1 City Clerk
From: Is Sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:59 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Items 5-C and 5-D on Consent Calendar for March 1 Meeting Dear Councilmembers,
Items 5-C and 5-D on tonight’s consent calendar include policy updates to the APD policy manual, which will cause harm to our community. Some of these updates do not comply with new CA state law, and they should be rejected until they can be properly addressed.
In item 5-C, there is an update to policy 300 which appears to be an attempt to comply with AB 490. AB 490 explicitly addresses the use of “positional asphyxia”, saying it “prohibits a law enforcement agency from authorizing techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia, as defined.” Yet APD’s proposed policy change, section 300.3.7., ignores the legal definition of "positional asphyxia" in STATE LAW by stating that “Terms such as “positional asphyxia,” “restraint asphyxia,” and “excited delirium” continue to remain the subject of debate among experts and medical professionals, are not universally recognized medical conditions, and frequently involve other collateral or controlling factors such as narcotics or alcohol influence, or pre-existing medical conditions.” APD cannot ignore AB490's legal definition of "positional asphyxia" written in state law, this policy change is therefore unlawful. It additionally leaves their position intentionally vague saying it is “impractical to restrict an officer’s use of reasonable control methods”.
This is a thinly-veiled attempt for APD to keep committing violence against our community. You must reject this section of APD’s policy updates. Considering that APD officers killed Mario Gonzalez on April 19, 2021 using positional asphyxia, this proposed policy change sure looks like a quick way to avoid accountability for their actions. It’s shameful and deeply troubling.
The second update of concern in item 5-C is the update to policy 1000. In section 1000.2, updates are proposed to comply with a new law that requires CA peace officers be 21 years of age. In Alameda, this should go beyond to include even those potential APD hires who are already in the academy. Additionally in this section, APD should be requiring employment records for out-of-state hires. Just because this is not explicitly required, it’s a basic measure to ensure murderous cops aren’t employed by APD.
Item 5-D, the update to the armored vehicle policy, includes some policy changes that directly contradict what some of this council has previously stated supporting.
First, section 409.2 of the update states that the vehicle, “may be staged at pre-designated locations, away from protest sites, to allow for a timely response,” and that the armored vehicle, “may be used in cases of a declared unlawful assembly and after a lawful dispersal order, where persons are engaged in criminal behavior that presents an objective risk of injury or death.” However, further along in the update, in section 409.7, it’s outlined that the vehicle is stored at APD. Alameda is small. How is the parking place at APD not close enough to whatever “protest” activity might happen? It’s nonsensical. This policy change is also in direct opposition to the type of action cities around the nation vowed to take in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and ensuing protests where police were violent and aggressive towards protestors. Many Alameda council members and city staff ensured the public that they would not use militarized tools against residents, yet, here is a policy update that allows for exactly that.
Lastly, section 409.2 authorizes the armored vehicle to “be used for static displays at community events, for 2 engagement and educational purposes.” This is outrageous and again, is taking a giant step backwards in how residents have asked to relate to APD. Alameda does not need to show off a militarized vehicle to the public and legitimize the frightening violence of policing. This council has already back stepped on its commitment to sell the armored vehicle, the least you could do at this point is to refrain from showing it off.
Considering the harm of some of the policy changes listed above, please reject the changes in their current form and ensure that any APD policy changes accurately comply with state law and reflect the priorities of this community. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Is Sullivan
From: Ashley Gregory
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; John Knox White; Malia Vella; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Items
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:00:12 PM
Dear City Clerk, Councilmembers and City Manager,
I am writing to oppose the proposed changes to APD policy, items 5-C and 5-D. ADP's policy needs to comply with state laws around officer conduct. APD cannot ignore AB490's legal definition of "positional asphyxia" written in state law, this policy change is therefore unlawful. Considering that APD officers killed Mario Gonzalez on April 19, 2021 using positional asphyxia, this proposed policy change is deeply troubling.
I am also concerned about item 7-A which would drastically increase renter's burden, potentially as early as 30 days from today. For many living on a fixed income, this would be very difficult.
