|
Possible amendments to Sections 67.7 to 67.17 of the Sunshine Ordinance and subsequent sections as time permits.
- Sec 67.7 Agenda Requirement; Regular Meetings.
- Sec 67.7-1 Public Notice Requirement
- Sec 67.8 Agenda Disclosures: Closed Sessions
- Sec 67.8-1 Additional Requirements for Closes Sessions
- Sec 67.9 Agendas and Related Materials: Public Records
- Sec 67.10 Closed Sessions: Permitted Topics.
- Sec 67.11 Statement and Reasons for Closed Sessions.
- Sec 67.12 Disclosure of Closed Session Discussions and Actions.
- Sec 67.13 Barriers to Attendance Prohibited.
- Sec 67.14 Tape Recording, Filming and Still Photography.
- Sec 67.15 Public Testimony.
- Sec 67.16 Minutes
- Sec 67.17 Public Comment by Members of Policy Bodies.
Chair Comstock said that public comment would be entertained if there are substantive changes to a section.
Member Craven: the major change in this section is in 67.7(c) which require policy bodies to post agendas outside their meeting rooms, at the main library and at branch libraries, with a branch library requirement satisfied if the branch library has accessible computers where agendas are available and 67.7(f) which deals with information in alternative formats. This section (f) was amended with language obtained through the assistance of the Mayor's Office of Disability.
Member Pilpel: have objections to the posting of the agendas outside the meeting room. It might be a problem for meetings that do not have posting facilities outside the meeting room. Those bodies that meet outside City Hall may not be able to meet this requirement.
Member Craven we could accommodate those situations by allowing those that meet outside City Hall to post agendas "where practicable."
Member Knee: Insert three words. After meeting rooms insert the words "unless demonstrably impracticable."
Member Craven: I suggest, "unless the meeting is not held on City controlled property."
Member Comstock: Any objections?
Member Pilpel: re subsection (f) why is the last line in the existing language not included? I think we can unstrike the last sentence.
Member Craven: That's language we added at Compliance & Amendments.
Public Comment regarding 67.7:
Peter Warfield urged that the double underlined language in section (c) be eliminated because it reduces the awareness of a meeting since the public frequently does not have easy access to computers in the library, since there is usually a waiting list for computer use.
And, at least 160,000 people do not have access to the internet. The waiting lists deprive the average library user from an accessible agenda.
Member Pilpel asked Mr. Warfield if he were proposing that all 27 branch libraries maintain a binder similar to the binder at the Govt. Information Center at the Main Library for all public meetings? Mr. Warfield said, that there may be a solution, or a bulletin board.
Member Craven: The point here is that this section brings additional posting requirements to branch libraries.
Member Wolfe: Posting should be available for disabled persons, such as the posting of meetings such as City College has on a wall that is accessible.
Member Knee: I'd like to propose the following language for 67.7(a) "Agendas shall specify whether each item of business is subject to possible action or for discussion only."
67.7 (b) substitute the word "shall" for "should" and cross out the word "brief."
67.7(c) (Line 20) Cross out the word "regular." (Line 22) Cross out the word "freely."
67.7(e)(2) End the sentence after the word "deferred", cross out "to a subsequent special or regular meeting"
67.7(f) Cross out the words "Upon request," Change sentence to read "Materials shall be made available in alternative formats when so requested of the secretary or clerk of the commission."
Member Comstock: Are there any objections to those changes?"
Member Pilpel: I've already stated my opposition to the words "to a subsequent meeting" in 67.7(e)
Also at 67.7(a) I'd like the language to read (lines 8-9) add sentence "items subject to possible action shall specify the intended course of action."
Member Wolfe: I think that would limit the actions a body could take by pigeon-holing their course of action.
Member Craven: I think that would tread on the Brown Act. I think we just leave it consistent with what it is.
Member Pilpel: Where, however there is a proposed course of action, one that is proposed by staff, I think that should be disclosed. I don't think that is a substantial burden.
Member Wolfe: Can you give me an example of when that does not take place?
Member Knee: Not all actions are recommended by staff, in our own body, actions typically come from committees. I agree with Mr. Pilpel that a body must specify a course of action when it is known.
Member Comstock: I agree with Member Pilpel as well, that if a specific action is proposed, it shall be included in the agenda item.
Any objections? None.
Member Pilpel: What are we contemplating in (c) "in the branch libraries and in a location that is accessible to members of the public."
Member Craven: "in locations that are freely accessible to members of the public. "Freely" is back in.
Member Pilpel Why is subsection (e)(3) proposed to be yanked?
Member Craven: I think it's because it's because we are requiring a 72-hour posting. Mr. Llorente do you remember this matter?
DCA Llorente: I think Mr. Comstock objected to a case where an item was continued, but there was no further notice of the proposed action, therefore those who were not at the first meeting did not know what was proposed to take place at the continued meeting.
Member Pilpel: 549.551 I remember that the PUC sometimes has a problem maintaining a quorum during budget meetings and that it recesses a meeting for 5 days.
Member Craven: I think this may have been stricken accidentally. I think Member Comstock wanted to have the previous agenda posted with the continued meeting so with the consent of the members, I would keep it consistent with the Brown Act so
Member Pilpel: add, "notice of the recessed meeting will be posted with the agenda of the prior meeting.
Member Craven addition the notice of the continued item should be posted with the agenda of the previous meeting.
Member Pilpel: It's not the item that is continued, it's the meeting.
Member Wolfe: (e) talks about "items" of business not appearing
Member Pilpel: OK if both the item was continued within a 5 day timeframe,
Member Craven: In addition, notice of the continuation shall be posted with the agenda of the prior meeting, specifying that a particular agenda item was continued to that meeting.
Member Pilpel: It's still awkward. It still needs to be clear about which is the new meeting and which is the old meeting.
Mr. Darby: I will get that tape for Mr. Comstock to review.
Member Craven: Then we should continue this item to the next meeting.
Public Comment:
Emerik Kalman said that the brief summary requirement in Section 67.16 is not sufficient for minutes. He said that more than the action should be recorded.
Kimo Crossman reminded the members that he had requested a screen and projector were not provided and said that a 5-day notice is more reasonable than a 72-hour notice, especially since some agendas are posted close to weekends, and does not allow the public adequate time to learn about respond to actions.
Member Cauthen: the 72-hour notice works for items that come up to the wire, and while I believe the 5 day notice would be optimal, it makes acting on recent changes, etc very difficult.
Member Pilpel: There are several ways to slice up the policy bodies. One way is the frequency of the meetings. Those bodies that meet weekly, a 3-day notice is appropriate, if they meet twice a month, or more, than 5 days is appropriate, and if they meet once a month, or at the call of the Chair, then 7 days would be appropriate.
Member Cauthen: I think a weeks notice would hamstring many committees, especially 7-days for advisory committees. For example, the CAC for the Library meets a few days after that Commission, and needs to respond to the actions of that body.
Member Wolfe: I agree with Mr. Pilpel, I know of many monthly meeting bodies that require 10 days notice. I think 7 days is more than adequate, and if a body can't get it together to get a notice together in that time frame, then so be it. They can always call a special meeting.
Member Cauthen: I would be strongly opposed to that, I know that groups I belong to or have served on would not be able to respond timely to matters if they were held to this requirement.
Member Comstock: Then we can leave this section open for further revisions if there are no objections? (None were heard.)
Member Wolfe: Is there a motivation to put this on the ballot for this year?
Member Comstock: that is our hope. Member Cauthen: I have the following language suggestion for this section:
Line 11: cross out "to residents residing within a specific area" after residents insert "within a specific area"
Line 15: "provide telephone, fax and email."
Line 17: cross out "or hearing"
Line 18: cross out "the public meeting or hearing"
Line 19: cross out "by the time the proceeding begins., insert instead "prior to the meeting.
Line 20: cross out "regarding the subject of the meeting or hearing that" and go on to the next line and a capitol T for "These".
Public Comment regarding 67.7-1: Kimo Crossman suggested that the last sentence in Sub-section 3 also require the person's fax number and e-mail address.
Public Comment regarding 67.8-1: Kimo Crossman said that it is good the way it is set up.
(Regarding 67.9)
Member Pilpel: regarding 67.9 "be available to the public in sufficient quantities at the hearing commensurate with the anticipated number of people attending the hearing" this language means that if 200 people may show up at an EIR meeting, does that mean that 200 copies of an EIR shall be made available without the ability to recover costs?
Member Wolfe: School Board and City College do it all the time.
Member Pilpel: They chose to do it, but I'm not sure I want to burden Planning with such a requirement.
Member Wolfe: then you are not serving the public.
Member Pilpel: I don't think there is any requirement that agendas be made available to the public for free. There is a posting requirement, but not a free agenda requirement. I can't support this.
Member Pilpel: I would like language that says there will be copies of the non-privileged agenda packet available for review in the meeting room of a policy body, at least one.
Member Craven: "made available at least 48 hours prior to a meeting on the website.
Public review copies of the agenda and all the documents constituting the meeting packet shall be made available at the meeting in sufficient quantities commensurate with the number of people attending the meeting."
Member Wolfe: I'd like a ratio of 1 to 5
Member Craven: To move on, add unless demonstrably unfeasible. At the beginning of that sentence.
Member Pilpel: With regard to meeting packets, no objections to documents created by a department or received in conjunction with contracts being posted on the website, but sometimes these materials can be quite lengthy, especially in the case of the planning commission, a case report might make sense. Question does "demonstrably unfeasible" apply to each document or to the packet as a whole? I'm concerned about what is practical for the departments.
Member Comstock: This item is here because we heard complaints about Commissions adopting 2000 page plans at a meeting before which the plan was not available for public inspection.
Member Craven: "demonstrably feasible" is language which covers this problem.
Regarding 67.8-1(b)
Member Pilpel: I'm not sure a document is acted upon, maybe an issue? The section allowing one member of a policy body to delay a matter for 48 hours.
Member Knee: Line 12 insert the words "regarding an item" after the word document.
Member Wolfe: This language is clear. "Any document being acted upon."
Member Craven: we need to make this language clear.
Member Wolfe: subject to "adoption or approval"
Member Craven: "any document subject to adoption, approval or award by a policy body is not available 48 hours before the meeting at which the document is scheduled to be adopted, approved or awarded."
Member Pilpel: I just object to this because it gives too much weight to a single member of the body.
Member Pilpel: With regard to the 20/20 vision requirement. This is not in the current language.
Member Comstock: This came about because we received complaints about required documents being provided in such tiny print that they were illegible.
Member Pilpel: I think this can be moved to 67.13 or dropped.
Member Wolfe: there is a standard for text is 12pt type in ADA regulations.
Agreed to move to 67.13 "The materials that are distributed& reading them."
Member Pilpel: Can we move (d) to 67.28-9 so that all fee related items are in one place?
Member Craven: It is already there. But it is slightly different. This covers public records prepared for a public meeting.
Agreed to move to 67.28
Public Comment regarding 67.9 Kimo Crossman said that departments should be required to post packet contents in their original electronic format. He said that there already is a 10-day rule on 67.24 and that anyone should be able to invoke the 48-hour rule, not just a member of a policy body.
Sections 67.7 through 67.9 were discussed and the Administrator recorded recommended amendments.
|