From: Eric Levitt
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Yibin Shen
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Items 5-C, D and F on City Council March 1, 2022 Agenda.
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 11:44:24 AM
Can you put on the agenda correspondence.
Eric
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Items 5-C, D and F on City Council March 1, 2022 Agenda.
Eric,
I appreciate your response. However I continue to disagree.
The primary question is what is meant by “routine” and to what body’s point of view does it refer. If it refers to the members of City Council your argument is stronger. If it refers to the public your argument is much weaker. I believe that the Brown Act at Government Code § 54954.3(b), while it does not deal with the issue of the consent calendar, allows Council to place different time limits for different subjects, so long as they are reasonable. Thus, I think the shortening time limits on items that are routine from the point of view of the public is permissible. I do not think any of the five items that I have objected to in the Feb. 14 or March 1 agendas meet that standard.
With Regard to 5-C The fact that the Lexipol updates are more frequent than annual, does not convince me that the item is routine to the public, especially when the Chief added three item independent of Lexipol. I also point again to the inconsistency of putting the Lexipol updates of July 21, 2021 on the regular agenda.
With regard to 5-D, I have now reviewed the minutes of the March 30 2021 Council meeting where this was presented in the regular agenda. Council directed the Chief to develop a new policy patterned after the Berkeley policy. Policy 409 a 2 ½ page document is the result and is being presented to Council for review. This a significant policy document and does not belong on the consent calendar.
With regard to 5-F my position remains unchanged. The public has a right to be fully heard when council resolves to oppose or support an initiative or a proposed bill.
I am respecting your decision not to copy Council on our exchange but would prefer and request that a copy of the thread be provided to all of the original addressees and placed in the correspondence file for these items.
Paul
From: Eric Levitt <[email protected]
>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 5:06 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Items 5-C, D and F on City Council March 1, 2022 Agenda.
Mr. Foreman:
I did not copy the Council because that could create an on-going dialogue. But I do want to explain the rationale whether you agree or disagree.
5C – This item is not an annual review, it is a continuous policy update. These are administrative policies updates which many times do not traditionally come to a Council. The Council wanted them to come to Council which is occurring and also has said previously they can come as an update.
Since Chief Joshi has been here I believe this may be the third cycle.
5D – This is updating an ERV policy which previously came to Council and was updated with public discussion. At the time a few revisions were requested.
5F-- This is a resolution of support or against a potential initiative.
Thanks
Eric
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:33 PM
To: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Items 5-C, D and F on City Council March 1, 2022 Agenda.
Dear City Manager Levitt, City Attorney Shen, City Weisiger, Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog:
My issue with Items 5-C, D and F is their placement on the consent calendar rather than the regular agenda. It is my understanding that Council agendas are drafted by the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk. Thus I have included them as recipients of this letter.
The City Council Rules of Order at Sec. 4 provides, “ Agenda items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted, approved, or adopted by one motion without discussion.” This is consistent with Roberts Rules of Order at 4!:32 which confines the consent calendar to “routine or non-controversial matters.” (Rosenberg’s Rules do not cover this subject) At your Feb. 14 meeting I spoke to you concerning my objection to the PD MOU and the recission of the Pension Obligation Bond Resolution being placed on the consent calendar. I have the same objection items 5-C, D and F in your March 1 agenda.
5-C is by far the worst example. The staff report from the Police Chief clearly explains that for many years the city contracted with Lexipol “to create, maintain, update and publish a policy manual.” However on June 14, 2020 Council directed staff that, “that no changes be made to the PD Policy Manual without bringing the changes before the City Council for discussion.” Indeed, at the July 20, 2021 Council meeting the annual Lexipol amendments were on the regular agenda at item 6-D.
There is no way Council can perform the annual “review” they ordered in 2020 if the matter is placed on the consent calendar. Moreover amendments to the Police Manual that cover almost every aspect of policing are not routine or non-controversial matters, especially with the intense scrutiny police practices have received in the community over the past year.
Item 5-D recommends rules for deployment of our ERV, a matter of significant public interest which has engendered much discussion over the past few years. There is simply no basis for considering this subject as routine or non-controversial.