I encourage council to discuss all things renters or tenant's rights to be discussed with ARC.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ashley Gregory
From: Savanna Cheer
To: Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; John Knox White; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; City Clerk Cc: Manager Manager; Eric Levitt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Consent Calendar items 5-C and 5-D
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 3:07:36 PM
Hello:
Items 5-C and 5-D on tonight’s consent calendar include policy updates to the APD policy manual, which will cause harm to our community. Some of these updates do not comply with new CA state law, and they should be rejected until they can be properly addressed. I'd like to share my specific objections to items within 5-C and 5-D:
In item 5-C, there is an update to policy 300 which appears to be an attempt to comply with AB 490. AB 490 explicitly states that police departments cannot authorize the use of “positional asphyxia,” yet APD’s proposed policy change, section 300.3.7., essentially does authorize "positional asphyxia" by allowing officers to seemingly use techniques that would unreasonably impair an individual's breathing or respiratory capacity up until that “individual has been adequately and safely controlled,” (since the policy change only bans those methods that would "unreasonably impair an individual’s breathing or respiratory capacity” AFTER they've been "adequately and safely controlled.") Allowing officers to use such techniques is atrocious and is in clear violation of AB 490.
The opening of section 300.3.7 also ignores the legal definition of "positional asphyxia" in STATE LAW by stating that “Terms such as “positional asphyxia,” “restraint asphyxia,” and “excited delirium” continue to remain the subject of debate among experts and medical professionals, are not universally recognized medical conditions, and frequently involve other collateral or controlling factors such as narcotics or alcohol influence, or pre-existing medical conditions.” APD cannot ignore AB490's legal definition of "positional asphyxia" written in state law; this policy change is therefore unlawful.
This is a thinly-veiled attempt for APD to keep committing violence in our community.
You must reject this section of APD’s policy updates. Considering that APD officers killed Mario Gonzalez on April 19, 2021 using positional asphyxia, this proposed policy change sure looks like a quick way to avoid accountability for their actions. It’s shameful and deeply troubling.
Item 5-D, the update to the armored vehicle policy, includes some policy changes that directly contradict what some of this council has previously stated supporting. First, section 409.2 of the update states that the vehicle, “may be staged at pre-designated locations, away from protest sites, to allow for a timely response,” and that the armored vehicle, “may be used in cases of a declared unlawful assembly and after a lawful dispersal order, where persons are engaged in criminal behavior that presents an objective risk of injury or death.” However, further along in the update, in section 409.7, it’s outlined that the vehicle is stored at APD. Alameda is small. How is the parking place at APD not close enough to whatever “protest” activity might happen? It’s nonsensical. This policy change is also in direct opposition to the type of action cities around the nation vowed to take in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and ensuing protests where police were violent and aggressive towards protestors. Many Alameda council members and city staff ensured the public that they would not use militarized tools against residents, yet, here is a policy update that allows for exactly that.
Lastly, section 409.2 authorizes the armored vehicle to “be used for static displays at community events, for engagement and educational purposes.” This is outrageous and again, is taking a giant step backwards in how residents have asked to relate to APD.
Alameda does not need to show off a militarized vehicle to the public and legitimize the frightening violence of policing. This council has already back stepped on its commitment to sell the armored vehicle, the least you could do at this point is to refrain from showing it off.
Alameda has already had to endure a lot of back peddling and delays as it relates to the Police Reform and Racial Justice Committee's work. Namely, reversing course on selling APD's armored vehicle; inaction on any police oversight efforts; and, allowing APD to have their hands in any and all "reform" measures in place. There is a larger point being missed time and time again. In 2020, when the city council chose to convene the Police Reform and Racial Justice Committee it seemed in direct response to community calls for action on policing in our city. The call was explicitly in favor of less policing. Less visible, less violent, less targeted - LESS. This means cops should not be allowed to parade militarized toys around town, they shouldn't have a seat at every table where policing is discussed, and it absolutely means that they should not be allowed to skirt state laws limiting their behavior.
Thank you,
Savanna Cheer
From: Carly Stadum-Liang
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to consent calendar items Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 1:32:57 PM
Hello Clerk, please find below my comment for tonight's City Council meeting:
Items 5-C and 5-D on tonight’s consent calendar include policy updates to the APD policy manual, which will cause harm to our community. Some of these updates do not comply with new CA state law, and they should be rejected until they can be properly addressed.
In item 5-C, there is an update to policy 300 which appears to be an attempt to comply with AB 490. AB 490 explicitly states that police departments cannot authorize the use of “positional asphyxia,” yet APD’s proposed policy change, section 300.3.7., essentially does authorize "positional asphyxia" by allowing officers to seemingly use techniques that would unreasonably impair an individual's breathing or respiratory capacity up until that “individual has been adequately and safely controlled,” (since the policy change only bans those methods that would "unreasonably impair an individual’s breathing or respiratory capacity” AFTER they've been "adequately and safely controlled.") Allowing officers to use such techniques is atrocious and is in clear violation of AB 490.
The opening of section 300.3.7 also ignores the legal definition of "positional asphyxia" in STATE LAW by stating that “Terms such as “positional asphyxia,” “restraint asphyxia,” and “excited delirium” continue to remain the subject of debate among experts and medical professionals, are not universally recognized medical conditions, and frequently involve other collateral or controlling factors such as narcotics or alcohol influence, or pre-existing medical conditions.” APD cannot ignore AB490's legal definition of "positional asphyxia" written in state law; this policy change is therefore unlawful.
This is a thinly-veiled attempt for APD to keep committing violence against our community. You must reject this section of APD’s policy updates. Considering that APD officers killed Mario Gonzalez on April 19, 2021 using positional asphyxia, this proposed policy change sure looks like a quick way to avoid accountability for their actions. It’s shameful and deeply troubling.
Finally, the policy update #468.8, is only a half-hearted attempt to comply with AB48 as the proposed change omits all the important restrictive language from AB48, it only tells officers only when they CAN use tear gas, but doesn't include anything from AB48 about when they CAN'T use it, nor does it explain any of the requirements of state law that officers must follow when using tear gas, which include "(1) Deescalation techniques or other alternatives to force have been attempted, when objectively reasonable, and have failed. (2) Repeated, audible announcements are made announcing the intent to use kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents and the type to be used, when objectively reasonable to do so. The announcements shall be made from various locations, if necessary, and delivered in multiple languages, if appropriate.
(3) Persons are given an objectively reasonable opportunity to disperse and leave the scene.
(4) An objectively reasonable effort has been made to identify persons engaged in violent acts and those who are not, and kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents are targeted toward those individuals engaged in violent acts.
Projectiles shall not be aimed indiscriminately into a crowd or group of persons. (5) Kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents are used only with the frequency, intensity, and in a manner that is proportional to the threat and objectively reasonable.
(6) Officers shall minimize the possible incidental impact of their use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents on bystanders, medical personnel, journalists, or other unintended targets.
(7) An objectively reasonable effort has been made to extract individuals in distress.
(8) Medical assistance is promptly provided, if properly trained personnel are present, or procured, for injured persons, when it is reasonable and safe to do so.
(9) Kinetic energy projectiles shall not be aimed at the head, neck, or any other vital organs."
While I assume officers who have undergone the POST training mentioned in the policy update 468.8 will learn these requirements, by not also including these requirements in the police manual, it will excuse officers from being accused of violating their policy manual if they don't follow these requirements (although they would still be in violation of state law).
Item 5-D, the update to the armored vehicle policy, includes some policy changes that directly contradict what some of this council has previously stated supporting.
First, section 409.2 of the update states that the vehicle, “may be staged at pre-designated locations, away from protest sites, to allow for a timely response,” and that the armored vehicle, “may be used in cases of a declared unlawful assembly and after a lawful dispersal order, where persons are engaged in criminal behavior that presents an objective risk of injury or death.” However, further along in the update, in section 409.7, it’s outlined that the vehicle is stored at APD. Alameda is small. How is the parking place at APD not close enough to whatever “protest” activity might happen? It’s nonsensical. This policy change is also in direct opposition to the type of action cities around the nation vowed to take in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and ensuing protests where police were violent and aggressive towards protestors. Many Alameda council members and city staff ensured the public that they would not use militarized tools against residents, yet, here is a policy update that allows for exactly that.
Lastly, section 409.2 authorizes the armored vehicle to “be used for static displays at community events, for engagement and educational purposes.” This is outrageous and again, is taking a giant step backwards in how residents have asked to relate to APD. Alameda does not need to show off a militarized vehicle to the public and legitimize the frightening violence of policing. This council has already back stepped on its commitment to sell the armored vehicle, the least you could do at this point is to refrain from showing it off.
Considering the harm of some of the policy changes listed above, please reject the changes in their current form and ensure that any APD policy changes accurately comply with state law and reflect the priorities of this community. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carly Stadum-Liang, Esq.
From: Jenice A
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Eric Levitt; City Clerk; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Subject: [EXTERNAL] Consent Calendar 3/1
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 1:13:02 PM
Dear Council and City Manager,
There are two items on tonight's consent calendar that I think are totally inappropriate to pass without community input. Item 5-C and 5-D, both regarding police policy changes. Item 5-C blatantly ignores AB-490 in disregarding state legal definition of positional asphyxia and says "it is impractical to restrict an officer’s use of reasonable control methods”. Suffocating someone in any position is not a reasonable method of control. There are numerous issues with this update but given that APD is ignoring state law on use of force that contributed to the homicide of Mario Gonzalez this omission is the most egregious.
