pages
35 rows where body = "OpenGovernmentCommission" and page = 3
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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/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/2013-10-07.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/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/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/2015-03-30.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/2015-10-14.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/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/2016-10-03.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/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,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 3 | Chair Dieter stated that she would not recommend conflating affordable housing into an infrastructure bond measure or future surveys; it dilutes the issues and is a little confusing to the public. 3-C. Review the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Vice Chair Little inquired whether the Commission should go through the list of items that was provided by the Council subcommittee; stated that she has questions and comments throughout the list; going through the list one item at a time might be easiest. Chair Dieter stated that she has a motion that she would like to make which might clarify how the Commission moves forward. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding the agenda title, the City Clerk stated the Commission's feedback will be provided to the City Council; the review encompasses the Commission's discussion, which will be passed onto the City Council. Chair Dieter inquired whether the complete rules of order do not exist as one document, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the resolution has been amended. Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules are posted on the City's website, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the resolutions are all posted separately. Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules of order and order of business are two separate things, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Chair Dieter stated the Commission is discussing the rules of order tonight, which is how to conduct meetings; inquired whether the Commission could also provide input on how the public could easily access the rules in the future. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated said matter is the first thing that should be addressed. Stated that he had not paid attention to the details of running meetings or heard of Rosenberg's Rules of Order; discussed the two methods for counting an abstention; stated one counts an abstention as a no; the other method, called present an… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 3 | Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little expressed that they could not think of such an instance. The City Clerk provided a scenario of someone speaking on the same topic under Public Comment at the closed session and again under Oral Communications Non- Agenda on the regular meeting the same night. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee discussed the matter; non-agenda items are only for matters not on an agenda, whether closed session or not; the subcommittee wanted to be clear. The City Attorney provided a specific example prohibiting a speaker from commenting under non-agenda items on the regular agenda after having an opportunity to comment on the agenda item at a prior closed session meeting the same night; Council wants to hear from the Commission on the issue. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee's intent was to do so; questioned whether language should be added to clarify speakers can comment once on a particular night. There was consensus to add language. The City Attorney stated limiting speakers would not be fair if the meetings were on different nights. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether someone wanting to comment after the closed session announcement is a legitimate non-agenda item. Chair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the person is commenting on the closed session item, which is on the agenda. Commissioner Foreman stated the speaker would not be given an opportunity to comment after the Closed Session action is announced. The City Attorney stated comments are given prior to Council going into closed session; provided an example. Commissioner Foreman stated the public having to be present to comment at the start of the closed session is fine. Vice Chair Little stated the language should be tightened up. Commissioner Foreman stated that he is opposed to the restriction about ceding time; he could support the Mayor getting assurance that the person ceding time is present; there are better ways to shorten meetings; inquired why public comments not being a debate has not been included. Meeting of t… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-10-01 | 3 | Commissioner Little noted seven speakers with three minutes totals 21 minutes and eight speakers with two minutes totals 16 minutes; two minutes should suffice when there are many speakers, but it seems like a limitation on the public's ability to comment. Chair Dieter stated Councilmember Matarrese suggested trying it out and changes can be made if needed; encouraged the Commission and members of the public to contact the City Council or Commission if something should be changed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 3 October 1, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 3 | The Assistant City Attorney responded he did not think there would be any harm; stated the Council asked whether or not the Ordinance would comply and if they could proceed; since the answer was affirmative, Council chose to move forward. In response to Commissioner Schwartz inquiry on who answered affirmatively, the Assistant City Attorney stated the Acting City Attorney. Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether the Acting City Attorney explained the basis of his opinion. The Assistant City Attorney responded the Acting City Attorney explained that the attorneys had opined on the matter and communicated to Council that proceeding with a second reading was okay; the Acting City Attorney further stated the opinion has not changed. Commissioner Henneberry stated the ordinance talked about delivery-only and was completely flipped on its head at the October 16th meeting by adding two full-service dispensaries with deliveries; inquired how doing so works with the strict and exact standards of agenda noticing. The Assistant City Attorney responded staff's position is that the change was delivery- only to delivery-required; stated the agenda was noticed for an increase in the number of dispensaries; the agenda language did state delivery-only, the Council has authority to modify the ordinance in part because State law does not regulate the businesses any differently and does not have a distinction for delivery-only; the distinction is a local consideration, therefore, the Council has authority; conversely, the Council could decide not to make the distinction and still be compliant, which is precisely what the Council did in this instance. Commissioner Foreman stated that he did not see the term "delivery-required" in either the regulatory or zoning ordinance that came before Council on October 16th The Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Foreman is correct; Council was amending the ordinances to allow the change to happen and directed staff to do so. Commissioner Foreman stated the change was not only delivery-o… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 3 | Commissioner Foreman stated his motion included dismissing the reconsideration of the matter. Chair Little inquired whether the motion should also include having the item re-noticed by City Council, to which Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Foreman stated that he thinks staff report Attachment B would suffice with some changes. The Interim City Attorney stated Attachment B could be easily word-smithed to carry out what the Commission would like with respect to the matter; further stated that he is not going to agree with Commissioner Foreman's position that the ordinances in question are null and void; the decision will have the effect of providing direction to the Council to have said result come about; as indicated in his memo to the Commission, he does not think the Commission has the legal authority to render a legally adopted ordinance null and void. Chair Little stated the Commission was told that the timing of their deliberations and delaying the second reading of the ordinances in order for the Commission hearing to take place first did not matter; inquired whether the issue came about because the Commission deliberated on the issue after the second reading of the ordinances. The Interim City Attorney responded the matter proceeded on November 7th; at the October 16th meeting, the City Attorney advised the City Council that it was appropriate to introduce the ordinance with the amendment in question and that it did comply with the Sunshine Ordinance; Council relied on said advice and made the decision to proceed on November 7th notwithstanding the fact that a complaint had been filed on October 30th Council adopted the ordinances on November 7th which went into effect on December 6th. it is his understanding that the Commission would like to have the ordinances re-noticed, and the two ordinances would be repealed. Commissioner Dieter made a friendly amendment to the motion that the Commission affirm its November 7th decision. Commissioner Foreman stated that is basically his… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 3 | In response to Commissioner Schwartz's inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated Attachment 3 of the report includes the information regarding the impacts. Commissioner Schwartz inquired where the report state that the previously null and void ordinances are back in effect. The Interim City Attorney responded the City's position is that the ordinances never went out of effect. Commissioner Tilos stated the ordinances were never null and void because the Commission did not have the power to do so. The Interim City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated if the Commission did not have the authority to render the ordinances null and void, by definition, they were still in full force and effect. Chair Little stated that she is concerned the Commission is entering into a slightly different conversation by arguing the merits of whether or not the Commission has the right to render any Council action null and void; she would like to focus on the complaint before the Commission tonight; inquired whether there are technical questions; inquired what was the rationale behind not including the Commission's decision. The Interim City Attorney responded there was no purposeful thought of not attaching the document; stated when the item was drafted, it seemed agenda report adequately described the issue and paraphrased the Commission's decision. Chair Little stated stating information in the background and paraphrasing created the situation tonight; the Commission's purpose is to make sure issues are made available publicly and not just in the background. Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, read a letter the League submitted on the matter. Paul Foreman, Alameda, stated the failure to attach the decision is a technicality; the real problem is the title misled the public because it was not clear; the process should be two steps: 1) repeal the ordinances, and 2) re-introduce the ordinances. Irene Dieter, Alameda, concurred with Mr. Foreman; stated there was no way for the public to figure out that any no vote was just… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 3 | Commissioner Little inquired what processes have been put into place since this incident happened to make sure no more records requests are lost and whether the process is consistent or needs tightening up. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is always room for improvement; stated the City Attorney's office is not aware that the situation happens routinely; Commissioner Shabazz's email from today indicates otherwise, but he is not aware of other incidents; the City Attorney's office will look into the incidents even though there was not a complaint filed at the time and to review why there was not a timely response on a couple of matters. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether it was fair to say the City Attorney's office's response to public records request is to wait for a complaint to be filed before providing information. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that he would not categorize the process in that way; the person designated to track the requests is usually very diligent and makes sure the requests are handled in a timely manner; this particular request seems to be an anomaly. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether follow-up on the other records requests have been done to ensure they were answered timely, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he cannot answer definitively. Chair Henneberry stated it can be assumed that the other requests have been fulfilled because there have not been any complaints filed; the City would certainly be hearing from KQED and the East Bay Times if requests were not fulfilled. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Henneberry, stated most people submitting a records request that is not fulfilled would not just ignore it; he is not certain whether or not the other requests have been followed-up but a review of the other requests can be done. In response to Chair Henneberry's inquiry regarding when an email was sent by the City Attorney's office to the complainant, the Assistant City Attorney stated the email was sent on May 29, … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 3 | Mr. Shabazz agreed the issues discussed at the last meeting are separate. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the draft decision was revised per the Commission's direction, which included removing objectionable language, adding a reminder that the City needs to do a better job with timely responses, and requiring an annual report on records requests; the changes were added to the findings sustaining the complaint; hopefully, the revised decision meets the Commissions requirements and the Commission will sign it. Commissioner Little stated this is the first time a staff report has been provided regarding records requests; the report revealed an additional item; she is satisfied that the City Attorney's office did a nice job of capturing and cataloguing the requests; she would like to move forward by acknowledging that there are appropriate checks and balances in place; if the pattern continues, the Commission can revisit the issue. Commissioner Tilos stated data should be provided by department to determine if there is a pattern and to allow tracking and addressing of timely responses; expressed support for the provisions added to the decision. Acting Chair Schwartz stated it takes courage, persistence, and incredible amount of civic engagement to raise the issue to the Commission; expressed appreciation to Mr. Shabazz and the City Attorney's office for taking the matter seriously; proposed some amendments to the decision language: removing the phrase "in light of the facts changing the phrase to "no evidence in the record of a subsequent similar violation to "though limited evidence suggests similar violations, the Commission does not assess a fine " and adding a sentence "However, the Commission will not hesitate to assess a fine in the future if similar violations are reported" to make it clear how seriously the Commission takes the matter; after the sentence, "we sustain the complaint," he would like to remove the phrase, "no other remedy is necessary." Commissioner Little stated at the time the decision … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 3 | The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office can add a line item in the next report. Chair Schwartz inquired whether the count starts on the day the request was received or acknowledged. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the date received; stated the ordinance requires requests be acknowledged within a certain period of time; the time to provide a response starts the day the request was received. Chair Schwartz inquired about the deadline for acknowledgement, to which Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that he believes a request is supposed to be acknowledged within three days. Chair Schwartz stated two counters may be needed; the number of days to acknowledge the request and number of days to respond. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff can do that. Chair Schwartz inquired whether a number of complaints are being acknowledged late, to which the City Clerk responded acknowledgement might happen outside of the chart if the request is received in another department; the department might acknowledge the request and forward it to the City Attorney's office; capturing when another department acknowledges a request could be difficult. Commissioner Little stated that she would want to ensure weekends and holidays are considered. The City Clerk stated the response is 10 calendar days. Chair Schwartz noted typically, in rules of civil procedure, weekend and holidays are excluded from three days. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated a date acknowledged column will be added; other departments often acknowledge the request; typically, the City Attorney's office will also acknowledge the request, but it may be outside of three days; the Attorney's office will add the column and remind departments about the short timeframe to acknowledge receipt of the request. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether the date acknowledged is the first calculation, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tilos inquired whether the ordinance require… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 3 | opposed to Councilmember Vella's and Mr. Foreman's submission or a combination of both. Commissioner Shabazz stated the Commission needs to think about the objective, find the solution between the various proposals and ideas which can still enable the ability for the public to participate in meetings, and some remedy to ensure that people have that opportunity. Commissioner Pauling stated the Commission has to be able to move quickly to resolve issues, especially time sensitive ones; public comment does not get responded to by the Council and does not change a vote that has already been recorded and moved forward. Chair Schwartz stated he echoes Mr. Foreman's comments that the City Attorney's comments are not sufficient to confer with the Commission on viable ways to provide teeth to the statute; the comments were more focused on that the Commission does not have the right to do so; he continues to disagree with the advice provided by Counsel; the ship has sailed, but he does not think Commissioners are limited in what they are allowed to do; simply asking Council to re-agendize something at their convenience is insufficient to address the seriousness of a failure in the City's legislative process based on the Sunshine Ordinance; now is not the time to be squashing transparency; it is time to increase transparency; the best way to do that is to provide some consequence to a failure to have a public process as required by the Sunshine Ordinance that makes it difficult for the City to have such a failure; Mr. Foreman's suggestion has two parts that the Commission should pay close attention to: 1) delay action that does not usurp the Council's legislative authority; if the Council is interested in empowering the OGC, they need to consider that; it does not make the OGC the legislative body, the Commission is not writing new legislation or weighing in on the merits of any legislation, the Commission is making sure the process is as transparent as it needs to be; 2) in Section 2-93.8 regarding penalties, Council accep… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-08-03 | 3 | Chair Schwartz stated that he is comfortable with the way the amendments are drafted and capture what the Commission discussed. In response to Chair Schwartz inquiry regarding Section 2-91.5, the Assistant City Attorney stated the Section relates to agenda posting requirements and timing, including on the City's website and making agendas available in hard copy at the Main Library and Clerk's office. Chair Schwartz stated that he would add a reference to texting, which was brought up by Commissioner Tilos, but not listed in the Section. The Assistant City Attorney stated the language in the amendment refers to any other electronic means approved by the City Clerk without being more specific; staff did not want to preclude texting as a method as it may be possible in the future; however, a text notification system may not be technologically or financially feasible. Chair Schwartz stated that he would like to suggest including texting as a method of notification; it is technologically feasible and financially would be worth it; having an opt- in list as suggested by Commissioner Shabazz could work. Commissioner Pauling stated making clear the whole process of notification could be part of implementation; technological advances happen quickly; there are upcoming budget restraints; she is wondering whether the ordinance can keep the language as written, but put more specific information on the website and allow people to be on a notification list for a specific topic; that way there is specific guidance rather than just a reference to texting. Commissioner Tilos stated the language of having a subscription to "electronic communication" could be used to mean texting as wells as emails; in the event texting is not financially feasible, emails could be sent. Commissioner Shabazz stated that he understands the need to be more general, but the goal is to maximize public participation and engagement; he recognizes technology does change quickly as Commissioner Pauling stated; he would like to include language that is gener… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 3 | Chair Schwartz inquired whether Mr. Harrison did not find any cases within the last 50 years which prohibit a commission from sending an ordinance back to Council for further review. Mr. Harrison responded in the affirmative; stated the Commission certainly has power to make recommendations; he is not aware of any cases that would preclude making recommendations. Chair Schwartz inquired whether any cases preclude a supermajority requirement in certain instances; for example, to reject the recommendation of a City's appointed Commission. Mr. Harrison responded as to said point, they were relying on the City's Charter which specifies that the Council takes action by a vote of three members unless the Charter specifies a different threshold. Chair Schwartz stated the Charter does not say anything about this particular situation where an appointed Commission makes a recommendation to City Council regarding the voting quorum that is necessary. Mr. Harrison stated the Charter specifies that Council action occurs by a vote of three members unless the Charter specifies elsewhere; he would not expect to find anything in the Charter because in the absence of anything else, three votes are required. Chair Schwartz inquired whether the Charter has any instances where it allows for a supermajority vote, to which Mr. Harrison responded in the affirmative; stated in cases of urgency ordinances, a four-fifths vote is required, which is in Section 3-12 of the Charter. Chair Schwartz inquired whose responsibility is it to approve a Charter provision; gave the example of the Commission recommending to the City Council that a supermajority be required to adopt something against the recommendation of the Commission to reagendize the matter; inquired whether the City Council could vote to adopt that as an amendment to the Charter. Mr. Harrison responded Charter amendments would have to be placed on a ballot and approved by the voters. In response to Chair Schwartz inquiry regarding the non-delegation notion, Mr. Harrison stated he ind… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-12-14 | 3 | be voted on tonight would have the Commission refer back to the Council a matter which was not properly noticed to cure and correct the improper notice and for the City Council to reject the Commission's recommendation to cure and correct, it would require a four- fifths supermajority. Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Schwartz's synopsis sums up what the Commission has been dealing with for two years. Commissioner Shabazz stated some of the proposed language refers to the City Council, inquired whether the cure and correct applies to other bodies of the City and what would be the distinction. Commissioner Schwartz responded if the Commission finds a violation, steps necessary to cure and correct can be recommended to the originating body unless it has already been cured and/or corrected. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated the focus has been related to the power of the City Council; he overlooked the language which stated the "originating body;" he is concerned about whether the City Attorney's office would support the Commissions' recommendation. Chair Tilos stated the subcommittee drafted a proposal for the full Commission in order to have more substance than just a recommendation from a subcommittee of two members; he hopes to have a motion on the proposal after Commission discussion. Commissioner Shabazz concurred with Chair Tilos; inquired whether the written analysis will support the recommendation of the Commission or will there be something different when the proposal goes to the City Council. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded, at a minimum, the Commission's recommendation will be taken to the Council; the City Attorney's office will do a deep analysis of what the subcommittee and full Commission proposed; if the Attorney's office finds a legal way to support it, it will make the recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the subcommittee recommendation. Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion which carried by the following roll c… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 3 | Commissioner LoPilato stated references to 2019 should be changed to 2020; inquired whether the PRA chart only shows requests that actually rise to the City Attorney's office, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the chart encompasses requests that went to the different departments; the City Attorney's office reviews the requests to determine whether or not an exemption applies; the City Attorney's office has reviewed every request on the chart. The City Clerk clarified requests that trickle up to the City Attorney's office require review; simple PRAs handled by other departments are not included on the chart; each department responds to many other requests that do not need review by the City Attorney's office. Vice Chair Shabazz stated three out of four complaints were withdrawn; from his own experience in filing a complaint, there was encouragement to withdraw his complaint; inquired whether there was any communication with the complainants to withdraw their complaints. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the process when a complaint is filed involves staff trying to work with the complainant to resolve the issue to get them satisfaction without having to go before the OGC. Vice Chair Shabazz inquired what a voluntary suspension is, to which the City Clerk responded it was a request for records with an agreement to do some follow-up; stated the request was suspended until the follow-up was completed, rather than withdrawn. The Assistant City Attorney concurred; stated the request involved records, which the complainant decided to voluntary suspend until further notice. Vice Chair Shabazz inquired what the status of the suspended request is now and whether there was further communication from the complainant. The Assistant City Attorney responded his understanding is that the Attorney assigned to the request reached out to the complainant and has not heard back. Stated the two reports … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-03-01 | 3 | Ms. Chilcott stated Commissioner Shabazz's list of questions was forwarded and received by the Steering and Subcommittee members prior to the meeting; if the answers cannot be provided tonight, the information will be provided to him at a later date. Commissioner Shabazz inquired how many people responded to the survey from the mailer and what were the demographics. The Transportation Planner responded 1,485 surveys were received; 70% of respondents own their home, 30% are renters; 43% are white; below 20% preferred not to answer; 10% are Asian, and everything else was below 10%; neighborhoods were dispersed regarding race and ethnicity; household income is: 5% under $40,000, 13% $40,000 to $80,000, 17% $75,000 to $100,000, and the remaining have higher income. Ms. Chilcott stated the survey was not just for Alameda residents; anyone who visits Alameda to visit friends or family, to work, or anyone who touches Alameda were encouraged to take the survey as well. Jolene Wright discussed the Block-by-Block Program; stated it was a program that ran in November and December of 2020 which had non-sworn officers or "Ambassadors" walk the blocks on Park and Webster Streets doing outreach in support of homeless members and businesses. Ms. Chilcott stated the group referred homeless members to services and was a way to take something out of the Police Department's purview and give it to a different group, who can support the efforts. Ms. Wright recommended Commissioner Shabazz to reach out to the apdreforms email for more information on the input received. Chair Tilos stated regarding the slide about defunding the Police, some of the current Police tasks go beyond racial reform; there are other ways to reallocate funds and have cost-savings; the Police are some of the most highly compensated employees of the City; suggested that the burden be taken off the Police Department by having employees, other than Police, monitor the tube closures and similar instances. Ms. Chilcott concurred with Chair Tilos; stated the Committee … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 3 | the agendas; inquired that the Chief Assistant City Attorney or City Clerk give some specificity with respect to what the Commission has reviewed. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded basically both sides in each complaint have the option to present written arguments, which can take any form; the written argument submitted on behalf of the City appears more legal in nature because the City has retained outside counsel; another document would perhaps be titled proposed decision or suggested decision; the form of the document looks like a final Commission decision; the document is prepared by outside counsel; it is the conclusion that the outside counsel is urging, but it is not a requirement that the Commission needs to agree with it. The City Clerk stated the City has always prepared a draft decision and presented it to the Commission for every single case; the draft decision gives the Commission a starting point; there have been times where the Commission has taken the opposite position than what was in the draft decision; going forward, it could be made clear that the decision is just a recommendation from the City and not final. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the staff report is actually by special counsel and not the staff recommendation or Chief Assistant City Attorney's framing of the issue; and whether it is an advocacy piece it is a position statement by the attorney's representing the City in the adversarial adjudication. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the staff report is an adversarial piece and the waters are a bit muddied because it is also the City's position; in this particular instance, the staff report is the position of the City and the particular department within the City. The City Clerk stated the City has always presented the staff report from its viewpoint. Commissioner Reid inquired why staff and special counsel prepare a decision before the Commission hears a case; stated that she understands is has been common practice, but wonders if… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 3 | to allow residents to participate at the maximum level possible; she would also like to propose an appeal subcommittee in the event the Council disagrees on a proposal brought by the Commission; the goal would be to draw in as many members of the public as possible; said type of awareness is necessary in open and good government. Vice Chair Shabazz responded that he appreciates Commissioner Chen's point about the objectives of accountability, transparency and restoring trust; if the Commission aligns on said baseline, then it can determine the method in which to achieve the goals. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she likes the idea of grounding in said objectives; the intent behind her proposal as an tracking device; it is a way to see the health of the Open Government Commission (OGC) over the long term and what is done with the recommendations, the result and the action when a complaint comes in; she is open to discussions from the Commission or staff on improvements that could be made to her proposal; how it would look on the website is important to make sure it is effective; thanked staff for the benchmarking report, which was helpful; stated trust-building and trust-restoring is an important piece; a big part is creating a pathway for the Commission to give feedback to the City Council and make recommendations about how to avoid future problems outside the scope of a specific complaint; posting on the website could also accomplish accountability; she likes the language of John Knox White's proposal, which is a good direction for the Commission to go in terms of not getting too into the weeds of details about the complaint process. Chair Tilos summarized the Commission members' comments. Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he would like to have alignment around some general principle goals the Commission hopes to achieve, instead of conceptualizing along some spectrum of trust or punishment. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission could make suggestions about what it wants to do and then a show of hands… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-07-19 | 3 | 5, 2018; a subcommittee of Commissioners Dieter and Little had some recommendations related to Rosenberg's Rules and noted the League of Cities does that; he supports utilizing Rosenberg's Rules; another framing that exists is Roberta's Rules; encouraged folks to look back at the March 2018 meeting for the excellent recommendations from their predecessors. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she noticed the subcommittee report prepared in 2018; it was recommended that Rosenberg's Rules be encouraged to be applied to all Boards and Commissions; continued her presentation. In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated her thought was to move away from the existing content in the rules of order section and streamline a much clearer order similar to City Council to follow Rosenberg's with the modifications outlined; she is open to hearing other ideas on modifications; for the sake of consistency and creating a uniform experience for the public in participating, it would be a great step to follow. Chair Tilos stated that he is aligned with Commissioner LoPilato's vision on setting eight minutes for each Commissioner's speaking time with the ability for a majority vote of the Commission to extend it. Commissioner Reid stated that she would like to include a nine minute speaking time to be consistent with City Council and extension by a majority vote. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether there were any objections to nine minutes; there were none. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the timing is done on the Council level and can be done at Commission meetings. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether anyone had opposition to having a limit on presentations. Commissioner Chen responded a 10 minute limit on presentations is fine; stated Commissioner Communications should be discussed in future meetings only needs an explanation long enough so that other Commissioners can agree or not agree to put an item on a future agenda; for presentations under Commissioner Communications… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-08-02 | 3 | possible vision of what a statement of the case would look like; inquired whether the plan to represent City departments in complaints before the OGC extends to any policy body. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she does not see any difference between policy bodies versus City departments in terms of how the City Attorney's office would represent them. Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Chief Assistant City Attorney, as the advisor to the OGC, would be staffing any policy bodies in terms of advising them on Brown Act issues or stepping back from those duties. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office has not determined exactly what her role would be other than she would be stepping back from handling Public Records Act (PRA) requests, which is due to recognition of the fact that at some point one of the productions could be the subject of a Sunshine Ordinance complaint. Commissioner Reid stated that she has concerns about the ethical wall; she is not convinced that the City Attorney's office would be able to truly be a fair and neutral advisor; she wonders if there are other options to explore; suggested considering both outside counsel and a neutral advisor to have a comparison. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the idea of an ethical wall is not a new one; case law has been reviewed to support past practices and anticipated future practices in terms of maintaining an ethical wall so that decisions that come out of the Commission would be legally solid; the concept of an ethical wall is used currently in Civil Service Board matters and in adjudicatory appeals to the City Council; the City Attorney's office is comfortable with the process and suggests the format going forward. Commissioner Chen moved approval of accepting Option 2 [Chief Assistant City Attorney with formalized parameters for ethical wall guardrails and commitment to providing transparent, written instructional memo as resource for the OGC] on a provisional basis. Commissioner LoPilato sec… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-09-20 | 3 | roadblocks with requests; the next step is to decide how to bring the issues back and whether to separate the PRA and Open Government pieces; she would like to make sure the discussions are productive and come up with good recommendations. Chair Tilos stated that he is leaning towards staff make determinations about what is feasible, then bringing it back to the meeting for the Commissioners to make a decision about whether or not to pursue them. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees with Chair Tilos' approach; some of the issues sound like they could be more easily resolved by simply asking staff and are not broad scale community concerns; it seems more feasible for staff to provide a response or clarification offline; the matter does not need to escalate to Council. The City Clerk stated the exemptions, link expirations and masking issues are all going to be addressed with the new system; staff could definitely follow-up on any question about anything missed. Commissioner Reid stated that she thinks there is broad community support for as much transparency as possible and for really understanding some of the details; the example she gave regarding the masking is just one of possibly two dozen examples she could personally give; inquired how the public will know about the new system. The City Clerk responded that she announced the launch to the OGC at the last meeting; staff wanted to do a soft launch to get the system working; a social media blast and press releases would go out very soon. Commissioner Chen inquired what the next step is moving forward. Commissioner LoPilato suggested the deliverable be a two to three page report; questioned whether the report would be written by the Commission or staff; stated it should be presented at a future meeting to the full Commission. Commissioner Reid stated suggested agendizing the item on the next meeting to provide an opportunity for public feedback; stated there could be more examples from people who have done PRA requests. Chair Tilos stated the issue has … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-10-04 | 3 | Commissioner LoPilato stated the language regarding the role of the Secretary is consistent across all Alameda Boards and Commissions Bylaws; there is always an interest in maintaining specificity to the work of the Commission, but also some uniformity and basic provisions. The City Clerk concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the Secretary is always a staff person; she does not staff all the Boards or Commissions, so typically someone in the related Department is the Secretary noted in the Bylaws as an Officer fulfilling said role. Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Mr. Garfinkle's position to allow members of the public to be invited to participate in the work of subcommittees; she feels it is a good goal to incorporate in the Bylaws; the review and analysis of Public Records Act (PRA) requests should be an essential goal of the Commission included as an order of business; it is good preparation and streamlining process to include a section in the agenda on Standard Commission Business; review of prior meeting meetings could be something the Chair could work with the City Clerk to streamline the process; allowing time for the Commissioners to respond to public comments is a good practice. Chair Tilos inquired whether there are glaring issues that need to be addressed before moving forward. Commissioner Chen stated Commissioners are not allowed to hold debates with public speakers under non-agenda public comment; inquired whether it would be a violation of the Brown Act. The City Clerk responded the rule is actually in the Code of Conduct which applies to all the Boards and Commissions; stated every Commissioner signs that they will follow the Code of Conduct, which states public comment is not to be a debate. Commissioner Reid stated the intention behind it is not debate, but for clarification purposes; speakers should not be excluded just for time limitations if they have something else to say on a topic. Vice Chair Shabazz suggested the basis for discussion be the revisions proposed by Commis… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 3 | limits, which is why there is a provision about R2 in the SA; if the zoning is changed, the land will be a whole lot more valuable than it is today. Ms. Freeman stated approximately 1.7 acres are zoned R2 already, leaving approximately 2.3 acres still zoned for industrial. Mr. Kuhn stated no one is disputing that the SA in no way changes the zoning of the property and somehow eliminates the requirement for Union Pacific to come back to the City Council; Union Pacific has to go through an entire development application process, get public input, and get City approval to develop the property, which is not taken off the table or changed whatsoever by the SA. Mr. Foreman stated that he agrees Union Pacific has to do everything, but the agreement greases the rails; requested the Commission to read it and come to its own conclusion about whether it is germane. Commissioner Reid requested Ms. Freeman to elaborate on the background of the land acquisition and how much community involvement there was up until the Closed Session. Ms. Freeman responded in 2013 when the City started out to develop the Park, she worked with the Recreation and Parks Department on community meetings which had over 300 people attended, as well as 700 to 800 people who participated in an online survey; the survey included options for what people wanted to have in the Park, which was very close to what Jean Sweeney envisioned; as the Park was being developed, it was always understood that the Union Pacific land would become part of the Park; the map portrays that the Union Pacific land is part of the Park, including the bike path; in 2018, the City filed the eminent domain case in public; the case explained that the 1.7 acres zoned R2 was too expensive for the City to purchase; the rest of the 2.8 acres was addressed in public; people believed the Union Pacific land would be added to the Jean Sweeney Park; all the community outreach indicated the land would eventually become part of the Park. Mr. Kuhn clarified a portion of the Union Pacific corri… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 3 | the processing of the request. Following a summary of the City's responses, Chair Tilos inquired about Nextdoor. The Assistant City Attorney responded there are two separate Nextdoor accounts; stated one is the Agency account, which is managed by the City's Public Information Officer and is intended for one-way communication, although comments are allowed; records were produced from said account since it is under the City's custody and control; these records were in addition to providing the custodian of records of the personal Nextdoor account. Chair Tilos inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer's comments were on the City's Nextdoor account, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the City provided records from the City's Nextdoor account to the Complainant; the Complainant then stated he was not interested in the records from the City's account, but was interested in records from the personal account. Chair Tilos clarified the reason records were not produced from the personal account was because the City did not have access to them. The Assistant City Attorney concurred; stated the City produced the records from the personal account after receiving them today. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Mr. Shabazz stated that he did not have any expectations about the particular technology, medium or method in which the records were maintained or retained; he asked for the correspondence and was aware of one instance which included his name put on a crime thread; he did not know the particulars of how the information would be obtained. In response to Commissioner Montgomery, the Assistant City Attorney stated when referring to the agency account, it is possible for a member of the public to comment on it, but it is not possible for them to initiate a new post; new posts can only originate from their own personal Nextdoor account. Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether Mr. Shabazz requested communication fro… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-01-11 | 3 | good to have a historical document that talks about open government and democracy, especially now; it does not have to be as detailed as an encyclopedia; people forget the importance of open government and we are seeing the destruction of voting rights in this Country; people do not really appreciate what it entails to have a legitimate democracy and what should be expected from elected officials; she would like to see the City allocate resources to the development of a document that allows people to see the background behind the whole series of open government and Sunshine Ordinances that were passed 10 to 15 years ago and why local communities may be the last place where democracy is still practiced; it is really important that people have a healthy respect for open government, what it means and how they can practice it themselves. Vice Chair LoPilato stated it is a great goal, but she is concerned that it is too big of an ask to include in this inaugural report in terms of staff allocation and financial resources; an alternative could be a staff/Commission partnership could prepare the report which can then be publicized on City channels; the alternative could soften the ask if the Commission is willing to take on some of the labor. Commissioner Cambra stated that he would like a little more clarification regarding the document; questioned if the intent would be that the memory of the decisions made by the Open Government Commission (OGC) would create precedent; he understands that it does not address the over-arching issue of democracy, but also wonders if creating a report every year would add to the continuity of the OGC. Commissioner Chen stated Commissioner Cambra just took her down a different path on how the Commission adjudicates all the different cases; the Commission has no idea of how previous cases were adjudicated, which seems like a case law issue. Chair Tilos inquired whether the Commission should have knowledge of previous cases or come in with a fresh set of eyes. Commissioner Cambra responded… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf,3 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-02-07 | 3 | to use and members could even run the tally themselves; the Next Request demonstration later tonight may help address and alleviate some of the Commission's questions. Speaker: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, congratulated Vice Chair Chen on the monumental task; stated the Commission's duty is to enhance transparency of the government activities; ad hoc committees are subject to the Brown Act; the Police study done last year should have been open; the Commission needs to be very liberal when making recommendations to the City Council as to what it should be doing; encouraged monthly PRA updates; suggested Police PRAs also be reviewed by the Commission; the Commission should define what is meant by "private account" regarding social media. Commissioner Cambra stated he concurs with all the suggested edits made by Chair LoPilato; suggested adding a brief description of "creating a legislative affairs website" in addition to using the link to the Legislative Affairs for those folks who are reading a hard copy; also suggested including the 2021 hearing results. Vice Chair Chen stated the 2021 figures are included in the report; it is not listed in the chart, but is included as text. Commissioner Cambra stated there does not seem to be specific references back into the report for the three cases listed in the appendix which occurred prior to 2021; inquired if it would be appropriate to incorporate the data into the existing report. Vice Chair Chen responded it due to time and COVID limitations; stated that she and former Vice Chair Shabazz met on the phone several times to try to create the document together; in actuality, two documents were created; the portion in the appendix was created by former Vice Chair Shabazz without a give-and-take between the two of them; she thought the information he had is important and worthy of being included; she decided to include the information in an appendix with a disclaimer at the top; she is reluctant to remove it as this is the first report and other things have happened before this r… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );