Okay, welcome everyone to the March 19th, 2026 Alameda County Elections Commission meeting.

And could we get a call to order?

All right, Commissioner Belcher.

Commissioner Butter.

Are you on the mic?

Yes, yeah.

He's yeah, yeah, he's on the paper.

Oh, no, you didn't.

All right, I'll start over.

Commissioner Belcher.

Commissioner Butter.

Commissioner Henderson.

Here.

Commissioner Lindsay.

Commissioner Moore.

Commissioner Bam.

Here.

Commissioner Ritzy Hernandez.

Here.

Commissioner Subra.

Commissioner Barley.

Here.

Commissioner Wagner.

Here.

Commissioner Whitehurst.

Here.

Vice President Remote.

President Deter.

Here.

Okay.

Everyone, just to let you know that Alex Ramone cannot attend tonight.

And Karen Butter can't can't attend.

She should be online.

And she could they come to participants.

I'm not sure she can participate remote if we we didn't notice it.

Did we?

Okay.

Yeah, it's on the my apologies.

I'm CRD.

Okay.

So maybe she'll have a name, but it says teleconference location.

Oh, I'm asking it.

Right.

Okay, well, maybe um Commissioner Butter will join us at some point.

I'm not sure.

She does not count towards her forum anyway because she's out of the county.

And Carl is running a little late, so we should be joining us soon.

So there are no swearing in of new commissioners, so I'm wondering if anyone has any agenda changes.

Hearing none.

Um we have no move on to the next one.

Our reviewing the minutes has been postponed to the following meeting.

Does anyone have any announcements or communications?

And we'll start with staff.

Not at this time.

Okay, and commissioners.

Yes.

Hi, this is Susan.

I might just have a quick announcement about the fact that starting with our February 2026 meeting, the videos on the website will be captioned and helped ensure accessibility.

So thank you for making that happen.

So they perhaps we can go back and do the rest of the thing.

And I have an announcement that the League of Women Voters has a game, a voting literacy game that everyone is welcome to participate in.

So I did get 100% on the voting section.

So I'm feeling pretty good about that.

And of course, if anyone has any suggestions to add other questions, you can uh let me know.

Okay.

Any other communications.

Okay, so we'll move on to public comment.

Those making public comment, please raise your hand.

We have no one.

Alrighty.

So we'll close public comment on agenda items.

And we're going to move to the monthly update from the registrar of voters, which is pages three to five.

So within the agenda packet, as President Deater said, pages three to five.

A list of the outreach events that we have conducted.

One of the part of the request was three months in advance.

So what we did was provide from January through some of April that we had confirmed.

And the latest update that I received this morning was actually that they have now confirmed through June and are still adding.

So we continue to add outreach events that we get confirmed from the various.

We go to festivals, we go to all the communities that have events we get invited to.

So the underserved communities, the multicultural, multi-language communities, the disability communities, senior youth, restored.

So within all of the voting communities, we reach out to our partners and to try to acquire new partners.

And we attend their community, their events.

So what I provided was a list of the events that we have conducted and upcoming events.

And we I also wanted to note that our website also has a calendar, a list of events that our team posts where they're going to be.

Okay, I'd like to open it up for questions or comments.

Commissioner Lindsay.

Yeah, it's the high school events that we do.

High school voter education week.

Oh, I see.

That's a dumb.

And then there were a couple places, all of them say registration drive, but a couple of them say a festival.

So we attend a lot of festivals and we do voter registration.

We provide education depending on the community, depending on the location.

So if we're in Oakland, for example, we would also promote education on Rain Source Voting or youth voting.

Just depending on the area that we're in, it's tailored to the voters within the yes, Commissioner Leipers.

Yeah.

So thank you for this.

So what happens at the high school voter education?

So depending on the high school, because each high school has a different requirement or what they allow us to do when they allow us to come.

But what primarily what the outreach team does is they promote pre-registration.

Especially in communities where we may know that the pre-registration votes are low for the youth.

We also within Oakland and Berkeley now promote youth voting because a lot of the students are eligible to pre-register.

They don't even know that, let alone know, hey, if you pre-register, and in November, you can vote.

And so they provide the education also for youth vote.

We also provide the option of becoming part of our student election worker program and tell them what that's about, tell them how they can participate, tell them that depending on the uh school that they might be able to gain credits that they may they will get a stipend for the time that they served.

So it's it's a host of information and of course um getting them to participate.

Um follow-up to that is um so do the schools reach out to you or do you reach out to the school, but if the school is interested in having you come, how do they meet you?

Um so we because of the the schools in the county, we've been doing this for a while.

We have the partnerships with the schools and the administration, but the administration changes vice principals, principals.

So we always make sure that we reach out every school year to make sure that we introduce ourselves and that they know that this is a program that you know that we've um partnered with their school district and with the high schools.

Uh so I think it's both.

If they have a particular event that they want us to help out with, we definitely go.

Um sometimes it's um we've gone to homecomings where we set up a table, like the homecoming football game.

We're out there and we get not just students, we get the parents, we get adults.

Um we also uh some rallies we're able to go outside.

It's hard to get into inside rallies because they're um you know it's limited to the to people that can be within those.

So the question where on the website is someone wants to have an outbreak that whether it's a church school or organization.

Um where do they go to get that?

So we have a outreach page.

There's also one for language that you can contact us.

Um, and then we can has a direct line, a phone number to our outreach team for any one of the communities that we support.

Um we also have where they call us directly to our main line, and there's a tree of options that you can specifically say outreach, and you'll be connected to the outreach team there.

Um, you can email the outreach team.

Uh so there's different ways to be able to communicate with our team to book an event or you know, discuss how we can um partner with them.

So there's the outreach page on the summer side.

I have a question.

Hi.

So I was as you know, we haven't got to the subcommittee yet, but we're working on reviews and I was doing some research, and some of the school might hang where that are underserved are not listed here, like Tennyson.

Um, so I was wondering um, is there any formula that's used to determine what Alameda High Schools will be visited?

So we contact all the high schools.

This is just a list as of the date that we that we generated it.

So we have, like I said, through June and through the high school voter age of two weeks.

So I'm sure that if they've contacted and the school has agreed that we booked an event.

Okay.

And then a follow-up question is is this different from the week that we discussed um at a previous commission meeting with that Dr.

Weber, the Secretary of State sends materials for us, or it's the same.

It's the same.

Okay.

And so do they have any oversight as to what schools are getting the I guess interaction from the ROV?

The Secretary of State?

Yes.

They don't have direct inner um interaction in terms of visit these schools.

It's more, we just actually had a conference called with the Secretary of State.

Um, and that's one of the high items on her list in terms of voter education and outreach, and she really promotes high school voter education weeks.

And if we're if we can, our team will book with the state's outreach team, which we've done many of times, where they will come out and support us uh to promote pre-registration and youth participation.

So it's more on a higher level and where it gets granular is when we're able to get them to come in to us and um participate in the events with okay.

Last question, I promise.

Um I was looking at some of the events that you signed up for, and I didn't see the Black Joy Parade on there, and I know that that's a very well-attended event.

So I was just wondering when you're picking out which festivals to attend, is there somebody who's kind of giving you input as to what should be on the list?

So we have a long list of um events that are annual that we go to.

So like I said, uh I don't know exactly when that event is, but I can check with the team because as of today the list has grown tremendously.

So I can check on that.

It was a couple of weeks ago.

Okay, I can check.

And see what happened.

Um first of all, a point of order is Commissioner Butter is trying to get online, and it says that the system does not recognize her.

I don't know if it's at her end or at our end.

So she in the meeting or um she says that it doesn't recognize that she is online.

So maybe you can ask her to get out, try to come back and show the iPad.

I see a KAB iPad.

Okay, I don't know.

I think probably is sounds like the middle name of A rings a bell for me for some reason.

Okay, she just figured it out.

It was her.

Okay.

So that's good.

Um so I I have a follow-up question too.

So it sounds like you have um relationships already with lots of places, right?

And so you you're you're already part of if somebody new wants to participate, there's a place where they can go online, correct?

And um, does the ROV go out on their own to try to absolutely within every community, every voting community when you try.

Uh we had an event recently because we were looking more for what the um voter participation subcommittee wanted, which was the specific of black and brown pen.

So we provided that um direction to our outreach coordinator, uh, you know, to reach out, and where she started was faith-based, um, to see if you know if there were some events that we could specifically attend, and we were fortunate enough to get invited to two, and it was actually um uh for underserved for restored and for um black and brown.

So they they checked all the boxes at that, and so now we have them um as a partner and can be invited um to future events that they have, and it's very specific.

And our team, I know after talking with the outreach coordinator, she was so happy to be able to connect because they gained a lot of insight and hopefully some future partnerships because it's about gaining trust.

It is so of course, if the voter participation committee actually had some ideas, they can provide that please do to the art.

We're always open to creating new partnerships.

Okay, Commissioner Lindsay.

Yeah, I'm really thrilled to hold up here about the proactive yes uh contact.

Um, because well, you saw right enough.

That's great as opposed to truly reactive, adding in some proactive part to it too.

There's groups popping up all the time, um and other groups really unfortunately sometimes they're great groups that just can't make financial anymore and have to close shop.

Um and so you know, somebody who has their ear to the ground and is seeing you know new opportunities.

That's that's pretty great.

And it was interesting how we found this group.

Um, this group was um a group that is um within a church, and um our coordinator was able to talk to um the administrators of the church, actually the pastor and say, you know, we're we're looking to reach out more, you know, if you have any ideas, and um he was able to tell us what we have this group, you know.

You're welcome to come and um reach you know participate with that, and we did it was successful.

Thanks for great, yes, Commissioner Wine.

Is on the web.

So we are in the process now of building it out so we can go and kick it off.

Um, I actually just reviewed today.

Um, we have a lot of meetings in the office.

Um, the program, and I believe we finalize the program now.

When it's um the youth leadership program, I believe is what we landed on in terms of an official name, and so we're going to um formalize it with an actual plan and um uh PowerPoint presentation, and once we get that rolled out, that will be on our website.

And will you be able um to share and they impact of the high school for education week in terms of the number of high school students who actually register?

Yes, we can provide a total of the number of youths that pre-registered.

I think heard one question.

Yeah.

And that's that was an only part of what was already said to be for the sessions.

Yeah.

So he was like, how do we how do we measure the success that we're having?

I'll be interested in knowing like the numbers and what that looks like because this is a thing is great that we're doing outreach.

And then based on the information that we're gathering about how we're being successful, what are the things that share?

What are the changes that are in the based on the data that you're getting these outreach efforts?

So in terms of pre-registrants, um, and then once they hit 18 and how they participate, right?

Are they voting?

And um data can be looked at in terms of well, they pre-registered, they were eligible at this time, what's the next election?

Um, and we could put together some data to look at that and see to kind of get the overall effect of what we've been doing.

And we're actually re-looking at that because it's just not data that's that's available in our election management system, unfortunately.

They're they're not built that way.

Um, so we're trying to find different ways that we can collect data in terms of um like what were the results of this, especially now with youth voting in Berkeley and Oakland.

Um we really want to be able to gauge, and that's a little easier to gauge right now because it's new.

So we know how many potential were eligible as pre-registrants in those two districts.

Um, what was the turnout?

Because you can see who voted, how many voted?

So that's easier to gauge.

Um, I I would like to say one of the new initiatives that um we've decided to do and we're finalizing probably more for November, is um when a pre-registrant becomes eligible at 18.

Um, they get by law a voter notification card.

So our team we thought, hmm, what else could we do?

So we're gonna send them a birthday card.

Um, and we're finalizing the the uh artwork on it now, which is going to say happy birthday.

You're now eligible to vote.

So they'll get that in addition to their voter notification card.

There's a voter notification card we can't change.

That's by law, the formats by law.

But we thought it would be pretty neat for them to get a happy birthday from the registrar voters of that one to the camera.

Awesome.

So that'll be in placement over.

Yeah, I just had one other idea, just in terms of proactive stuff.

There's some really vibrant parks, you know, um San Antonio comes to mind.

So um every time I go there, there's like a whole bunch of people, and it's like every it's I mean, it's incredibly it's pretty awesome.

Um and so, you know, theoretically, theoretically, they might just go out there and pop the table down, you know.

Um see what happens, you know.

It's it's big people are all over the park, so I'm not sure they would necessarily find the table, except Sunday mornings there's a soccer league or something in place there, and there's a ton of people, I mean a ton of people.

We'll make no uh but um you know just that sort of thing, maybe is doable.

I don't know.

Uh just throwing it out.

No, it's great.

I can pass it on to our outreach audience.

Another point of order.

Um the commissioner Butter is online now, but she said there is no option to turn on the camera.

Yes, uh, we need to know uh who she is.

If she could uh Commissioner Butter, can you raise your hand?

We're gonna promote you to a panelist, you must accept it was the iPad do iPads have a hard time connecting or oh no, just so I turn in terms of identifying because if yeah, there wasn't a name, it was just KAV.

Commissioner Butter should be able to unmute yourself now.

Thank you.

Okay, fix that.

Okay, and one thing that I did um notice is there's a little bit of overlap going on between the youth participation committee and the voters.

So you guys might be able to um connect in terms of sharing information um without violating the Brown Act, of course.

But um anyway, I just see a little bit of overlap in that regard.

It's a good idea, but the voter participation committee is already five people.

Oh and so we would automatically be in violation if we tried to do okay um both you're on both, but then there's two other people with you, and that would make seven, and that would be a majority of the two committees reported together.

It's just I don't know.

That is interesting.

Are you the only one on both committees?

Okay, all right.

So um well, it wouldn't be a good idea, but we've fortunately the ROV has shared some statistics that both committees will be able to work off of.

So that's really good.

Okay, so Carl has around just oh, okay.

I'm not really sure.

I I received an inquiry.

Um, and I think it's on the website now.

The candidates for office have been posted.

And the person who approached me said typically the uh contact information for those candidates have been included, but this time it's not I can go over that in my special report.

Okay, okay.

I just don't want to forget no worries.

Okay, does anyone else have any questions of the ROV or comments?

Madam President, if you don't mind if I um I do have one quick inquiry if that's if that's all right with the rest of the commission.

Thank you.

Uh I was just curious to know if there is any plans to do uh voter uh register or get out the vote for or voter registration during uh national night out.

Well obviously it wasn't uh shown here because it's uh it's not going until August, but national night out is on the first Tuesday of August itself.

We usually participate in that.

Just depends if there's a conflict within election.

Got it.

Hopefully there shouldn't be.

Fingers crossed.

Okay, moving right along to the ad hoc committee reports.

And the very first one is the November 2025 post-election assessment, which has been around um for a few months.

We haven't been able to hear this assessment to get feedback on it.

Um but with that, the lead on this committee is online, um, which is Karen, but we also have um commissioners Wagner and FAM on it too, if we want to ask them uh here in person.

So Karen, did you would you like to introduce this items?

Yeah, I will.

Can you go ahead and hear?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you for getting me online.

I couldn't figure out how to do it.

So um, and I understand that the name of my iPad is not uh uh transparent.

Um so as you noted, um Commissioner Wagner and Commissioner Pham and I worked on this, and I think we completed it by early January.

So it's been around for a couple of months.

Um and then during that time we also asked the ROV to make comments on the document as well.

Um and I'm hoping that in the future we'll be able to get um the report in uh more timely fashion to the Board of Supervisors, um, because as we all know, we're coming up on another election in a couple of months.

So um, and I don't know how we want to go through it.

Um we can go through item by item, or I can uh or we can accept comments um about the document as a whole um or work on specific sections.

So um and I don't know whether Commissioner Pham or Wagner have any suggestions about how best to um work through the documents.

Well, I'd I'd like to suggest that we first have clarifying questions and action item and open it up to the floor, but of course, your teammates here, your um committee is welcome to say anything else before we open it up for clarifying questions.

If anything sorry, I was gonna say that uh with regards if anyone had inquiries with regards to I think it's the third point or this.

Let me take a look here.

Uh the third point, set the second point with regards to the voting locations.

I could uh help clarify anything from that point forward.

Commissioner Pham, why don't you go ahead?

We win back and forth quite a bit um on that specific item.

So why don't you go ahead?

Thank you, Commissioner Brothers.

Uh the issue, particularly during that day and days prior for uh my office when we were handling these, you know, the ballots, well, not necessarily handling the ballots, was that we were receiving many inquiries from the public that were coming into City Hall itself and asking where do I drop off my ballot uh ball um my ballot when it was basically right in front of the parking lot, and unfortunately uh uh they knew it was at the city hall, they just didn't know specifically where.

So of course, staff and I would basically help guide them to the ballot drop-off location in front of City Hall itself.

So the um so basically it's not to saying there was nothing wrong with the look uh issue with uh the ROV provided, it was just mainly uh what ways could the ROV provide more information to help guide to the about location uh drop off block box versus them going all the way to City Hall coming over there and saying where is it from that point forward?

So that was the one concern that I have is like if there's a way to help guide the voters to the actual location rather than going all the way to City Hall itself.

Are there any follow-up questions to Commissioner Fam's um description?

I mean I yes, but it feels not so much as clarification, but rather discussion, so I'll just hold it right here.

Okay, well, I do have a clarifying question.

And my question is um not particularly on that subject, um, although it may be relevant.

Is after the committee got a response from the ROV's office, did the committee um discuss the feedback in order to reconsider uh your text that you had or to keep the items that were there?

Um yes, um we did discuss um uh the the response from the ROV office and felt that we needed to leave it as um the ROV worded it.

We didn't choose to make any changes to it.

Okay.

Is that your question?

Uh Commissioner Dieter?

I was just wondering if you discussed, because I know that back in January, I believe it was, that you got the ROV's response right before the meeting, but you guys have had um a few months now to reconsider, so I didn't know if you had reconsidered.

Yeah, I think we examined, looked read through, discussed the ROB's response, and uh the suggestion was to submit this report with the ROB's response for approval by the commission.

Right.

Any other clarifying questions?

I uh um Commissioner Dieter, I don't know if this is a clarifying question or not.

Um, but um the one item on poll pads, and I'm wondering if we can get an update from the um ROV on the implementation.

I I think it would be out of order.

Okay.

But uh it's not on the agenda, so it's the reports on the agenda.

Uh is that I I would agree, you know.

I uh the only reason I asked um was that it was one of the items um on our report.

Okay, no other questions of the committee, everyone.

Um I what I'd like to do is well normally uh first of all, I have a little bit of a problem with having the ROB's response separately from the bullet points from the um from the commission, because we the our report should look like we're working collaboratively.

We've never done that before, we've always just included it as part of the text.

Um so uh with that, I would like to entertain a motion.

I do have one, but I would like to allow someone else to uh make a motion if you'd like.

So I we we could both suggest them, but not in motion form and discuss that.

That would be no, that would be two suggestions, not one, but I think that qualifies with the Rosenberg, right?

Right.

So after we make a motion, then we can discuss and talk about all those details.

Yeah.

No, well, I'll make a motion and I'll see if I get a second.

Okay.

And um, and then we can open it up for deliberation.

Um I have um already said I suggest combining the ROV response with the commission's bullet point.

So my motion is going to deal with deleting four things and inserting one.

And I will explain during deliberations uh why to do that.

Um under the overview section.

The last sentence says um it you discussed it during the November twenty twenty-five elections commission meeting.

Overview section, I'm sorry.

Under the beginning of their assessment.

Oh, I see.

At this point, I don't think that's necessary for the board of supervisors because we are also discussing it now.

So it's a little bit confusing, confusing to the board of supervisors.

So I would suggest leaving that out when we discuss it.

I suggest okay.

So I move to delete that phrase, the subheads, ROV response, the two bullet points about the Union City Hall drop box locations and the no parking uh available uh in uh Berkeley.

And um in under the section under the observation process to insert the commission acknowledges that the ROV's current observation protocols exceed applicable legal requirements, and that predicting the precise precise time when a particular activity will take place is not operational, real operationally realistic or legally required as described in the ROV's response to the recent brand jury report.

However, the commission has a standing recommendation that the ROV make incremental improvements on alerting Commissioner Butters, you're not hearing anything, correct?

Okay.

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Very softly, and now we're still working on fixing it.

Thank you, Jim.

It could be my internet too.

Oh no, uh, I'm talking to my other uh colleagues that's also online.

Um it's uh their end.

So you're good.

Okay, thank you, Ty.

This is what happens when you move to another building.

All right.

Okay, we should be good.

Okay, well, thank you everyone for your patience.

I made a pretty long motion um based on what we discussed in the last meeting.

Um, but I would have to find out if I could get a second in order for us to have a discussion.

Sure.

Yeah, just a long motion on one it would it was a long motion um which deletes four things and inserts one.

The first four things that are deletions are just small words um or small clauses, and the one that I'm inserting has to do with what we discussed at the last meeting.

Um it includes also it's acknowledging what's in the ROV's response, and it tells what the commission has decided to do.

So it would tell the board of supervisors who has already seen the grand jury response.

They've already read that, and so we don't need to include it again in our assessment.

So we would just acknowledge what was in it and then update the board of supervisors about what our commission has done for that.

So I will suggest it again.

I move to delete the words discussed during the November 2025 elections commission meeting, the subheads called ROV response, both points about the Union City call draw box location and the no parking available in front of two ballot drop box locations at Berkeley, and um in the ROV's complete response uh to the observation process, and in that observation process insert, the commission acknowledges that the ROV's current observation protocols exceed applicable legal standards and that predicting the precise time when a particular activity will take place is not operationally realistic or legally required as described in the ROV's response to the recent brand jury report.

However, the commission has a standing recommendation that the ROV make incremental improvements on alerting subscribers when a certain process is about to start, and the ROV plans to update the commission on whether any improvements will be made.

Could we take those separately, Commissioner Deder?

Uh well, yeah, I don't have a second.

We can okay, I'll second it then.

Okay.

All right.

So we have now we can open it up for discussion.

We have um a motion in a second and have at it.

Yes, Commissioner Wagner.

We're doing a few two points of clarification.

The first point is you suggested deleting the ROV response subheadings.

Yes.

Are you suggesting deleting the paragraphs of ROV response as well or retaining that?

I suggest removing the entire bullet points of those two subject matters based on what the ROV said that uh in their response that they have gotten no comp no uh complaints in this not what I'm asking about.

Oh, okay.

Say it again.

You said you wanted to delete the ROV response subheadings.

Yes.

Not the last two bullet points, but the ROV response subheading.

Yes.

Does that mean just the two words ROV response?

Or does that mean the two words ROV response and delete the ROV response text as well?

Good point.

Under the very first one, such as under the implementation of poll pads, just delete the ROV response and continue the sentence with the registrar voters is currently working, blah blah blah blah.

So just delete ROV.

Just delete two words.

And the second bullet point, there's no set schedule.

Um there is uh just delete two words.

So with the the next one is I have suggested inserting something in its place.

Well, paragraphs that begin the notification the five paragraphs that follow ROV response.

It begins the notifications the ROV currently provides, etc.

Are you suggesting deleting those five paragraphs or retaining them?

I am suggesting deleting the entire thing and inserting this paragraph in its place.

And um, do you have a written version of what's been so I can just visually look at it?

Sure.

And I'm sorry.

Thank you very much.

Those are my clarifications.

Okay, thanks.

Um yeah, Commissioner Lindsay.

So at first I was completely overwhelmed by your emotion.

And it's like, what the heck?

It's like a total rewrite.

But then when I actually penciled it in, it's not quite so bad.

Right, because I actually thought that the um committee did a very good job.

And I like that the ROV responses were there.

And like, yeah, it might have been nicer if the committee and the ROV's office could have agreed on language.

Um, but if you don't have that, you know, like honest people can disagree, right?

We could have a feeling about one thing and they could have a different feeling about it, just say what they are, right?

You know.

Um so that doesn't actually bother me much.

It's just two different perspectives.

Um the other hand, if we could actually you know find a way to you know put them together is what to try to do on the second bullet point and the first, right?

Um then uh but but I would I would want to know, you know, it's almost like we do need to take piece by piece, I think the four bullet points.

Um I don't really care about whether discussed during the November 25th election commission meetings there or not, so I'm fine with that.

I mean agnostic on that.

I was going to suggest um that we simply draw third and fourth uh points based on the ROV's response.

Um, or if the subcommittee strongly strongly objects to that, and other people think we should have it too, uh, because this does belong to the commission now that it's in front of us.

Um the you know, we rename or reorder them so they don't go under potential process improvements.

Um what Ty said is I if I understood him correctly, they're not saying the placement of the ballot.

I'm skipping around a little bit here, so this is just a bit of an overview of where I'm coming from.

It's not uh item to item exactly.

He's not saying that they screwed up where they put it.

He's saying could the ROV office time gonna ask you to say yay or nay and a manage just heads up.

Um so it's almost clarifying what you said.

Is there something that the ROV office could do in situations like that to make it more clear in the future?

Not that it was anybody's fault.

Um, just as there's something we could do to make it better in the future.

Correct.

Is that okay?

That is correct.

Okay, no fault.

I'll find it.

I mean, it's there, it's been there for many years.

It's just that it was a very new special election, so a lot of new people came in, didn't know where it was.

Um they just knew it was at City Hall.

They just didn't know her specifically.

Right.

So um, yeah.

So so you know, that's that was the motion I was going to make, but they're not that that different, you know.

So um maybe we could take them one at a time, um, and just kind of try to crunch through them.

I would like to not send this back to the committee.

I do agree with Karen's comment um that we need to get this out to the board of supervisors, and it's really largely positive.

Uh it doesn't look like it because there's just a lot of text on the potential product, you know.

Um, but um uh it's largely positive.

And it's I I would really like us to get something to agree on something today, not send it back to you know, so Commissioner Barlett and then Commissioner Wagner.

Okay, so there's a couple of points that struck me.

So, you know, I was just saying instead of saying that they exceeded the applicable legal standards, I would just say they met the applicable legal standards, but issues remain with community concerns regarding up to date reporting of observations.

That would be my suggestion.

And then the for the parking issue and a union city issue.

I think that just because there wasn't a written complaint found doesn't mean that those concerns didn't happen.

And I think that it's a data point to the extent we may see a dip in participation in the future, that that's something that might maybe should be noted, but again, it wasn't my committee, so I don't know enough about it to know whether it was very important or not.

But I would lean towards probably not say that out.

Okay.

Yeah, I appreciate what you're doing here in like focusing the report on the most important parts and and supporting a collaborative uh you know, a report that shows that we're working collaboratively.

Um so that seems really positive.

Um, I have no objection to all the proposals you made, except there's one where I have a little bit of uncertainty, and that's the parking one.

And the parking one, I realize it's kind of complicated, and I'm worried there might be a little bit of miscommunication there.

And so if if uh you know, all in all uh um and specifically the union city.

Sorry, I said parking, but I said the wrong thing.

I said the wrong thing.

I what I really mean was the the information about the location of the ballot drop boxes, so the union city uh um we might decide that because that's complicated and uh you know it's secondary and of lesser importance that we delete it from the report, and I'm fine with that.

But I do think there is an opportunity for improvement, and I don't know if it was explained very well in the report.

Um, and so it might come off as a criticism of the registrar of voters, which I really don't see it that way.

I don't think it's intended as a criticism.

Um, but I looked at the um online website that provides information to voters about how to find where the the drop box is, and I think I too would have trouble finding exactly where the drop box was if I used the website.

There's an image, but it's really tiny and it's um kind of not clear whether the dot is just the center of this parcel or whether it's the exact location of where the drop box is.

So it might not be an easy change, or it might be an easy change, but I think there's an opportunity to improve the website so that it's clearer to voters about where exactly am I going?

Is it just somewhere in this giant parcel, or can this point me to exactly where?

Um, I don't think it's the most important thing in the world, and it's certainly we don't want it to be sound like the registrar voters is doing something wrong, or they've they failed, or this was uh you know, a flaw in the election or something like that.

I'm looking at this more at like opportunities for improvement, which um, you know, maybe the ROB is not getting this feedback, but because we're very fortunate to have this inside information for someone who just happens to be near there, like kind of reveals the subject.

So I don't know what the decision on that, whether decision is to take that out, but to still try to communicate this in some other way, or to try to find a way to explain what this is saying, you know, more clearly.

Sorry that I don't have a specific recommendation on that, but all the other ones I have no objection to.

Okay.

Yeah, this is in I would just say I live in Berkeley.

This is the North Berkeley Library drop box is where I dropped my ballot, and it's not correct that there's no parking.

There's free parking on isn't a it's in a triangle kind of thing, and there's street parking that is not limited all around it.

So that was a weird comment.

And I think that I think it should be dropped.

I think it's insignificant.

I mean, you go in San Francisco, there are not going to be parking in front of the drop off.

Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Wagner.

I I think we should drop it, but we should still try to to address some of the issues in Union City in a separate fashion.

I have a process suggestion here.

Can we just do that first paragraph one?

Not take a final vote, but get a feeling if everybody's okay with it if we seem to have consensus on it, and then just go to four through the four bullet points, get a consensus on each one, and then that sounds great.

Um I don't think it hurts to go over the first one just to allow somebody to say.

Um but let's go.

I do not mind taking one issue at a time so that we can reach a consensus here.

And perhaps the committee, um, we've been down this road before where our uh assessments show up to the board of supervisors six months later, seven months later.

So I see no hurry on it if the uh committee decides to bring it back next time.

It will go really fast because we will see what you ended up with, but I am open to whatever the committee decides.

Um the bar say the committee, you mean the ad hoc committee.

The ad hoc committee as opposed to the commission as a whole.

Well, that's just where I'm at right now, but we can discuss it.

Let's first just go over um one topic at a time.

And um so the very first one is under the overview to delete the words uh discussed during the November 2025 election commission.

Is there anyone who's opposed to doing that?

Okay, we can move on to the next one.

Deleting um the two words in uh the ROV response under the um implementation of poll pads, delete those two words.

So does the subcommittee so the way it's written now, the subcommittee or the this will come from the commission, actually.

So I should only correct myself.

The commission says improved implementation of poll pads was delayed to the November election, but is expected in 2026, and they already had a response, and then we just move on.

Right.

If we cross off ROV response, then we're saying we say we the commission said.

Good point.

You know, which I'm actually mostly okay, but want to read it over again.

Yeah, let me just back up because now I remember what we've done on all the previous um responses from the ROVs.

We put the registrar of voters, says they are currently working to develop.

Well, how's that different than saying ROV response?

It's just part of the same bullet point, it's all part of one paragraph.

So it doesn't look like you know, we're just informing the board of supervisors that this is what we this is what the commission said, and the registrar of voters says they are currently working to develop procedures.

But then we'll put it in that sentence.

Then we will put in the words says it after voters.

The registrar of voters says it of them in two words, says it is currently worth the.

Well, then there's a second paragraph on the next page.

That's the that's another bullet.

Well, that's a different bullet.

Yeah.

I see.

Okay.

So that's all.

I would be suggesting to delete the phrase ROV response and bring up the text after the 2026, but if it's expected in 2026, just move up their text and says the registrar of voters says it is currently working.

Can I work with that just a little tiny bit?

Okay.

Informs us that.

Okay.

Yeah.

And commissioner um Commissioner Dieter and Lindsay, my only thing is if you're gonna say what they say, should we put something in front of our bullet point to say uh the subcommittee identify or just leave it how it is?

Like, do you think it's self-evident when they read it that is coming from us now?

Yes, it is coming from the commission, and we're the ones who identified the potential improvements and um you know the notable improvements and the potential process improvements.

So it would be the register of voters informs us that it is currently working to develop informs the commission.

Yeah, okay, okay.

Um does that work for you?

Okay.

Is everyone okay with that, including online?

Yeah, I'm okay.

I am fine with that.

Yes, I am great.

Okay.

Now here is where I have a different paragraph to put in.

So under the bullet point that the ad hoc committee wrote is the two words ROV response and their full response.

I would like to delete both of those.

Can you read us what you would replace it with again?

Oh we're on the top of page seven, and there is a bullet point that the committee wrote, and I suggest deleting the ROV response and everything after it.

And replacing it with and replacing it with our own words, which Commissioner Barlett came up with better language than I think I did.

So Commissioner Barlick, I mean, did you want to try that one more time?

Sure, I can just I mean, we can use your paragraph.

I would just say instead of giving them more, no offense, but we'll just say they met the applicable legal standards, but it'll remain and we can use your paragraph.

Oh, okay.

Yes.

Okay.

So we are fine deleting.

Um, let me just do the refined between that, but that's true.

Okay, there's a full ROV response there that the Board of Supervisors has already seen.

It was part of the grand jury response.

So there's no need to give them the same text over again.

So my attempt was is to acknowledge what they said in the grand jury report, and um, and to say what the commission has done.

And that was done at the last week.

Okay.

So here we go.

Um after the words witness a specific part, period at this bullet point.

Insert the we recognize that the ROV met applicable legal standards, and that the ROV's current observation protocols.

Okay, I tried to incorporate yours, but it's already in there.

Well, I just said I said, okay, so I said we recognize that the ROV met applicable legal standards, but issues remain with community concerns regarding up-to-date reporting of observations, but I don't know if that captures your paragraph.

I really my personal is I was concerned about saying they exceeded it.

I'm saying they met it.

That's what the court said, and that was weird.

Okay, so good point.

So in place of the word exceed, we're going to say um we acknowledge that the ROV's current observation protocols met or meet applicable legal standards, and that predicting the precise time when a particular activity will take place is not operationally realistic or legally required, as described in the ROV's response to the recent grand jury report.

However, the commission has a standing recommendation that the ROV make incremental improvements on alerting subscribers when a certain process is about to start, and the ROV plans to update the commission on whether any improvements will be made.

So it covers what's already there in our own language, it acknowledges what they wrote, and it says, as I said, what the commission has done.

Yeah, nobody else.

Um, but is there anybody else who wants to go with this?

Yeah, I am who I am.

All right.

Oh, so what we know is that the ROV's office does exceed legal standards in a number of areas.

And so, you know, I think there's a credit for that.

We could word it more.

I'm not the greatest wordsmith.

But we could just they have.

I can't remember all the things are, you know, all the things that are there.

But I know there's a bunch of them.

I'm like, like, for instance, the the new thing you just put in the kiosks.

That's not a legal requirement.

So that's an example of an exceeded.

Um having, I don't think having a person in the observation room to answer questions for people is a it's not legally required, right?

Yeah.

So it's things like that where they are.

Um, but they're definitely community concerns about what you said, right?

Um so um I would like to, you know, at least say that they have exceeded the legal standards.

Um he's got to help me out here, but but in some areas in some areas or something like that.

Um yeah, that's well still acknowledging that there's no room for improvement.

Yeah, something like that.

Some yeah, yeah.

Zody.

Yeah, I mean lawyers.

So I'm just gonna say they're nothing like that.

Like I said, it's an open process.

I'm open, so whatever the commission suggests.

So I want you to know that I did not come up with the language, I just took it from their grand jury report that they exceed the legal requirements, and that predicting the precise time is not doable.

We acknowledge that you've said that as what's in that, but you know, however, we have suggested what it's like.

There's a second part, you know.

I I think exceed or some equivalent word or you know, whatever.

Um, maybe you could work on a wording during the because I think you're better than me with wording, but um, but the other piece of the is I'm not.

I mean we're trying to collaborate here.

And how do you feel about this?

What's being proposed here?

She does, I feel like she has a good point.

This is already in the grand jury report.

Oh, I agree.

Yeah, it is stipulated in the grand jury report, but I do feel it's important to reflect that we do meet it, but we have made strides in exceeding it as well.

And I think that's important to state because we did state that in the grand jury.

Yeah, I'm saying, would you be comfortable with removing the ROV response and inserting the one that she said as long as we it's reflected that it's what our responses in the grand jury.

So you're okay with that.

I think we're okay.

Then I'm in support.

I just I didn't want to take it out unless they were I will say then I would just put my suggestion.

I will go with what Commissioner Ritzie Hernandez said to at least have a clause and there explaining that there's still access all.

Uh we've moved that's so what we need to it is called potential process improvement, it's lifted under there as a bullet point, but still put it in the text.

Okay.

To meet clear the theories.

The argues that are exceeding expectation, but there's also areas of this I mean we may need to so we don't get caught for the last next hour dealing with words.

We may have to do this sort of the standard technique of agreeing on what we want.

And then uh assigning two people, perhaps the two of you or the two of you or something like that.

Okay, um, to finalize it and send it off to the board of supervisors on our behalf.

Uh otherwise we're gonna be here arguing about pretty particular work.

That sounds fine.

Yeah, I mean, it achieves what I want to do anyway, is I want it to be our report rather than our report and the response.

So yeah.

Um that's number three, right?

Yes, are we all we have a consensus here?

Everyone, oops.

Oh no, is that number two?

Those two that's that's number two.

Yeah, we're there is no set schedule for observing.

Right, right, okay.

Um now we're yes, well, let me just commissioner cornejo, because I just noticed something too.

There is no set schedule.

We you know we we don't want one, but anyway, go on.

So I I agree with where you're going.

I want to reflect that there's collaboration because we strive for that, right?

And that's what we're working towards.

Um, but in terms of that there's areas of improvement.

I have a little a little just a rub on that.

It could be more in a collaborative way of stipulating that um either their suggestions or that that we're still looking at striving to make improvements as we can because we are every election cycle.

We're trying to add something, we're trying to relook as things change.

Um, and and we have and that's what the commission uh said to make incremental improvements, right?

Um, and that you guys can keep us informed when that happens, yes, and when or if or whatever.

I would be happy to let you know all of that.

I I think we should I think what I'm hearing is that she's asking the uh before we close out number two, the the if whatever the extremely ad hoc two person, I recommend two people for this because it's just so easier to get two together.

But at any rate, well, I can help you know they consider that kind of I well I would I was assuming it'd be you and some and one of them.

No, I don't want to take over their word product.

I could help with your editing if you desire help.

Okay, okay.

How well at any rate, I think what they're what she's saying is please consider language in there, which I'm fine if other people also can we check with the commissioner so that I like Could you say it one more time, Miss Cornejo?

Rather than stipulating that there's areas of improvement, more having some language that refers to um ongoing enhancements or striving to make enhancements, you know, not specifically with the each election cycle, but as we look at the observation, you know, by the public.

So perfect, something to that nature.

Okay, perfect.

So we're ready to move on, everyone.

Okay.

And um so with the many voters were confused about the ballot box.

Um it's fine with me if uh at the end of that, first of all, to delete the ROV response and to add the language that um ties and sediment, you know, that he mentioned.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't I don't think this bullet point helps us or helps the board of supervisors or helps the registrar voter's office or anything.

I think we can just ask.

Can you fix, can you improve the instructions for Union City spot and any similar ones going forward?

Yeah, I can't answer yes, and we can just yeah, you know, I do want to I do want to say though, and you know, and and knowing how it works.

So if you click on the city on our website, it'll give you a drop-down of all the drop boxes within that city.

You can click on the city hall drop box, and then with that, you're gonna have a window that pops up with the picture and a large overhead view, but it also has a box at the top that says to get directions.

So if you click on that, you're literally can zoom in and zoom out to where you can literally see where that box is.

So what I just suggested was to knowing is there a way maybe we can give some instructions to see specifically zoom in, zoom out, and maybe that gives the user more of an indicator of how to see specifically because it's very specific.

You literally see the overhead.

If you zoom in more, you can literally see where that drop box is.

So I think that's helpful if maybe we explain it to the user a little bit more on where the directions are that they can, you know, to see specifically where it is, because it even gives the coordinates of the draw of where that drop is, and you can literally see where the box is located.

And without wanting to overstep, yeah, because I was sort of playing with it as as we were talking.

It in case it's more helpful to describe it this way.

When you click um get directions, it goes to the Google map view.

So I think that's something people are generally familiar with.

And so when Cynthia was talking about being able to zoom in, it's the Google Map Zoom feature, sort of when they have like an aerial photo where you can zoom down, and I mean I can see whenever they take this picture.

There's a pin dropped, and there was a white car park right next to where the ballot box is.

And so that's that's sort of the the functionality.

It's the Google map, you know, zoom in, zoom out.

So if that helps people understand kind of what exactly a viewer can see.

So there's two things on the floor.

I had originally suggested deleting this, and the committee thought that it was good to keep it in.

So that's with um right.

Didn't I want to keep it in?

I don't think who wants to.

I wanted to keep it in, but then well, after hearing commissioner Henderson, I'm okay with Barkley getting drop since that's not an issue, but I wanted to keep doing it sitting in as a data point.

But um well instead of the farce had an actual committee that worked on it.

So yes, commissioner Wagner, and then um you want the I just wanted you to see what it looks like.

Oh great.

I think this was the initials referred to earlier, the little tiny pin drop.

Um look at the map here, you can zoom in.

Uh if we actually click on their directions, it's uh geo coordinates or what we actually had a staff member stand at the drop box and get the the those coordinates.

So they took the link, they can open up Google and go directly to the box.

We'll take them directly to each box that we have at the camera.

I have a clarifying question.

Yes.

So I've never in my life gone online to find a ballot location or ballot box and everything.

I'll look at a word and the words in my voter information guide or some email to get or something like that.

And so, and I don't know, maybe you know, I'm like a billion years old, so maybe everybody does now, you know, click on the link.

But um it makes me nervous to say also I did work on user interfaces when I was, you know, in the in the uh software industry.

And if the user has to find something, click, click, zoom out, click, click.

Ha ha ha, right?

You know, not not I don't think many people are gonna get that one.

Um so I don't know the solution to this, and I think we're getting a little deep down in the weeds.

Um, but I think that um, you know, maybe it's just a couple of words at the you know, maybe I don't even really understand where it is now.

It may be city, maybe city hall east end of parking lot or something.

What you know, uh might you know, just might be all they need.

Uh and the flagpole.

Adjacent to the flagpole.

Uh yeah.

Uh and that might be all it's needed.

But the city clerk can contact the ROB and say they have that.

And I'm more than happy to discuss this offline with the ROV just to provide that information.

Uh and I concur going back to the whole discussion overall, it as long as it's been acknowledged, and then uh if uh I will be working with uh uh the ROV staff to talk about how we can improve upon it.

I'm more than okay with that.

With deleting deleting it.

Yeah, I'm okay with deleting it all together.

So it's just basically it's just an improvement to help uh the overall you know experience for the voter just to find that location.

Yeah, because of course, city staff is more than happy to provide that location, but it I don't know how is it like it has to be either on the guide or is it on the website?

Anything that just to provide that information, so we're not like getting 30 people to get it.