Item 5-C shouldn't even be coming up for a vote since we SHOULD have gotten rid of the armored vehicle long ago, but here we are thanks to last year's revote on the item. APD, where the vehicle is stored, is a central enough location for it to remain during a protest and reach any outbreak of "violence" in a timely manner. If it wasn't mobilized for a man aiming a gun at Black protesters on MLK day then I can't foresee any situation in which it would actually be needed anyway. Additionally, the idea that a vehicle like this should be used at ANY community event for supposed "educational" purposes is the least thinly veiled attempt at copaganda I have seen in a while. If APD wants to keep their expensive toys they can justify it without showing it off at events where community members who have been already harmed by APD might be in attendance.
I was truly shocked to see that I am in agreement with Paul Foreman on this. Placing these items on consent is irresponsible at best and at worst harmful to our community which some of you continue to proclaim should have an input on police issues. Which is a great opportunity to remind you that there has been no progress on community oversight of APD as the Steering Committee recommended OR the CARE program as was agreed to in it's adoption.
Sincerely,
Jenice Anderson
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: Jackie Zipkin
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Eric Levitt Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on Items 5-C and 5-D on March 1, 2022 Agenda Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 9:31:24 PM
Dear Madam Clerk, Madam Mayor, and Honorable City Councilmembers, I'm writing to request that Items 5-C and 5-D on tomorrow night’s consent calendar be pulled and reconsidered.
The policy updates in Item 5-C do not comply with new California state law, and the proposed policy in Item 5-D is not consistent with previous direction from the Council.
These policies should be rejected until they can be properly revised.
Specifically, in item 5-C, there is an update to policy 300, which appears to be an attempt to comply with AB 490. However, AB 490 explicitly outlaws the use of “positional asphyxia” yet APD’s proposed policy change does not use any language that clearly outlaws positional asphyxia. Instead, the opening of section 300.3.7 questions the legitimacy of existing law AB 490 by proposing that: “Terms such as “positional asphyxia,” “restraint asphyxia,” and “excited delirium” continue to remain the subject of debate among experts and medical professionals, are not universally recognized medical conditions, and frequently involve other collateral or controlling factors such as narcotics or alcohol influence, or pre-existing medical conditions.” Section 300.3.7 goes on to exclude any mention of restricting APD officers’ specific use of “positional asphyxia.” This is illegal and does not comply with AB 490. APD officers killed Mario Gonzalez on April 19, 2021 using positional asphyxia. This is therefore not a theoretical issue, but one with life or death consequences. I call upon the Council to reject this section of APD's proposed policy updates and direct them to revise it appropriately.
Item 5-D, the update to the armored vehicle policy, includes policy changes that directly contradict what Council has previously directed. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder and ensuing protests where police were violent and aggressive towards protestors in cities across America, Alameda Councilmembers and city staff ensured the public that militarized tools would not be used here against residents. Yet, this policy update allows for exactly that.
Section 409.2 of the update states that the vehicle, “may be staged at pre-designated locations, away from protest sites, to allow for a timely response,” and that the armored vehicle, “may be used in cases of a declared unlawful assembly and after a lawful dispersal order, where persons are engaged in criminal behavior that presents an objective risk of injury or death.” However, further along in the update, section 409.7 notes that the vehicle is stored at APD. Alameda is small. How is the parking place at APD not close enough to whatever “protest” activity might happen?
Section 409.2 authorizes the armored vehicle to “be used for static displays at community events, for engagement and educational purposes.” This is outrageous and again, is taking a giant step backwards in how residents have asked to relate to APD. Alameda does not need to show off a militarized vehicle to the public and legitimize the frightening violence of policing.
Considering the harm of some of the policy changes listed above, please reject the changes in their current form and ensure that any APD policy changes accurately comply with state law and reflect the priorities of this community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jackie Zipkin
Alameda resident
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
From: Eric Levitt
To: Nishant Joshi; Jeffery Emmitt; Matthew McMullen
Cc: Lara Weisiger; Yibin Shen; Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Armored Vehicle
Date: Thursday, February 24, 2022 8:07:23 AM
FYI
From: Transform Alameda [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 8:32 PM
To: APD Records <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Armored Vehicle
Hello,
We would like to request the recorded usage of the "Emergency Response Vehicle" from January 2020 through February 22, 2022. Including date, report number and summary of use including the city where it was used. I've copied the City Manager as I realize the record keeping regarding the vehicle may be in transition. If I need to submit the request to the city via the nextrequest system please let us know at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
TA
--
Web | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook