pages
29 rows where body = "OpenGovernmentCommission" and page = 6
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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/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/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/2015-03-30.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/2015-10-14.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/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/2018-02-05.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 6 | the Council asked the Commission to do; that he does not think he will be able to support doing it the way proposed. Chair Dieter inquired whether there is any special rule that she forgot to include, to which Commissioner Foreman responded that he cannot answer that because he did not have an opportunity to compare; stated that he is worried something will be missed; history has to be respected; starting with the original document makes more sense; it should be repealed and codified in one document. Commissioner Henneberry inquired what was the genesis for the matter coming forward and what the City Council wanted out of it. The City Clerk responded the matter was raised via a referral; Councilmember Matarrese brought it forward to have changes made. Commissioner Henneberry questioned whether Councilmember Matarrese thought meetings were going too long; stated the rules are not the problem. Chair Dieter stated the impetus was there was a question about public comments non- agenda. The Assistant City Attorney outlined the public comment issue that lead to the referral. Commissioner Henneberry stated the entire issue came out of a specific arcane item; he has been dealing with Robert's Rules of Order for 30 years; the rules are not the issue if there is concern about the length of meetings, which is due to the Chair and meeting participants; he thinks Rosenberg's Rules look pretty good, clean and like a nice breath of fresh air compared to Robert's Rules; he does not want to go through every resolution because there was a non-agenda comment issue. Chair Dieter stated when looking at the issue, Councilmember Matarrese noticed there were other rules which are not being followed because they are not clear, such as Councilmembers are only allotted three minutes to speak; there was a whole host of things; it is great that the Council subcommittee looked to Rosenberg's Rules of Order; the League of California Cities (LCC) recommends Rosenberg's Rules; the City is pretty much following Rosenberg's Rules already and just … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-03-05 | 6 | Chair Dieter stated that she has spoken under both sections on two different topics. The matter was briefly discussed to clarify that a speaker could comment under each section, but not on the same topic. The City Clerk noted the non-agenda section could be moved after Council referrals to address the concern about not getting to referrals. Commissioners Foreman, Schwartz and Little expressed support for doing so. The City Clerk noted the order of business of the meetings would have to be amended via resolution. In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry, Vice Chair Little outlined the changes: 1) the last line under the Supplemental Rule 3 would be deleted, 2) language that specifies a speaker can only speak for a maximum of three minutes on one topic would be added, and 3) the second section of oral communications is considered a continuation of the first. The City Clerk inquired whether the Commission has an interest in limiting the speaker time limit in the instances when there are many speakers. Vice Chair Little responded the subcommittee discussed the issue. Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee decided to leave the matter at the discretion of the Chair; the Chair should be encouraged to make the judgement call; questioned whether the Commission thinks a recommendation is needed to lower the time limit to two minutes for items with over 20 speakers. Commissioner Foreman stated that he has seen Council vote to change the time limit. The City Attorney stated Council can modify any of the rules; noted trying to decide to make changes during the meeting takes time; a policy might make it simpler. Chair Dieter stated any member could make a motion to suspend the rules to lower the time limit; the Chair would be overruled if the super majority agrees. Commissioner Schwartz stated pre-establishing guidance would do the Chair a favor. Commissioner Henneberry stated when he was on the Planning Board, if there were multiple items with lots of speakers, the limit would be two minutes; there was not a hard and fast rule; if… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-03-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 6 | The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Little; stated regarding Commissioner Dieter's comments, that he cannot speculate on whether or not the public was concerned about the issue. Commissioner Dieter stated that she looked at the July meeting and no one on the Council suggested adding the two retail businesses; Council requested staff bring back a staff report with a cap; the staff report brought at the October meeting reiterated and reaffirmed what Council directed regarding the cap; inquired why the first clause adding two retail business was even included. The Assistant City Attorney responded the report in July provided a status report on the cannabis request for proposals issued in April; Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella suggested adding "delivery only" at that meeting. In response to Commissioner Dieter, the Assistant City Attorney stated the subsequent staff report did not include only the Council direction; additional items were included. Commissioner Dieter inquired what prompted the first clause to add two cannabis businesses. The Assistant City Attorney responded he does not recall; stated that he just remembers it was mentioned. Commissioner Dieter stated as a member of the public reading the ordinance, she would interpret the additional two cannabis businesses as delivery-only businesses since there is nothing in the staff report to suggest otherwise. The Assistant City Attorney stated the staff report was designed to report on outcomes, as opposed to creating a recommendation; staff was seeking direction from Council. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether there would have been any harm to postpone the second reading until after the complaint was heard. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is a current application that is pending and changes in the ordinance may impact the applicant. Commissioner Dieter inquired what happens now if the Commission determines there was a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney staffing the Commission responded p… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-12-17 | 6 | City Attorney is in the middle, should be advising the Commission and has a conflict; further stated the City should consider hiring independent, private counsel to represent the Commission when a complaint is heard. In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry regarding who has authority to request a re-hearing, the Interim City Attorney stated the request could come from a number of different sources; in this case, because the City Attorney's office did not do an accurate job of laying out what the Commission could do, it was incumbent upon the City to provide the information to the Commission and the Council so that the issue could be fully vetted and addressed. The Commission agreed to hear the public comments. 3-A. Hearing on the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed October 30, 2018 and the November 14, 2018 Open Government Commission Hearing and Decision, Including Scope of Legal Authority of the Open Government Commission to Impose Certain Penalties under the Sunshine Ordinance and Potential Next Steps. Stated he is satisfied with the outcome of tonight's meeting and does not feel the Commission's decision encroaches on the Council's legislative authority: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Read the League's letter supporting the Commission's decision: Karen Butter, League of Women Voters. Thanked the Commission for reaffirming his faith in government: Bill Smith, Alameda. Commissioner Foreman stated what the Commission did tonight is not an exercise or delegation of legislative power; it is a quasi-judicial function and the same penalty that would have been suffered under the Brown Act. In response to Chair Little's inquiry regarding calling the question, the City Clerk stated she already called the question and the previous decision was upheld: 4 to 1 with Commissioner Schwartz absent. 3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed December 4, 2018. [Withdrawn without prejudice] COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Chair Little thanked Commissioners Foreman and Dieter for their service; stated having them participate in… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-02-04 | 6 | Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of requesting follow-up on the items regarding the legal counsel conflict, as well as the authority of the Commission over City Council decisions. In response to Chair Little's inquiry regarding the follow-up items, the Interim City Attorney stated the items are not technically on the agenda, but the topic has come up within the context of the issue so a motion would be appropriate; the Council is aware of the Commission's concerns and there will be some movement on the issues raised. Commissioner Schwartz stated the Commission should heed its own advice and not have motions at the meeting on issues that were not noticed; he feels confident that the Council will hear the message from tonight's OGC meeting. Chair Little concurred with Commissioner Schwartz. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Chair Little welcomed Commissioners Shabazz and Tilos to the Commission; stated she enjoyed serving as Chair and expressed appreciation to former Commissioners Paul Foreman and Irene Dieter for their guidance. Commissioner Shabazz thanked the members of the public for communicating their issues to the OGC; inquired who determines whether there is a conflict of interest. The Interim City Attorney responded once a complaint is received, based on the nature of the complaint, if it would appear that one of the outcomes of the complaint would be contrary to what the law provides and what the Commission is authorized to do, that would trigger having outside counsel advise the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 4, 2019 6 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-07-23 | 6 | Chair Henneberry concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated the request is reasonable considering the volume of record requests made annually; he would like to emphasize the need for an immediate acknowledgement of requests made. Commissioner Little inquired whether an excel spreadsheet is used for the tracking, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he is not certain of the tracking method but will provide information at the next meeting. Commissioner Little stated that she would like the City Attorney's office to review its processes and come up with internal suggestions. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he has notes of the well-founded suggestions and will draft the changes to the decision. The City Clerk added that her office usually always double-checks when copied on requests and has already included the new practice going forward. In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the City Clerk stated often times the requests which come through the SeeClickFix system to the Clerk's office are not public records requests and are Code Enforcement or other requests, which the office has to reassign; the actual public records requests that come through to the Clerk's office are typically fulfilled within the 10 days because most of the information is not confidential and does not require extra review. Chair Henneberry stated the direction is for staff to go back to the drawing board to restructure the decision so that the situation does not repeat itself. The City Clerk clarified that the hearing will be continued to a date certain, October 7, 2019 for the decision to be reviewed. Chair Little inquired whether the Commission would receive the revised draft decision prior to the agenda packet, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that he will provide the draft soon so that the Commission will have an opportunity to provide comments and it can be close to final form ahead of the October 7th meeting. In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry, the Assistant City… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-07-23.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2019-12-18 | 6 | Acting Chair Schwartz stated the selection of Chair and Vice Chair is based on seniority; since Chair Henneberry stepped down, he is next in line for Chair; inquired whether Commissioner Tilos would then be next for Vice Chair. Commissioner Tilos stated he was not aware of the selection precedence and suggested opening the discussion; requested staff remind the Commission of meeting logistics; expressed concerns about not having a quorum the last meeting, which wasted time and resources. The City Clerk stated the Commission's two regular meetings are the first Monday in February and October at 7:00 p.m.; meetings are also scheduled within 30 days if a complaint is filed and as needed. Commissioner Shabazz inquired which Commissioner would be interested in the Chair or Vice Chair roles and why. Acting Chair Schwartz responded that he is interested in taking on the Chair role; stated he regrets not being able to attend the October meeting due to an emergency appendectomy and the last-minute July meeting was called while he was away on international travel; with those two exceptions, he has attended all the meetings and plans to going forward; he is proud of the work the Commission does; giving access to the public as well as helping the City Council function more effectively is why he would like to continue to serve on the Commission; the Commission has achieved many meaningful things; having proper disclosure is important; he would like to continue being proactive going forward. Commissioner Tilos moved approval of appointing Commissioner Schwartz as the Chair. Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Acing Chair Schwartz moved approval of nominating Commissioner Tilos as the Vice Chair. Commissioner Little stated the selection is a rotating process; she has already been Chair and Vice Chair; she feels it is a good way for appointed members to gain experience; she supports Commissioner Tilos as Vice Chair. Commissioner Tilos stated he is humbled by the nomination and woul… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-12-18.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-02-03 | 6 | make a policy, not legal, decision to eliminate the null and void provision; artful amendments and looking at other cities could be considered to address concerns in a transparent, open and honest way; expressed concern over the amendment being presented as a legal imperative, which is not supported by case law; discussed process and duties of the Commission. Commissioner Little stated that she has faith the current City Council would seriously consider Open Government Commission recommendations and hopefully reach conclusions the Commission recommends, which might not always be the case; expressed concern over the provision being removed without having other safeguards. Public Records Act Forum Commissioner Shabazz stated that he wanted to follow up on a previous request for an agenda item at the next Commission meeting about organizing a forum or method of communicating about the Public Record Act; if the matter needs to be placed on an agenda to make it happen, he would like it done; if not, he would be interested in working with staff to host something to inform the community about the Public Records Act. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office would be happy to work with Commissioner Shabazz to set it up; the matter can be placed on the agenda or Commissioner Shabazz could meet with the Attorney's office to figure out something; the Attorney's office would be happy to do it. Chair Schwartz stated that he would welcome having an agenda item if there is a proposal for something the Commission could do; he is open to any kind of proposal; it is a great idea. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated both can be done; Commissioner Shabazz can meet with the Attorney's office and the matter can be placed on an agenda to do something more formal. Commissioner Shabazz stated that he shared the suggestion at the last meeting and did not follow up to make sure it was on the agenda tonight; he does not know the level of detail needed for an agenda item. Commissioner Tilos stated something mig… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-02-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-06-24 | 6 | the public and the leadership with guidance on what the Commission can still do about said items. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the concern in the City Attorney's office is the longer period of time someone has to file a complaint, things might move forward; to be able to undo it becomes problematic; the Commission can decide to extend or shorten the timeframe, but there have been no problems with the current 15-day window and keeping items within the Commission's jurisdiction. Commissioner Little inquired what the difference is between the 10 and 15-day timeframe, to which the City Attorney responded according to Mr. Foreman's proposal, the section dealing with public meetings and problems with public participation, as those tend to move forward more quickly, the 10-day rule would apply in that situation; the 15-day rule would apply to other violations because there would likely be no timing issues with an additional five days. Commissioner Pauling inquired if the Commission votes on this, would it give power to recommend the Council delay the second vote for final passage. Chair Schwartz responded Mr. Foreman's proposal would delay action until the complaint is resolved or rejected by a supermajority of the Council; Vice Mayor Knox White's proposal would ask the Council to review the Commission's recommendation and render a final decision. In response to Commissioner Pauling's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated the timing issue has to do with the timing of complaints and timing for the hearing. Commissioner Little suggested combining Items A through F as one, rather than going through line by line. Chair Schwartz concurred; inquired whether there is support for amending the timing requirements with respect to complaints and hearings as proposed by Mr. Foreman. Commissioner Little moved approval of adding Items A through F of the Vella/Foreman proposal to the Sunshine Ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that the days for filing the complaint are calendar days, and the days for the hearing are… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-08-03 | 6 | On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5. Chair Schwartz moved approval of adopting the draft amendments, as provided by the City Attorney's Office, with the two revisions that have been voted on by the Commission. Commissioner Pauling seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Tilos: Aye; Chair Schwartz: Aye. Ayes: 5. Commission Communication Commissioner Tilos stated that he wants to clarify the new meeting scheduling; inquired whether meetings will only take place if the Commission receives a complaint and holding tonight's meeting was to complete unfinished business. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated tonight's meeting was scheduled because the Commission wanted to address the item as quickly as possible; the regular meeting will be in October for staff to present other amendments the Commission discussed in June; there would not be a meeting in November unless there was a complaint or an item that needed to be addressed by the Commission; the schedule is set up so that meetings can be canceled if there are no items. Chair Schwartz stated that he would have liked the opportunity at tonight's meeting to finish up the time sensitive matter of putting some teeth back into the Sunshine Ordinance, which the Commission was charged with; the issue of the back and forth about the underlying "null and void" and new solutions the Commission was going to implement has been sitting out there for almost two years; he is disappointed that the issue is now pushed out to October as members of the public and Commissioners expressed at the last meeting it has been going on for a long time; he thought the suggestions were specific and concrete and could have been done today as well. Commissioner Little concurred with Chair Schwartz; stated that she almost forgot that the Commissi… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-08-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2020-11-16 | 6 | back into the ordinance and does not feel the choice is simply between doing whatever the City Attorney tells the Commission to do and failure; there is a middle path, which is coming up with a proposal that takes into account the various legal advice but also stays true to the objective of putting teeth into the ordinance. Commissioner Pauling stated that she shares the frustration and certain degree of confusion about what has been expressed already; there has to be a way to have a process that forces a real pause and requires proper notice; it seems the only definition needed is if and what constitutes an urgent time factor; she would like some boundaries; she concurs with Chair Schwartz's recommendation regarding a subcommittee to actually come forward with teeth and an approach for how that would be defined; the most important thing is that if there is not proper notice, the matter should be stopped and re- noticed; short of a life-threatening emergency, that is what should happen. In response to Commissioner Pauling's inquiry, the City Clerk stated Commissioner Pauling's term will end on December 15th when the new Councilmembers are sworn in; a report is taken to the Council at the first meeting in January to inform the public of the new appointees. Commissioner Pauling stated she is happy to help in any way she can, but her time is limited. Chair Schwartz stated he would be happy to see a subcommittee recommendation before December 15th. Chair Schwartz moved approval to not adopt the recommendation of the Knox White proposal and instead appoint a subcommittee to make a recommendation, consistent with what the Commission recommended at the June meeting, before December 15th Commissioner Pauling seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Shabazz inquired whether a person has to be a Commissioner to be on the subcommittee. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated by definition a person would need to be on the Commission in order to be on the subcommittee; it would be up … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-11-16.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-02-01 | 6 | Chair Tilos suggested approving the report as is, with a motion for the voluntary suspended complaint be agendized for the next meeting to check the status with the City Attorney office. Vice Chair Shabazz stated a complaint dated May 12, 2020 was for APD Arrest Information; Request 20-40 dated April 15, 2020 was for APD Arrest Information; inquired whether the request was the PRA that lead to the "voluntary suspended" complaint, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of deferring the approval of the report to the next meeting in order to have the City Attorney provide information about the specific instance and to provide any additional context regarding the withdrawn cases as consistent with previous annual reports. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz re-stated his motion: to defer the acceptance of the annual report with the direction to the City Attorney's office to provide additional context and factual information regarding the "voluntary suspended" case, and, as consistent with previous annual reports, provide any additional context about the withdrawn complaints. Commissioner Chen seconded the motion. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated there is no specific deadline; the annual report has typically been presented at the Commission's first meeting of the year in February. Vice Chair Shabazz stated he really likes the table and does not want to mandate the format, but asks that the information be accurate. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Commission can provide a specific date to hear the matter; the first Monday of every month is now reserved in case the Commission has business; this issue can be considered business and does not have to wait until the specific established date of February or October; an… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-03-01 | 6 | Jennifer Rakowski stated that she was on the Oversight Committee; they did correlate the data to population to understand what the relative risk is for a particular community in terms of being arrested or stopped; whatever race data the City collects is based on the Officer's perception; there are limits to the data; in the coming years, there will be additional requirements for race-based data for stops and arrests to analyze disparities in terms of treatment; encouraged the community to push for immediate transparency as opposed to waiting until the Police Department is required to provide it to the federal government; not all of the data that needs to be collected is housed in the Police Department; it is looking at what complaints went to the Police and which ones went to other parts of the City about incidents with the Police; information is collected at the jail about what restraints were used; said type of information is not retained at APD, but is retained elsewhere; the City encourages having index markers at outside of APD that inform what is happening in the City. Commissioner Shabazz thanked the Committee members for their responses, and even to questions he did not get to yet; stated there are different types of data: quantitative and qualitative; he is interested in qualitative data, including what happened when a person was pulled over, how the Officer interacted, and how it is that measured, i.e., a body camera, cell phone, or Ring doorbell device; there are a lot of ways data can be captured these days; he would like to know the location of the data since it can be housed in different places; the quality of collection is an issue as well; in 2017, the Alameda Democratic Club held an event about policing, particularly about immigration, since Trump was coming into office; he spoke with the Police Chief at that time about the traffic stops and shared data he felt was disproportionate comparing the number of Black people who lived in Alameda with the number of people who lived in Alameda; Black peop… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 6 | elucidate exactly what the judicial landscape looks like; the staff report explains that the Kusar decision in 1993 rested on a statutory interpretation argument supplemented with a purpose of the interplay of the PRA provision as it relates to other protections for exactly the same information that are found in the Penal Code and other somewhat codependent; in some cases, there will be a very clearly articulated privacy interest; in the Kusar case, the rules of civil discovery were also barring some of the accessibility of the requested records. In response to Ms. Roger's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated the explanation provides a good balance with regard to the legal landscape, but she is still interested in the jurisdictional comparisons with respect to the length of the policy and look back. Ms. Rogers stated San Leandro, Pleasanton, Berkeley, Milpitas and San Diego all have 30 day look back policies; the League of California Cities provides top notch legal guidance to municipalities throughout the State. Commissioner Reid inquired what data was finally provided to Mr. Morris and if he received the full scope that he requested. Mr. Morris responded in the affirmative; stated he received the data more or less after a lot of back and forth, he did receive what he requested. Commissioner Reid inquired whether the data is identical to what is currently viewable on Police logs. Mr. Morris responded he is not sure what is currently viewable and is not exactly sure what he ended up getting off the top of his head; the statute defines a lot of things like eye color and things like that he was not even interested in; he was really looking for who was arrested, on what charges and the disposition; he does not recall the specific details of everything included in the statute. Commissioner Reid inquired whether Mr. Morris received a response on April 27th from his initial request on April 15th, to which Mr. Morris responded in the affirmative; stated the dates sound accurate, though he does not have the specific dat… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-05-03 | 6 | Commissioner Reid stated that she would find it acceptable as long as the informal process does not penalize complainants. Vice Chair Shabazz inquired whether the piece about being able to make a recommendation and do a report already exists and the Commission just has not utilized it. Commissioner Chen stated the Sunshine Ordinance has only been given test runs in the past two years with just a handful of complaints; the Commission has been finding little things they did not know existed by struggling through the complaints; she did not vote with the majority at the last meeting, not because she did not agree with most everything, but because there was so much nuance in the issue being raised; she agrees with Commissioner LoPilato about having some kind of process that clearly does not require saying just yes or no; there could be a more nuanced response; she agrees with the Assistant City Attorney that said instances should be agendized; the Commission is just trying to build something from scratch; it is like building a new car or airplane and realizing when trying to fly it that someone forgot the parachutes or there is no trap door; the trap door needs to be built now; the process is very healthy; when asked to vote in previous months, she did not know what the options were and was unclear about "unfounded;" it is important to have the same vocabulary about what the Commission is actually saying; she may find an issue unsustained, but not unfounded; the moment the term "unfounded" is used, it becomes one strike against the complainant; two more strikes and they are out for five years; she hears Commissioner Reid's concern. Commissioner Reid stated it is very important to take note of the definitions of "unsustained" and "unfounded;' her understanding is the term "unfounded" is very harsh; it puts a member of the community who is participating in the City's democracy in a position where potentially they can no longer participate; she noticed the attorneys were pushing for using the term "unfounded;" there is … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-07-19 | 6 | because it seems like too much information. The City Clerk stated a form of minutes commonly adopted called Action Minutes which is as Commissioner Chen described; past Commissioners have stated there was not enough included in the minutes; the Clerk's office is happy to go towards Action Minutes and will do whatever the Commission prefers. Chair Tilos stated he feels the longer minutes are helpful because there are a lot of members of the public who did not attend the meeting live and do not know all the pieces. Commissioner Reid inquired whether the live transcript can be published. The City Clerk responded the Zoom function used for the meetings does not capture a transcript; the captioning is only shown on the screen during the discussion, but not transcribed; the video of the meeting is posted the day after the meeting; the Clerk's office is also available to help and provide information to let people know what transpired at the meetings. Commissioner Reid inquired how a disabled person can watch the video, to which the City Clerk responded the captioning is in the recording, but the typing is not transcribed or saved anywhere in a document. Vice Chair Shabazz inquired whether the issue is regarding revising the actual process of the minutes or about what is captured in the minutes. Commissioner LoPilato responded her intention with the question was to gauge whether there were any strong statements about the way minutes are handled that could be incorporated in the bylaws, including changing to Action Minutes if decided; she would work with the City Clerk to be sure the Commission is referring to the most contemporary practices in the bylaws; she would like the minutes section of the bylaws to reflect what the Commission is actually doing as opposed to making huge changes. Vice Chair Shabazz stated as someone who uses minutes for historical research, he is grateful when they include more detail; provided an example of a meeting in the 1940's where watching a video was not possible; stated the detail in the m… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-08-02 | 6 | Commissioner Reid stated she would be happy to work with the City Clerk if it is appropriate; she would also gather suggestions from the public. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated that she was envisioning revisions to just the form, rather than the complaint procedure which would be a heavier lift. Commissioner LoPilato continued her presentation with Review Area 3; stated it is the meatier section of the complaint procedure; she took a stab at identifying quite a few areas for revision that could be significant improvements and having more clarity around what the process will entail; inquired whether there is interest in revising the procedures, what should be included and who should do it. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding a pre-hearing conference, Commissioner LoPilato stated her term pre-hearing meant written submissions; stated there are various procedural aspects of the complaint procedure, including the complaint committee hearing, that just has not occurred or been implemented. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the City Clerk stated some complaints have been withdrawn because staff has worked with the complainant; they have not necessarily been called pre-hearing conferences, but it is an example of how complaints are withdrawn. Commissioner Reid stated it would be helpful to include the specific language in the document regarding the willingness of staff to work with the complainant; the timing is also important to clarify on the form. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the 15 day deadline to file a complaint is in the Sunshine Ordinance and is 15 calendar days. In response to Commissioner Chen's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the number of days is a confusing issue; the 15 calendar days is the timeline required to submit a complaint; the Public Records Act timeline differs regarding falling on holidays. Commissioner Reid requested clarification about the PRA timeline, to which the City Clerk responded the i… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-09-20 | 6 | The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she would like the opportunity to run through it one last time to verify there are no legal issues; overall she is supportive, legally, of refining the Bylaws to reflect the practice and procedures the Commission would like to follow. Chair Tilos concurred with the Chief Assistant City Attorney; stated he would also like to get comments from Vice Chair Shabazz; inquired Commissioner Chen's thoughts on Commissioner Reid's concerns about one -member subcommittees. Commissioner Chen responded the way in which Commissioner LoPilato wrote the language makes it very clear; individuals can volunteer to get a task done; ideally, it would be good if another person wants to help; requiring that every subcommittee has at least two people is restrictive since there are only five members; it is really hard to require a minimum of two members; leaving it open and encouraging more than one member works; she understands Commissioner Reid's concern. Commissioner Reid stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney mentioned in a previous meeting a one-member subcommittee was a possible concern; requested feedback from the Chief Assistant City Attorney on the issue and also regarding the spirit of establishing a subcommittee. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated whether it is satisfactory to have a subcommittee of one came up before; at that time, her view was a subcommittee of one is satisfactory and acceptable; she does not have any legal issue with including language that states either a subcommittee or designated individual can do outside research and advise the Commission. Chair Tilos stated the Commission should give staff time to review the revisions. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated the next step would be to have the item on the next agenda, including the same materials and Commissioner Reid's correspondence. Commissioner Reid noted Commissioner LoPilato's summary of what happened in a prior meeting did not properly indicate that she volunteered… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-09-20.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-10-04 | 6 | revisiting the Bylaws. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated if an individual Commissioner has interest in further revisions to the Bylaws at some point, it could be raised as a Commission Agenda Request. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated that she would like to start tonight but is open to a later implementation if more adjustment time is needed; it is intended to be a living document and reference material that will be consulted a lot. Commissioner Reid stated starting at the beginning of the year seems appropriate. Commissioner Chen stated it should be effective at the next meeting; she sees it as a living document; she has been studying and will keep in mind Mr. Garfinkle's suggestions while seeing how well the newly revised Bylaws are working. Vice Chair Shabazz stated he would like to implement it immediately. Commissioner LoPilato stated there is flexibility about voting to adjust time limits on presentations and things like that if needed for any other agenda items. 3-A. Approve Report to City Council on Issues/Problems Arising from Implementation of the Sunshine Ordinance Vice Chair Shabazz and Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation. *** Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of allowing an additional minute for the presentation. Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** Commissioner Chen and Vice Chair Shabazz completed the presentation. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she is not entirely sure what Mr. Foreman's referenced in his correspondence regarding the City Attorney's office; there may have been comments about complaints hearing serving as a semi-adjudicatory capacity, which means that the Commission is making decisions about the legitimacy of a complaint. Commissioner Reid inquired whether it is the opinion of the City Attorney's office that the Commissio… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 6 | Mr. Foreman stated that he thinks Mr. Kuhn's explanation is contrived; the City negotiated with Union Pacific over a long period of time; the City knew the strengths and weaknesses of the railroad and vice versa; Council came to a consensus as to what would be a good deal; the railroad agreed to it; all the City Attorney had to do was ask whether it could be presented to the public in an open meeting; at the public meeting, nothing has to be disclosed if it would be harmful; the City could have simply stated, like the Mayor did, that the appraisal cannot be disclosed; it still gives the public a chance to speak out and feel they have real input and someone is listening to them; let the public feel they are participating in open government. Commissioner Reid inquired why the City would agree to pay a previously agreed upon price for the full parcel and now decide to pay less than half for a lot less land; further inquired whether the zoning was different in the appraisal process. Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative; stated the zoning was different; the original appraisal was done incorrectly; the trail appraisal prepared for the City was massively more expensive than the original $1.1 million deposit. Commissioner Reid inquired whether the appraisal for housing would add much higher valuation than for park land, to which Mr. Kuhn responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Reid inquired how long Mr. Kuhn has been contracted with the City on the project, to which Mr. Kuhn responded he became involved a little over a year ago. Ms. Freeman gave a Closing Statement. Mr. Kuhn gave a Closing Statement. Speakers: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he does not find the City Attorney's argument compelling; the City Council and City Attorney's office have a tendency to disregard the people's constitutional right to know what the City government is doing; he is disappointed the Council chose to disregard the will of the people. Jenice Anderson, Alameda, stated that she knew the reasons for the changes to the park project, … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 6 | Commission should stand by a position that they had taken in the past to the extent that the doctrine of stare decisis applies; decision 19-02 would not be a precedent because the issue about timeliness was not decided; it was never raised and, therefore, never decided; the notion that the City is bound because timeliness was not previously raised is not something the City would ever support. Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether the records produced were from the individual custodian of records or from a third party, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded they were from a third party. Mr. Shabazz stated the email he received was from Alamedanonymous; Anonymous Anonymous, is present at this meeting, along with Councilmember Herrera Spencer, so it is not likely they are the same person, would suggests the records were not from the custodian of records. Mr. Shabazz gave a Closing Statement. The Assistant City Attorney, City/Respondent, gave a Closing Statement. Speakers: Jenice Anderson, Alameda, stated the City needs a new social media policy for Councilmembers; she does not have access and was blocked from using Nextdoor without an appeals process; she does not know what Councilmembers are doing or the business being conducted; other Councilmembers use Twitter, which any members of the public can see; City officials should not be able to use the Nextdoor platform and should be required to produce records of communications, especially if talking about constituents. Anonymous stated that he has no relationship to AlamedaAnonymous; he is from San Francisco; quoted State law regarding PRAs; according to State law, the Councilmember is a local agency and is required to produce the requested records; urged the Commission to resolve the ambiguity in favor of public access. Michael Devine, Alameda, stated the term doxing, a criminal act of revealing private information through hacking or other illegal means, should not be used, as it is inflammatory and misleading; the content posted to Nextdoor is not doxing any … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-01-11 | 6 | The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated training has been discussed, but was bumped due to the number of complaints the OGC received; the City Attorney's Office and City Clerk will discuss holding a training session to be conducted during a meeting; the checklist of topics that are intended to be presented would include conflicts of interest, both statutory and those defined by case law, in order to advise Commissioners of any conflicts. Commissioner Cambra inquired whether the Chief Assistant City Attorney is aware of any enforcement actions for a non-recusing member of a legislative body. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that she is not aware of any as she is sitting here today; stated it is always a risk; an action taken could be invalidated because someone who had a clear conflict of interest failed to heed the advice to recuse; if she finds any examples, she could include it in the training. Chair Tilos stated it is a difficult issue because the Commission does not have teeth; the only recourse would be not to hear an item if Commissioners fear their vote could be overturned; discussed a similar situation when he sat on the Recreation and Parks Commission; stated Commissioners are crossing their fingers and hoping, but hope is not a strategy; a precedent needs to be set. Commissioner Chen stated that she has her marching orders and invited any comments be sent to her via the City Clerk. 4-D. Consider Amending the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Form. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Montgomery stated that she does not quite understand the section in the form which requires to name the person or department the complainant contacted; inquired clarification. The City Clerk responded the section is intended for instances when the complainant did contact someone; proposed making the field not required to eliminate any confusion. Vice Chair LoPilato stated a possible two-word fix would be add a parenthetical "(if any)" in addition to it not being required; inquired whether the last D… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf,6 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2022-02-07 | 6 | The City Clerk gave a demonstration of the PRA software, NextRequest. Commissioner Cambra moved approval of extending the time for the City Clerk to finish her presentation. Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** The City Clerk finished her presentation. In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated there is no vote needed on the item; the update is for information only. Vice Chair Chen inquired whether the NextRequest software increased the number of requests and what that number is. The City Clerk responded the Next Request launched in August so it is difficult to do a comparison from last year yet; the PRA tallies are based on the calendar year, not the fiscal year; it will be interesting to see how much requests have increased after the year. Commissioner Cambra inquired whether there is a help feature in NextRequest, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated all of the FAQ and Help options are always available at the bottom of each webpage; the Clerk's office is happy to help as well. Commissioner Montgomery stated she is impressed by NextRequest and cannot wait to check it out. Vice Chair Chen inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle's statement that an in-person meeting between a Commissioner and a Councilmember would not be subject to the PRA is correct. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded if a written record of a meeting, such as in a City-maintained calendar, is requested, it could be subject to and produced under the PRA; Mr. Garfinkle referred to the content of the discussion, which would not be subject to a PRA request. Chair LoPilato stated that she echoes Commissioner Montgomery's sentiment that NextRequest is a cool system; the update was helpful to see how the tallies and statistics are available for everyone. In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry regarding Police Department tallies, the City Clerk stated t… | 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]) );