Title
Minutes of the February 5, 2018 and March 5, 2018 Meeting
Body
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY - - - FEBRUARY 5, 2018 - - - 7:00 P.M.
Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Foreman, Henneberry, Little, and Chair Dieter - 4.
Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Minutes of the October 2, 2017 Meeting
Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of the minutes with a comment; noted that he made comments about his experience on the Planning Board prior to the nomination of Chair and Vice Chair; requested the comment be included in the October 2, 2017 minutes.
Vice Chair Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Henneberry, Little and Chair Dieter - 3. Abstention: Commissioner Foreman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]
3-B. Presentation on Repairing Alameda’s Aging Infrastructure and Related Survey
The Public Information Officer gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Vice Chair Little’s inquiry regarding local funding options, the Public Information Officer stated nothing has been proposed at this point; a question was included in the telephone survey.
Vice Chair Little stated infrastructure improvements are dependent on development; inquired whether there are alterative ideas if development, such as the Del Monte or Alameda Point projects, are not able to acquire funding.
The Public Information Officer responded that she is not sure, but she would ask the Public Works Director and provide a response.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether Alameda really has the third oldest park system in the nation, to which the Public Information Officer responded that she is sure it is true; stated the City should have more information about it online, which she would add to the City’s website.
Vice Chair Little noted Jean Sweeney Park will be one of the largest inner City Parks, which should also be honored as part of the process.
Commissioner Dieter inquired why the survey is posted at two different locations.
The Public Information Officer responded the survey is posted in a number of places; stated there are several versions of the Survey Monkey survey and links to the main survey have been posted on social media; outlined other users who have received surveys, such as See Click Fix and Peak Democracy; stated a mailer was sent to people across Alameda; the survey has also been publicized in the newspaper; the City has tried to give access to as many people as possible and did not want to limit it to just people who would take a survey on Survey Monkey; over 3,500 responses have been received.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the outreach has really been online; stated the City’s website survey has been discussed verbally, but there have only been tweets about Peak Democracy.
The Public Information Officer responded some people like Peak Democracy and others do not; stated whether people want to fill out the survey on Survey Monkey, Peak Democracy or via the mail is a personal choice; the data is being collected in the exact same way for everyone who responds.
Commissioner Dieter stated there is also a telephone survey for an infrastructure parcel tax that would cost $23 per $100,000 of assessed valuation; inquired whether the surveys are related.
The Public Information Officer responded in the affirmative; stated the telephone survey just started.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the City is doing the survey in order to move forward in a campaign, to which the Public Information Officer responded not necessarily; stated the City is trying to figure out options to pay for infrastructure needs; once the City has collected the data from all of the surveys, the City will present the results to Council for Council to decide if and how to move forward.
Commissioner Dieter stated thoughts on infrastructure immediately go to sidewalks and streets; when she took the survey, there was an option for affordable housing; inquired about affordable housing being included in an infrastructure survey.
The Public Information Officer responded that she would have to talk to the Public Works Director to specifically answer the question; stated that she thinks it has to do with the original phone survey, which included housing and traffic; she believes it was included to see the public’s priorities in total; she would want to provide a response after asking the Public Works Director.
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 and voting, does not count abstaining as a no vote; he reviewed the rules and did not see the method used to count votes; custom has been an abstention is the same as a no vote; it does not happen often; discussed a recent example: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Chair Dieter stated that she would like to make a motion to repeal the original resolution and any resolution amending it altogether, introduce a new resolution that adopts Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rule adopted by resolution of the City Council, and where Rosenberg is silent, provisions would be added to the resolution; in other words, standard parliamentary rules would be adopted and special rules would be passed as needed; further stated to try to guide the discussion, she would share a handout with follow Commissioners because it is in writing and will be made part of the public record.
The City Clerk inquired whether the motion would be to make a recommendation to have Council repeal the resolutions because Council has to repeal its resolutions, to which Chair Dieter responded correct.
Chair Dieter stated what she has handed out includes her outline of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, which is part of the staff report, and clauses needed in the new resolution; the items Rosenberg’s Rules is silent on and the City Council has taken a position on are in the list of clauses; the first is counting votes, which the public speaker addressed; read the proposed clauses; stated that she reviewed the daisy chain of resolutions and included what she considered to be important or missing and came up with the list of clauses that the Commission could consider adding to Rosenberg’s Rules or Order; stated that is her motion.
Commissioner Foreman requested the motion be read back.
Chair Dieter stated the motion is to consider suggesting that the City Council repeal the original resolution and any resolutions amending it and introduce a new resolution adopting Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rules adopted by resolution of the City Council; where Rosenberg’s Rules is silent, add provisions to the resolution which she specifically named.
Commissioner Foreman stated the handout is simply an outline of how to attack the matter and does not necessarily become part of the motion; leases and land sales are covered under the Charter, which is kind of redundant; without going over everything section by section, he does not know that everything has been covered; he is assuming the motion is just how the Commission proceeds, not necessarily that the handout is where the Commission will end up; inquired whether or not his understanding is fair.
Chair Dieter respond a little of both; stated that she would like the Commission to end up here, but she thought maybe the Commission may have something to add if members feel there is something important she may have missed; Rosenberg’s Rules of Order were part of the agenda packet; she decided to write an outline to help the Commission focus because it is too hard to read quite a few pages.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he likes the list, but may have an issue with closing debate; he thinks it should be very difficult to close debate, not just a majority vote; he might be able to support the general motion, which really does not include the outline; however, if voting for the motion is for the limited outline, he would have troubles.
Chair Dieter stated that she envisions Rosenberg’s Rules of Order as part of the new resolution; the special rules would be at the bottom to add items which are applicable to the City of Alameda; rather than reinvent the wheel, Rosenberg’s entire text should be adopted; then, the special rules should be added to the end; it would all be one resolution.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether items which contradict Rosenberg’s Rules would be included, to which Chair Dieter responded correct.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the motion is Rosenberg’s Rules, plus whatever the Commission decides as a group, not necessarily the list, to which Chair Dieter responded correct.
Vice Chair Little stated something in Rosenberg’s Rules that might not be applicable to what is happening could be scratched; she loves the spirit of Chair Dieter’s proposal; trying to figure out which version was the most current gave her a headache; she would love to see a new version in one document; when she was doing her research, Rosenberg’s versus Robert’s, she appreciates the more simplistic, user friendly Rosenberg’s Rules; however, the current City Council structure is run a little differently; if the Commission is going to make a recommendation tonight, she is not comfortable and would want to go through the finer points to ensure nothing is being missed; for example, Rosenberg’s Rules recommends that the presiding officer take a less active role, defer to others and speak last, which is not necessarily how the City Council is currently being managed; she would want to make sure that the Commission goes through the provisions with a little more detail; her understanding was that the intent of going through the Rules of Order was to ensure that City Council meetings do not go until 3:19 a.m.; a wide gamut of recommendations could be proposed to the City Council that should be put on the table to consider.
Commissioner Henneberry seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair Dieter stated when she read Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, she discovered it is basically how things are run now; the Chair usually does wait to speak last; the only thing that she saw different was that the Chair invites a motion after public comment, which she thinks would be wonderful; it would focus the debate, rather than having an hour discussion with the public waiting for a motion; that is the only thing she saw which was different.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he is in favor of repealing and staring all over; the Commission should start with the current rules of order and go through item by item to decide what should be kept; then, wherever the City is silent, Rosenberg’s Rules would be followed; it is being flipped to say the rules are Rosenberg’s Rules, which is not what 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 needs to apply special rules; she spent hours and hours going through all the resolutions trying to find things that were not covered by Rosenberg’s Rules, which are the ones she added to the end; she felt everything else was covered.
Vice Chair Little stated going through her list, she is finding similarities between the notes she took on the various resolution items and Chair Dieter’s list; she just wants to be cautious that the Commission is not missing something; she finds the City’s rules terribly confusing; the language is circular and not understandable; she appreciates Rosenberg’s Rules; she would consider moving forward and not going through everything line by line as long as there is agreement that there is a comparison between what Rosenberg is recommending and the current rules to make sure nothing missing; for meeting hours, Chair Dieter’s list recommends midnight; she saw it was 11:00 p.m., then midnight and back to 11:00 p.m.; she thought the current time is 11:00 p.m. now.
The City Clerk stated midnight is not reflected as the time in the Sunshine Ordinance; amending the ending time and the 10:30 p.m. vote to consider remaining items would require an ordinance amendment.
Commissioner Foreman stated it does not matter if the Commission proceeds as he is suggesting or as the motion is suggesting, except he does not see a way to not go through article by article; he opposes adopting the proposal; the review needs to be done as a group; he is willing to support the motion, but he is still going to want to go through every item.
Chair Dieter stated the Commissioners all like Rosenberg’s Rules of Order; the Commission wants to make sure it has not missed anything for only the special rules; she went line by line through it; suggested coming back again with the special rules to give Commissioners an opportunity to study the resolutions to see if anything has been missed.
Commissioner Foreman stated the suggestion makes sense; that he would be more comfortable and the Commission might save time.
Chair Dieter stated there is a motion and a second; perhaps the Commission should take a vote.
Commissioner Henneberry stated that he has a timing question; the Commission is scheduled to meet twice per year; the next meeting is October; however, the Commission can meet in the interim if there is a reason to meet; inquired whether a vote of the Commission decides scheduling.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
The City Clerk stated the Commission’s meetings are typically held the first Monday; in the past, the Commission met the next month to continue review.
Commissioner Foreman moved approval of tabling the motion until the next meeting in the next 30 days.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the meeting would be held the first Monday, to which Commissioner Foreman responded that is fine with him.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he will be gone the first Monday in March; inquired whether the Commission would agree to the first Monday in April.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether other days are available.
The Assistant City Attorney responded perhaps later in February or mid-March.
Commissioner Foreman rephrased the motion; moved approval of the same motion with the meeting date being the first Monday in April.
Vice Chair Little seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a subcommittee would go over the matter prior to the next meeting.
Commissioner Foreman stated the Commissioners could all share their comments with each other prior to the next meeting, which cannot be done.
The Assistant City Attorney stated each Commissioner can send comments to the City Clerk for distribution, but the Commissioners cannot collectively discuss the matter until the meeting.
Chair Dieter inquired whether she could have sent her list to the City Clerk after the agenda was posted, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated communications should be sent to the City Clerk to be sent out to everyone at the same time; after communications are sent out, three members cannot discuss the matter outside of a meeting.
The City Clerk noted communications are posted and made public.
Chair Dieter stated that she will withdraw her motion.
Commissioner Foreman inquired why the motion is being withdrawn; stated that he is tabling Chair Dieter’s motion.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether it would be permissible to have a two person subcommittee of Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Henneberry stated the subcommittee could put something together for distribution to the rest of the Commission prior to the next meeting.
Vice Chair Little and Chair Dieter both expressed a willingness to do so.
Chair Dieter stated there is a motion to table the matter until the next meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]
Chair Dieter inquired whether there is another motion to set up a subcommittee.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a motion is needed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded a motion should be done to determine the subcommittee membership and direction.
Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of having a subcommittee comprised of the Chair and Vice Chair Little to put together a proposal, provide it to the City Clerk and have it distributed to the Commission prior to the next meeting.
In response to Commissioner Foreman’s inquiry, the City Clerk stated the meeting packet goes out seven days prior to the meeting, which would be March 26th.
Vice Chair Little stated that she thought the meeting would be in March.
Commissioner Foreman stated the Assistant City Attorney is not available.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if the Commission would rather meet in March, someone else from the City Attorney’s office could attend.
Commissioners Henneberry and Little stated that they would prefer to meet in March.
Commissioner Foreman noted the Commission already voted on the motion.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission is considering forming a subcommittee and could direct the matter be brought back the first Monday in March.
Commissioner Henneberry clarified the motion is to form the subcommittee and meet the first Monday in March.
Commissioner Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]
3-D. Recommendation to Approve the Records Retention Schedule
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the retention schedule is considered the Public Records Index (PRI).
The City Clerk responded the two were separated; stated the League of California Cities (LCC) index, which provides a general guide of the documents that are open or closed, was adopted by the City Council; the retention schedule informs when records, which are listed by department, would be destroyed.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the City has two different retention schedules: the PRI and one by each department.
The City Clerk responded the PRI is used to disclose whether documents are public or partially public.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the PRI does not include when to destroy records, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the schedule does not need to come before the Open Government Commission, to which the City Clerk responded the schedule was presented to the Commission in the past.
Chair Dieter stated the Sunshine Ordinance does not require the schedule to come before the Commission; inquired where the standards come from and whether there are different types of records; stated the Secretary of State, with the LCC, came up with guidelines; the City Clerk’s Association also has guidelines; inquired where the City’s standards for disposing of documents was formed.
The City Clerk responded the last column has the statutory reference and draws on many different sources, such as the Government Code and Elections Code; stated each department draws from different Codes; the citation of the statutory reference would be very similar in the City’s schedule versus the Secretary of State guidelines; the City tried to whittle down its list to inform the public what documents the City has and retains.
Chair Dieter stated the schedule is not arbitrary; inquired whether the department heads are not just deciding how long to keep something and actually turn to a statutory reference.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the City exceeds statutory reference in some instances, but it is never shorter.
Chair Dieter stated sidewalk repair requests would be deleted after five years, which means the records could be destroyed before the repair is done.
The City Clerk stated the clock starts ticking after the issue is resolved.
The Assistant City Attorney stated citizens’ complaints for Police Officers have a five year retention period and start at the complaint date as opposed to resolved; the general rule is what the City Clerk indicated, but there are some situations where the clock might start at occurrence.
Vice Chair Little inquired how someone could figure out which is the case.
The Assistant City Attorney responded it is typically by statute; provided an example of hiring.
The City Clerk stated there are retention codes at the bottom of the page; provided an example of current year end, which is very specific.
Chair Dieter stated the main thing is for the public to understand; suggested adding footnotes for some about when the time starts.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the Commission needs to approve the schedule.
The City Clerk responded the City Council will be informed if the Commission takes action.
Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of approving the Records Retention Schedule.
Commissioner Foreman seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair Dieter stated that she plans on voting no because she does not think that technology should be driving public policy; if there were other reasons for wanting to change five years to three years, it would make more sense to her; just because the City does not have storage capacity is a bad precedent.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Foreman, Henneberry and Little - 3. Noes: Chair Dieter - 1. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether Municipal Code amendments prior language goes away and the Code reflects the current law, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether resolutions could be codified; stated the new rules of order will be neat, but could end up with the same mess.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the way to handle the matter would be to repeal the entirety and adopt a new resolution with all changes; stated discrete pieces of the original resolution were changed by just amending the section; the point is well taken-it makes it difficult to go to one document and figure out the rules.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether that is the only way, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded as a practical matter.
Chair Dieter stated the City Council current version could have a legislative history with previous versions underneath.
The City Clerk stated the issue can be discussed when the matter returns to the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY - - - MARCH 5, 2018 - - - 7:00 P.M.
Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Foreman, Henneberry, Little, Schwartz and Chair Dieter - 5.
Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Review the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings
Chair Dieter made brief introductory comments and provided background information.
In response to Chair Dieter’s inquiry, the City Clerk agreed that staff would not provide a report and would raise questions as the Commission reviews the subcommittees proposed recommendations.
Commissioner Foreman stated the subcommittee is proposing the current rules be repealed, and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order be adopted along with special rules; inquired whether or not the subcommittee went through each individual section of the current rules.
Chair Dieter responded the subcommittee went through all the resolutions and pulled out all of the existing rules and reworded them, which are the nine special rules; stated the subcommittee tabled two rules; if Commissioner Foreman found something that the subcommittee forgot, the Commission can address it.
Commissioner Foreman stated Council’s charge was to review and update the rules; instead, it looks like the Commission is writing its own set of rules without specific reference to the existing rules; for instance, there are six different items under public discussion under the old rules; under the supplemental rules, there are a lot less; the same thing for Council deliberations; he has a problem with the structure; he anticipated the subcommittee would be going through each of the existing sections.
Chair Dieter stated a lot of the existing rules are already in Rosenberg’s Rules of Order; the subcommittee did not want to duplicate the rule.
Vice Chair Little stated one of the subcommittee tasks was to go through the existing rules; she did a line by line comparison of the five different versions of the current rules and Rosenberg’s Rules; the only time the subcommittee added a supplemental rule was when Rosenberg’s Rules were silent; the current rules of order required looking in five different resolutions; after doing the comparison, Rosenberg’s Rules are much more accessible to the average person to understand; items were accounted for by identifying and adding in special rules; she feels confident, the document is complete.
Stated the adjournment time should be switched back to midnight; three meetings per month could be held, but he does not know how the 10-day advance notice could be done; if there are concerns over late meetings crimping public participation, the public can submit a letter to the City Council starting 10 days before any meeting; letters can be longer than what someone can say in three minutes; waiting until 11:00 p.m. to speak is bad; sitting through a meeting and not having the item called is worse: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated Council meetings are painful; comments on matters is often not heard until 9:30 p.m.; it does not feel democratic; urged the Commission to do anything it can to guide the Council; stated items should be moved to action or delayed for more study or additional hearings; outlined her experience with an item not being heard; stated the Council should have to make motions to discuss and either approve or vote down; stated the Planning Board could also use the rules; suggested a training session be held and there be guidance regarding referrals and hearing referrals faster: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.
Chair Dieter suggested the Commission go through the nine special rules one at a time; started with Counting Votes.
Commissioner Foreman inquired where Counting Votes is in the existing rules.
Chair Dieter responded it is not in the existing rules; stated it is in the City Charter.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether three affirmative votes are require for any action, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language is straight from the Charter.
Commissioner Foreman stated abstentions were discussed at the last meeting; inquired whether abstentions count as a no vote, which cannot be changed.
Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Schwartz stated that he could not agree more with Ms. Lamborn; he is grateful to the subcommittee for coming up with the rules; making the City Council meetings run better is enormously important and would be a major accomplishment for the Commission; speaking should be limited, while preserving the public’s right to be heard; it should be clear that the limit is three minutes per person; he supports not ceding time; inquired whether or not people could subvert the rules and get extra time at some other point in the proceeding.
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.
Chair Dieter responded the matter is addressed in Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he has not seen it.
Vice Chair Little stated Rosenberg’s Rules specifically talks about public comment not being a debate.
Chair Dieter concurred; stated Rosenberg’s Rules address what is debatable and not debatable.
Commissioner Foreman stated it is not included the short version.
Chair Dieter concurred; stated it is in the long version.
Vice Chair Little stated the subcommittee thought it was reasonable.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he does not read Rosenberg’s Rules as relating the issue to public comment; it relates to Council discussions.
In response to Chair Dieter’s inquiry, Commissioner Foreman stated language exists; he does not like the language; under non-agenda comment, a sentence says City staff or members of the body may briefly respond, but no action or discussion follows at the meeting; there is not a provision covering agenda items; public comment takes place before the motion; the language in Rosenberg’s Rules relates to debate on a motion, which is not the same thing; there needs to be guidelines one way or another.
Chair Dieter stated a sentence could be added.
Commissioner Foreman suggested adding the same language under public comment non-agenda items: “staff or members of the body may briefly respond;” a clarifying question could be asked; Council typically does not respond to speakers; people want a response, not a debate; once in a while a response is appropriate.
Vice Chair Little expressed concern if 30 other people are waiting to speak.
Commissioner Foreman stated public comment is not time for a debate; a clarifying comment would be appropriate.
Vice Chair Little stated adding a sentence to clarify there is no debate during public comment would be okay.
Commissioner Foreman stated language has been included for non-agenda items; inquired why language would be included for one and not the other.
The City Attorney responded a decision cannot be made about non-agenda items because the matter has not been publically noticed; stated the rule is that the Council and staff do not respond; provided an example of the City Manager indicating someone would follow up with the speaker; questioned whether interrupting the speaker would count towards the speaker’s three minutes.
Commissioner Foreman stated the situation is not easy; he is trying to make it more interactive; he does not know how it should be done.
Vice Chair Little stated the rules are to set the public’s expectation; allowing response does not provide a clear expectation.
Commissioner Schwartz stated including the sentence about responding under non-agenda items opens the door for chaos without qualifying brief response; suggested making it clearer, such as a response of 60 seconds or less on logistical concerns.
Chair Dieter suggested removing the last sentence from Rule 3; stated both would match.
Commissioner Foreman stated then there would be no guidelines at all.
Chair Dieter stated City staff rarely has to interrupt; questioned why something should be written down that rarely ever happens; stated Rules 2 and 3 were addressed together.
The City Clerk clarified the first agenda section of non-agenda comment is limited to 15 minutes; stated the additional section at the end of the meeting is for further comment.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the second section of non-agenda comment is unlimited, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the Sunshine Ordinance moved non-agenda comments to the beginning of the agenda, but limited the first section to 15 minutes in order to get to business.
Chair Dieter stated that she did not know there was no time limit at the end of the meeting; stated clarifying language be added.
The City Clerk inquired whether the Commission would like to address speakers only being able to speak under one section of Oral Communications, not both.
Commissioner Foreman responded that is pretty much understood.
Commissioners Schwartz and Little expressed support for clarifying the language.
In response to Chair Dieter’s inquiry, Vice Chair Little stated the question came up about speaking multiple times; someone should not speaking under both non-agenda sections on the same topic.
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 there was only one item with many speakers, three minutes was allowed.
In response to Commissioner Foreman’s inquiry, Commissioner Henneberry stated the Planning Board would discuss the speaker time limit.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he thinks the Council should vote on the time limit.
Chair Dieter stated it can be voted on under the proposed rules.
Commissioner Foreman inquired what if the Mayor makes a decision which the rest of the Council does not like.
Chair Dieter responded the Mayor could be overruled; the super majority can suspend any rule.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he would prefer a vote be required.
Chair Dieter stated if discretion is not given to the Chair, the rules could still be suspended by super majority; the language could be deleted.
Commissioner Schwartz questioned whether the Chair’s discretion is being taken away.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he could live with having to cut his comments to two minutes if four members of the Council vote on it, rather than just at the discretion of the Mayor.
Chair Dieter stated the consensus is to take out the phrase: “at the discretion of the Chair.”
In response to Commissioner Schwartz’s inquiry regarding the downside of limiting the speakers over a certain threshold, Chair Dieter stated as Commissioner Henneberry pointed out, an agenda might have only two items and there would be plenty of time.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the super majority could vote to increase the time.
Chair Dieter stated doing so seems more complicated; stated that she hears there is a consensus on everything except Commissioner Foreman does not like the idea about eliminating ceding time; inquired whether anyone else has a problem.
Commissioner Henneberry responded that he does not think ceding time should be allowed.
Commissioner Schwartz stated that he agrees with the proposal as written.
Chair Dieter inquired whether anyone has issues with Rule 4.
Commissioner Schwartz responded the amount of time is tremendous; he does not see why someone would need to speak three times for three minutes on one agenda item; the amount is way too much.
In response to Chair Dieter’s inquiry, Commissioner Schwartz stated five minutes total is hefty.
Chair Dieter stated a Councilmember speaks for 10 minutes and the same person comments on what others have said; time has to be allotted for deliberations to go back and forth.
Commissioner Schwartz suggested the times be three minutes, two minutes and one minute.
Vice Chair Little stated meetings are the only time the Council can discuss a topic as a group; for a lot of the topics, such as rent control, the public needs to see time is being taken to delve into, engage, interact and respond to some of the comments made; the subcommittee went back and forth about the right amount of time; providing a framework will afford the opportunity to engage in conversation, but puts a limit; only giving three chances to speak would already impact the process.
Commissioner Foreman stated compared to what is in writing, a lot more time is being given; compared to what is actually happening at Council meetings, it is a lot less time; the rule is reasonable if it can be enforced.
Chair Dieter stated part of why three minutes is being suggested is because the City Clerk will have to enforce the rule.
The City Clerk inquired whether the Commission is suggesting a timing system to allow Councilmembers to see the countdown.
Commissioners Schwartz, Little and Foreman expressed support for doing so.
Commissioner Schwartz stated speaking three times for three minutes each is still a lot.
The City Clerk noted staff would be able to execute the recommendation.
Vice Chair Little inquired whether the City Clerk would keep track.
Chair Dieter responded the timekeeper would have to do it.
Vice Chair Little stated Rosenberg’s Rules include a rule of decorum and agreeing to a process, so it is on the members to know and stop.
Commissioner Henneberry stated the proposal on the table is better than what is going on; sometimes progress is incremental; he supports the subcommittee’s proposal.
Chair Dieter inquired whether anyone has issues with the rule on ceremonial presentations and proclamations.
Commissioner Foreman responded 15 minutes is not doable.
Vice Chair Little stated the time can be extended.
Chair Dieter stated 15 minutes is the current rule; getting through proclamations the last few meetings has taken one hour; she thinks the rule is important; inquired how proclamations are added to the agenda.
The City Clerk responded many proclamations are repeated annually; stated outside groups make requests; work is currently being done to limit proclamations to three per meeting; a suggestion has been made to only read part of the proclamation.
The City Attorney noted an excerpt could be read since the proclamations are included in the packet.
Vice Chair Little stated the following commentary often tends to go on for a long time.
Commissioner Foreman stated no matter what rule is written, it will be ignored; it is very difficult; provided an example.
Chair Dieter stated in all fairness to the City Council, she does not think people have been cognizant of the rules; this is a new starting point; she thinks there will be teamwork; the Chair is responsible for keeping the process going.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he would be more comfortable with limiting the amount of time to 10 minutes per proclamation.
Vice Chair Little stated it is up to the Chair to get through the proclamations in 15 minutes; if there are three, the Chair should explain each gets five minutes; if there is one, it can have the full 15 minutes; creative scheduling might be in order as well.
Chair Dieter stated perhaps every person being honored might not speak; recommended deleting the last clause that says the time can be extended by majority vote.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he has no problem with that.
Chair Dieter moved on to Rule 6 on consent items, which did not have any issues; inquired whether there are issues with Rule 7 regarding referrals.
Commissioner Foreman responded referrals are not in the current rules.
Chair Dieter stated referrals are not in the current rules and have never been adopted by resolution or ordinance.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether referrals have been adopted in any way.
Chair Dieter responded referrals were adopted by motion; stated since the issue is being visited, referrals should be codified; before the meeting, the subcommittee decided to add one more element to the provision that is not included: Councilmembers would be limited to three referrals per year, which is important because some items can be done behind the scenes by working with the City Manager, City Attorney or the department head; after a little behind the scenes, the City Manager could agendize the matter if it is important.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he would go to the City Manager first if he was on the Council; questioned whether the referral process is not used unless Councilmembers cannot get cooperation.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired what are the current rules on referrals; inquired whether there is any limit.
Chair Dieter responded there are no limits.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired where the limit of three came from, to which Chair Dieter responded sticking with the three on all the rules; everything is three.
Commissioner Henneberry stated that he thinks three is too limited.
Commissioner Foreman concurred.
Chair Dieter stated three referrals per Councilmember is 15 referrals per year that would have to come back 15 more times, which is more referrals than there are meetings per year since there are 22 meetings.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired how many referrals are being made by each Councilmember.
The City Clerk responded she could do a tally; stated some do more than three.
Commissioner Henneberry stated the number would be useful; three seems low.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the rule feels distinct from everything else being done, which are explicitly about time management in meetings; limiting referrals seems far afield; the matter could be addressed separately after further investigation; he would leave the amendments to addressing number of minutes, etc.
Vice Chair Little stated a little more research might be needed.
Chair Dieter stated the start of the process has been geared toward the orderly conduct of meetings and nothing that goes on outside meetings; Commissioner Schwartz is right that the subcommittee stepped over the line a little bit.
Commissioner Foreman stated dealing with referrals altogether stepped over the line.
Chair Dieter stated not really because the public never knows what to expect from a Council referral; right now, a matter may come back or be decided on that night; the agenda title gives the impression that a decision could be made that night; provided an example; stated that she thinks Council referrals are out of hand; a lot of time is spent on the merits of an issue and whether the issue is important enough to bring back at another meeting, which was the whole impetus of Council referrals; referrals come from one person, rather than have it agenized, Council is supposed to decide if it is important and should come back with a staff report.
The City Clerk stated Council did not want to be limited and wanted to be able to take action under the Council referrals section of the agenda; the 2007 staff report, which was provided, clearly states the Council can take dispositive action if sufficiently noticed.
Commissioner Foreman inquired what is sufficient information, to which the City Clerk responded said determination is made by the City Attorney.
The City Attorney provided an example of supporting State legislation; stated Chair Dieter’s examples are something that would need analysis.
The City Clerk stated the current Council adopted a new referral form and reiterated the three options at the top of the form: 1) take no action, 2) refer the matter to staff or 3) take dipositive action; the current Council just reaffirmed that they want to take dispositive action; noted the Commission would be recommending something different than the current Council has said they want.
Commissioner Schwartz suggested tabling referrals for now; stated referrals seem to do less with time management and Rosenberg’s Rules; the matter could come back in a more comprehensive way.
Chair Dieter stated that she has a suggestion, which might solve the matter and allow it to be included; suggested each Councilmember indicate whether or not dispositive action is being requested; stated members of the public want to know whether the matter would return.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the issue seems more complicated than limiting time to three minutes.
Chair Dieter stated that she is fine with that; inquired whether everyone else is okay.
Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative.
Vice Chair Little concurred.
Chair Dieter stated the next item is meeting adjournment time.
The City Clerk inquired whether the proposal eliminates the requirement to add meetings if three meetings in a row go past 11:00 p.m.
Commissioner Foreman responded in the negative; stated the matter is in the Sunshine Ordinance.
Chair Dieter stated that she did not know whether the issue belongs in the orderly conduct of meetings and she thinks it is also a side issue.
The City Attorney stated concern was raised at the last Council meeting; the Commission does not have to make a recommendation.
The City Clerk stated having no new items heard after 11:30 p.m. goes past the 11:00 p.m. meeting deadline.
Chair Dieter stated under the proposal, a vote would not be done until 11:30 p.m.; the Council would know they are not going to address any more items and the matter would not have to be discussed; the meeting would continue smoothly until 11:30 p.m.
The City Clerk stated the Sunshine ordinance would have to be modified to do so and a decision needs to be made about the three times in a row requirement.
Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee is suggesting the current requirement be repealed and the rule be replaced.
Commissioner Foreman inquired where is the requirement about three meetings in a row, to which the City Clerk responded the Sunshine Ordinance.
Chair Dieter stated it is not currently in the rules; it is a separate ordinance.
In response to Chair Dieter’s inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance has to be amended by ordinance; the rules or order cannot modify an ordinance regulation; outlined the current ordinance; stated the requirement to add more meetings is unclear and has never been triggered; the rules of order saying there is only one vote and new items can be taken up to 11:30 p.m. modifies the ordinance; the question is if the Commission is recommending the ordinance be modified.
Chair Dieter responded that she is only recommending changing the time.
Commissioner Foreman stated the Commission was told to review the rules of order, not rewrite the Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission rewrote the Sunshine Ordinance about two years ago; they are two different things.
Chair Dieter stated not codifying the Sunshine Ordinance requirement in the rules of order was a mistake; lots of things in the Sunshine Ordinance do not apply to the rules of order.
Commissioner Foreman stated the subject is clearly covered in the Sunshine Ordinance.
Chair Dieter stated the proposed rules allow the public to review one document to see the whole rules of order.
The City Attorney stated if the Commission is not looking to modify the Sunshine Ordinance, then the rules should reflect the Sunshine Ordinance provision, which differs from what is being suggested; the Commission can suggest a modification to the ordinance.
Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little stated that is what they are suggesting.
Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee is suggesting modifying the ordinance; the Council might not like the rule; if the Council likes the rule, the Sunshine Ordinance will have to change to reflect a different time frame.
The City Attorney inquired whether the rules of order change would delete the 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. votes and the requirement to add a meeting if three go past 11:00 p.m.
Chair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the requirement to add the meeting is not being removed; inquired whether only the first two sentences could be amended.
The City Clerk read the ordinance language; stated the idea is to combine the vote to one and keep the requirement for three meetings in a row.
Vice Chair Little responded in the affirmative.
Chair Dieter stated that she does not want any votes to happen until 11:30 p.m.
Vice Chair Little stated there is a conversation at 10:30 p.m. about whether or not to address more agenda items, which takes 15 to 20 minutes; then, at 11:00 p.m., there is another conversation about whether or not the meeting should continue; essentially 45 minutes to an hour is spent on deliberation and meetings end up continuing until 3:00 a.m.; the subcommittee’s thinking was to remove the question about whether or not the meeting would continue; new items would not be taken after 11:30 p.m. without a vote to take other items, which would be decided by a supermajority vote.
The City Clerk suggested removing the language since a supermajority vote is already required to suspend the rules and the vote would just be suspending the rules.
Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee did note that acceptance of the rule would require changing the ordinance; the subcommittee was going to let staff figure out how to make the change.
The City Clerk stated that she did not know what to tell the Council because the subcommittee was silent on three meetings in a row.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he would make the matter not debatable, so the Council would just vote.
Commissioner Schwartz concurred with removing the language requiring a supermajority vote; inquired why 11:30 p.m. was selected; stated running a meeting does not have to take so long; suggested using the current time of 10:30 p.m.
Chair Dieter stated for almost two decades the rule set the time at midnight; the public knew the routine of the previous Council always voting to go past 11:00 p.m.; this Council is totally erratic; no one knows when meetings will continue; the proposal is fair to the public and Council, and is an effort to get through City business; the current problem is the Council is not getting through City business, which representatives are elected to do; she can only imagine how the City Manager feels; she thinks the proposal returns it to the way it was for two decades, which worked fine; with the accumulation of all of the changes, meetings might not go so late; the proposal prevents deliberating on the actual agenda timing for 45 minutes.
Commissioners Foreman and Little concurred.
Commissioner Foreman stated the goal is to make meetings shorter; many things can be done to shorten meetings; the time set is not going to shorten meetings; former Councilmember deHaan informed him there were never long staff presentations in the past; time was limited; staff provides a detailed description two weeks before the meeting and goes over everything again in a presentation at the meeting; he does not understand why the staff presentation cannot be limited to clarifying questions; there is no need for staff to repeat the entire staff report, which eats up all the time.
Chair Dieter stated the City Manager works at the behest of the City Council; the Council can ask the City Manager to shorten staff presentations; the rules of order just address how to run City Council meetings.
Commissioner Henneberry stated limiting the debate on adjournment should will shorten meetings; the conversation is 45 minutes and is a waste of time.
Commissioner Schwartz questioned why the proposal cannot be 10:30 p.m. instead of 11:30 p.m.
Chair Dieter responded the Council is not getting through business; stated the City Council may decide to make it 10:30 p.m.; the public has plenty of time to submit letters and write op-ed pieces on any issue; representatives should make decisions and not worry about who can remain in the audience.
Commissioner Foreman stated a very simple rule is being proposed; legal staff would have to change the ordinance.
The City Attorney inquired whether the Sunshine Ordinance should be changed to say no new items can be considered after 11:30 p.m., with the meeting continuing and not triggering a need for additional meetings.
The City Clerk inquired whether the three meetings in a row rule would be eliminated, to which Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Foreman stated the Council would not stop in the middle of addressing something.
In response to Chair Dieter’s inquiry about language, the City Attorney stated there is no set adjournment time; rather the Commission is saying no new business is taken up after 11:30 p.m.
Vice Chair Little inquired whether the Commission should add if three meetings in a row go past, then additional meetings would be needed.
Chair Dieter responded said language should not be added.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the issue is addressed in the Brown Act, to which the City Attorney responded the matter is not a Brown Act issue.
Chair Dieter stated the more the issue is discussed, she would not require adding meetings.
The City Clerk inquired whether the language should read: “time after which no new business is heard,” to which Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he can live with the recommendation; an item which starts at 11:29 p.m. could continue.
Chair Dieter stated if the Council is tired and does not want to consider an item, a vote could be taken to suspend the rules.
The City Attorney stated the change will take an ordinance amendment; staff will pass the recommendation along to Council.
Commissioner Foreman inquired about the debate language.
Chair Dieter responded the language would be removed.
In response to Commissioner Foreman’s inquiry, Chair Dieter stated Rosenberg’s Rules includes that there is no debate on a motion to suspend the rules.
Commissioner Schwartz stated that he is the only member who thinks the time should be 10:30 p.m.
Chair Dieter stated the time has been tried for a couple of years and has not worked; the new rules might cause meetings to end earlier.
Commissioner Schwartz stated perhaps 10:30 p.m. could be used a starting point.
Chair Dieter inquired whether there are any issues with suspension of the rules.
There were none.
Chair Dieter stated the subcommittee rejected the existing rules on appeals and written communications, but wanted to address them; the focus should be on the orderly conduct of meetings and nothing outside of meetings; the appeals might be pertinent if there are time limits; anything in place should be included in the rules of order.
The City Attorney stated the various Code sections on appeals address when the matter must be heard on an agenda; there is no rule on how an item is handled at the meeting.
Chair Dieter inquired whether there is enough of an issue that a rule should be included.
The City Attorney provided an example of a recent appeal.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the Commission wishes to address the matter.
Commissioner Foreman responded the problem is there are various kinds of appeals; stated one time limit might not work for all appeals; the matter could remain under the Council’s discretion; perhaps notice could be given to the parties before the meeting.
Commissioner Schwartz stated that he concurs with the proposal to table the matter.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether there are matters, other than appeals, that are quasi-judicial and whether public hearings might qualify, to which the City Attorney responded anytime the Council gives entitlements and rights.
Commissioner Foreman stated Councilmembers are familiar with items that are quasi-judicial and know not to speak about the matter.
There was consensus to drop the matter.
Chair Dieter stated the existing rule on written communications seems to be separate.
Commissioner Schwartz stated that he agrees with the proposal to omit it.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the rules include things such as a Councilmembers requesting comments to be put in the record.
Vice Chair Little responded the suggestion is not to include anything.
Chair Dieter stated the matter has nothing to do with the orderly conduct of meetings.
In response to Commissioner Foreman’s inquiry, Chair Dieter stated a statement that is read can be submitted to the City Clerk for the record.
The City Clerk noted it never happens.
Commissioner Foreman inquired why it should be eliminated.
Chair Dieter stated the Commission needs to decide; she is hearing a consensus to omit it.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a Councilmember who wants a verbatim statement put in the record could still give it to the City Clerk, to which Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Forman inquired where the language comes from, to which Chair Dieter responded Resolution 12567.
Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of adopting the subcommittee’s proposal with the amendments offered.
Commissioner Henneberry seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair Dieter recommended that the subcommittee incorporate the changes and provide the document to the City Clerk.
The City Clerk stated the recommendation will go back to the Council subcommittee, which requested a report back.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Henneberry, Little, Schwartz and Chair Dieter - 4. Abstention: Commissioner Foreman - 1.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Dieter stated when a member of public writes to the public on an agenda item, sometimes the correspondence is attached and sometimes it is not; inquired how it happens and how the public knows.
The City Clerk responded if the person copies her, the correspondence is included; stated that she will also include the correspondence if staff or Councilmember forwards it to her; anything she receives she includes; if she is not included in the loop, the correspondence does not get included.
Commissioner Foreman stated sometimes it is not received in time.
The City Clerk stated that she attempts to include anything received before the meeting begins.
Chair Dieter stated the public is not aware; suggested the Councilmembers’ website pages include: “Any correspondence regarding an agenda item that you would like attached to the staff report, please send to the City Clerk,” or something similar.
The City Clerk stated that she would work with the City’s website coordinator.
Commissioner Schwartz suggested a button be added: “To contact a Councilmember about an agenda item, click here;” then, it will go to the Council and copy the City Clerk.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the letter would remain attached if an item is continued to another meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Chair Dieter suggested the adopted rules of order be posted to the website with a link to a meeting guide with the order of business.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.