Title
Recommendation that City Council, Boards and Commissions Annually Review Meeting Schedules for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation. (Community Development 10061831) [Not heard on November 2, 2021; continued from November 16, 2021]
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council directed the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) to consider recommendations for rescheduling future City Council, Board, and Commission meetings that may fall on religious holidays, which may inhibit maximum public participation. At its August 26, 2021 meeting, the SSHRB voted to recommend that the City Council, Boards, and Commissions that hold regularly scheduled meetings survey their members before the meetings are scheduled for the following year to determine potential conflicts, such as non-Federal holidays and other events, that would inhibit maximum public participation and to reschedule those meetings as necessary.
BACKGROUND
The City Council regularly meets on the first and third Tuesday of the month. This year, the third Tuesday of July fell on the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha and the first Tuesday of September fell on Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashana. At the July 20, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council directed the SSHRB to consider policy recommendations for rescheduling future City Council and City Board/Commission meetings that may fall on dates that preclude maximum public participation.
DISCUSSION
At the SSHRB’s August 26, 2021 meeting, staff presented the issue regarding regularly scheduled public meetings that conflict with religious holidays. As part of its research, staff contacted the League of California Cities and six nearby cities (Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, Piedmont, and Pleasanton) about their policies for scheduling public meetings that coincide with religious holidays.
While local municipal offices are closed on national and secular holidays, none of the cities that were contacted have a formal policy for rescheduling public hearings and meetings that fall on religious holidays, except for Christmas because it is a national holiday. The League of California Cities is also not aware of any municipality having a formal policy. The common practice by all of the cities contacted is to plan public meeting schedules in advance around religious and cultural holidays and reschedule meetings as necessary. The City of Berkeley also reschedules meetings if they conflict with a councilmember’s schedule or other concerns. In Alameda, members of the public may rely on meetings being regularly scheduled the same days every month, such as Council meetings, since the practice has been to not change meeting dates except for national and secular holidays.
The City Attorney’s Office has advised that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. In this context, the Supreme Court has held that governmental action at issue must (1) have a secular purpose; (2) have a “principal or primary effect” that “neither advances nor inhibits religion”; and (3) does not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602.
At its August 26, 2021 meeting, members of the SSHRB expressed concern about the difficulty of making a recommendation that would impact all public meetings without understanding the needs of the public. The Board also raised concerns about determining what constitutes a religion. One board member suggested framing the issue as scheduling meetings on non-Federal holidays rather than specifically religious holidays. Two options were discussed:
1. The Council, Boards, and Commissions should survey the general public to determine dates for maximizing public participation; or
2. The Council, Boards, and Commissions, which hold regularly scheduled meetings, should survey its members before the meetings are scheduled for the following year to determine potential scheduling conflicts that would inhibit maximizing public participation and to reschedule those meetings accordingly.
There was some interest in engaging the public in a survey, but given the complicated logistics of such an endeavor, the Board opted to narrow its City Council recommendation to the second option. In addition, the City’s online surveys are voluntary with the results being subject to multiple variables and biases (such as the wording of questions, access to Internet, and available time). While the results of an online, non-random survey may help to identify certain issues, the results can only be generalized to those that have completed the survey and not to the broader public.
The Board voted unanimously to send a recommendation to the City Council that it consider having the City Council, Boards, and Commissions survey themselves before the meetings are scheduled for the following year to determine the best dates for attendance and to reschedule as necessary.
ALTERNATIVES
• Accept the SSHRB’s recommendation to have the City Council, Board Members, and Commissioner review at the beginning of the year their scheduled meetings for possible conflicts that inhibit maximum public participation and reschedule meetings as necessary.
• Do not reschedule public hearings and meetings that fall on non-Federal holidays.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is not a direct financial impact to the City’s General Fund to reviewing scheduled meetings and rescheduling as necessary.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
City Charter Section 3-7: The Council shall: (B) Hold regular meetings in the calendar year as fixed by resolution in December of the preceding year.
AMC Section 2-1.1: The regular meetings of the City Council shall be held in the designated location of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. in the calendar year as fixed by resolution in December of the preceding year.
AMC Section 2-9.1: This action is consistent with the Social Service Human Relations Board Charter and Ordinance authority “to improve social services in the community”.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15378(b)(5) (not a project); and section 15601(b)(3) (no significant environmental impact).
CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable climate impacts or climate action opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation that City Council, Boards and Commissions annually review meeting schedules for possible conflicts that inhibit maximum public participation and reschedule meetings as necessary.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager concurs with SSHRB’s recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director
By,
Eric Fonstein, Development Manager
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Annie To, Finance Director
cc: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager
Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager