|
Possible amendments to Sections 67.9, and 67.12 to 67.18 of the Sunshine Ordinance and subsequent sections as time permits.
- Sec 67.9 Agendas and Related Materials: Public Records.
- 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.
- Sec 67.18 Supervisor of Public Forum (new proposed section)
§67.9, Agendas and Related Materials
Vice-Chair Craven: Member Comstock had to step out, This is similar to the existing Ordinance, but that there have been many complaints about materials being presented immediately prior to a meeting, for example when a Department hands our a letter to members at a meeting or prior to the meeting without sufficient time for the members or the public to consider the documents. That has been addressed, so that when there is a contract or plan that the body is going to be reviewing, the public and the body will have an opportunity to study the matter before a vote is taken.
Administrator Darby: I believe we included this because Chair Comstock had some changes to recommend.
§67.12 Disclosure of Closed Session Discussions and Actions
Vice-Chair Craven: Much of this is consistent with the Brown Act, however, there is a significant addition, Subdivision (f) is a concept borrowed from a New Jersey open document law, and comes to us by way of a suggestion from the Chair. It requires that each policy body maintain a file of Closed Sessions which records the date, time, and justification for each closed session. At least quarterly, the body shall review that record to ascertain that the justification for maintaining the privacy of the record still applies. For example when litigation is settled, or the statute of limitations is passed, it is no longer necessary to maintain its secrecy and the files shall accordingly be made public. Other examples include public employee contracts, purchasing decisions and real estate. I think this is very innovative and very helpful, once departments get over the initial resistance, it should be very easy to maintain a list. We made it clear that the consideration of files would be going forward, so they do not have to go back into the long history of Closed Sessions, which would be a burden. I recommend that we pass this. Any questions, dissenting opinions? Seeing none, moving on.
67.13 Barriers to Attendance Prohibited.
Vice-Chair Craven: New provisions in this section were made with advice from the representative of the Mayor's Office of Disability, who gave us good ideas to make this language stronger and more user friendly.
Timelines were added for when requests for assisted listening devices or interpreters should be made. Fulfilling interpreter requests is not mandatory if made less than 72 hours in advance, though the departments should strive to fulfill such requests even when made after the 72 hour time has lapsed.
We encouraged all policy bodies to broadcast their meetings on the City's SFGTV channel or via audio and/or video streaming on the internet.
In (g) added that all policy bodies and passive meeting bodies shall comply with the Mayor's Office of Disability Successful Public Events Checklist, a list they use to advise bodies about what they need to do to assure accessibility.
Member Wolfe: Re (f), broadcast of meetings, noted that the Mayor attempted to remove funding for some of the broadcast of meetings, and he would like stronger language to discourage such attempts.
Vice-Chair Craven: Requested suggestions for language that would accomplish that. Noted that consideration was given at the CAC to do that, but we did not find any language that could do that without requiring that all bodies be televised or that was not fiscally or technologically, a nightmare. Some rooms are not equipped for broadcast, and we didn't want to specify one commission over another.
Member Wolfe: Suggested a timeline to comply with stronger language, such as by the year 2010 all bodies shall be televised.
Member Knee: Agreed with the deadline idea, suggested that we check with the Controller or another office that could give us a sense of what the costs associated would be.
Chair Comstock: Noted that we still need language and a landing place for it.
Member Wolfe: Suggested "All policy bodies shall be televised, and/or broadcast over the government channel and/or via audio or video stream on the internet by the year 2010.
Chair Comstock: Supposed there could be opposition to the item and to the amendments as a whole by those who feel the associated costs are prohibitive and unnecessary. The Controller's statement in the ballot handbook would use this and other associated costs in his summary to the voters, and that big ticket prices would tend to discourage more conservative voters from approving the amendments, especially as we head for a June ballot.
Member Wolfe: Asked if the other amendments we are requesting have any fiscal considerations attached?
Vice-Chair Craven: Opined that some of them do, and this would be a large ticket item that would add to that.
Member Cauthen: Stated that, while she would like to see this mandated, it could be a deal-breaker.
Member Wolfe: Noted that there were stanchions for broadcast located around the room for cameras and that there may very well be wiring already in place there for them. There is likely a plan to do this sometime in the future, since the provisions are in place, so it's just a matter of what year it will get budgeted.
Member Knee: Suggested we need to determine what the state of the various rooms is.
Administrator Darby: Inquired if we were talking about bodies that meet in City Hall or those that meet in other places as well? That Media Services might be our best bet for information of that nature regarding the rooms at City Hall.
Vice-Chair Craven: Noted that we could limit the requirement to policy bodies in the Charter.
DCA Llorente: Advised that we change the language now to capture the consensus of the group, then leave it open for discussion after we have consulted with departments to determine if it is fiscally and politically possible.
Vice-Chair Craven: Suggested language – "The Board of Supervisors, its standing committees and all Charter Commissions shall, by 2010, broadcast their meetings on the San Francisco government cable channel, and/or via audio and video streaming on the internet. All other policy bodies are encouraged to broadcast their meetings similarly, as feasible.
Chair Comstock: Requested that §67.9 be postponed until Member Pilpel is present, because he had expressed some objections to the language.
67.14 Tape Recording, Filming and Still Photography.
Member Cauthen: Prefers language that states that "the recordings, etc shall be kept by the department to which they pertain" to increase access. She cited the Library CAC's recordings, which the Library refuses to keep, so the recordings are kept at a member's home.
Vice-Chair Craven: Agreed that keeping records at someone's home is not acceptable, however the City is moving toward a central storage, especially as meetings become more digitized. This will result in economies of scale and cost savings. If each department has to have its own storage server, it becomes more costly.
Member Cauthen: As the City moves to digital or disc, the amount of space is not that great, the problem is getting departments to do it.
Vice-Chair Craven: Suggested language: "shall be kept indefinitely on City premises."
Member Wolfe: Said we need to look at what the plans are for the future and that we need to determine that from DTIS and other entities regarding a central repository for all information. There is a data center, and there is backup all the time so that it is stored somewhere or in cyberspace. What is important is that there is a backup of information.
Vice-Chair Craven: "shall be kept by the City" would encompass all the meetings, and allow departments with great storage facilities to continue to store info as they do now.
Chair Comstock: Looking at the language "encouraging bodies to digitally record their meetings", wondered if they could be required to digitally record their meetings by a certain date, noting that we do have to move in that direction. (Held up four boxes of tape recorded data.) This is just one meeting.
Member Wolfe: Stressed there are economic and environmental advantages to moving to digital recordings.
Member Chu: Asked if that was within our scope or jurisdiction to inform departments what media their records should be kept on? Does this operational detail bring us some advantage? Won't we be finding violations for failure to record digitally?
Vice-Chair Craven: Stated that it is within our jurisdiction to mandate that they are all taped, and the language now states that they be audio tape recorded, so we are trying to broaden the language to allow digital recording, rather than narrowly define how they shall be recorded as Chair Comstock suggested.
Chair Comstock: Said that he had spoken to a technician from DTIS or Media Services, regarding recording the meetings on his iPod, he was informed that the rooms are all wired for digital recording. Only the media equipment would have to be changed, perhaps requiring only a different input jack and a program to record sessions that can be downloaded for free could replace the tape recording machines.
Vice-Chair Craven: Notes that, even for off-site locations, there are inexpensive digital recording machines that would provide economic storage benefits as well as posting and feasibility. So she's not averse to saying "required" as long as we give it at least 5 years to comply.
Member Wolfe: Stated that these rooms are the only ones left that record by tape, everything else is being video recorded and stored digitally or online, so we are already there. We are doing the digital recordings. These devices that need to be replaced are very inexpensive, the Ordinance is lagging way behind technology.
Chair Comstock: Adds that there are Sunshine considerations as well, since digital recordings can be easily accessed over the web and that a digital record is more user-friendly, because you have to go through all of these tapes to find the portion that you seek, while digital records provide a dial or button that quickly moves the inquirer to the desired portion.
Member Chu: Clarifies that she is not saying digital is not good, just that she doesn't look forward to having to find a violation for failure to digitally record a meeting. Departments may find this to be overreaching.
Member Wolfe: Explained that our goal must be to move Sunshine and accessibility forward, but perhaps we could include a phrase that would allow bodies that can't afford to acquire new equipment to continue to record on tape. He expressed frustration with trying to find a particular statement on a tape recording that may be several hours long as being almost impossible. Online video recordings have a jump feature that quickly move you to the portion that you are interested in.
Vice-Chair Craven: Pointed to complaints we've had about erased tapes that were principally the same. The question is what is reasonable. We had considered requiring that Sunshine responses be posted online to decrease the number of repeat requests, etc. This requirement is in Assemblyman Leno's bill before the legislature now.
Administrator Darby: Speaking as a Records Manager, we often have to look at whether the technology will continue to exist in the future and whether we will be able to continue to retrieve that information later as the technology moves forward. Keep in mind as you make narrow requirements that the City may have to bear the costs of migrating that information to a new technology and keeping the old technology to read the information.
Vice-Chair Craven: Observed that is what we are doing now with tape recordings and asked if anyone had been to a microfiche room recently.
Chair Comstock: Remarked that we should get an estimate of the costs to convert to the new technology when DTIS or similar authorities are before us.
Vice-Chair Craven: Proposed that the language require digital recording by 2013.
Member Chan: Stated that he supports digital recording.
§67.15 Public Testimony.
Chair Comstock: Introduced the changes. (c) Time and Order of Speakers is a substantial change.
Vice-Chair Craven: (b) shouldn't be underlined, it is not new, it was moved from (a) to (b). (c) has substantial changes, including raising the minimum speaking time to three minutes,
Member Cauthen: It currently says up to three minutes, originally it said a minimum of three minutes, now it's back to that, which is a good idea.
Vice-Chair Craven: And it provides an out, under (2) that gives leeway to the Chair to allow only two minutes under certain defined conditions. We had considered allowing five minutes, but reconsidered after a time and went back to three.
Member Cauthen: Asked what a "large number of speakers" means.
Chair Comstock: That is left up to the discretion of the Chair. But the recently overused automatic two-minute time limit without any consideration of the size of the audience, was not what the relaxed limitation in Prop G contemplated.
Vice-Chair Craven: In addition, there is the accommodation for those who need extra speaking time, such as speaking through an interpreter, or someone who has speech challenges.
Member Cauthen: Accommodation needs to be clarified, because a Chair could accommodate a speaker who hadn't said everything they wanted in three minutes. We need to spell out the interpreter and speech challenged public in the language.
Vice-Chair Craven: Agreed. So the language should read, "who need accommodation for an interpreter or because they have a disability.
Chair Comstock: Item (3) Authorizing a Designated Speaker may be more controversial than the other items, but only initially. This is an idea that neighborhood activists have been advocating for many years, and from many years of experience, it has been observed that when there is a controversial issue before a board or commission, there is usually a leader, or there are a few leaders that are more knowledgeable than their supporters on an issue, and there should be an accommodation for those leaders. This would tend to even the playing field, since departments can present their side on an issue without limitation of time, and often may take an hour or more to make a presentation, while the public is often limited to two minutes, regardless of their expertise. Sometimes there will be a board or committee member who will graciously ask a question, but this usually only happens when there is a member who is friendly to the sentiment of the speaker, and is an end-run around the Ordinance as well as being unfair to those who espouse a particularly unpopular opinion. This solution came about in cooperation with Martin MacIntyre, the first President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (some 35 years ago).
Having a designated speaker gives community groups an opportunity to present their case in full by a knowledgeable speaker, whether in opposition or support of a proposed action. This item gives a Designated Speaker or Speakers up to 15 minutes to present the views of a group. It will not take up more time than is currently expended, since members of the public, willing and present, donate their three minutes to the Speaker.
Member Goldman: Asked, "How do they manage that? So no one else can speak on the issue?"
Chair Comstock: Public Comment is allowed, as it currently exists. Only those who designate their speaking time to the Speaker will not be allowed to speak. (3)(B) defines the method for designating a Speaker. It requires that six members of the public be present and prepared to speak and that they relinquish their time to the Designated Speaker in writing.
And the Speaker as well as the department or whoever is proposing an action, will have five minutes immediately prior to the vote to summarize if they choose to do so.
Member Chan: So if I bring 15 people, and they donate their time that I would be allowed to speak 45 minutes?
Vice-Chair Craven: No it is a maximum of 15 minutes. And we need to be clear that it is not a case where six people could hand in Designated Speaker cards and then leave the meeting, they must be present for the presentation. Interest groups already pack meetings and instruct speakers regarding their speaking time, so it's not so different from the way it is currently, nor is it subject to abuse that doesn't already exist. I think it is a very interesting idea.
Perhaps the most controversial part of this is the part that allows the Designated Speaker 15 minutes or as long as the department had to present their case. This is in response to many complaints we've heard about how long presentations, with several speakers and consultants who may speak for 40 minutes, while the public is limited to two minutes. I don't find this to be inherently bad. While it is important that boards and commissions hear a full report on proposed legislation, and be allowed to ask questions to their satisfaction, I'm not sure they should be required to give equal time to the "gadflies," since the time of a commission is valuable. I am not against this, but I can see that this might be the cause for Complaints in the future, because it is difficult to administer. However, since it does exclude the time for questions and answers from the board, it may not be as difficult as it otherwise would be.
Member Wolfe: Doesn't think the public would have much of a problem if they were confident that the board would ask the questions they want to have asked. The public gets exasperated when, for example, a committee passes on something without asking the questions the public may want to hear. I think the public would want to have equal time to make their case. And you will have the "gadflies" who do come and do the work, and they do it for free.
Chair Comstock: I'd be willing to scratch, "or for the time which is equal to the time& posed by the body." If that would facilitate the passage of the amendments, so that we could take this baby step now, and add the equal time language perhaps ten years down the line.
Vice-Chair Craven: Then we should take out the "up to" so that the Speaker shall present arguments for 15 minutes.
Re item (4), we have had several complaints about the order of speakers, and the public's perceived bias by the Chair of some commissions and the order of speakers. However, I would give the Chair discretion when there is good cause, such as when there may be childcare issues. So that it reads: "A chair shall accept public testimony in a fair and evenhanded way, without manipulation in the order of speakers, absent good cause."
Member Cauthen: (4) A) should read: "Speaker cards, when available and submitted, shall be used in the order of submission to designate the order of speakers" rather than "as the order of speakers."
Chair Comstock: Very good.
Vice-Chair Craven: That leaves (4) (f), a significant addition that should be called out.
Member Goldman: Isn't this common sense, kind of ADA compliant?
Vice-Chair Craven: This came to us from a complaint by Mr. Chaffee, because he was not allowed to use a projector or other equipment that the Library Commission had used, to make his public comment presentation. So this is a provision to allow that based on a complaint that has come before us.
Member Wolfe: Mr. Chaffee has been making Powerpoint presentations to the Board of Supervisors for at least a year, so the Library Commission should have no qualms about allowing him to use their equipment.
§ Sec 67.16 Minutes
Chair Comstock: There are a few changes in (b). For example, that the minutes shall reflect when members arrive and depart. And then later "Any person may submit written comments that shall, if no more than 150 words, be included in the body of the minutes."
Member Cauthen: Or be attached, I think that would keep the minutes from being cluttered by lot of comment, as long as the comment is referenced it would be better to be attached.
Member Wolfe: Where would the reference be located?
Member Cauthen: In the body of the minutes, and I think we need to insert some language here that would require the City Administrator to provide assistance to the person who takes minutes about how to attach comments to documents to fulfill the web requirement in (c). I know we've had complaints about secretaries who responded that they didn't have the technical know-how to fulfill some requirement, and I know that, as the new Chair of the Library CAC, I would not have the know how to attach something to a document for the web. I would insert some language in (c) after "website," "the CAO will assist policy bodies in carrying out their duties under this subsection."
Chair Comstock: Any objections to that? No? I think it helps.
Vice-Chair Craven: Suggested the language regarding real time captioning in the last sentence, should add the word "also" so it is less confusing. And that the CAO assistance language Member Cauthen suggested should come after the last sentence that deals with real time captioning.
Member Wolfe: Asked if there was any suggestion from the Mayor's Office of Disability came to the CA C, did they have any suggestions about leaving the door open for new technologies that may develop in these provisions? I just want to make sure we leave the language broad enough to adapt to new circumstances.
Member Craven: They talked about specific language that avoids problems down the line regarding certain phrases, there was no discussion about technology per se. I think the term "captioning" captures any similar technology that may come about for now.
Member Wolfe: I'm concerned about "real time" which is a specific technology that will evolve.
Member Craven: Would simply saying "captioning" be better?
Member Wolfe: No, I was just wondering if the MOD had any comments about the phrase.
§ Sec 67.17 Public Comment by Members of Policy Bodies
Chair Comstock: This language is pretty much the same as the old language
This is meant to clarify the intent of the Ordinance regarding the members rights to speak on issues that may not be popular with a majority of the members. There is a member of the PUC's Revenue Bond Oversight Committee, an appointee from the Board of Supervisors, and an engineer who is not allowed to speak unless he has permission from other members to do so. I do not think this is what being on a Board or Commission is meant to be about.
Member Wolfe: Tends to agree, but are we limiting the ability to deliberate? Roberts Rules allows speakers to speak two times. How about allowing bodies to set up their own rules.
Chair Comstock: That is just the problem at the RBOC, where members who have been appointed to oversee the expenditure of billions are not allowed to satisfy the questions they have before they vote on issues.
§ Sec 67.18 Supervisor of Public Forum (new proposed section)
Vice-Chair Craven: This came from public suggestions, because whereas we have a Supervisor of Records, we do not have something similar for meetings.
Member Wolfe: Asked whether this position could be adjoined to our body, because we're having an individual make determinations. I'm uncomfortable with this.
Vice-Chair Craven: I think it's a good thing to have a stand-alone person you can go to if you need definitive clarification regarding a public process, such as:" does the Chair have to take public comment on each subdivision of an item on the agenda, or only on the item?" The SOTF may agree or disagree with the conclusion of the Supervisor of Public Forums.
Member Chu: Cautioned about the perceived cost of the position, and inquired if it could be combined with the Supervisor of Public Records?
Chair Comstock: Pointed to the fact that there are so few complaints about public meetings, that it would not be a full-time job. It would likely be assigned to existing staff.
Speakers: None
Sections 67.12 through 67.18 were discussed and the Administrator recorded recommended amendments.
Chair Comstock: Asked the Administrator to invite someone from the Controller's Office, the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services and Media Services to attend a subsequent meeting to discuss the feasibility of requiring digital recording as proposed in §67.13 (f), and 67.14 (d), and to provide an estimated cost to implement such measures.
|