Item 5-F presents a resolution opposing an initiative seeking to amend the state constitution. This is not routine. It is a specific policy action on a pending initiative. It does not belong on the consent calendar.
The new Rules of Order exacerbate the harm and prejudice caused by misplacing an item on the consent calendar. Under the prior rules any citizen could have a consent calendar item moved to the regular agenda by simply requesting to speak on itm, as could a Council Member. Under the new rules a citizen has no right to move an item to the regular agenda and only has two minutes to speak to all consent calendar items combined. A Council Member may have an item “pulled” from the consent calendar, but Council Members are given only five minutes, not the normal nine to speak on it.
Our Sunshine Ordinance at Sec. 2-91.15 states, “Every agenda for regular or special meetings at which action is proposed to be taken on an item shall provide, consistent with Council policy, an opportunity for each member of the public to directly address the body concerning that item before taking action.” I have no problem with the current consent calendar rules limiting time for comment or discussion on truly routine items. However limiting discussion and comment on non-routine items by misplacing them on the consent calendar is in conflict with this section and with the overall intent of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act.
Sincerely,
Paul Foreman
From: [email protected]
To: Eric Levitt; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Items 5-C, D and F on City Council March 1, 2022 Agenda.
Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:33:08 PM
Dear City Manager Levitt, City Attorney Shen, City Weisiger, Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog:
My issue with Items 5-C, D and F is their placement on the consent calendar rather than the regular agenda. It is my understanding that Council agendas are drafted by the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk. Thus I have included them as recipients of this letter.
The City Council Rules of Order at Sec. 4 provides, “ Agenda items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted, approved, or adopted by one motion without discussion.” This is consistent with Roberts Rules of Order at 4!:32 which confines the consent calendar to “routine or non-controversial matters.” (Rosenberg’s Rules do not cover this subject) At your Feb. 14 meeting I spoke to you concerning my objection to the PD MOU and the recission of the Pension Obligation Bond Resolution being placed on the consent calendar. I have the same objection items 5-C, D and F in your March 1 agenda.
5-C is by far the worst example. The staff report from the Police Chief clearly explains that for many years the city contracted with Lexipol “to create, maintain, update and publish a policy manual.” However on June 14, 2020 Council directed staff that, “that no changes be made to the PD Policy Manual without bringing the changes before the City Council for discussion.” Indeed, at the July 20, 2021 Council meeting the annual Lexipol amendments were on the regular agenda at item 6-D.
There is no way Council can perform the annual “review” they ordered in 2020 if the matter is placed on the consent calendar. Moreover amendments to the Police Manual that cover almost every aspect of policing are not routine or non-controversial matters, especially with the intense scrutiny police practices have received in the community over the past year.
Item 5-D recommends rules for deployment of our ERV, a matter of significant public interest which has engendered much discussion over the past few years. There is simply no basis for considering this subject as routine or non-controversial.
Item 5-F presents a resolution opposing an initiative seeking to amend the state constitution. This is not routine. It is a specific policy action on a pending initiative. It does not belong on the consent calendar.
The new Rules of Order exacerbate the harm and prejudice caused by misplacing an item on the consent calendar. Under the prior rules any citizen could have a consent calendar item moved to the regular agenda by simply requesting to speak on itm, as could a Council Member. Under the new rules a citizen has no right to move an item to the regular agenda and only has two minutes to speak to all consent calendar items combined. A Council Member may have an item “pulled” from the consent calendar, but Council Members are given only five minutes, not the normal nine to speak on it.
Our Sunshine Ordinance at Sec. 2-91.15 states, “Every agenda for regular or special meetings at which action is proposed to be taken on an item shall provide, consistent with Council policy, an opportunity for each member of the public to directly address the body concerning that item before taking action.” I have no problem with the current consent calendar rules limiting time for comment or discussion on truly routine items. However limiting discussion and comment on non-routine items by misplacing them on the consent calendar is in conflict with this section and with the overall intent of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act.
Sincerely,
Paul Foreman