There is a filler page entirely the vote into the map and um where they can go find it specifically.

It's also in the direct mailer, the 30 day direct mailer.

We give the exact website address, it's in that, it's in the VPN packaging when they get their ballot.

So um, so now you can just add adjacent to the flag post.

We'll look at okay.

And we'll hook in okay, and then we're I'm gonna go to commissioner wag here, and then we're gonna have to wrap this up because we still have two things on the agenda.

Yeah.

Um yeah, I support deleting this, Jim, but the uh commissioner Lindsay's argument that the beat board of uh supervisors doesn't need to know this convinced me.

Um, but also I do feel like there is some a potential substantive issue here that I'm not sure is being understood yet.

So I want to flag that.

I did actually go to the so first of all, we have feedback that some voters are confused.

And then I did go to the website to try to figure it out, and I couldn't figure it out.

You figured out a way to a different way to use the website that I didn't realize how to get to a Google Maps.

But the way when I went there, there's a little, there's several images.

There's one, it's like, oh yeah, that's good.

There's a little um Google Maps thing that I can't click on or make any bigger, and there's a pin drop, and I can't tell if it's just identifying a partial or exact location.

You're right.

If I click get directions and then zoomed in in the Google Maps, that would have told me, and I just didn't even think to do that.

So I think there might be some like user experience way that we can that can be improved.

You know, maybe it's just adding a few words or something, but I can easily see how some voters, even if they're trying, could get confused about where I go.

So there can be some improvements possible, but I agree.

It doesn't need to be in this room.

I have one final last little thing.

Yeah, which is that um I'm guessing that this alerts us to a slightly bigger issue, which is that I don't know, you have 10,000 ballot box locations or something.

Feels like it.

Um it's not quite 10,000, but uh how many is it?

Roughly seven.

What's that?

67.

Yeah.

And it may be that there's three more of these, you know, that are like in a back in a parking lot or somewhere.

You know, it could just be city clerks could let you know.

Can you please add these three or four words when you put them on the location and boom?

And they do.

And they do.

Okay, yeah, okay.

Okay.

Okay, so um, I think we have a consensus.

Thank you, Commissioner Tram, for that.

I'm glad you're okay with that.

Uh deleting that entire bullet point.

And then I believe we have a consensus on deleting the Berkeley library.

Um issue too, correct.

Okay.

Um that makes it simple.

And I think it's at this point, the ad hoc committee has feedback on this.

Um I am willing to help um the ad hoc committee finalize if they want, or commissioner Lindsay has a different idea.

I really think it it needs to be you and one other person.

Um the ad hoc committee could decide, but calmly it's the chair of the ad hoc committee.

The two of you finalize it according to the understanding to the consensus of the and you send it on.

But the two of you, we empower you to do that.

Okay, there's two ways to do that.

And Commissioner Wagner.

I was gonna make a similar remark.

I recommend rather than forcing the committee to try to find a time to meet.

Uh that we authorize you and then you pick at anyone else you need to have you you need you want approval from, or we are or alternatively we authorize you and Commissioner Butters to work together.

That sounds fine.

So I will withdraw um my motion, or I need a friendly amendment to just withdraw and it could make that motion.

Well, all the motion had all that stuff about deleting and stuff.

So um unless you're motion unless your motion wants to be to reflect what we discussed here today, you could do that too.

So make a motion.

Wait, just not to play parliamentary, but I think you still have one on the floor.

Yeah, so I will withdraw that motion, and now I will entertain a new one.

Commissioner Wagner.

I move that we authorize Chair Dieter to um revise uh this report based on the discussion today, and uh submit it to the Alameda County Board of Supervisor.

Okay, and motion by Commissioner Wagner and a second by Commissioner Barlick.

And um any more discussion, or can we take a vote?

Okay, let's take a vote.

Uh this butter can do that.

Commissioner Butter.

Yes.

Uh Commissioner Henderson.

Yes.

Commissioner Lindsay.

Yes.

Uh Commissioner Ritzy Hernandez.

Yes.

Commissioner Stebro.

Yes.

Commissioner Farley.

Yes.

Commissioner Wagner.

Yes.

Commissioner Weihurst.

Yes.

Uh President Dietrich.

Yes.

So the motion passes unanimously.

That was a little hairy, everyone.

I think next time if I have a proposal for a motion, I may might make it a little bit more vague, but I'm not so sure that everyone would if I'd get a second on something quite as vague.

I'd just like to say thank you for to the ad hoc committee because it really was put together quickly and for various reasons we couldn't get to it till now.

Um I just thought it was an appropriate size and uh well worded, and I like that you got all the responses on it and stuff.

Thank you very much for your work.

Yes, thank you.

Very good.

Okay.

Oh now we have yes.

We need to dissolve that from committee.

No, we're not going to dissolve it.

We've learned that lesson in case something we're gonna wait or wait till next month.

Wait till next month or said two months.

Okay.

But you're better off to just hold off.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

So um, Colonel Cebra, do you have a report from the voting participation?

Yeah, so um we've been meeting twice a month.

Um, I think last week not I communicated the mission statement, but I always pay for the fourth one public leading, is to seek better ways to provide service and develop new objects technique to encourage and support all eligible discipline voters proof, exercise the right to roll, and then our goal is to create some measurable goals and and mark the outcome.

Our challenge is that we're is that I continue to capture um specific data that we need that we don't have to provide the movement forward.

I can read off the data some of the that some of the data that we need include um this has to go with just district six and seven.

Yeah, you know, we can't do the whole out of the account.

So we have to do that.

We have to focus a little bit.

So part with population and citizen voting aid population, eligible voters, registered voters.

How many people voted actual voters?

Broken, broken down by race, like necessity, gender, and aid, and we like that over the last five elections, preferably over 10.

But we don't have that data, it's difficult to move forward without being down.

And so we we've reached out to the Rebound subdued factor with so far with no one.

So we are that's kind of stance.

Yes, yes, who's thinking our mission the the we want to create this measurable outcomes and roles, and in order to do that, we know the data.

There's also another opportunity or free accessible data that is available to us in BBI.

That we might be able to look at.

Um so that will help us create the potential outcomes that are not with a one next meeting, so we will have one show of the data as well.

So the idea is that we're gonna use the time from now to our next meeting so that we can collect as much data that is already accessible to the community um to be able to create so that we can come together and give it once we have more information or mission or lensing.

So are you saying that you you know somebody who can pull this information together for the um for the ad hoc committee?

Yes.

Oh, that's fantastic.

So yes, the people in my place at the end of the day.

Oh, I guess.

Yeah, I've been I've been familiar with different systems that use uh this kind of data.

The only challenge right now that I'm seeing, and I uh we'll talk to Jim about collaborating with this expert, but also looking at a particular challenge where we don't know yet that we're gonna have access to data for five or two Carl the ready mentioned.

That is gonna be a good excellent update.

Yeah, so we will um we'll look forward to having um more detailed discussion on our next meeting and next time I'd leave.

And Sasha, if you have information I took a share product for the meeting, that would be appreciated.

We can kind of product the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'd like to thank the committee for providing the written report because it allowed me to think about what you were presenting today.

And um, your mission statement uh intrigued me a little bit.

Um, and so it's just an idea for the ad hoc committee for you guys to consider.

But um, when you're seeking better ways to provide services and develop new outreach techniques, I just want you to consider in terms of uh disenfranchised disenfranchisement.

Uh I want you to think about maybe just looking at one barrier rather than many ways.

Um it's much easier if you guys think of something I thought um, you know, maybe you want to focus on access to a ballot box or a polling place or the engagement in youth and just measure that small thing as opposed to a huge topic of various ways.

Um, but it's just something I want you guys to think about, just narrow down what it is you want to measure.

So we will have a discussion, yeah.

And we'll we'll uh have that discussion or not.

Right.

Just so you don't have to conquer the world is all obviously right.

That's all we want to make sure that we've got everybody that needed it.

Maybe more than one or two things, but whatever it is, we want to measure it.

Right.

And what you want to do is in district six and seven is you want to increase voter participation, from what I understand.

Yes, yes, and so with that, um, you know, maybe what you want to do is figure out what what are one or two things that you can do and achieve it.

Oh, yeah.

So you know, as opposed to all various ways, and then there's just a lot to do because this is going to be an ongoing issue for years, and so I've just you know would encourage um narrowing the scope.

Thank you for that idea.

That could be part of it.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

And on to the um next youth participation.

So I will say I did not give a written report.

Sorry, this week was little hectic, but uh I want to thank my fellow commissioners, um Miss White Harris and Ms.

Butter for setting up a meeting with ROV.

So we are going to be meeting with the register of voters this Wednesday at 2 p.m.

And so we're gonna be discussing our work to try to organize the our efforts to learn about what the youth need in order to become engaged voters and also to further what we reported on last month, which is just organizing the Alameda County school systems as well as juvenile justice and other affected populations to figure out how to deliver the best services we can.

And I will say that I did some of my own research for a different project, which is what I raised earlier about finding some of the schools, at least where I live in Hayward that are underperforming, and I want to see eventually whether there is a correlation between those those uh metrics and voter participation.

But I would turn over the balance of my report to the other committee members to see if they wanted to add anything.

Anything any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Lindsay.

Um I've been working with youth for a long time, and I even was one.

And I know that I, as a young person and the kids that I've worked with mostly don't think ahead more than two minutes, you know.

Um and so if there is so what concerns me a little bit was the not surprising, but yes, disappointing incredibly low turnout by those who would re-register.

I mean, it was impressively low.

Um so I think one thing that would help, I don't know if if the ROV office can pull it off uh in June or even November, but allowing them to show up at the um polling place.

Well, they're now called something different, excuse me, but uh at the last minute.

Oh my god, it's election day or they remember, you know, and they didn't send it, you know, and they can't find it because they lose everything.

Um so that you know they can just show up and vote, uh, which right now they can't do because that was the one missing piece that couldn't be couldn't quite be implemented.

So if there's some way to get that done, I think it could help with the youth turnout just because of the nature of news of the sort of last minute.

Um, same reason we have uh same day voter registration, you know, in California now, same same same kind of concept.

Um so I just wanted to throw that out there.

I think that would help get get some more.

And something else might be like you did what you did with the RCV thing was pretty spectacular, where you put it like right in the front for RCV voters, right?

What you needed them to see, but like right.

And it could be that with the youth, it could be um you know, some kind of insert that's youth oriented because you know um and uh like I don't know exactly what, but to get them to get them to do it.

So it's you know, to maybe it's you know, vote today, which you're already doing.

Um, but maybe it's got a QR code or something, which you know they're gonna use with their phone and just vote right now.

Um I don't know, that sort of thing.

Um so that that was just fine.

Okay, very good.

Anyone else have a question or comment?

Commissioner Arlene.

I have just a portion of our comments.

You know sometimes um for older or disabled voters.

But yes, some actually go to the house and picks up the vote, picks up their ballot on.

Can you do that for students?

Like go to the classroom and pick up balance.

Is that is that an option?

Okay.

But we are looking at different methods, one to engage, right?

We want to engage them first so they can participate, so they're able to participate by being pre-registered.

So that's you know, the first.

And then once they are giving them the education as to why it's important, how they can exercise their rights, living in Oakland and Berkeley, right?

And um, looking at the materials specific to youth vote because youth voters um 2024, they were able to do everything a regular voter did.

They had their own voter guide, their own VBM packaging that was specific to that youth voter.

The only thing they couldn't do was go to a vote center.

And so that's what we're trying to implement for November is that and what other different types of messaging can we utilize.

But we're also hoping that this program that we are going to bring forward will engage more formally.

And it's about having um youth leaders within each high school and actually get um certified by attending trainings and having information on um why it's an important why it's important, what civic engagement is, because we know that they're not really getting that now in school and working with the um the administration and not just the administration, but also working with the um teachers.

So that's a word.

Okay, great.

Moving along to the next um committee report is budgeting for elections.

And Commissioner Wagner.

Well, I have no updates to report.

Um the registrar of voters office has reached out to me about scheduling a first meeting, and I that's waiting on Commissioner Lindsay.

Well, yeah, I was just wondering if Cynthia could tell us about internally.

Um, have you been thinking about this or working on this?

Anything you can share.

I mean, there might be stuff you can't share, but um is there anything you can share with us, you know, regarding cities not being surprised by their by their by their bills when they arrived.

You know, I mean no, we have we're we've been working on um messaging, especially on their billing.

Um, messaging within we have workshops with the city clerks before election cycles before their November, because that's their when their general municipal elections are conducted is in um November generals.

Uh so when we provide the workshop um and the materials that we provide, having clear information about the billing structure to them.

So we've been working on that.

Um, our findings.

So those are the types of things that um we've been looking at, looking at different billing methods of different counties, um, hoping that the state continues the subcommittee on election billing, which they can hopefully provide some kind of guidance or standardization amongst the 58.

That's the CACO California Association Association of Clark's election officials for you guys will talk about that when you meet, I'm sure.

Okay.

Um, and then um I'm gonna move on unless somebody else we have a brown update, brown act update by county council, Jason.

Um, would you want to take it from here?

Sounds good.

Your last name is escaping me.

I'm sorry.

Don't worry about it.

Alan, of course.

Okay, Jason works just fine.

Okay.

Okay, so I'll get a little help with the slides and I will um in the interest of everyone's time, I'm going to try to move through pretty quickly.

Uh and with apologies in advance that the Brown Act is uh long and a little bit tricky, so this may feel a little bit like drinking from a buyer hose.

Um hoping to move quickly, if we could try to hold questions to the end, I think that would be great.

But if if you have a question that's really burning and you can't wait, give a shout, and we'll we'll try to address it then.

Okay.

Um before we dive in, just to a little bit of context, the Brown Act is California's uh open government law for local governments.

Um it's been around since 1953 and has been modified lots of times since.

And so our aim today is to give an overview of the provisions that are most relevant to your commission, uh, including some of the most recent changes which took effect just this year.

Next slide, please.

So the the primary goal of the Brown Act, the sort of guiding principle is just that the public's business is public.

The government shouldn't have that in the dark.

And so it's it'll be helpful, I think, to keep this in mind because it it does help to make sense of some of the Brown Act's provisions that often on the face of things don't seem to make sense.

But when we sort of step back and think about this core principle, they they start to seem a little bit less confusing.

At least I hope so.

Next slide, please.

So first, who is subject to the Brown Act?

Um, the term that's used throughout the act is legislative bodies, and what that really means is you know, any board, commission, city councils, the board of supervisors, your commission, because it was created by the Board of Supervisors by ordinance, all subject to the Brown Act.

The Brown Act also applies to standing committees.

So earlier when commissioners Lindsay and President Dieter were talking about whether to dissolve the subcommittee that was created, the ad hoc committee that was created to prepare the report uh assessing the November 2025 election.

That's really important because if if we set up standing committees or permanent committees, those committees themselves are subject to the Brown Act.

And so every time those subcommittees meet, you'd have to have an agenda, notice to the public, and the public would have to be able to show up and ask questions at the meeting.

Um examples of that that may be helpful.

So our board of supervisors has several subcommittees that have not a majority of board members, but say two.

So for example, the uh personnel administration legislation committee has two members of the board supervisors, but that is a standing committee that meets regularly with no sort of end date.

And so that committee's meetings are subject to the Brown Act.

The exception to that is for temporary committees serving a limited purpose that are made up of less than a majority or less less than a majority of the legislative body.

So again, the ad hoc committees with a defined purpose that will end uh within a reasonable time.

Um, those are not subject to the Brown Act.

Next slide, please.

So the rule is that meetings are open in public, uh, and exceptions to that rule need to be construed narrowly.

Next slide.

And so lawyers can't help ourselves.

The the question that seems obvious, but it's actually a little bit tricky is what is a meeting?

So this obviously is a meeting, but the term as it applies to the Brown Act is is broader than that.

And so it's whenever a majority of the members of a body or this this commission um are together at the same place or the same time to discuss or deliberate anything within the committees or commission's subject matter jurisdiction.

Um next slide.

Meetings don't need to need to be as formal as this one.

They can be very informal.

Um retreats, site visits, social gatherings, happy hours, email discussions can all turn into meetings.

And I say it that way because that means that they can create challenges under the Brown Act.

Next slide.

So potential trouble.

Unlawful meetings can happen.

For example, pre-meetings or post meetings.

So if before this meeting, a majority of our body were here and was discussing issues under the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission, that could be an unlawful meeting.

Or if after a meeting, uh a majority of people were standing in a parking lot or in the bar station talking about matters under the subject matter of this commission, that could be an unlawful meeting.

Another issue to watch out for is something that's called something we call serial meetings.

And can we go to the next slide?

Serial meetings are basically when everyone's not necessarily in the same place at the same time, but through a series of communications, uh people essentially have the same type of discussion that they could have if they were all there at the same place in the same time.

Um let's go ahead and go to the next slide while I can I can sort of put a little bit of meat on the bones there.

So serial meetings, there are typically two types of serial meetings.

The first is a chain.

Um another way to think about the chain meeting is like you remember when you were a kid and you were playing telephone, where I might be person A and I might turn to Commissioner Varlach and tell Commissioner Barlek something, Commissioner Barlett could then turn and tell Commissioner Wagner, Commissioner Wagner tells Commissioner Lindsay, and so on and so forth.

And now through that sort of chain that we've created, everybody's had a conversation about issues under the purview of this commission.

That is a serial meeting, that is an unlawful meeting, a big no-no under the Brown Act.

The other type of serial meeting to be careful of uh is a hub and spoke meeting.

And so that's where basically you've got one person or or maybe even two people who are really the center of the discussion.

So in a hub and spoke meeting, if I were to talk to Commissioner Barlack and get her opinion about something that's coming before the commission, and then to turn and go to Commissioner Henderson and get her opinion about something before the commission, and then I continue to have conversations with other people on your commission.

Ultimately, I've now had conversations with a majority about issues under the purview of the commission.

That is a meeting under the Brown Act, and it's it's an unlawful meeting.

Next slide, please.

So serial meetings can occur through in-person, in-person discussions, um, through staff, other intermediaries, so a friend, staff member, something along those lines, or through technology.

Uh, so emails and email chains are a good way to slip into an unlawful serial meeting.

So we want to be really careful about emailing other commissioners about commission business.

And in particular, make sure that we don't the email chain never reaches a majority of the commission.

Next slide.

It is okay for commissioners to have discussions with staff to ask staff for information.

Um, so long as, again, the discussions don't include a majority of the commissioners, and that staff members don't share one commissioner's opinion with another during the course of those discussions.

Because again, if a staff member starts to get Commissioner Henderson's opinion and then and then President Dieter's opinion, we're now starting to, it's now starting to look like a pub and spoke serial meeting that we want to avoid.

Next slide.

Okay.

So what is not a meeting?

If there were a convention for uh election commissions, public oversight of elections throughout California, and everyone on this commission went to that convention, that would not be a meeting so long as this this commission, the commissioners here didn't get together and talk about this commission's business.

So participating in the convention would be totally fun.

Local meetings, and what that really means is like local public meetings.

So if a majority of the members of this commission went to a board of supervisors meeting, that is okay.

Again, as long as the members of this commission don't meet with each other and talk about commission business.

The Brown Act also applies to social media.

So if any of you are on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or any of the other things that my kids use and I don't know much about, you want to be really careful because you don't want to slip into an unlawful meeting.

So one way to sort of think about this is it's okay to use social media to communicate with constituents, to communicate with members of the public, to ask them for information, to give them information, but you want to make sure that you avoid turning it into sort of a back channel communication between members of the commission.

So it's not a good idea to respond to other commissioners' posts.

And if a majority of commissioners respond to one commissioner's post, this is now an unlawful meeting.

Commissioners shouldn't comment on each other's posts, respond to each other's social media posts.

And yes, emojis count too.

A thumbs up or thumbs down can get us all in trouble.

So please be really careful not to not to respond to other commissioners' postings about information related to this commission.

So if Commissioner Dieter, I'm gonna pick on you a little bit.

If you posted something about, you know, some event that you went to that had nothing to do with elections or something fun you did on the weekend, and Commissioner Farlax, I keep picking on you because you're right here.

But if Commissioner Barlack gave a thumbs up because you had a good time at whatever event you went to, that is not a problem at all, right?

As long as we're not talking about um the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission, it's fine.

But if we're if we start talking about anything that falls under the purview of this commission, we have to be really, really careful.

I think a good rule of thumb to keep in mind is if you can't do it in person under the Brown Act, you can't do it on social media either.

And if you're not sure, don't post it, save it for a notice meeting.

Next slide.

Okay.

So when we are having meetings, the meetings have to be held within Alameda County.

They have to occur at a time and place set by ordinance, right?

And again, when we start talking about some of those unlawful meetings, they don't meet these requirements, which is one of the reasons why they get us into trouble.

Um traditionally, what this has meant is meetings occur in one physical location where members of the commission are present and members of the public can attend and participate.

And it's it's helpful to think of this kind of traditional paradigm as we're going through some of the more recent developments in the law around meetings and remote participation that we'll get to shortly.

Next slide, please.

So, as we've discussed in previous meetings, keeping track of the Brown Act's provisions for remote participation can be really difficult because there are many of them.

Um each of the different provisions for participating remotely under the Brown Act are intended to address different sets of circumstances.

And so as a result, they often have different requirements.

And so if you do need to participate remotely at a meeting, please reach out to President Dieter and to me as early as possible, so that we can we can make sure that we meet any necessary deadlines and make sure all the steps uh make sure that we we take all the steps necessary so that you can lawfully participate remotely.

Just as a little bit of background before we get into the details, for about 30 years, there was one option for participating remotely.

The traditional or the default teleconferencing provisions, um, which we'll discuss in more detail in a moment.

And so that was the only option for a long time.

And then this little thing called COVID happened.

Uh, and that threw a branch and everything because the traditional rules didn't work under COPE.

During COVID, uh, during that core pandemic period, Governor Newsom actually uh, because he had significant powers because he had issued a state of emergency, he suspended the portions of the Brown Act that prohibit um remote participation under a lot of circumstances so that people could the public entities could still meet.

Uh and then since then, the legislature has modified the Brown Act several times, continues to tinker with it to address some of the issues that COVID sort of forced us to highlight and was and some of the new technological advances.

We'll discuss only the most relevant provisions of the Brown Act today, the ones that deal with remote participation that you all are most likely to use.

Um to highlight just a couple that we won't discuss in detail.

To highlight just a couple that we won't discuss in detail, there is a provision that deals specifically with emergency situations.

We hope that we never have to deal with that.

Of course, if we do, we'll provide information about what meetings might look like and how we can participate, but we're not going to get into a bunch of detail with that today.

Another one that we're not going to talk in detail about today, but I want to flag because we've already gotten some questions about it.

One of the new changes of the to the Brown Act this year creates a new term called an eligible subsidiary body.

For eligible subsidiary bodies, which are certain boards and commissions, there are looser rules around remote participation.

This commission does not qualify as an eligible subsidiary body because the definition in the statute for that term specifically excludes commissions dealing with elections, among others.

So no eligible subsidiary body here.

Next slide, please.

So the traditional teleconference rules, and I put teleconference in quotes because I think that it's a bit telling.

Again, these are the original rules, and they do go back long enough where remote participation probably meant a conference call.

And so under those rules, again, thinking about the Brown Act's primary purpose, these requirements for a conference call essentially sought to roughly approximate the public's participation or the public access at a traditional meeting.

And so under the traditional rules, each teleconference location, so wherever anybody was when they were taking the call or taking their participating remotely, uh, needs to be identified and included in the agenda.

The agenda also has to be posted at each location, and that posting has to occur within the same time frame that the agenda has to be posted in general.

So for a normal meeting, an agenda has to be posted 72 hours before the meeting.

Uh and if you are participating remotely, then you should post that agenda in your remote location 72 hours before the meeting occurs.

Each location has to be open to the public.

So again, imagine a 1990s conference call where everybody's going to be on the phone from a different location.

If a member of the public was going to be able to participate in that meeting, the member would have to be able to show up at the same location where you may be on the phone, and also the location where another commissioner is on the phone, so that they could provide public comment, listen to the meeting.

That was sort of the only way they could do it.

And so each of those locations has to be available, it has to be open to public access.

A quorum has to be at a location within the county.

And again, thinking about this conference call as our uh example here, the idea is if everybody's participating from other counties, well, it's going to be really difficult for members of the public to get to those locations to participate.

And so at least the quorum has to be located within the county so that there is at least at least the quorum can be uh the public has access to at least a forum in person.

And then all votes have to be taken by roll call.

So we we can't have any kind of you know approval or rejection of of anything on the agenda by ascension.

We all have to take role whenever anybody anybody participates remote.

Next slide, please.

The other provision that many of you may end up using is called the just cause provision.

And so this provision essentially aims to um aims to allow people to participate remotely if they have a personal or a family emergency or medical situation that makes it difficult or impossible for them to appear in person.

So when a member, I guess first, let me take a step back.

What is just cost?

So I gave you kind of an overview, but I've listed here some examples of specific issues that qualify under the just cause provision.

But broadly speaking, medical issues, caregiving responsibilities, um, military service if you're more than 50 miles away, uh those are the types of things that qualify under the just cause provision.

One other important note on this, because our commission meets approximately once per month.

Each of you can only use the just cause provision to participate remotely twice per year.

For bodies that meet more regularly, that number goes up.

But for our commission, twice per year is the limit.

Next slide, please.

So when participating remotely, um the requirements are a little bit different under the just clause provision than they are under the traditional rules.

So first, the agenda doesn't require identifying each location.

So if you're if you are participating remotely under the just cause provision and you're participating from your home because you're caring for a sick child, you don't have to put your home address on the agenda.

And you also do not have to open your home address or your home to members of the public.

After the meeting, when we have meeting minutes, the minutes have to reflect the specific statutory provision that anyone appears remotely under when they're when it's just cause and actually several other provisions, not the default provision, but several others require you to identify the statutory provision that you've appeared under.

Um participating remotely under the just cause provision should notify the commission as soon as possible.

And that can mean um as as late as the start of a meeting, but as soon as it's reasonably possible so that we can make sure that we we satisfy all the requirements.

So this is where the quorum rules get a little bit tricky.

So if we take a step back for a moment to the teleconferencing uh option, the the traditional rules we were discussing a moment ago, there when people are participating all under the default rules, if everybody is in located within the county, they do count towards a quorum.

However, if somebody is also appearing based on the joint, uh excuse me, the just cause provision, that sort of goes out the window.

Uh, people who are participating remotely under the default provision no longer count towards a quorum because there is a special quorum requirement if somebody is appearing under the just cause provision.

So under just cause, a quorum has to be in one location within the county, like we are now.

The member participating remotely also has to use audio and visual technology.

So you've got to keep the camera on.

Um, and then if there is anyone in the room with you who's over 18, you have to disclose that they're in the room with you, and you have to disclose the general relationship with that person.

So, you know, uh, I'm I'm in a room with person X who's 18, they're a friend of mine, something along those lines.

And then if the technology fails, if for some reason the public loses their remote access, then the meeting has to stop until the public's remote access is restored.

So generally speaking, with with some exceptions, the public doesn't have a necessarily the brown doesn't require remote access for members of the public.

But if somebody is participating remotely using the just cause provisioned, then the public must also be able to participate remotely.

And if the technology fails, the meeting has to stop until it's repaired.

Next slide, please.

Another provision that may take on some relevance is that there is now a provision explicit in the Brown Act that deals with accommodations for people with disabilities, and that can include temporary disabilities.

So if somebody has a disability that requires them to participate remotely, then first they would need to reach out to President Dieter and to me so that we could you know make a determination that yes, we have to make a reasonable accommodation.

Um then participating remotely is a reasonable accommodation.

And I put it in quotes here because that is a term of art under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It means essentially, and I don't mean to oversimplify here, but essentially it means steps taken to accommodate someone's disability so that they can they can participate just as everyone else can.

Umone is participating remotely under this provision, they need to participate with audio and video, unless for some reason their disability prevents it.

They also need to disclose anyone who is in the room who's 18 years or older.

Um they do count towards a quorum just as if they were here in person.

Uh and then there is no requirement for them to open their location up to the public or to post the agenda at their location or to list the location in the agenda either.

And again, if something comes up and you believe you need to exercise the opportunity to appear to participate remotely because of a temporary or permanent disability, please contact um President Dieter or me.

Next slide.

Okay.

Switching gears, then written material.

So documents or writings as is the term used in the statute that are provided to your commission uh related to meetings.

So if somebody provides a document related to an open session agenda item, um, in a perfect world, it would be included with the agenda.

Of course, the agenda has to be posted at least 72 hours before the meeting.

And so if somebody sends a document or provides a document less than 72 hours before the meeting, then it needs to be made available to the public uh essentially at the same time that members receive it.

So it's as soon as possible.

Um the methods for doing that include posting online uh or making them available physically available, physical documents available at a at a disposed location.

Next slide.

If a writing is distributed during a meeting, if it's prepared by commissioners or by staff, then it has to be made available at the meeting.

So for example, this slide deck, staff created, uh, was here at the meeting.

Some of you have copies of it there, and had a member of the public been here in person, then they also could have received a copy of the slide deck here at the meeting.

If it's prepared by another person, it's like a member of the public, and they bring it um, you know, they bring it in at the meeting and give it to your your commission during the meeting, then we need to make it available to other members of the public by some time after the meeting.

Next slide.

I mentioned this earlier, just as sort of an FYI regular meetings, the agendas have to be posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Uh, special meetings, which I don't think that this commission has had one yet, but it could happen.

Special meetings have a shorter time frame.

That those agendas need to be posted 24 hours in advance.

And then agendas, as we're you know, working to prepare the agendas, they have to describe each item with enough detail so that members of the public can understand what we're going to be talking about.

It's it's not enough for them to know that we're going to have a discussion.

They need to know what we're talking about.

Next slide.

The agenda takes on a particular importance in that the commission, your discussion is limited to items on the agenda.

We just can't talk about items not on the agenda.

Uh, and the reason for that, of course, is that we want to make sure that people have an opportunity to know what we're going to talk about, because if it's something that is important to them, then they want to they want to have it.

We want to make sure they have the opportunity to come and speak to your commission.

Next slide.

Now there are a couple of exceptions to that.

So commendations or announcements don't need to be on the agenda.

Requests to agendize future items don't need to be on the agenda.

Um, I mean, when I when I say announcements, so we all we often have a space on the agenda for announcements, but we don't need to specifically identify everyone's announcement in advance.

Next slide, please.

Another comment on announcements.

Part of the reason that announcements get to fall into that exception is because of what announcements are not supposed to be, right?

Announcements are not the time for advocacy, not a time to uh sort of start a discussion about something that's not on the agenda.

If they really are sort of, and your commission has done a pretty good job, I think, with this.

Just I went to an event, I saw something that was interesting.

Um just the facts.

Next slide.

Okay.

So rights of the public.

This again goes back to core principle of the drowned act.

So the public has a right to have open and public meetings that they can attend.

They should have an opportunity to participate and to share their opinions with your commission.

Um, that's core Brown Act.

Next slide.

They also have the right to participate.

This is where public comment is really important.

And specifically for agenda items.

And again, we do this on our on our agenda already, but just as a reminder, public comment on agendized items has to occur before your commission makes a decision.

If they could only give public comment after you all had decided to do something.

Next slide.

Tips for your commission.

Public comment is generally a listening exercise.

So it's a good idea to avoid sort of back and forth discussion with members of the public engage in public comment, whether we agree with them or disagree with them.

And we don't we just don't want to get into sort of a deliberate deliberation.

Under limited limited circumstances, if you have questions or you want to want to ask for some clarification from a public commenter, that is okay.

But again, it's it's really just a listening exercise.

We want to make sure we understand what people are telling us, but we don't necessarily want to engage in a debate.

And public commenters, as members who have served on this commission for a little bit of time already know have the right to criticize uh the commission, criticize its members to criticize staff.

Um that is that is part of the right for public commenters.

Next slide.

