing records; Section 17 would change the training from every year to every third year; the video is available to anybody elected, appointed or hired. Commissioner Bonta questioned whether Section 2-92.15 on requests by email stating an email has to be acknowledged by similar communication is limiting; stated there are probably instances when calling would be helpful. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Section can be made broader; continued that completes [the review] all of the changes which were discussed in October; staff will redraft the ones the Commissions suggested be worked on; if there is anything else the Commission feels needs some fine tuning or wholesale changes, please let staff know. Vice Chair Foreman inquired when it will be ready; stated there is no hurry but … | 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/2015-02-02.pdf,30 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 30 | Vice Chair Foreman provided an example: recommend to Council under that the Commission's jurisdiction should be expanded; stated the Commission is called Open Government but the actual grant of authority is Sunshine Ordinance; other aspects of the law pertain to open government and the Commission's role should be expanded. The City Clerk stated the Commissioners need to provide the item greater than the seven days ahead of [publication] time; that she would indicate that it is coming from the Commissioner so the other Commissioners understand it is not staff generated. Commissioner Dieter stated it is a little bit more free flowing than the City Council, to which the City Clerk responded the City Council has an extensive Council referral process but the Commission does not have that. Commissioner Dieter inquired when Commissioners have referrals, should it have a staff report. The City Clerk responded typically, staff would want to wait to get direction from the whole Commission before putting too much work into the matter; if the rest of the Commission does not agree with going in that direction; stated it is easier for staff to get direction from the whole Commission. The Assistant City Attorney stated it is similar to a referral; if a Commissioners wants to bring something forward, they would communicate it to the City Clerk; it would then appear under Commissioner Communications; the Commission would have a chance to talk about it because it would be noticed; then if there is support to bring something back, staff would do it; if there is not support, it does not go anywhere. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Aguilar adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 30 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 4 | it goes to the City Manager's Office, and, if by chance a title is legislative, it goes through only the City Attorney's office and it does not get changed; if by chance, a legislative title is unclear, then a clarifying sentence will be added so that the public will understand the agenda meeting." The City Clerk inquired which set of minutes Commissioner Dieter is addressing; noted that she is having trouble finding it [the section being revised]. Chair Aguilar inquired what page. Commissioner Dieter responded page 2; stated it says Item 3-C Discussion and Comment on City Council Titles. The City Clerk stated the minutes being addressed are the October 7, 2013 set. Commissioner Dieter concurred; stated trying to decipher the minutes is very confusing; stated that she is still on the same set [October 7, 2013]; stated [the minutes state:] "The Assistant City Attorney summarized a section of the Sunshine Ordinance" but it does not say what the [Assistant] City Attorney said, so the Commission should add: "stated that a meaningful description of the item should be included in plain English;" that way someone does not have to look at the video to find out what the [Assistant] City Attorney said; on the next page, there was a public speaker; it is a little unclear in these minutes that it was a public speaker; it is underlined; she [the public speaker] actually said: "that she felt the lawyer catch phrases, such as relating thereto and with respect thereto, are not needed; they should not be used;" considering there was only one speaker, the Commission might as well get that [comment] right; that [comment] was by Jane Sullwold; on the next page at the top, it says: "Commissioner Aguilar pointed out that non-legislative agenda items are already required, having a caption on non- legislative items would be redundant; it is the legislative titles that have less flexibility;" the [Assistant] City Attorney actually said that ["it is the legislative titles that have less flexibility"], not Commissioner Aguilar; that those … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.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/2015-02-02.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 6 | background the City Clerk provided; down closer to the end of the page [it states:] "reviewed Item 7: public testimony on an item after being heard by a subcommittee;" she thinks this should be added: "the [Interim Assistant] City Attorney explained that as written the public could not comment on items after being heard by a subcommittee;" that is why it was being brought before the Commission; he [the Interim Assistant City Attorney] did not think there was a reason to have that [sentence in Section 2-91.15a included]; that it should be repealed; at the top of page 9 the end of the first sentence [reads]: "stated the language should be made clear" [that she would like to add:] "so that the public can speak;" "stated the language should be made clear" does not say what language; again, you [the public] would have to watch the video to figure out what language and it goes back to what was said previously about advisory committee meetings so the public can speak; down to about the fifth paragraph [it reads:] "The City Clerk responded the Public Records Act includes the requirement mentioned; the Sunshine Ordinance adopted stricter, faster timelines; stated response is to be provided within" [the language should read:] "a few days", not "ten days;' delete "ten days" and put "a few days;" [the minutes continue:] "but there are times the City cannot respond within ten days;" the City Clerk probably knows exactly what she meant by that [statement]; the City provides a response to whoever is requesting the record, but the City has ten days in which to respond; the next page second line [states:] "Commissioner Spanier stated that the suggestion is to move the requirement to a different Section of the Ordinance" does not say what requirement; [she would like to] add the words: "of the State of the City Address;" [the language should read:] "move the requirement of the State of the City Address to a different Section of the Ordinance;" down to about the sixth paragraph [it says:] "The City Clerk noted "four years" could be… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 7 | Vice Chair Foreman stated that he spent a lot of time on the matter today; the whole construct of the ordinance bothers him; he became really embroiled in the Sunshine Ordinance when he was working on the Mayor's campaign and the Del Monte development; he finds the ordinance to be very confusing and in some cases contradictory, which the Assistant City Attorney pointed out in past meeting videos; the basic law is the State law, which sets the minimum standards; the only thing the City of Alameda can do is expand public access; questioned why the approach is basically restating the entire Government Code in the Municipal Code; stated if he had worked on the ordinance when it was created, he would have suggested an ordinance to supplement the [State] sunshine code, not completely restate it; a person has to read both when doing research as he had to do; his suggestion would make it [the City's Sunshine Ordinance] much shorter; that he would publish the Government Code on the City's website and this [City Sunshine Ordinance] would be a supplement; in the notice area, one expansion is going from a three day notice to a 12 day notice; almost everything else is repetition of what is already in the Government Code; that [his proposal for a shorter ordinance] is one approach; the other approach is to do what has been done; using the City existing ordinance in its current form needs to use the same language [as the Government Code]; for instance, the word "policy body" does not appear in the Government Code; the closest synonym for "policy body" is "legislative body;" if State law, which provides the minimum standards, uses the term "legislative body," Alameda should not be using the word "policy body" because it leads one to the conclusion that they are two separate things and they are not; it would be very difficult even for an accomplished lawyer to try to figure out some of these inconsistencies; another example would be "passive body;" there is no terminology "passive body" in the Government Code; that he understands… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 8 | least have the ordinance track what is in State law, the Commission can make a recommendation to go to the Council and get said direction. The City Clerk stated that she could provide a little background; the year-long process was comprised of a group just like the Open Government, one member put on by each Councilmember; the group reviewed various sunshine ordinances from other cities and complied them together at public meetings with public input; a piecemeal approach was used; the group liked some things from some cities and liked some things from other cities, which was used to come up with an ordinance specifically catered for Alameda; language could be different because it could have possibly been cut and pasted from different cities; the group was supposed to create the Ordinance in three meetings, but ended up meeting 11 times; then, they finalized the Ordinance and sent it to Council; the process was lengthy. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether that is pretty much in place, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated that [process] is how the Ordinance was established. Vice Chair Foreman stated it might be difficult to switch horses now, but the matter should at least keep that in mind going through the Ordinance; for one more example, State law defines "meeting;" Alameda's law defines "meeting;" there is really no difference between the two, but the same language is not used; if there is no difference, the City should use exactly the same language, not a paraphrase; changing the language creates risk; that he understands if the Commission wants to remain on the current track and just try to be consistent with State law; the Ordinance has been through a process; the Commission cannot very well turn it upside down. The Assistant City Attorney stated if the Commission's direction is to see that the language in the Ordinance tracks what is in State law to the extent possible, staff can do that; the matter could be brought back to the Commission; the task is a doable task, but will take a li… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 9 | if the State law says the agenda has to be posted 72 hours before the meeting, the local ordinance, even with a Charter City, probably could not say it only has to be 48 hours; on the other hand, it could have 12 days rather, than three days for Council and 7 days for commissions. Commissioner Bonta stated it is likely that a lot of these analogs that were created, such as the use of policy bodies in the ordinance, are largely driven by the fact that the local government bodies are groupings working together at the City level; stated that she would be inclined to not undo the work of an open process and the year of work to come to this Ordinance; the work would be undone by thinking that the State code language could just be slapped on; that she agrees that there are some areas where the ordinance could have some clarification; the idea of a policy body was probably generated because the City is a local government. Vice Chair Foreman stated the State law is written for local government; it is not written for the State legislator; it is written almost exclusively for local government; that he does not know why policy body was put in there; when you read policy body and you read legislative body it is exactly the same thing. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he can speculate that the thought might have when you read legislative bodies many people might think that is simply the City Council because Council makes final decision as opposed to a policy body which might sound broader to a layperson; he does not know if that would enter the equation or not; that he can see how that could have played a part in coming up with that term rather than legislative body; that is just a guess on his part, but it sounds logical that may have been part of the reasoning process. Vice Chair Foreman stated the Commission can just go through the Ordinance piece by piece and vote. Commissioner Bonta inquired whether staff recommends reviewing the Ordinance or tabling the questions until the Commission has had a clear opportunity f… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 10 | Commissioner Tuazon stated that sounds reasonable. Vice Chair Foreman stated the Commission can just work from the red lines. Commission Dieter stated the Commission can just go down [the redline]; inquired whether anybody has input under findings or if the Commission is okay with the findings the way that it has been edited. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he is okay with it. Commissioner Dieter stated that she is okay with the first section. The Assistant City Attorney stated [on Section 11 staff is not deleting the section entirely from the ordinance; that he simply moved it to a substantive section where he thought it made more sense. Vice Chair Foreman stated the Commission will talk about that when the section is addressed. Chair Aguilar inquired whether having the Assistant City Attorney identify the changes would be easier, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he can walk through the red line; stated for Section 1 on Findings, the concept was that the matter seemed to be more of a substantive issue rather than a finding; he moved the Section to Section 2-91.4(h); similarly, Section 2 on Responsibility of the City Manager and Mayor were in other portions of the Ordinance but having the Sections standalone made more sense. Chair Aguilar inquired whether there are any comments on Section 2, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the negative; stated this is exactly what was decided upon by the former Commissioners; it was achieved and clear. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 3 on Definition of Passive Meeting Body, described more of a passive meeting itself, not a body, so the Section was deleted. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he has a comment on Section 2-91.1; suggested Subsection B be revised to quote the Government Code definition of a meeting word for word; stated the definition should be word for word and in the same order, unless the term meeting is being expanded and broader than the Government Code; otherwise, the City is bound by a definition in the State Code and bound by a s… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 11 | Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of directing the [Assistant] City Attorney to review the definition of meeting in Section 2-91.1(B); if he determines it to be identical to the Government Code Section, he use the Government Code language; if he believes it not to be identical, he make whatever edits he believes are appropriate. Chair Aguilar inquired whether the motion is to have the changes come back to the Commission for approval, to which Vice Chair Foreman concurred. Commissioner Dieter stated the direction is fine with her. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Vice Chair Foreman stated his opinion is that the term passive meeting body, wherever it occurs in the Ordinance, be changed to non-legislative body. Commissioner Dieter stated before the Commission goes there [addresses said change], the former Commissioners had a long discussion on the matter at the previous meeting; everyone had a problem with the word "passive body" and "passive meeting body;" what was agreed upon was that it would be changed to something that everyone would understand: advisory committee or advisory body. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he recalls that; the problem with it is that advisory bodies formed by the Council as a whole, by ordinance or an official Council action, are not passive meeting bodies as defined in the document; advisory bodies are subject to the Sunshine Ordinance just as much as City Council with a few minor exceptions; the word "advisory" cannot be used interchangeably with passive or non-legislative; most advisory bodies, such as the Open Government Commission, are not passive bodies; Commissioner Dieter is right the discussion did occur; that he is suggesting using the word "non-legislative." Commissioner Dieter inquired the difference between a policy body and an advisory body. The Assistant City Attorney responded the difficulty is that as defined, advisory bodies, such as the Planning Board, Open Government Commission or Recreation and Park Commission, are advisor… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,12 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 12 | The Assistant City Attorney stated that he would surmise the thought was whenever a committee of only City employees met, it would not be subject to the requirements for passive meeting bodies. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he is not hung up on non-legislative; it is fine if other Commissioners want to leave passive meeting body, which is not in State law at all. In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry about the Assistant City Attorney not following the previous Commission's suggestion to use advisory, the Assistant City Attorney stated the concern was using the term "advisory" would get confused with the term "policy bodies" which are advisory bodies under the Government Code; that he thought it would be better to leave the terminology as is even if it is somewhat odd; the definition is not going to apply to many committees. Commissioner Dieter stated that she is okay with the Section. Vice Chair Foreman stated there is still Section D. The Assistant City Attorney stated he added "as a whole" to make it clear and less ambiguous; read the Section. Vice Chair Foreman stated that his personal problem with Section D is that he would love to see the word "policy body" removed; things governed by State law are being addressed; the State law calls them legislative bodies and the City is calling the exact same thing a policy body; one is talking Spanish and the other is talking Greek; the same subject is being addressed but different labels are being given. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the Commission could table the term until getting through the redline. Vice Chair Foreman responded in the affirmative; stated the Assistant City Attorney can make a note of it and decide what he wants to do with it. Chair Aguilar inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney could take a look at it to see if policy body and legislative body are the same, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded if the Commission's direction is to make amendments to the Ordinance to have legislative body appear instead of policy body, s… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.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/2015-02-02.pdf,14 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 14 | must do something and passive meeting bodies may do something in terms of conducting business. Vice Chair Forman stated that he has a problem with that; the State Code uses the term "advisory bodies" in the Section that matches this; what the State Code basically says is that the City Council has to have regular meetings, but advisory bodies, such as the Planning Board, do not have to have regular meetings; then, it goes on to talk about how their [board/commission] meetings shall be considered like regular meetings; the Ordinance takes from a Section that has nothing to do with passive meeting bodies; advisory bodies cannot be removed because unless the intent is to broaden the State law to say that not just City Council but advisory bodies also have to give all these notices, then there is nothing wrong with taking out "except for advisory bodies" if that is the intent. Chair Aguilar inquired whether policy bodies as defined in the Ordinance include advisory bodies, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Attorney stated to address Vice Chair Foreman's concern, perhaps the intent was the City Council must have regular meetings that advisory bodies as used in the Government Code do not; if that is the intent, staff would have to indicate that it is only the City Council that must do this and other policy bodies do not; that wordsmithing can be done if that is where the Commission wants to go with not requiring all bodies, other than City Council, to establish a time and place for holding regular meetings. Vice Chair Foreman stated he gets the impression the intent was to mimic State law, except when you get over to F, which really starts getting confusing; F says special meetings of any policy body, including advisory bodies, that may choose to establish regular meeting times may be called at any time by the presiding officer; then, it goes back to passive meeting bodies. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he is not clear whether the intent was advisory bodies referred t… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,15 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 15 | one Councilmember that do not; the matter has been clarified; E also jumps around and addresses advisory bodies; that he does not know how passive body got mixed in with advisory body because they are two different things; they are two different things even in the context of the section. Chair Aguilar questioned whether defining advisory bodies would clarify the matter; stated passive meeting bodies have now been defined. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether advisory bodies formed by Council follow all these rules, such as the 12 day rule, to which the City Clerk responded they have a seven day rule; the Council is the only one with the 12 day [publication rule], all of the rest have 7 [day publication requirements]. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether that is written in the Sunshine Ordinance, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. In response to Vice Chair Foreman's inquiry where is the 12 and 7 day rule, the Assistant City Attorney stated said Section was not changed. Commissioner Dieter stated it is in F. Vice Chair Foreman inquired where is the 7 days for the advisory board, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded probably in one of the sections that is not being changed. The City Clerk stated it is in Section 2-91.5 on agenda requirements for regular meetings in the Sunshine Ordinance; there was no change, so it is not in the red line. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether all the bodies have regular meetings, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Foreman stated the fact of the matter is that they have all chosen to have regular meetings. The City Clerk stated all standing boards and commissions, such as the Open Government Commission and Planning Board, have regular meeting dates that they have established. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether there is no commission appointed by formal action that is appointed by the Council that does not have regular meetings, to which the City Clerk responded it could happen; the deadline is the same for special or regular mee… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,16 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 16 | meetings; they are required to have regular meetings even though the Sunshine Ordinance says they are not; they have chosen to do it; that he is wondering if the Section should just be taken out altogether; leave the deletion so even advisory bodies have to have regular meetings. The Assistant City Attorney stated that is what he was trying to do; all advisory bodies seem to have regular meeting dates; so it seemed de facto that is what was going on. Commissioner Bonta inquired whether there is a big difference between shall versus must. Vice Chair Foreman responded shall is mandatory by law and really means the same as must. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he is simply trying to indicate that passive meeting bodies would not have to follow the same requirement. Vice Chair Foreman stated maybe the way to write it is to scratch out advisory bodies; inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney has already taken advisory body out of this altogether, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Foreman stated that makes sense and means any commission or committee created by formal action has to have regular meetings and follow these rules; for passive meeting bodies, it is optional; that he is okay with it if everybody else is; he is not sure that it was intended originally, but it makes sense in practice. Chair Aguilar inquired whether everyone agrees and there were no objections. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section H on Use of Electronic Communication Devices was moved down from the findings. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he does not like it; his argument with it is not legalistic; this is the modern age; the Section is to stop secret meetings during a meeting by text or email; all this stuff is done in secret whether it is done in front of the public; you have to catch somebody doing it; it is a violation for more than two people to have a discussion. The City Clerk stated that she could provide some background information; the Section was very important to the Suns… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,17 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 17 | could look up overhead Google view or if there is a State Code provision that might affect the decision, questioned why he should not be able to reference something on his iPad; that he wishes the Section was written in a way that does not require shutting it down and simply tells you certain things that you cannot do that would be a violation; some of them [Councilmembers] have computers; questioned whether members never refer to their computers for anything on an agenda. Commissioner Tuazon stated this is about sending and receiving email or texts. Commissioner Bonta stated Vice Chair Foreman is responding to this second sentence, which says: "the use of electronic communication devices other than the purpose of a member accessing agenda material.' Vice Chair Foreman stated "use of electronic material other than the purpose of a member accessing agenda materials shall be prohibited during meetings" is what he does not like; there should be a little more leeway; it should not be limited to just agenda items. Commissioner Bonta stated the thing trying to be prevented is specific communications; that she agrees with Vice Chair Foreman. Vice Chair Foreman stated there are so many things on the Internet that could be helpful to any Councilmember; saying what members cannot do would make sense. The Assistant City Attorney stated the concern would be that if a person is using a cell phone at all, how is the public going to know whether it is being used to access a State Code or if it is being used it to get information from an outside source. Vice Chair Foreman inquired how the public is going to know that he does not call Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and get them together on a conference call; you have to catch someone; that he does not see how they would know that any more than they would know what is being viewed on a computer. Chair Aguilar stated Councilmembers are given all the [agenda] information ahead of time and do not have to look things up at the meeting. Vice Chair F… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,18 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 18 | Vice Chair Foreman stated a Councilmember cannot respond to that; that he has no problem with prohibiting that. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether what Vice Chair Foreman is saying is that he does not like the fact that the member cannot access material. Vice Chair Foreman responded they cannot access any material other than agenda material; stated Councilmember Daysog has a computer up at every meeting; no one knows what he is looking at; the law has been in effect, not that he is not accusing Councilmember Daysog of anything. The City Clerk stated the Section does not just apply to the Council, it applies to all boards and commissions. Vice Chair Foreman stated it seems that language can be written that says a device cannot be used to communicate to another member of the board about any meeting subject or to receive any communications; language can be drafted; something can be drafted about what members are prohibited from doing with electronic devices. Commissioner Dieter stated Vice Chair Foreman's proposal is to delete the last sentence and include what, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded it is going to take some drafting; that he cannot sit here and draft it by himself. The Assistant City Attorney stated essentially what he is hearing, if this is the direction of the Commission, is that the second sentence would essentially largely track what is in that first sentence; the first sentence states the rule; the second sentence states the prohibition; that he could add language about communication with other policy board members as well as members of the public to avoid a Brown Act issue as well as the outside information; that would be more restrictive than what the second sentence reads; it can be written that way if it is the Commission's direction. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney would draft something that the Commission could review, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Commission seems okay with certain things and some other thi… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY MARCH 30, 2015 7:00 P.M. Chair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Dieter, Foreman, and Chair Aguilar - 3. Absent: Commissioners Bonta, Tuazon - 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the February 2, 2015 Meeting Chair Aguilar stated there were a couple places in the meeting minutes said Vice Mayor which should say Commissioner and the Sunshine Ordinance should be capitalized, in a few places. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of the minutes as amended. Commissioner Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. 3-B. Potential Revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance Assistant City Attorney Roush gave a brief presentation outlining the changes in the redlined version of the Sunshine Ordinance. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he was the one who raised the issue; he is satisfied with the changes. Commissioner Dieter thanked the Assistant City Attorney for the layout of the revisions; stated it is easier to follow. The Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation. Commissioner Dieter stated that she has problems with Section 2-91.17; the title is: "Public Comment by Members of Policy Bodies;" in general, the Section is not about public comment by policy bodies; it is about individuals, which led her to reread this clause again; she expressed concern at the last meeting and continues to have the same concern; the issue is not a sunshine issue; the role and limitations of boards and commissions is spelled out in the Charter; the last sentence which addresses appointed policy bodies should be deleted. Meeting of the Open Government Commission March 30, 2015 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 2 | Vice Chair Foreman concurred; stated the Section should be deleted it in its entirety; that he does not need to be told he has a constitutional right to speak out; he does not know why the Section would be in the Sunshine Ordinance; everyone has the right to speak out as individuals as long as long as speaking for themselves; boards and commissions have the right to speak out as a body even if disagreeing with Council; the only control Council should have is to relieve members of duties; the Section does not add anything. Chair Aguilar sated the Section is not just indicating members have a constitutional right to speak out; inquired if Vice Chair Foreman wants to remove the entire Section, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded in the affirmative. Chair Aguilar inquired if Commissioner Dieter want to remove the last sentence, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Foreman read the Section; stated if Council disagrees with a Commission on something the only right is what they have in the Charter, to relieve members of duties; that he does not have any idea what the second sentence accomplishes; in the next part simply restates what is in the Charter; he does not see a purpose served by any of it. Commissioner Dieter stated that she does not mind having everybody know that they can speak out for themselves; she does not have a problem reminding folks that just because they are on a board or commission does not mean they do not have a voice in the community; what she does have a problem with is telling policy bodies that they cannot take a position that contradicts a policy or decision of the City Council, which is the opposite of the intent of Boards and Commissions that exist to advise Council; for instance, if the City Council decides not to implement bus rapid transit on the West End and the Transportation Commission strongly opposes the position, they should have a right to address or send a letter to the City Council; the whole purpose of Boards and Commissions is to advise even … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2015-03-30.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 4 | or position, but when broadened other formal actions and activities could be constituted as all different situations. Vice Chair Foreman suggested taking the suggested position that it is an inappropriate revision to the Sunshine Ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney stated Council could take up the matter as a separate item; inquired if the approach is acceptable, to which the Commissioners responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation. Vice Chair Foreman stated his position last time about Section 2-92.6 was that it should not be included; the more he reviews it, the stronger he feels that it should not be included; if it is going to be included, it should not be under Section 2-92.6 which has to do with records; it should be moved to Section 2-91.18; he did research on the City employee issue; the term City employee is better; public employee could be somebody who works for the County, federal government or State; a City employee, under case law, can speak out on a matter of public concern other than his/her duties; speaking pursuant to official duties does not allow first amendment protection; provided an example: a Police Officer talking about the new fire station, which is not part of his duties, has protection; however, if what the Officer says is knowingly or recklessly false or if it makes it impossible for him to carry out his duties, he is not protected; inquired whether the interpretation is generally right. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the difficulty is trying to distinguish between is the person speaking within his or her official duties or if the matter is really of public concern; it is a very slippery slope. Vice Chair Foreman stated it is a very slippery slope, which is why he thinks the Section should not be included; stated there should not be any reference to a City Board, Commission or Committee, which is already covered. Chair Aguilar noted it does not [have any such reference]. Vice Chair Foreman read the first sen… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 5 | says: "so as long as an opinion does not materially misrepresent the position of the City;" inquired how the clause is tested. Chair Aguilar responded there is case law. Commissioner Dieter provided an example of the City Clerk and City Manager giving different information resulting in an employee being fired; stated understanding this part of the Sunshine Ordinance is a little difficult. Vice Chair Foreman stated it is a balancing act, is very complicated and is based on the individual facts in each case, which is another reason it is a bad idea; he does not have a problem with including the Section for Commission members because they have an absolute unfettered first amendment right subject to only being relieved of their duties; however, employee do not have the same right and he does not want to mislead employees or put the City in a position of giving an employee more rights. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission is really dealing with policy issues; dealing with policy bodies could be moved; the Section on employees can be removed entirely or moved to Section 2-91. Vice Chair Foreman moved approval of recommending that this provision be deleted. Commissioner Dieter inquired how does this clause make government more transparent, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the City Clerk's recollection was that the Section was included so that employees understand they have the ability to have their voices heard in front of policy bodies without worrying about being disciplined; Commissioners should be to so as well as long as they do not materially misrepresent their body. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether when the public sees a Board or Commission member speak, they are not doing anything wrong and it is their right, to which Vice Chair Foreman responded Board members are not being discussed; the discussion is about city employees. The Assistant City Attorney stated there are two parts to Section 2-92.6: one deals with public employees and the other deals with members of a policy body; the… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 6 | Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether policy bodies are being discussed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded before, the Section dealt with both employees and advisory policy bodies; stated that he was trying to be true to the previous work but separate the Sections because different standards apply to employees and policy body members. Vice Chair Foreman stated if the Section is moved after the Section that covers boards, it is totally confusing; there is one Section on policy bodies and another Section on policy bodies and employees; the Section on policy bodies repeats the previous Section. Commissioner Dieter stated the matter should be in an employee handbook; as somebody who has gathered signatures for petitions, she has often heard City employees say they cannot sign; there is a misconception that employees do not have the right to speak out; employees should be told what they can and cannot do when they are hired; she understands what Vice Chair Foreman is saying. Commissioner Dieter stated that she would second the motion as long as the Commission is clear that City employees should be made aware what they can and cannot do when they are hired. Vice Chair Foreman amended his motion to recommend that the Section be deleted from the Sunshine Ordinance and that the employee handbook include a Section which explains to employees under what circumstances they are allowed to speak out on matters. Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion. Chair Aguilar agreed with the motion. The Assistant City Attorney noted the sentence dealing with appointed policy bodies has already been adequately covered in the previous Section. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioners Bonta and Tuazon - 2.] The Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation on the definition of meeting. Vice Chair Foreman discussed the prior Commission unanimous vote on adopting the Brown Act language; stated even though the structure of the ordinance's definition of meeting is diffe… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 7 | Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether [the Sunshine Ordinance is more restrictive] simply on the issue on you a meeting cannot be held in a place charging admission, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Foreman stated Section 2-91.1(b)(4)(C) is not in the Brown Act; in respect to what Chair Aguilar said about not wanting to turn the language inside out, he would say to use the existing language; at the same time, he is very concerned about using different language because using different language there is always the possibility that some word splitting lawyer is going to say there is a difference; suggested adding a parenthetical after "meeting shall mean anything of the following" which reads: "this definition is intended to be synonymous with meeting as defined in the Brown Act, except for Section 2-91.1(b)(4)(C) which is intended to be more restrictive than the Brown Act:" then it would be crystal clear that the same thing is meant. The Assistant City Attorney stated the language can be added if it is the direction of the Commission. Chair Aguilar inquired if it is meant to be synonymous; stated it is very similar Vice Chair Foreman responded the Assistant City Attorney stated it is synonymous. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Brown Act covers more things that are not considered meetings; there are a couple of additional items; the fact that the Sunshine Ordinance does not cover everything does not mean the City does not have to observe both the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive; all the exceptions to meetings are not covered; it is okay to indicate that there is a particular Subsection that, while it intended to paraphrase what is in the Brown Act, is more restrictive; a parenthetical can be added. Vice Chair Foreman moved that the parenthetical be added at the beginning of the definition of the term meeting. Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3 The Assistant City Attorney continued the… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.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,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 9 | independently outside of meetings; perhaps the City Attorney can help out; inquired if Commissioners should raise issues under Communications or do as agenda items; further inquired does it have to be formal or can it be informal; stated it is something for the Commissioners to think about; if the Commission really want to do its job well, Commissioners have to do something while not here sitting at the dais. In response to Vice Chair Foreman inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated the Commissioners would look at City Council and Planning Board agendas and see if titles do not meet the muster of what people can understand. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he understands the suggestion; questioned how do to do so as a Commission; do members take turns reviewing agendas or review them as a group; stated he does not know how to do it; stated the next Council meeting could be assigned to a Commissioner. Chair Aguilar inquired in perpetuity, to which Commissioner Dieter responded the Ordinance says the Open Government Commission shall review public notices. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he can see doing it reactivity when a complaint is received from someone who says an item was not properly noticed. Chair Aguilar stated that is what has been done in the past; when there is a complaint, the Commission addresses it; that she does not know if there has been any formal complaints; one came up and was withdrawn; the Commission has to think about what the Section means because the Commission only meets twice a year; both the bylaws and the Sunshine Ordinance require meeting twice a year. Commissioner Dieter stated that she did not set up meeting twice a year so she does not know how that happened; the requirement is in the Sunshine Ordinance so the Commission needs to know how to accomplish it; that she tends to look at City Council agendas anyway so for her it is no big deal; however, when all the Commissioners signed on, this is what the Ordinance includes as a duty. Vice Chair Foreman stated Commissioners can informally revi… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf,10 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 10 | translates to the public; Commissioner could review agenda and making notes if there is an issue that needs to be addressed. Chair Aguilar stated Commissioners should save examples and inform her and the City Clerk to have the matter agendized for the next meeting. Vice Chair Foreman inquired get what agendized, to which Chair Aguilar responded the issue; whatever the issue is that comes up. The Assistant City Attorney provided an example of half a dozen items occurring between now and December; when Commissioners discover items, they should notify the Chair and the City Clerk to create a running tab and get a scope of the problem. Chair Aguilar stated the Commission would see whether there is just one item or several, if it global or something particular; the discussion is just hypothetical. Commissioner Dieter stated the Ordinance says to work to improve publically accessible information; inquired whether that is another thing or part of this. Chair Aguilar responded it would be a part of the matter. Commissioner Dieter stated she talked to the Assistant City Attorney; on the website, when a meeting is canceled giving the reason would be nice, such as lack of a quorum or lack of business; for example, that would be helpful to the public; another issue is it is hard to find Rent Review Advisory Committee agendas on the City website. Vice Chair Foreman stated maybe said matters ought to be included in the annual report. Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission has to meet to create the annual report. Vice Chair Foreman stated the annual report is a good idea. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Ordinance amendments could be included as part of the annual report; if other items come to Commissioners' attention that should be included in the report, the City Clerk and City Attorney know; a report will be drafted for the Commission to review and make changes or additions; something can be presented in October that can then be put into final form and sent to the City Council. Vice Chair Foreman inquired if the Co… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf,11 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-03-30 | 11 | The Assistant City Attorney stated staff can put something together and the Commission can review it to decide what to include. Commissioner Dieter stated there are two clauses in the Sunshine Ordinance that she does not know if it has ever been adhered to or enforced: 1) the City Attorney shall semi-annually make a determination about whether any closed session minutes should continue to be exempt from disclosure based on whether the disclosure would be detrimental to the City; 2) the City Attorney's office shall prepare and present on the City Council Consent Calendar a list of documents which have determined to be public after previously being determined to be unavailable; the Commission should hear whether or not documents have been declassified at the next meeting. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he would find out and bring back a report. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Aguilar adjourned the meeting at 9:25 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 March 30, 2015 11 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-06-27.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-06-27 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY JUNE 28, 2015 - 2:00 P.M. A Special meeting was called to allow the Commission to attend a Small Group Discussion is being conducted by the League of Women Voters concerning the Governmental Transparency. Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission June 27, 2015 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-06-27.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 14, 2015 - - 7:00 P.M. Chair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Bonta, Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and Chair Aguilar - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the March 30, 2015 Meeting Commissioner Bonta stated she would pass on a few typos to the City Clerk. Commissioner Dieter moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Vice Chair Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 3-B. Hearing of Sunshine Ordinance Complaints filed September 15, 2015 The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation. John Klein stated he is embarrassed about needing to be present and thought about withdrawing the complaint because it seems trivial; however, it is not trivial; through the whole process, which has been skeletal, the response has not been as it should be; he submitted five individual records requests directly to the Mayor and each Councilmember because that is the way he wanted to do it; if the City Attorney wanted to consolidate the response, it would have been fine; however, the City Attorney's response on the 11th does not even say who he is responding for; the City Clerk is the custodian of records; that he did not know why he was getting an email from the City Attorney; he thought maybe it is on behalf of the Mayor, but did not know; while the response was timely, it did not include the information the rule requires, which is: when the documents will be ready, how the documents will be delivered and by whom; said information is not in the City Attorney's September 11th response; he did not know who the Attorney was responding for and the required information was not included in the three day response; the Attorney said he needed clarification; the City Attorney inquired if they could talk Wednesday; when they did talk Wednesday, the clarification the Assistant City Attorney needed was the timeframe of the requested documents; questione… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 2 | disingenuous; he did not need to deal with a particular Attorney; if an Attorney is out of the office for three days, the City should assign someone else to be responsible for a response; eight days into the ten day period after the conversation with the Attorney, a 14 day extension was requested because the request was voluminous; the conversation was at 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon, by 5:30 p.m., the Attorney knew that the response was voluminous; questioned how he learned so much so quickly; following the emails provided, the Attorney was asked about the definition of voluminous and never replied; the September 11th response was inadequate because it did not include when, how and by whom; if the City's position is that the complaint is frivolous, he suggests timelines mean something under the rule; provided an example of timeliness involved with receiving a parking ticket; timeliness should mean something in this instance and should be more meaningful for the City Attorney; the responsibility to timelines does not decrease as it goes up, but rather includes all of the responsibilities and assumes a much higher standard; that he is a consumer of public records; he has done a number of public record requests with the City Clerk; it is never an issue; rather than getting an email in three days telling him when he will receive the documents, he gets the documents; he is never told the documents will be provided next week; by the end of three days, he has the documents; he submitted a records request this week; 12 minutes later, he received an email from the City Clerk telling when, by whom and how; timelines matter; the complaint is not trivial given all the other incidentals of the interaction and the disingenuous nature of how the request was handled by the Attorney. Vice Chair Foreman inquired if Mr. Klein has received the documents, to which Mr. Klein responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Foreman inquired if he received the documents on October 2nd, to which Mr. Klein responded that he received them on Octobe… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2015-10-14.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 4 | for the City Attorney's office to check with the Councilmembers about their individual emails; more time is involved when making a records request of a public official as opposed to walking into the City Clerk's office where documents can be obtained immediately; there were reasons why it took longer than what otherwise would be allowed; the email speaks for itself; that he does not find it to be offensive; Mr. Cohen was trying to get some clarification; it is true the email does not say it is on behalf of the five Councilmembers; however, since all of the requests came in on September 7th, if he were the recipient, he would think it would be reasonable to assume it is in response to the requests from that date. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he does not see a problem; the Attorney should have indicated who he was representing; however, he thinks it is obvious; when he read all of the emails, he assumed that the Attorney was responding for everybody; Mr. Klein does have a point that the Attorney said he wanted clarification and what he wanted to know was the timeframe; he understands how Mr. Klein could assume there was something ambiguous in his request; the very simple clarification could have been stated in the Attorney's email. The Assistant City Attorney stated the point of clarification was about the beginning timeframe; correspondence relative to rent control issues have been before the City Council since September, 2014; Mr. Cohen was simply asking how far back in time to go; after a telephone conversation, the email Mr. Cohen sent to Mr. Klein on September 16th indicates that the time frame is June 1st through September 1st; that [timeline] seems to be the point of clarification; there were emails and other material relative to rent control that predated September 2015; that he does not disagree the email could have been more artfully written; however, eventually Mr. Klein received the documents within a reasonable time and within the 14 day extension. Commissioner Bonta stated there is one way to look a… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf,5 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 5 | would take a little bit more time; stated the criteria in Sunshine Ordinance Section 2- 92.9 was met. Mr. Klein responded the language specifies the response has to address by whom, when and how the request will be fulfilled. Commissioner Dieter stated that she is reading Section 2-92.9, which states a request to inspect or obtain copies of public records that is submitted to any department or anybody shall be satisfied no later than 10 business days unless the requester is advised in writing within three business days that additional time is needed to determine whether the request for records is likely to comprise a voluminous amount of separate and distinct writings. Commissioner Bonta inquired if Section 2-92.5 is being referenced, which indicates a request for information to any agent of the City requires the agent to respond to said request within three business days by providing or explaining how, when and by whom. Mr. Klein responded in the affirmation; stated said Section is the one in his complaint. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he thought the issue was frivolous when he first looked at it; however, the more he reviews it, the more he is a little bit concerned; he understand Mr. Klein received the documents in time; Mr. Klein is not complaining about that; he is putting himself in Mr. Klein's shoes; a response was due in three days; the response came in on the third day, which is perfectly okay; the response is clarification is needed; Mr. Klein wrote back less than two hours later asking the Attorney to tell him what is unclear; in hindsight from the 16th, Attorney Cohen could have very easily met the three day requirement and still could have asked for the extension; that he does not have a problem with staff asking for the extension; these are emails and over 400 pages, which might include privileged material; he has no problem whatsoever with the extension; if he were in Mr. Klein's shoes, he would say the Attorney is dragging his feet; he does not know why the Attorney was dragging his feet; it may… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.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/2015-10-14.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 7 | The Assistant City Attorney stated the original motion failed and there needs to be another motion or some decision made. Chair Aguilar moved approval that the Sunshine Ordinance was not violated. Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Bonta, Dieter, Tauzon and Chair Aguilar - 4. Noes: Vice Chair Foreman - 1. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he draft the decision and provide it to the Commission. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS The Assistant City Attorney stated the [Sunshine Ordinance] amendments were heard by the City Council in October; the Council has a very lively hour and a half discussion; Council agreed with most of the non-substantive issues that the Commission agreed with; the Council did not accept or wanted further clarification on the more difficult issues that the Commission struggled with; the Council also raised some other issues; he intends to bring a report back to the Commission in January or February for further consideration of the items that the Council had concerns about, plus some new items that have risen in the interim. Vice Chair Foreman inquired if Commissioners could comment on the matter now, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the matter is not on the agenda; he was providing information about what transpired. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he took it upon himself to defend the Commission's views; he very carefully limited himself defending the Commission's statements; he also very carefully stated his personal opinion but did comment on other issues; the Council had a problem with whether a Commission can write a letter. The Assistant City Attorney stated the matter will be brought back. Commissioner Dieter stated she does not mind meeting in January. The City Clerk stated the next regular meeting is February 1st Chair Aguilar stated maybe the matter should be addressed February 1st Commissioner Dieter inquired if the Commission would be discussing the other two pending issues from the last Commissioner … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 8 | The Assistant City Attorney responded both matters will be placed on the agenda. The City Clerk noted Vice Mayor Matarrese requested clarification on the annual report as part of the Sunshine Ordinance discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Aguilar adjourned the meeting at 7:41 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 October 14, 2015 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2016 7:00 P.M. Acting Chair Foreman convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Dieter, Tuazon, and Acting Chair Foreman - 3. Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the October 14, 2015 Meeting Commissioner Dieter moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.] 3-B. Consider Further Revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance Amendments Acting Chair Foreman outlined the packet documents; inquired how the Commission should review the items. The Assistant City Attorney responded the City Council concurred with the changes that the Commission made with the exception of the items identified in the staff report. Acting Chair Foreman stated there are four items: 1) use of electronic communication devices; 2) submitting comments when a policy body member is not present at a meeting; City staff disagreed with the Commission's recommendations on said two items; 3) requiring all City Council meetings to be live streamed; and 4) responding to public records requests. The Assistant City Attorney stated there is also an item about public comments by members of policy bodies and opinions of public concern; with respect to the use of electronic communication devices, staff recommended a rule that the Council thought would prevent use of any type of device except iPads or laptops when accessing agenda materials; the Commission felt the provision was too restrictive and thought that there should be a little more leeway; the City Council agreed; staff has divided the item into three parts: 1) when a policy body is considering a general legislative matter, the use of devices would be strongly discouraged, but not prohibited; 2) when the policy body is considering a quasi-judicial matter, electronic communication devices would be Meeting of the Open Gover… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 2 | prohibited except for accessing agenda materials; and 3) not withstanding those admonitions, devices could be used for innocuous purposes, such as a calculator, looking up a date or contacting a family member; the provision would be largely self- policing. Acting Chair Foreman provided a handout; stated after he reviewed the October Council staff report, which rejected the Commission's more liberal approach, he took it upon himself to attend the Council meeting and defend the Commission's language; he also presented his personal view that the language should be even broader, should not tie into devices, and should address what is prohibited; suggested the language at the bottom of his handout; stated the language does not say what can be done, rather it says what cannot be done with devices; the only thing that should be prohibited is receiving or sending private communications about the meeting; outlined the City Council discussion from the minutes; stated the majority of the Council provided direction to staff; however, staff has come up with something that is almost directly contradictorily to what at least three Councilmembers want; he has drafted a paragraph in line with what a majority of Council requested; he talked with the Assistant City Attorney who raised the issue of quasi-judicial matters; provided the example of the Commissions' quasi-judicial complaint hearing; stated the complainant and public have a right to see everything Commissioners consider in making a decision; suggested a two tier system: one for general legislative matters and one for quasi-judicial matters; stated his recommendation is much shorter and does not provide the rationale. Commissioner Dieter provided a handout; stated that she listened to the City Council discussion; everyone agrees the purpose of the provision is to prohibit communicating electronically with others during meetings because of the appearance it gives; rather than spelling out all of the different allowable scenarios, the provision should be kept general and sa… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 3 | Commissioner Tuazon stated the matter is common sense; the public wants 100% attention; questioned why members would be communicating with someone else. Commissioner Dieter stated that is the whole point. Acting Chair Foreman stated everyone agrees on said matter. The Assistant City Attorney stated the language suggested by Acting Chair Foreman or Commissioner Dieter certainly works; the Mayor has asked on a couple occasions whether or not she can use an electronic device calendar or calculator and is wondering whether language should be added to indicate that there is an exception for innocuous use, such as a calendar, calculator, or communicating with a family member; not allowing innocuous use would prohibit calling a spouse; language does not have to be added; he could indicate to Council that it is understood and implicit, but he questions whether it should be expressed. Commissioner Dieter stated it is expressed in the first part. Acting Chair Foreman stated he has a problem with the first sentence. Commissioner Dieter stated the first is not her language, which was already there. In response to Acting Chair Foreman's inquiry, Commissioner Dieter stated that she is suggesting a sentence in place of the language provided by staff. Acting Chair Foreman stated he does not want the first sentence included. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether Acting Chair Foreman would like to eliminate the whole provision and start from scratch. Acting Chair Foreman responded the reason he is opposed is that he does not agree with it at all; stated he made that point to Council and convinced three of them that in this day and age, the use of electronic communication devices does not lead to the public perception that a member is receiving information, everybody uses devices all the time; Commissioner Dieter's language regarding prohibiting electronically communication with others during meetings creates the exact problem that the Assistant City Attorney and the Mayor have referenced; his language includes that members are proh… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/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,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,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/2016-02-01.pdf,8 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 8 | staff felt that it was timely to bring the matter to the Commission's attention; the Commission can either revise the language to leave it. Commissioner Dieter stated the Open Government Commission is here to make revisions; nothing is ever set in stone; the Commission can always make changes; things can always be made better; public records should be saved forever since they contain historical information about how and why certain laws were enacted; money has been spent on holding meetings; money should be spent to preserve meetings; history matters; the past is a valuable primary source for future generations, which the public will be able to see historic events as they unfolded; no one knows which decisions will be the most valuable; being able to see the Council and those who spoke connects future generations; that she feels very strongly that 10 years should not be used unless storage becomes a problem for the City. Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter is making a motion to change the language, to which Commissioner Dieter responded the language should be to what she provided. Acting Chair Foreman called for a vote on keeping the records indefinitely, which did not receive three affirmative votes by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Dieter and Tauzon - 2. Abstentions: Acting Chair Foreman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.] The Assistant City Attorney stated the language would be brought to the Council with the note that there was not a majority vote. Acting Chair Foreman stated he would change his vote to aye, which caused the motion to carry by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.] Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is public comments by members of policy bodies and opinions of public concern. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission did not feel that there is a particular reason to include the two sections in the ordinance, but reluctantly went along with the language recommended by staff; Council… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf,9 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 9 | The Assistant City Attorney stated the issue arose from Mr. Klein's complaint concerning the time to respond to requests and the Sunshine Ordinance not mirroring the timeframes under the Public Records Act (PRA) when a local agency needs longer than 10 days; staff drafted language to delete the need to respond within three days and added a provision to allow a reasonable extension not to exceed 14 days if the material cannot be readily accessed or made available to the requester. Commissioner Dieter stated she has no problem with the suggested edit. Acting Chair Foreman stated that he thought the response period is 10 days. The Assistant City Attorney stated 10 days is for a typical situation, but staff added language; when there are unusual circumstances, the time to respond can be extended which, is consistent with the PRA. Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether it is under Section 2-92.2, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated it is Subsection C. Commissioner Dieter stated that she has a slight aversion to citing the Government Code because the reader has to look up the Government Code to see the provision; she is flexible; suggested adding a qualifier, such as the need to compile data from a voluminous record; she is open if other commissioners want to have people read the Government Code. Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether a lot of extra language would need to be added, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he was simply trying to not be wordy; stated the language could be added. Acting Chair Foreman stated Commissioner Dieter has made him more conscience of the issue; that he originally thought that the Sunshine Ordinance should be cut down and not include parts that are redundant; however, Commissioner Dieter has convinced him this section pertains directly to members of the public and needs to be understood; that he does not want the public to have to refer to the Government Code. The City Clerk stated if the Government Code changes, the Sunshine Ordinanc… | 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/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/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,13 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-02-01 | 13 | The Commission agreed to wait until October. The Assistant City Attorney stated if the report is prepared earlier and ready to go, a meeting could take place after being noticing. Acting Chair Foreman stated the Chair could be addressed then too. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Dieter stated part of the Commission's responsibility is to review public notices to confirm that they conform to the requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance and to work to improve public accessible information. The Assistant City Attorney stated the gist is to ensure that public notices adequately communicate what is being considered; a person off the street who may not otherwise be interested should be able to understand the agenda. Acting Chair Foreman inquired what should be done if something on an agenda is ambiguous. The City Clerk responded a Commissioner can let her know; stated summary titles have been added as a result of people pointing out ambiguity at a past Open Government Commission meeting; a summary title is used when a title seems legalistic and lengthy, including multiple resolutions or actions; the summary title is in plain English; staff has been very careful and diligent with titles. Acting Chair Foreman stated people can get detail of by clicking on the number to the left online; perhaps stock language should be added to the agenda item providing instruction on how to locate details. The City Clerk stated instructions are available in a separate document online. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Acting Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 1, 2016 13 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-07-14.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-07-14 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY JULY 14, 2016 10:00 A.M. A Special meeting was called to allow the Commission to attend Sunshine Ordinance Training. Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission July 14, 2016 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-07-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-10-03 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 3, 2016 - - 7:00 P.M. p Chair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and Chair Aguilar - 4. Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Dieter moved approval of nominating Commissioner Foreman as Chair. Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] Chair Foreman moved approval of nominating Commissioner Dieter as Vice Chair. Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] 3-B. Minutes of the February 1, 2016 Meeting Commissioner Dieter noted that she provided some corrections to the February 1 minutes to the Assistant City Clerk. Commissioner Aguilar moved approval of the minutes with the corrections. Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] 3-C. City Attorney Semi-Annual Reports to the City Council The City Attorney stated her office complied with the Sunshine Ordinance requirement and is showing evidence of the same in the staff report. Vice Chair Dieter inquired whether the discussion about the closed session minutes remaining exempt from disclosure is included under the background or discussion section of the staff report. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 3, 2016 1 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-10-03 | 2 | The City Attorney responded the Sunshine Ordinance requires a semi-annual report to determine whether items that were not previously disclosed publicly could be made available for public disclosure or should remain exempt from public disclosure; stated items that are determined not to be disclosed could be made available later. Vice Chair Dieter stated the determination of the items should be placed under the discussion section of the staff report so as not to confuse the public; placing it under the background section implies that items previously not disclosed publicly are forever more undisclosable. The City Attorney stated her office will comply with Vice Chair Dieter's request to place items under the Discussion section. Vice Chair Dieter suggested different language for the title of the semi-annual report: "Recommendation to Accept a List of Documents Which Have been Determined to be made public after being determined not being made available to the public" instead of " Litigation and Liability Claim Settlements. " The City Attorney stated that she is willing to modify language to satisfy the Commission's concerns; it is not necessarily that items are being disclosed that were not previously disclosed, but even before the Sunshine Ordinance, the City Attorney's office was required to submit a semi-annual report on litigation and liability claim settlements; the report also includes settlements; the report has two parts. Commissioner Aguilar stated it may be easier for the public to understand if the report title distinguishes the two parts; suggested the title include numeration i.e., 1) the settlements, and 2) documents disclosable to the public. Vice Chair Dieter concurred with Commissioner Aguilar's suggestion; inquired whether the word "declassified" could be used instead of "disclosed" in terms of the documents. The City Attorney responded the City does not have secret, classified documents, so the term does not apply. Vice Chair Dieter stated that she is concerned that when did an online search of the… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-10-03 | 3 | Vice Chair Dieter stated that she could not find the report online on the City's website; part of the Commission's responsibility is to peruse the database; if she could not find the document, the public would not be able to find it; the report is routinely prepared every six months; she would like to be able to search to find past documents. The Assistant City Clerk stated that whenever a meeting packet is distributed, it is also published online, archived, and should be searchable; stated she would find out how Vice Chair Dieter was conducting her search and help her with the search feature. Commissioner Tuazon stated that he has not had any problems finding documents he searches for on the City website. In response to Vice Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding how to address a