We're starting with chaos this morning.

We're starting with chaos.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to the personal and public employees committee meeting.

The meeting is now called to order at 11.02 AM.

Will the clerk please establish a court?

Thank you, Chair.

Remember, Talimantes?

Member of Allensweiler?

Here.

Vice Chair Maple?

Here.

And Chair Kaplan.

Here.

For members of the public, many of you know if you wish to speak on the one item, please turn

in your speaker slip up front.

But let's start with the land acknowledgement and legend.

Councilmember of Allensweiler, would you lead us?

Great.

Please rise if you are able for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's

Indigenous people and tribal lands.

For the original people of this land, the Nissan people, the southern Maidu, Valley and

Plains, Meawak, Put-1, Win-2, and the people of the Wilton Rancho Rhea, Sacramento's

only, federally recognized, tried.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside

us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice

of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous people's history, contributions,

and lives.

Thank you.

And please salute and pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the five of the United States of America and to the Republic for

which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember of Allensweiler for doing this and thank you everyone for making

this special meeting happen, very much appreciate it.

We've got one item on today's agenda but there are four parts to it.

So I am going to turn it over to start that to our City Clerk.

Thank you, Chair Kaplan and staff will you put up the PowerPoint presentation please.

So good afternoon.

I'm Mindy Cuppie, your City Clerk and the item before you today is a policy discussion

related to amendments of Sacramento City Code related to City Commission.

So on June 11th, staff presented to the PNPE Committee, Personnel and Public Employees

Committee, an ordinance update amending various chapters of Title II of the Sacramento City

Code related to City Commission.

The committee directed that staff bring back a report so that the following provisions

could be delivered before bringing the ordinance for their approval.

So we're going to talk about City Code Chapter 2.40160 related to ad hoc committees and subcommittees,

the definition of quorum, the City Code Chapter 2.40808O related to failure to attend meetings,

City Code Chapter 2.40160 related to vacancies or term extensions.

Your staff report includes what other jurisdictions are doing related to each topic.

And then based on committee direction, I will bring back the amended Title II ordinance

back to this committee.

Hopefully at our next meeting.

I'm going to introduce each topic and then turn it over to Chair Kaplan to lead your discussion.

So the first before you is ad hoc committee.

Ad hoc committees defined as a temporary advisory committee composed solely of less than

a quorum of the legislative body that serves a limited or single purpose that is not perpetual.

And that will be automatic dissolved in 12 months earlier once the specific task or project

is completed and shall not be subject to the Brown Act.

So I turn it over to you, Chair.

Thank you so much.

Before we get started on our conversation, I would love to hear from the public of which

I know we have several people here.

Thank you, Chair.

I have five members of the public to speak this morning.

Our first speaker is Brandy Tuzon-Boyd.

Just to clarify, we'll be able to come up with each section of this.

Public comments, there is one item, so we'll have two minutes for all four of the subject

matters within the item.

And we do that then after we've heard all of the presentation.

So it's relevant.

So I have several speaking points.

The process that we've decided, generally in Council, and we have here is the agenda

item is published as is and we hear public comment two minutes for each public matter.

I know we've got items that have been submitted that I have read.

So we have a total of two minutes and then it is for Council to have that conversation.

The agenda doesn't designate though that you guys are breaking this into four separate

sections.

So that...

If you want to take them one by one, I mean that's generally not what we do, but...

Or to have all of us...

I think there are other people who have comments on more than one section of the...

Yeah.

So the Mindy, why don't you do the presentation about all four items and then public comments

will each be two minutes on the four items.

So thank you Chair.

I'll introduce all four items and then we can have that conversation.

So I already presented ad hoc committees.

There's a current code.

Is it City Boards and commissions may not establish ad hoc committees.

So the options before this committee is leave current code intact or delete 2.40160.

That's allowing commissions to create ad hoc committees.

And then the second bullet is if you do choose that, I would recommend that you direct

the city clerk to collaborate in the city attorney to create some process for commissions

to establish ad hocs and then including me to present to each commission on how they

could be established and what that focus would be.

So quorum in voting.

So the current definition is a majority of the members of a legislative body constitutes

a quorum.

So some of the options before you is to leave that code intact.

Quorum consists of majority of the members of the commission or quorum consists of

the majority of the members of the commission then in office.

And if that is the direction from the commission, direct the city clerk in the city attorney

to update the city code to set a voting requirement.

So if you do have quorum being less or if you define quorum of less less than a quorum,

then you probably need to think of what how that affects voting.

And then if you hold meetings when you have less than a legislative body that could take

action.

So the third topic is failure to attend meetings.

So the current code states that three consecutive unexcused absence from regular meetings or

absence from one fourth of all meetings pursuant to law in a 12 month period.

She'll be deemed good cause for removal of a member from the office under the provisions

of chapter 2.232 pardon me, 2.32 of the charter.

So some options are leave current code intact.

Remove all attendance requirements.

Delete 2.40.08.0 or modify attendance requirements and I've gave you some options here.

So define it as excused, unexcused.

Leave it as just absences or council member to take action.

So put it back in the hands of the council member, the recommending authority to determine

how to move forward.

So there's pros and cons for each.

My office tracking, I think is something to consider, is tracking unexcused and excused

and what is the definition of excused.

So for our purposes, we need people here so that the commission can take action.

So whether it's excused or not is a relevant.

So modify attendance requirements, I just made it bigger so you guys can read it when

we get to that section.

Vacancies and terming extensions.

So the current code states that at the end of a member's term, if a member is not reappointed

and his successor is not appointed, the member may continue to serve until they are appointed

or his successor is appointed.

So two options is leave the current code intact or add clarifying language to the subsection

B of that code to just state how that happens.

So there was some confusion this year on, does the commissioner just decide to sit over?

Our process has been that we recognize an outgoing member.

We thank them for their service.

And so it's a little awkward when they show up to the next meeting that they're not a voting

member.

Should they continue to participate?

So it just really formalizes that we ask them to hold over.

And typically that is if they're, I think I've shared with some people.

We had PDC, the Planning and Design Commission, had an item before them that was really

complex.

And we had two members that were terming out.

So we asked them to hold over because they had the subject matter knowledge.

And we wanted to make sure that legally 10 years from now, when that public hearing gets

litigated, that there's not a problem that why was this person still sitting in the seat

when they were head termed out?

So we just wanted to make that clarify because that was confusing for some commissioners

last year.

And that concludes my presentation.

I will turn it over to you for to the liberation.

And I'll be available for questions as is our legal counsel Matthew Rudeak.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Turn it over to public comments at this time.

Thank you, Chair.

Again, we have five members of the public for comments today.

Our first speaker is Brandy Tuzon Boyd, followed by Lamores.

Thank you for allowing the clerk to do that so that my comments are relevant to the whole

presentation.

First to Adhawks, I think Adhawks can be a useful tool to the Disability Advisory Commission

and other commissions for the city.

I believe that with guidance from the clerk's office and our council that we can meet the

requirements of the Brown Act by being transparent, noticing when Adhawks' medians are being held,

how they're being held, and reporting out from that.

So I would encourage you to consider seriously allowing Adhawks' committees for your commissions

boards and advisory committees.

In regards to attendance policy, I believe that the language before you still lacks clarification

on what is an excuse and an excuse absence.

Also to whom should someone who sits on a commission report that they're going to miss

a meeting should it be the clerk, their commission staff, both, is there a specific person for

that.

And what constitutes attendance for a meeting?

Are commissioners who arrive late and leave early meeting the expectations of the council

as their service on the commission?

In past practice has been, if a commissioner was going to arrive late or leave early, that

that was reported out at the beginning of the meeting by staff that has not been the practice

this past year and it's very disruptive.

So I understand that any point of participating in the meeting is being considered attendance

and I would also ask that you guys consider whether that is truly a tentative meeting if

you are late and leave early.

And in regards to continuing to serve after a term is completed, past practice has always

been to continue to serve.

I agree that acknowledging that service is warranted.

But past practice in the last year has been different and we should just follow the code

as written.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Leam Morris.

Hello.

Thank you also for allowing us to comment on all the topics.

I'm Leam Morris.

I'm the chair of the Animal Services Citizen Advisory Committee.

And I'm here to support option two in terms of ad hoc committees.

Our committee as an advisory committee works together to come up with ideas and suggest

programs to improve services at the shelter and the opportunity to work together outside

of meetings without fear of any concern about round act violation would be very helpful.

We recently conducted a very thorough needs assessment which I hope to bring to you next

month.

We were very anxious about how many people could participate in that.

So an ad hoc committee would be valuable.

The quorum concept we also support option or I support option two where it's a majority

of the members seated in office.

Historically this committee apparently has had some challenges with seating members and

I know there's other work being done on ordinance and who's seated, et cetera.

The idea of seated members, the majority of the quorum of them being a quorum seems appropriate.

And then finally failure to attend meetings.

We recently had to have a committee member resigned from the committee.

She was a very skilled, valuable shelter medicine veterinarian with expertise in shelter medicine.

But due to conflicts with her work requirements, she was unable to meet a couple of meetings

and had to resign.

And we all found ourselves confused about the rules, about excused, unexcused.

So I'm proposing some very simple language, not necessarily that you take it exactly as

is, but something like if you miss three meeting consecutive meetings in a calendar year or

if you miss x percent, maybe that's 25 percent, very simple one sentence, very straightforward

and also calculating during a calendar year because our members found ourselves thinking

well, is it a 12 month rolling period is a calendar year?

So appreciate your consideration of that.

Also want to thank those of you.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Thank you for your visit.

Our next speaker is Teddy Georgeoff, followed by Alan Lufaso.

My name is Teddy Georgeoff.

I'm a member of the Measurer U Community Advisory Committee and the author that came to you guys,

the author of the letter that came to you some like two months ago now, sort of expressing

these concerns.

So first off, I just want to thank you all for listening to your board's commissions

and bringing this really important issue to a resolution that will hopefully drastically

impact positively our project activity.

I can't technically say that 100 percent of the board and commission members are an agreement

because I haven't talked to all of them, but I can say that 100 percent of everyone

I have talked to is aligned.

On item one, we do feel that ad hoc should of course be reinstated.

Three hours a month is not enough to accomplish anything of value.

If there is an underwhelming feeling of productivity coming from our boards, this may be why.

The work we are tasked with is of sufficient complexity that warrants significantly more

than three hours of collaboration between our members per month.

If didn't, a board probably would not be made.

So all of the other commission members speak on Quorum and absence policy, but I do want

to hone in also on term extensions or at the end of term what happens.

It's standard practice to allow members to continue to serve unless a new and pointy

is to take their place.

I don't think it's appropriate.

It's honestly a little bit weird to have a process be that staff gets to subjectively

determine if you are an important member or not.

Code and policies around this should not be dictated by individual opinion, but rather

the code just say as it is and be explicit.

Lastly I just say on the number one, if there is going to be some sort of after discussion

of how are we going to operate in terms of what are the policies we want to put in

place to create ad hoc.

I would encourage us to be as slim as possible on this.

I would also encourage us to not just have the city clerk and legal counsel dictate that,

but also have your board and commission individuals be a part of that process of term

and what would work.

Appreciate it.

Thanks.

I'm sorry next speaker is Alan Lafaso.

File it by.

I'm a base all.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair at all.

I'm largely going to comment on the absence issue and I did send you all a letter about

two months ago.

And frankly because it was as I heard the about this issue, I began to wonder if even

at the ordinance level we even know what this policy is because it seemed to me that the

council ordinance of 2022 unwittingly eliminated the provision of excused absences.

I suggest to you that the current code kind of contains some bogged down legacy language

tied to consecutive absences.

Why consecutive absences can be excused?

But non consecutive absences cannot be excused.

Do you know why that is?

I have an idea.

The idea is that in the old days, consecutive absences were an issue where somebody would

disappear from their commission for months on end.

Sometimes it turned out that they had died or left the region and not told anybody and

that was the problem that was aiming for.

But I think that you sort of swallowed the rule a bit by inserting that parenthetical

phrase in 2022 that it's not clear why it's there.

But it makes for no absence excuse for other than a consecutive absence, which is a distraction.

The last two speakers ago suggested 3 or 25%.

The 25% rule is the problem.

You have commissions that generally speaking meet 12 times a year, three absences without

regard to whether the person had a work commitment, a family commitment, the kind of emergency,

the council member, Vailant, and Gweila talked about the last meeting.

I urge you to go lenient on the question of absences and allow for excuses and be explicit.

The bottom line is you all have substantially expanded the number of commissions you have

in the last eight years.

You have a lot of commission positions to fill.

Some of your most talented commissioners are the ones with the kind of commitments that

mean they're going to miss some meetings.

I urge you to take a process that's focused on quality of commissioner input rather than

simply quantity of commissioner input.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our final speaker is Marbella Sala.

Good morning.

And I'm Vice Chair of the Measure You Committee.

And I'm here to thank all of you for acknowledging the letter that was sent from Measure You to

all of you about the ad hoc.

And I'm so happy it's back being revisited because I was here when it first got passed.

And it was intended as a pilot to see, you know, did it work or didn't work.

And as you can see, most of us feel and I'm sure all of you might think it hasn't really

been effective.

It's not sustainable for the work that's needed.

It's just simply not sustainable.

So we support, I support option two with the addition of having maybe just two commissioners,

maybe one from Measure You and someone else that can weigh in on the process.

It would be good to have their perspective before something's finalized.

I'm not going to talk about the excuse done, excuse because you've already heard that.

I am going to speak about Quorum.

I support option two.

I'm really happy that you're including that because a few months ago, we did, our Quorum

was based on total in our commission, but they weren't all seated.

And so anytime someone had to go to the restroom, we had to stop our meetings.

And that's not effective or efficient.

And the last is I just want to mention the continuum of commissioner when their term

is up.

And I think they should continue if there's not anyone appointed or designated.

And it really should be made up.

The decision to have them continue or not continue should be in the hands of the council

member who's appointed them.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

I have no further public comment.

Thank you, Jacob.

Any members take these, chunk them one at a time, see how we can address them before

we move on to the next one, or do you want to take them holistically?

They all relate, but I think because this is big process procedure, I think if we come

to an agreement on chunking it, it might make it a little easier.

But I trust you to speak up on each element.

It chunks us good.

That way we have clear direction on each one.

And then we can do a holistic.

So before we get to the first one, which is our ad hoc, I just want to read a little

something which I know is somewhat redundant for us, but I think is relevant for those

who might be watching to understand the difference between the Brown Act ad hoc and standing

committees.

Brown Act is for the purpose of open meeting laws.

It mandates open and transparent government meetings in legislative bodies.

The Brown Act only applies to local agencies such as City Council School Board, County

Board of Supervisors, including several governing bodies such as boards and commissions.

It requires local agencies to adhere to a set of rules so that government officials are

not meeting in secret.

These meetings, these rules mandate that members of the public have notice of government meetings

and an opportunity to comment on what officials are doing in their name.

And the Brown Act creates transparency that strengthens democracy.

Specifically the Brown Act, as it's said in code, applies to the governing bodies of a local

agency or any other local body created by state or federal law or City Council, including

a commission committee board or other body of a local agency that governs if certain criteria

is met and thus the Brown Act we must follow.

So when is a committee a legislative body?

Whether a committee is a legislative body subject to the Brown Act depends on several factors.

For example, an advisory committee composed solely of members of a legislative body that

are less than a quorum of that legislative body is not subject to the Brown Act unless

it is a committee created by formal action that covers a continuing subject matter or if

its meeting schedule is fixed by a formal action of that legislative body.

An ad hoc committee composed of only less than a quorum of legislative members researching

a particular issue for a limited time is not likely subject to the Brown Act.

However, if a committee of less than a quorum of a legislative members board commission includes

members of the public or members of staff personnel, then that committee would be subject

to the Brown Act.

Specifically, how the Brown Act applies to ad hoc versus standing committees is something

that I think is very important as we discuss.

As a threshold matter, the Brown Act applies to any committee or legislative body that

is empowered to make decisions rather than simply advise.

It is only advisory committees that may be exempt from the Brown Act as set forth in the

government cup.

As to advisory committees, the Brown Act applies to standing committees but not under limited

circumstances to ad hoc committees.

The challenge is can come in defining which is which which is before us today as we look

at subcommittees which are subject to the Brown Act and now we're discussing where

can ad hoc committees fit in which may not be subject to the Brown Act but how we define

them and give clear definition to make sure we don't unwittingly violate the Brown Act is

important in our discussion today.