There are, however, some limits on public comment.

So the commission can impose reasonable time limits on individual speakers and on public comment sessions as a whole.

Um public commenters again have the right to provide their opinions, but they don't have a right to get a response.

So they they can't just demand that you respond right away.

It's not not what public comment is necessarily about.

And then public commenters cannot disrupt the meeting.

And so on that last point, if somebody becomes disruptive and and meaning to the point where it's actually stopping business from from going forward, something extreme like a threat of violence or something else that just stops the reasonable conduct of business.

Um your commission can have them remove.

Um can if there were multiple people here in the in the meeting, could clear the room entirely or could adjourn the meeting.

Before doing so, however, um you would have to provide a warning.

So if someone was being disruptive, you couldn't just shut the meeting down.

You would have to say, well, you're out of order, you're disrupting the meeting, and you need to stop the disruption, or we're gonna have to take whatever the step is, whether it's removing them, clearing the room, or adjourning the meeting.

Next slide.

So there are some consequences for violating the Brown Act.

Um before we we jump into just strictly legal consequences, one of the main goals of the Brown Act again is to give the public right of access.

And so violating the Brown Act can breach the public trust.

Um any action that that is taken in violation of the Brown Act can be reversed in court, the court can essentially render it invalid, and a knowing violation of the Brown Act is actually a misdemeanor.

Next slide, please.

Next slide.

There are also civil consequences for violating the Brown Act.

Again, the the action taken in violation of the Brown Act could be invalidated.

Uh, court could issue an injunction or declaratory relief to stop um current or ongoing violations or to prevent future violations.

If someone sues under the Brown Act and they win, the the county could be on the hook for their attorney's fees and costs.

And then another fun one is it could end up in a referral to the grand jury, and then the grand jury will you know potentially investigate and issue a report.

And next slide.

That is it.

So I appreciate everybody uh being patient through that.

Does anyone have any questions?

Well, point of order first is um we're a little behind schedule.

So before we get into questions, which may even uh happen at the next meeting, depending on uh we'll just continue this item.

Sure.

Um if we want to do that, but I would um like to suggest making a motion to hear public comment right now, and to also um postpone the ROV's special report.

I would how would it make that motion?

Second okay.

Um take the roll, please.

So that's uh made by Commissioner Barley and seconded by him?

Oh right, Commissioner Butter.

Yes, Commissioner Henderson, yes, Commissioner Lindsay, yes.

Uh Commissioner Ritzy Hernandez, yes, Commissioner Seabrook, yes, Commissioner Barley, yes, Commissioner Wagner, yes, Commissioner Whitehurst, yes, uh President Geter.

Yes.

Okay, with that, let's open it up for public comment.

Uh anyone making public comment, please uh raise your hand.

Okay.

So yes.

Oh um, well, it's just been continued.

We just voted to continue.

I don't know if I don't know if the question would have been answered or not.

That was one of the back of this.

Um on an item that we're that's not before us, I don't believe that probably we should we should uh ask the question when the item is brought up at the next meeting, because that's when it'll be discussed and presented.

Um I think that just a way around this is the and maybe that Cynthia might find a couple minutes after the meeting.

Yeah, perfect.

Yeah, you tell.

Okay, so now the committee has to decide if we want to adjourn or and ask our questions at the next meeting, or um just go ahead and I'll open it up for questions right now.

I kind of feel like we should probably do questions right now while it's fresh in people's minds, but maybe try to keep them brief because we're running a little late.

Uh if that works for people, but can we make a motion to extend the meeting for 15 minutes or something like that?

Can well we have no set time for yeah, that's our goal.

Yeah, I have to be somewhere, but I'm not we won't lose form if uh seven.

We will.

Oh no, we have eight.

No, we won't.

We won't.

Thank you.

Sorry, double books.

Okay, well, then let's open it up for questions.

Okay, Commissioner Henderson and then um Commissioner Zebra.

On the umbination one, is that subject to any specific number of meetings for year, or can it be to every meeting?

It could be every meeting, and it's it just depends on the nature of the disability issue and you know what what is a reasonable combination under the circumstances.

You said if the public loss access.

Oh, on an access, yes, would you have uh we can is that individual or does that apply to everyone?

So in other words, if I lost access with the meeting stop, or does it have to be everybody has remote?

It would have to be everyone.

And so I guess another way to put it would be as I think that what you're describing is if you lost access, like if your internet was down at your house, the meeting can continue, right?

But if as happened earlier today, we had a technical issue where we lost audio and video.

Um we did stop the meeting and get that sorted because technically today nobody is appearing under just cause provision.

I'm not sure that that was legally required, but if somebody were appearing remotely under the just cause provision, it would be legally required.

Today we did it, it wasn't, I don't think it was legally required, but it was just fine.

Uh, but again, if somebody's appearing remotely under the just cause provision, it it then becomes absolutely required.

You have Mr.

Writing, it had to be presented.

Can you email the prior to the meeting 2024 or something?

Is that satisfying requirement?

No.

No.

And the the reason being that if we email the commission, like that's that potentially is an unlawful meeting, and it doesn't make the documents available to members of the public.

And the key here is the documents have to be available to members of the public.

But I mean, for example, this one is available to the deposit.

That's right.

And so that's why today when it when um people came, it was available here at the meeting.

Okay, for the public if they work here.

Correct.

Right.

Okay.

So it doesn't have to be available online.

It doesn't, it doesn't have to be available online, but that is one of the options for making documents open and available to the public.

They typically get put in uh anything that's passed out to public is usually put in the minutes, but I don't know.

So the public can get to a once minister published.

But I don't think that's a law, it's just a right.

My last question, the Brown Act applies to this commission.

What about subcommittee?

Same criteria, like a subcommittee of this commission.

It depends.

So the ad hoc committees that are established with less than a majority of the commission for a specific purpose on a temporary basis, do not have to comply with the Brown Act.

But if there were a standing committee, one that wasn't going to end at a temporary after a temporary period of time, one that's not tied to like a specific task, but there's may exist in perpetuity, that committee, that subcommittee would be subject to the Brown Act.

Okay, and you didn't mention I do each slide.

Sorry, it was a lot, like I said, drinking through a fire hose.

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question to the I was wondering about the just cause and the interruption to access.

Why wouldn't it apply to in another instance that's not a just cause?

Because it's the same principle of the public staffing, public access.

So I'm I'm inferring a little bit here, but again, if we think about the the different versions of the meeting.

So today, for example, we've got uh public location open to the public, members of the public who want to attend can attend in person.

And that's that's kind of the extent of the legal requirement under the Brown Act.

We do have two commissioners appearing remotely, but they are appearing um under the default provision, but their location is listed in the agenda.

It's also open to the public.

So if if for some reason uh Union City Hall where Commissioner Pham is, or easier for a member of the public, they could do that.

Um forgive me, Commissioner Butter, I don't remember where you're appearing from, but if that was easier for somebody to go and show up where you are and appear there, they could.

And so the public still has that right of access.

The just cause provision is a little bit different in that I mean as a practical matter, I understand your question, but under the statute, I guess it's it's essentially saying if somebody's appearing under this provision where we're not making them disclose their location and make that location open to the public, we are counting on them to be available remotely, and if we are counting on them to be available remotely, we need to give the public that same opportunity.

And so it's it's a slightly different set of requirements, and because it has a different set of requirements, um, to have some sort of parity for members of the public, the requirements for us to make sure that the public has access remotely uh are a little bit different.

But that's not spelled out in the statute, that is me inferring, you know, just sort of reading between the lines a little bit.

And even if so, um, I think Commissioner Butters is not in Alameda County.

Um it doesn't, it's kind of like that whole thing you said if you don't have a majority, but it means it's still a majority of people right here.

So I guess we got it.

Right.

Commissioner Lensay.

I'll try to keep this brief because we have a member who needs to run.

But um one thing is instead of sending email to all of our colleagues, we send it to staff and they get another packet.

Um, and then you know, you just get it in your packet.

That's really the best way to do it.

Um the second thing is I don't want everybody scared about knowing violations of our own act and they're going to go to jail.

It's extraordinarily rare.

Um, and um it would only be somebody who is deliberately very, very deliberately.

Um that does happen, they almost never get caught because hard proof.

Um, but um, but that's what that's really what that's about.

It's not somebody making a mistake, and then so in your own act is not doing no.

If it's a mistake, nobody's going in here, you know.

Um and the last thing is just advocates can talk to multiple people, but they have to be careful not to tell if they talk to me, they can't go to David and say Jim said thus and such, or we just talked, right?

It's another kind of serial meeting.

Um so if you're talking with an advocate, you should clarify with them that they're not gonna tell anybody else on the commission what they you know would you tell them or else you just dodge their questions uh if you can't count on them to not do that.

So I think Commissioner Pan has it in there.

Commissioner Pham.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, thank you.

Uh, my question is regarding uh with the implementation of 700 uh SB 707.

Do we as a commission also have to implement a disruption policy?

Or does that take in care of by the Board of Supervisors?

Because I have to do that for the city council for my for my council.

So I was just curious if we have to do that on for the election commission, or is that taken care of as a whole by the superboard of supervisors itself?

But it's it's a good question, and frankly, it's one I'll need to get back to on.

So I I'll need to get back to you.

I don't want to opine and then and then not be quite right.

Thank you.

Yep.

Well, I would like to thank you for the presentation.

I mean, that was really good.

I it was a good refresher, and I learned some new things.

Um I think the only thing that I had really seen being a problem um with this commission is this reply all on emails.

That's really what I had seen, or people sharing information that they find interesting with all the commissioners.

So it becomes like an advocacy piece.

Um so that's the main thing that uh I I have witnessed firsthand here, which we've been had to do a little cleanup on.

Um Madam President.

Yes.

I always recommend when I send no notification to my commissions and to the council, and I also notify my secretaries for other commissions to always BC.

So if everyone wants to send information, I just recommend a BCC the entire commission itself.

That prevents the possibility of violating the Brown Act.

Right.

Well, that's what I did earlier today, and someone still ended up you know, forwarding it to the all the commissioners.

Yeah, but we just have to constantly remind folks just to BCC.

Yeah, I think I think maybe um a little notation at the top of the email might be a help.

So but that's been that's to me been the only place that we've slipped a little bit.

And the other thing I remember that the magic word is quora, you know, go ahead and have discussions, but just make sure that discussion is not more than a majority of the members.

Directly or indirectly, yeah.

So anyone else?

I I'm sort of definitely your fault.

I really appreciate the presentation.

I learned a lot.

So thank you very much.

My pleasure.

And I suggest that we keep this.

Would you not throw this in the garbage can that we keep it in our inbox?

Yes, there are a few extras.

So um yeah, so that's my suggestion.

Are we ready to adjourn?

Okay, this meeting is adjourned at 6:42.

Thank you, everyone.