complaint from the public regarding why documents are not disclosable to the public, the City Attorney stated a Commissioner making a judgment on legal judgments would be going beyond what the Commission is impaneled to do; the City Attorney's office gives legal advice to the City Council and the Council makes the determination; it is not the charge of the Commission to be second-guessing the legal advice. In response to Chair Foreman's inquiry, the City Attorney stated it is not this Commission's role to be a substitute for legal judgment. In response to Vice Chair Dieter's inquiry, the City Attorney stated if someone wants to complain about why documents are not being disclosed, there is no known avenue for recourse, short of filing a lawsuit where they felt they have the right to see documents were pertinent to their case. Vice Chair Dieter inquired what is the recourse if a Councilmember wants to have a document disclosed to the public, to which the City Attorney responded the Councilmember would have to make the request in Closed Session and the issue would be voted on; a single Councilmember cannot decide to waive attorney-client privilege, it has to be approved by the Council as a whole. The City Attorney inquired whether there is a sp… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf,4 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2016-10-03 | 4 | cities, including Alameda; the Council does, however, report on claim settlements previously discussed in closed session after an agreement has been signed; there are many other issues discussed in closed session, including personnel issues, legal strategies, legal advice, etc., which would be detrimental to the City if disclosed to the public. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Vice Chair Dieter stated it is that time again for the Commission to provide their annual report; recommended combining two issues into one report, including policy problems and alleged violations. The City Attorney inquired whether the Commission's annual report would be presented to the Council, or just fulfilling a requirement of the Commission. Vice Chair Dieter responded the annual report is a requirement the Commission needs to fulfill under Section 2-93.6, the section also states that the Commission could request, with advanced notice, a tally of the number of records requests made of the City Clerk's office; stated she thinks the public would find it fascinating to know how many public records requests the clerk's office has to process. Chair Foreman stated the items should be included on the agenda for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 7:37 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 October 3, 2016 4 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-02-06 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 6, 2017 7:00 P.M. Chair Foreman convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Aguilar, Dieter, Little, and Chair Foreman - 4. Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the October 3, 2016 Meeting Vice Chair Dieter moved approval of the October 3, 2016 Minutes. Commissioner Aguilar seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] 3-B. Accept the Annual Public Report Vice Chair Dieter stated she thinks the agenda title, "Accept the Annual Public Report" is unclear; she suggested adding the words "on alleged violations of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Number of Public Records Requests" to the title the next time the report is on the agenda, so that the public will know exactly what the report is when reading the agenda title. The Assistant City Attorney took note of Vice Chair Dieter's comments. Commissioner Aguilar moved approval of accepting the annual report. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.] COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Vice Chair Dieter inquired the time frame of the Semi-Annual and Annual Reports, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded she does not know at the moment, but will provide the answer at the next meeting. Vice Chair Dieter requested a copy of the revised Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 6, 2017 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-02-06 | 2 | The Assistant City Clerk stated she would provide copies to all Commissioners. In response to Chair Foreman's inquiry about when he was elected Chair, the Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission meets twice a year and he was elected in October 2016. Chair Foreman stated he thought the election of officers takes place at the first meeting in February. The Assistant City Attorney stated she will check on the practice, review the by-laws, and inform the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden Assistant City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 6, 2017 2 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-02-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-10-02 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 2, 2017 - - - 7:00 P.M. Vice Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Henneberry, Little, Schwartz, and Vice Chair Dieter - 4. Absent: Chair Foreman - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the February 6, 2017 Meeting Vice Chair Dieter stated the minutes should reflect a minor change to correct her suggested title to "Accept the Annual Public Report on Alleged Violations of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Number of Public Records Requests." The Assistant City Clerk took note of Vice Chair Dieter's comments. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the February 6, 2017 Minutes. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.] 3-B. Select Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Little inquired what the discussion was at the February 6 meeting regarding the election of officers. The Assistant City Clerk responded that in response to an inquiry by Chair Foreman about when the election of officers took place, it was determined that the election takes place in February, according to the by-laws; however, the last election was in October, 2016; the Commission could do the election tonight or wait until February 2018. Vice Chair Dieter stated that she recommends doing the election tonight since there are no other agenda items. Commissioner Henneberry stated that on most of the Boards and Commissions he has served, the Vice Chair steps up to the Chair, and then another member, usually the most senior person on the Board, fills the Vice Chair seat; stated he is prepared to make a motion. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 2, 2017 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/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/2017-10-02.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-10-02 | 3 | Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden Assistant City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 2, 2017 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,1 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 5, 2018 7:00 P.M. Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Foreman, Henneberry, Little, and Chair Dieter - 4. Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Minutes of the October 2, 2017 Meeting Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of the minutes with a comment; noted that he made comments about his experience on the Planning Board prior to the nomination of Chair and Vice Chair; requested the comment be included in the October 2, 2017 minutes. Vice Chair Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Henneberry, Little and Chair Dieter - 3. Abstention: Commissioner Foreman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.] 3-B. Presentation on Repairing Alameda's Aging Infrastructure and Related Survey The Public Information Officer gave a Power Point presentation. In response to Vice Chair Little's inquiry regarding local funding options, the Public Information Officer stated nothing has been proposed at this point; a question was included in the telephone survey. Vice Chair Little stated infrastructure improvements are dependent on development; inquired whether there are alterative ideas if development, such as the Del Monte or Alameda Point projects, are not able to acquire funding. The Public Information Officer responded that she is not sure, but she would ask the Public Works Director and provide a response. Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether Alameda really has the third oldest park system in the nation, to which the Public Information Officer responded that she is sure it is true; stated the City should have more information about it online, which she would add to the City's website. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 1 February 5, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 2 | Vice Chair Little noted Jean Sweeney Park will be one of the largest inner City Parks, which should also be honored as part of the process. Commissioner Dieter inquired why the survey is posted at two different online locations. The Public Information Officer responded the survey is posted in a number of places; stated there are several versions of the Survey Monkey survey and links to the main survey have been posted on social media; outlined other users who have received surveys, such as See Click Fix and Peak Democracy; stated a mailer was sent to people across Alameda; the survey has also been publicized in the newspaper; the City has tried to give access to as many people as possible and did not want to limit it to just people who would take a survey on Survey Monkey; over 3,500 responses have been received. Commissioner Dieter inquired about the outreach online; stated the City's website survey has been discussed verbally, but there have only been tweets about Peak Democracy. The Public Information Officer responded some people like Peak Democracy and others do not; stated whether people want to fill out the survey on Survey Monkey, Peak Democracy or via the mail is a personal choice; the data is being collected in the exact same way for everyone who responds. Commissioner Dieter stated there is also a telephone survey for an infrastructure parcel tax that would cost $23 per month per $100,000 of assessed valuation; inquired whether the surveys are related. The Public Information Officer responded in the affirmative; stated the telephone survey just started. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the City is doing the survey in order to move forward in a campaign, to which the Public Information Officer responded not necessarily; stated the City is trying to figure out options to pay for infrastructure needs; once the City has collected the data from all of the surveys, the City will present the results to Council for Council to decide if and how to move forward. Commissioner Dieter stated thoughts on infrast… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
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]) );