Because under the Brown Act, you know, measure you has a valid subcommittee and it is a subcommittee

that has met every year.

So that is a Brown Act.

I think so we have to just remember when we create, Brown Act means you know you've got

staff included and we have to be mindful how many boards and commissions do we have and

how much staff time.

If an advisory committee has a fixed meeting schedule then is it a standing committee subject

to the Brown Act.

But an advisory committee without a fixed meeting schedule will constitute a standing committee

if they have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction.

And that's where we have to be very careful of what is a ad hoc versus a subcommittee.

We've got many, I can say, Attorney General opinions regarding the Brown Act that sets

forth hypothetical situations on what this means that I think we can look as to whether

we should rely on or not.

But I wanted to kind of give this overarching before we have the discussion because I think

it's really important that if we decide that we're going to create a formal process for

ad hoc that we are very clear on what that is so that we don't have boards or commissions

in reality creating subcommittees which are a violation of the Brown Act which was subject

to numerous Sacramento B articles in 2015 which actually led to the City Council then

under Chair PPE, Angelique Ashby creating that ad hoc committees cannot be created by

the City Council.

They are all subject subcommittees, the subject to the Brown Act.

One question I have before I turn it over for discussion by my colleagues, Madam Clerk,

can you give me an example of current committees that may be practicing ad hoc without it being

defined and is that working and is it something for us to consider?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

I think the Sacramento Youth Commission is a great example.

Recently they've used ad hoc committees to create one of the projects was a flyer of

mental health resources.

So three of the members at the Dias said, you know, I'm interested in doing this.

Reach out to me if you're interested in working on this project with me.

So they did not create something at the Dias.

If they had created something formally at the Dias then that would be a subcommittee and

then subject to the Brown Act.

So they collaborated online and they went to Starbucks, they met and they created a document

and then when it was ready to vet with the full commission they asked staff to put it

on the agenda, staff put that on the agenda, the full commission deliberated on that and

they adopted a final document.

So just to be clear, if a boarder commission is sitting up here and say we want to create

an ad hoc committee they're actually creating a subcommittee which is subject to the Brown

Act and it's not ad hoc because ad hoc is for a limited purpose and scope which then

is not subject to the Brown Act.

That's correct and it's really more casual so if they formally, so we couldn't, if they

wanted to create an ad hoc, we couldn't bring it back and have the full commission vote

on scope, on a tent who's going to be on the committee when they're going to meet,

that is the formality.

So it's really making it more organic so an ad hoc is more organic and a subcommittee

is more formal created and then it is subject to the Brown Act and I ask my city attorney

to chime in if I miss something.

Chair, is this on?

If the body takes formal action then it becomes a subcommittee.

The way most ad hoc were created back in the day when they were allowed for example on

council it would just be the mayor saying you, you and you go do something and that's an

ad hoc that we had a process.

We've since changed rules but that's the general way to do it would be either informal agreement

of say two or three people to work on something or the chair designating a couple to work

on a specific scope of work for a limited period of time.

So just to clarify because this can get really confusing really quickly.

Subcommittee is kind of a larger subject matter, subcommittee meeting which is subject to

the Brown Act.

Yes.

Subcommittee is something that's blessed by formal action of the legislative body and would

have continuing jurisdiction whereas an ad hoc is not voted upon by the legislative body

but is done by informal appointment or action usually by the chair of less than a quorum

to serve for a limited amount of time on a singular subject.

So but if the chair of a board or commission says you, you and you publicly on the dius

that then makes it a subcommittee not an ad hoc.

No, that would still be an ad hoc.

There's no action of the body to approve or sanction that ad hoc committee.

This is the chair identifying the persons who are going to work on that ad hoc committee.

That's not a formal action of the body.

That's just the chair making the chair deciding that this limited number of people are going

to work on this limited scope project.

But if the chair says I want you three and it in contains basically what is the subject

matter of the jurisdiction of the board or commission then that actually because it's

not limited would make it subject to the Brown Act.

And the hocks have to be limited to a singular subject.

Thank you, or subject.

Yes.

I know we're going to have more questions so I want to turn it over to my colleagues, Council

Member Valenzuela.

Great.

I appreciate the city attorney weighing in on this and I have full confidence that we

can create some pretty clear guidance that distinguishes subcommittee from ad hoc.

So I prefer to go with option two here as proposed.

And yeah, that's all see on the side.

So much.

Oh, Council Member Talon Montice.

I'll also go with option two and trust or city attorneys to be able to guide our commissions

on how to create ad hocs.

But I do want to note that just all our commissions are different.

You know, for example, the disabilities advisory commission, they give feedback, they do advice,

but they're not taking votes like the planning commission does on different projects.

So as we move forward with ad hocs and with creating them, it's important to note that there's

different commissions.

Some of them are just advised and some are taking votes.

And so if there's a distinction between that, it's really important for us to know.

Vice Chair Mabel.

I want to concur with my two colleagues.

I agree.

I really support the creation of ad hoc.

Being hat dogs back, it's something that I've benefited from when I served on a city commission.

And also now in my role, I serve on several ad hocs in the various JPA boards that I'm

on, including for the air quality district and others.

And so, you know, there's a way to do it.

I agree with the specificity.

So for example, when I was on the Anne-Land and Bertha Henshel Memorial Funds commission,

one of the things that we created an ad hoc committee or an ad hoc for was we really wanted

to refine what the term destitutement and that felt like a pretty, there was a bigger

project than we thought it would be.

But I say all that to say, it was really useful ad hoc because it allowed us to think through

more and add some clarity to what the full commission was doing, but having a really small

subset, so I support that.

And I was going to ask you another question, but I think I got an answer.

Thank you.

And I too on looking at option two, one of the things I would like to request as you look

at this is the League of Women Voters has been very active of this.

They were active in 2015 with the Council decision to remove ad hocs.

And then just double checking with the ACLU First Amendment Coalition are extremely active

in these areas to make sure that there is government transparency because ad hocs are

what got the Council in trouble in 2015.

And I want to make sure that there is a good government process that is very clear on

what is and what isn't.

And then once something is created come back for formal adoption with this committee,

because I think part of it will then be training our boards and commissions to make sure

that there is compliance on all of this, if that exists.

I think the League sent a letter both in 2022 and again, re-informing their support for

ad hocs for commissions.

And so maybe if the City Attorney doesn't have that letter, also I'm happy to forward it

along with their opinion on how to do that judiciously.

So thank you.

Perfect.

All right.

All right.

Now moving on to Quorum.

And I want to thank Madam Clerk for as it was set up.

I will just like to state that my opinion, I am alignment with then Attorney General

Kamala Harris, who basically set forth that a quorum of a legislative body, which is subject

to the Brown Act, is it is that it is a majority of the members who are supposed to be on,

not just a majority seated, but a majority of the, if there are five members of the board

and commission, three.

And that is consistent with Attorney General Harris as she set forth and many other

understandings of legislative bodies and Attorney General opinions of what a definition of

a quorum is, I believe in consistency.

If a board or commission is subject to a Brown Act, then it is incumbent upon us to make

sure we expeditiously appoint, which I think we've done a pretty good job of it at PPNE,

but also it needs to be, if there are seven or nine, whatever that majority is, but open

to hearing the opinions of my fellow council members.

Once we're done.

Yes, I agree and I think this is a change in position for me because I was previously on board

with the suggestion of it should be a quorum of folks who are appointed and I've changed my

position for two different reasons. One, being the aforementioned co-changes that are happening

that are going to make most of these district appointments. It shouldn't be as much of a delay

because council members can just say I appoint so and so and it'll get appointed and so I know

there's been a history of there being a leg and getting P&B appointments through and that should

become less of an issue, but also and what I thought was most important, I want to thank the clerk

for meeting with me before this meeting about this when it comes to ad hocs. The only way you can

have an ad hoc is if it's less than a Brown Act quorum and if your Brown Act quorum is low,

you're going to get to the point where you have two member ad hocs which arguably wouldn't provide

the same substance and ability. So I think to allow ad hocs means that we need to keep quorum

at the number of positions so that you don't run into issues where you're inadvertently violating

the Brown Act, but that was a change of my mind and I want to thank the clerk and I know the city

attorney for advising on that and so I'm definitely supportive of keeping the current quorum

requirement given the changes that are already happening and given the fact that I want ad hocs

to be successful and not inadvertently start tripping into Brown Act issues when a member drops

off a resigns from the commission and you're constantly having to ebb and flow with that so that's

my two cents. Thank you councilmember valance weila councilmember telemanteis.

And as a city clerk can we move the presentation flyers on the projectors as we go?

Yes I apologize. I'll let chair make it listening vice chair can you make it go?

All right vice chair maple. Oh yeah I think I accidentally deleted her so.

Thank you chair. So yeah again I also want to appreciate the city clerk for this because

you know I was going back and forth on the quorum issue but I'm also compelled by what councilmember

valance weila just brought up of how that could be a challenge especially if you have I know we

have commissions that don't have a whole lot of folks on them so if you have an ad hoc and so I think

it makes sense to do to do option one and keep the current quorum but then maybe we come back and

reassess this as time goes on because I know that's also a challenge for folks on some of the commissions

related to quorum so I just want to make sure we're keep keep the lines of communication open but

I'm compelled by what you said. And councilmember telemanteis I'm okay with option one.

Option one. All right now moving on to item three failure to attend meetings. I really think

it was unintended of what this means and how we I think we need to clarify. I appreciate the city

of clerk finding what other cities do. It helps give a little context. I think one of the things we

do need to do is explicitly define what is an excused and unexcused and I will tell you

on page eight and nine of our report sets forth with the city of San Jose did which is I think a

good for me bench post of how we we clarify this and that we should also as we look for for defining.

For me I kind of we reset everything based on a calendar year let's keep it a January through

December type of consistency because I know madam clerk you're bringing forward to us on

city council what our calendar is going to look like next year but it's also that then sets all

the boards and commission meetings as well so I'm I'm of mind that when we look at calendar year it's

it's January through December and that we have a way to kind of define and and I appreciate that

this is very much kind of a volunteer but there has to be some level because then it gets into

the core you know and while while we appoint people and want and their opinions matter it has to

be what is excused what is unexcused and and sometimes it's asking our appointees is life in the

way and while you mean while can you attend these meetings because we want we want the voices to

be heard but I will listen to my fellow council member so council member Talamontes.

I'm okay with option three modify attendance requirements I do think that we need to be

very clear on what's considered excused and the timeline of you know when they report it to

the city clerk one of the things with these boards and commissions is some of them are really really

competitive and I feel like it's unfair for someone to keep missing meetings if life happens right

because they're so competitive sometimes we get 15 applicants for one position or two applicants

for one position and so for me making sure that we're really strict on that is important because I

just feel like it's unfair the other applicants that we maybe we didn't choose for a certainty

um so I do want to modify it but I do before we move forward on this just want to make it all

pencil clear on what we're considering and what's the time frame to report to the city clerk is.

I think those are I think those are great clarification things we need to it's it's the you know

I get if you get in a car exit you you can't heads up but like if you know you have a work if it's

if you're saying it's a certain work conflict or something there has to be like sick religious

exemption family emergency um but if someone has work and it can't be like oh I have to work late

today I have to do over time it has to be like I am in Chicago for a conference and I know it's

coming up two to three weeks in advance in the city clerk knows so um if we can expand on that

as a committee before we adopt this that'd be great thank you and I would uh council member valence

well thank you um definitely also appreciate modifying the attendance requirements so I guess

that's option three I'm in the boat of council member to take action and again thank you

Mindy for sitting down with me to explain your en masse thinking on some of this like if there

isn't something written in the code that we have caused to remove after a certain threshold has

been released we technically can't just remove our pointes um which was news to me I've never

tried to remove a pointe but I didn't know that you could just you couldn't do that unless there

was a cause listed so we do need a cause listed because if someone's been missing meetings why can't

just say hey you've been missed three meetings in a row you need to be removed unless there's some

code in place that gives me that authority to do that and so I do think though that it should be

in consultation with the appointing body because there could be some reason you know if they're sick

if you know their child is sick if there's something big has happened we want to be able to be

aware of those contexts I don't think the three or 15% make sense because I think for most

commissions 15% would be two meetings and so because most of them meet 11 times a year unless I'm

and some of them meet more frequently but I think that adds to the ambiguity here I think it should

just be three absences in a calendar year and then if it's three consecutive if it's three over time

whatever whichever comes happens they come to the council member who appointed or to the PNP each

chair and say hey this person's missed three meetings this year because that's like a quarter

of the it's almost 25% of the meetings and we want our districts to be represented that's why we

appoint these folks so that there's a voice in those commission meetings so I think it should

just be three meetings you come to the council member or chair and PNP and it's their decision

if they believe removal should take place and they have that as a cause to be able to remove

because I think the point here is just to make it clear and I don't know excuse I get that again

to Allen's point before that there's been a history of people just disappearing which is and it has

happened to us in our time of office we've had a youth commissioner just drop off the face of the

earth and we couldn't get a hold of her and we were actually really concerned for a while and then

we were able to track her down but I think this gives you the clearance to not need that level of

detail it's like yes it would be nice if you told your chair and the clerk that you were going to

be absent because that would obviously help them prepare if there's a voting item and you're not

going to be there but I think when it comes to absences absences or absences and eventually we

should just say if you hit three absences whether it's in a row or at any point over the year that

they can come to the appointee body that's my two cents but I see them in for a 10-20. And now I

forgot to mention if someone comes and they're here for 15 minutes and then they leave

yeah are we going to count that as an absence because I think we should yeah because that's not

fair that you're coming in to get attendance so you don't get removed but you're not participating

that's like a point so maybe do we want to say like a majority of the meeting or

stay for a majority of the meeting. I think this is where maybe giving direction to our clerk and

our city attorney of how do we define this is it even definable but I think it's a great

thing that we have to discuss uh Vicer Mayeball. Oh sorry. Oh I'm sorry. Yeah that's okay. So that's

the summary is that I support modifying the action I think it should be the council member or a

pointee body if it's PMPE who makes the decision and just three absences period and that direction

to the clerk I agree with the mayor pro tem that we should give direction on if someone's just

there for 10 minutes like at what point do we count that as attending versus not attending.

And I still think in our policy procedures we should be outlining for commissioners the expectation

of notification if you're going to be absent because again for the chairs for the clerk if there's

a voting item coming forward and three commissioners are going to be gone like that just would be good

for them to know so that they can plan accordingly so yeah. Vice chair maple and then I'll come back

to you council member telemountain. Thank you and I just this this one was sticky you know I remember

I initially when I was reading through this and talking with the or when that are wonderful city

clerk came into my office I remember thinking ah absences no problem and then we sat down for like

45 minutes and went through all the machinations and I was like oh wait this is a little bit more

complicated than I thought because you know there are a lot of the lot that goes into this one

thing in particular that I noted was the way our it's currently structured does not differentiate

between unexcused and excused and that was you know causing some people heartburn right they're like

well what's the point of having unexcused and excused if it doesn't really matter either way.

I hear that and then maybe maybe to me that that says more along with what council

revolves was saying is that maybe we should just be talking about absences in general and we can

have some kind of way of measuring that versus trying to differentiate between different scenarios

because I'm sure we can think of as many scenarios as possible and not think of them all

and then someone will come in and be like but my you know dogs on a you know a spaceship to you

know something crazy and so I I agree with that and one of the things that really um

appealed to me was the Sacramento County all-call and drug advisory board example which was a three

absences in a calendar year or I would add a calendar year because I think that's the right call

and then if if that occurs then the chair of the commission or their designee

would then issue a letter to that person or an email and say hey we noticed you haven't been here

if you don't get a response within 30 days and that's automatically considered a resignation

and then if they are able to get into contact with them and talk with them then there can be a more

they can affirm their intent so basically hey I had something happen my mom's in the hospital

or something I've gotten to a car accident and I literally couldn't respond to your you know our show

up there are things that happen in our lives and I think having a little bit of flexibility is great

because we need to acknowledge that things happen in people's lives while also acknowledging

Mayor Pro Temtolamonte's point that you know there are people waiting in line for a lot of these

commissions and particularly some of them people really want to be on them and want to acknowledge

their ability to do that and so I'm so I guess for me that means option three almost exactly

in line with Councilman Vellan-Zuela but more of that letter to affirm a intent and then response

within 30 days of resignation all right it's a clarifying question would that still give the

appointing body like if somebody did come back and say oh no I want to do it and you're like okay

well do you always work Thursday nights are you always going to have a problem on Thursday nights

and they're like oh no no I'll try to make it work like I mean is it still up to the appointing

body to make the ultimate call even if they respond in your suggestion I like your suggestion

and kind of where you're going I think I want to hear Councilmember Talamontes and I think I can

try and blend something when I'm hearing from all of you okay sounds good Councilmember Talamontes

I'm okay with councilmember Vellan-Zuela and just because it does get sticky about what's

excused and not excused because I can think of a million reasons like spaceships and whatnot

so I so I mean life does happen and I would definitely go after my dog if we were in a spaceship

so I get you know it just becomes gray and it probably becomes hard for us to distinguish

so I guess I'm okay with three now back to my question about how long for somebody to be at a

meeting I think it should be 75% of the meeting like be there for the voting items and for the

presentation if you're 15 minutes late that's okay if you're 20 minutes late that's okay you

have to leave last 15 minutes that's okay too but you're there like the majority of the meeting

otherwise it's considered an absence and and thank you councilmember Talamontes I was just thinking

about that as well so I think I can blend and then let me know if I've I've forgotten everything

so one of the things is we do want flexibility I think we're looking at just three absences

and then looking at the Sacramento County alcohol and drug advisory for looking at be excused or

unexcused absences annually that the clerk then goes to the appointing body either the council

member who appointed or if it was PP&E for because this work gets I think we should be aware of

little wiggly if one of them of those three absences is like a car accident and we've talked to them

and they don't really have conflicts going forward allowing if it's legal that potential wiggle room

um Mr. City Attorney I see uh I see no no okay you're you're you're you're you're taking a posture that

I might be confusing you um but but I think instead of it just being hard and fast at three

we know life happens but going to either the appointee or PP&E to have a conversation with somebody

is it you know is it life happened or is this right because I think it pulls in councilmember

Talamontes your your this is really important on some of these and and really needing but it also

goes to quorum we can't have people missing um too many um too many meetings so does that give you

enough where you need and we need to delete it's not about consecutive it is about the January through

December because if you miss November December in January that's not a violation

but it should be cause for a call or a discussion but if they didn't miss anything else then it

would be any other clarification and some so clarification let's say we go to the uh

pointing authority the councilmember or P&P UB a discussion and then let's say the appointing

or recommending councilmember would then have a discussion with the clerk and uh concur on

then recommending to the city council because only the city council can actually remove a commissioner

yes yes okay yeah and and I do like the that there should be at least a letter the Sacramento

County portion of there's a letter to them because I think we have to do put things in writing um

and if somebody doesn't want to respond in 30 days and we get notice if it's one of our appointees

and they don't respond to us then I think it should go to council for removal or there is a conversation

but I think the the having a letter is a is a good kind of accountability piece for that and

letter as we all know could constitute email that we know has been been received okay any other

clarification point I missed um may I clarify I know the city and herni and I are going to go back

and argue about this so I'm hearing three absences in a calendar year they need to attend 75% of a

meeting to be counted as attending um if they missed if they're not there for 75% that would be an

absence we're going to look at the alcohol and drug advisory um and so what will happen in practice

is the city clerk will contact the recommending council member or chair of PNPE um once someone has

missed three meetings um will likely and I don't know logistically is that a letter issued from

the recommending authority or the so the council member or the chair of PNPE of it's a PNPE

recommendation um I'm not sure we want to put in the 30 days if they don't respond within 30 days

if that is then deemed good cause for removal um or is it direction from that recommending body

for the city clerk to bring something forward and if it's that do we want to get put another

final number so if this person does not attend two more meetings one more meeting um do you want

to make you know five absences um deemed good cause for removal okay so we're going to stop at three

I think and then consult the recommending body I think 30 days consult with a recommending body

I did see in looking at other cities it was between three and four but I think it should be no more

than four uh council member valance waila I would just not like logistically for the commission so

so someone misses a third meeting 30 days they missed a fourth and then a re- a re- a re- a- make a

recommendation council appoint somebody else I mean it could mean that there isn't anybody in

that seat for half the meetings of the year and so I just want to point that out in terms of timing

like part of what I think the proposed language did was say give you cause to remove after a certain

threshold I think how we conduct that as the recommending person could we should we make a little

open ended because if someone really has just dropped off the face of the earth and I haven't

been able to get a hold of them for weeks either then I don't want to wait another 30 days to get

somebody in on that commission either I mean I I feel like part of what I liked about this option

was that it was kind of up to the recommending person to say hey I want to wait or I don't want to

wait um but it gave you discretion yeah well that would be the chair yeah well I kind of like

the 14 days because then it moves faster okay I mean 14 days is a compromise yeah I just yeah

want I just want to be cautious and I what this means in terms of the quorms for the commission if

it was five months yeah I think that's a great point yeah 30 days does seem long and if people really

want to serve they should get a hold of either the chair or their their council member fairly quickly

but I think I think just because of how busy everyone is and it may be a lot to track the 14 days

just allows for follow up in a little bit of flexibility but I think addresses 30 days might be too long

maybe we send the letter two weeks before the third absence then to say hey if you don't attend

this meeting you're at risk of losing your seat on x y and z commission please let the clerk know

if you will be able to make it and if not you know there will be next steps that proceed and then we

start opening it so an automatic warning letter from the clerk's office after the second

every minding them what the rules are yep and that that's our standard practice so I don't think

that needs to be codified but definitely we will reach out to to people when they're absent from

the meeting and around so somebody fell off like and if it's not if it's appointed by the pp any

committee that's that is you know that could happen and I just don't want to like leave committees

without a member for so many months and we can put in the code that the p and p each air has the

authority to give direction or if it's the recommending council member yeah just for clarification so

just sovrens aware prior to removing a commissioner when the city council takes action at the actual

city council meeting the charter requires the clerk to give them 10 days notice about that before

removal so there's also that built in notice and they're entitled to come in and if they want to

provide an explanation for their absences before council takes a vote so that's our that that

that process is already built in all right awesome now on to our last one item four as it relates to

commissioner vacancies term extensions I think we do need to add some clarification

and I think it it especially when it is an appointed council I think it is up to

to that council member or if people are termed out that it is they their term ends with the council member

and less specifically the new person coming in has said it's okay for for that holdover

but again want to hear what my fellow councilmembers say councilmember valence well yeah I agree

when I came into office I had a couple of commissioners who I talked to who asked to stay because

they were finishing certain projects and that was fine with me so I think it should be up to whoever

the recommending body is to decide and obviously with staff's consultation their staff comes to them

and says hey we're short of corn we need you to appoint somebody right away can we keep this person

then that would be a process but yeah I think it should be up to the appoint recommending body I

like that can you change the slide please mendi to thank you thanks thank you vice-chair maple

you guys read my mind um I think I really I think having the ability to stay on is important for the

for people who are working on big projects or something that they're really interested in or they

maybe even want to talk with the let's say there's new incoming council member they want to talk

with them and get to know them and then that they both realize they want to continue to work together

but I do think it's really important that whether it be the recommending council member which will be

the case for most appointees moving forward or with pmp that there's like the consent from that

individual whether it's the chair or the council member I think that's great

council member telemante's agree with my colleagues all right any clarification we need on that

I'm clerk so clarifying if we switch out the word staff to the recommending authority which means

the council member that recommended appointment or the pmp chair that will solve our problem

thank you well um this has been awesome and we actually did it in an hour except for public comments

on items not okay all right all right all right well great back to my question real quick for

this one um gosh now I can't remember if we already talked about it but um if somebody completes

their time on a commission but we haven't appointed somebody new they could stay on as well

so like if somebody is on and they're two terms they've done their two terms but we haven't

appointed somebody new yet so then now there's not a quorum can they stay on until we appoint the

new person did we discuss that okay staff will turn my microphone on because I barely can't do

a much question yeah I believe the direction you just gave was that um we would reach out to

the recommending authority um and determine if they can can hold over so even if they're

termed out that would that would this provision would provide that okay I just want to make sure it

applies to that from doubt yes okay thank you all right council member valens well okay two additional

points and I appreciate you bringing this in kind of a workshop format this is really helpful

and I know it's appeasing a lot of the feedback I've been hearing from commissions hello council member

dine and he's just joining us up here to hang out oh you can't you can you step can you step out

briefly because then we violate the brown act but we do want you back in a moment yeah yeah um

I was just saying we got a bonus member um so um two additional things to consider when you bring

this back I think it would be really helpful to consider language for this chapter about the intent

of commissions um what their purpose is um to advise the city council to work with staff on relevant

policy issues and projects um just to make clear because it just doesn't say that as I understand

it in the code right now and I've heard from some commissioners like well what is our point here

what are our goal and I just think it would be nice to just say we recognize you as people who your

job is to advise the council and your job is to work with staff on relevant policy that pertains to

the jurisdiction of your committee whatever that is just broadly speaking I know it feels we're

done into the work plans and other things but it's something that's come up in conversations I've

had is like you know making sure we're clear on that map so uh council member valence we'll I want

to let you know we're working on revamping all all the commission chapters each of the chapters will

have that statement in the chapter for that commission the purpose of this commission is to assist

the city council at XYZ so it'll be in each one of the chapters itself well thank you um and then

I guess the second point to bring up which has come up with regard to specific commissions and

this come up here before and so it's something I just want to flag and maybe it needs to be a separate

item for us to consider but I think that when um committee submit recommendations um that those

recommendations once they're heard by PMPE should just get referred to the relevant committee

pursuant to the council member policy request form and so this is something I've talked to the

mayor a little bit about in terms of the specific context of a specific commission but if they're

submitting policy recommendations say that are a budget audit recommendation that like there

isn't really a bridge to go from PMPE to that appointment committee unless as individual council

member decides to submit it of our own volition which I've done in the past um but I do think that

it would be important for us to outline maybe a clearer process for what happens to recommendations

like if you make a recommendation and it pertains to PMPE great it comes to PMPE just like any other

council member request would if it's a policy recommendation it goes to LNL if it's budget it

goes to BNA but just some clarity in the charter about or in the code about what happens to commission

recommendations um because I don't see a lot of clarity in that right now and I know we've talked

about this in another project that we're working on but that's been delayed and so I just would love

to see that not get delayed any further so we have better clarity on what commissions should expect

of course please so uh okay we got you

budget cuts um technology the clerk and I were just discussing I think this is something that's

best suited for the council rules of procedure because we kind of already have uh this process

essentially is already contained in the rules and I think that that that would be the appropriate

place for that to live so maybe I would so I would submit a council member request that would probably

go through PMPE that would make that a council policy procedure a commission records to follow the

same process we do yeah yeah he's not he said okay I will it makes it easy I will get started on that

thank you um vice chair maple we're good and then I was reminded because this is a special meeting

we don't have public comment on items not on the agenda thank you for a reminder on that one

um thank you committee members for this I think handling this in a special meeting to address this

uh and move forward with clarification thank you to staff for all your time and explaining things to

all of us I will call this meeting adjourned at 12 o'6

council member Jennings your

welcome