WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: STEVE MAYER
DATE: MARCH 9, 2024
RE: AGENDA ITEM 4 – CITY COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL
Comments / Recommendations
Please permit this communication to provide comments and recommendations about the proposed changes to the City Council Policy Manual. 11 P.M. CUT-OFF
(Page 10 – 2nd Paragraph -City Council Meetings) [Page 16 of Agenda Report] “On the evening of the formal meeting, should the City Council still be in session at 11:00 P.M., then a vote shall occur as to whether the City Council will continue the items on the agenda to another evening or if the City Council will finish hearing some or all of the items remaining on the agenda. A majority vote of the City Council is required to continue the items to the next meeting.”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
Does this mean that an Agenda Item could be truncated mid-stream (and continued to a future date)? It is unfair to the public to have to return a second time.
RECOMMENDATION: The cut-off does not apply to an Agenda Items currently being heard at 11 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTER ADDRESS
(Page 12 – Paragraph 2 - Public Comment At Council Meetings) [Page 18 of Agenda Report] “Each person desiring to address the City Council may should furnish their name and address to the City Clerk.”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
The Brown Act specifically states that an address may not be required. Using the word “should” instead of “may” has a suppressive effect.
RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate “should”; revert back to “may.” City Council / Mayer
Agenda Item A-4
March 9, 2024
LIMITING PUBLIC COMMENT
(Page 13 – Organization the Meeting) [Page 4 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report (Page 4):
“11) There was further discussion by the City Council to limit public comment on items not on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting to occur for a set period of time before moving on to agendized items. Public comment on non-agendized items would then continue after the agendized items concluded. The City Council expressed an interest in further exploring what this could look like for the City of Beverly Hills without reaching a decision.”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
Do you really want residents to have to wait until 11 p.m. to make their public comment?
RECOMMENDATION: Make no change.
BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR COMMISISONERS
(Page 18 – Scheduled Vacancies) [Page 22 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“Background check will be required for all newly appointed Commissioners.”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
What constitutes the factors which result in “failing” a background check? RECOMMENDATION: Define under what conditions an appointed Commissioner can be excused after a background check.
City Council / Mayer
Agenda Item A-4
March 9, 2024
ELIMINATING RIGHT OF COUNCILEMBERS FROM INTERVIEWING
COMMISSION CANDIDATES
(Page 18 - Confirm interview dates / times) [Page 24 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“City councilmembers NOT on the interview panel have 30 days to interview any/all candidates following receipt of the written recommendation”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
Why was this deleted? Why eliminate a Councilmember’s right? RECOMMNDATION: Restore original language
BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR COMMISISONERS
(Page 19 – Unscheduled Vacancies) [Page 25 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“Background check will be required for all newly appointed Commissioners.”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
What constitutes the factors which result in “failing” a background check? RECOMMENDATION: Define under what conditions an appointed Commission can be excused after a background check.
City Council / Mayer
Agenda Item A-3
March 9, 2024
ELIMINATING RIGHT OF COUNCILEMBERS FROM INTERVIEWING
COMMISSION CANDIDATES
(Page 20 - Establish Interview Panel) [Page 26 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“City councilmembers NOT on the interview panel have ONE WEEK to interview any/all candidates following receipt of the written recommendations.”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
Why was this deleted? Why eliminate a Councilmember’s right? RECOMMNDATION: Restore original language
ELIMINATING HISTORICAL PESPECTIVE OF THE BROWN ACT
(Page 27 – Confidentiality of Closed Sessions) [Page 33 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“In 2003, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1945 (“AB 1945”) to address a long-standing problem associated with confidential communications in closed session – how to maintain the confidentiality of the discussions. Although a California Attorney General Opinion stated that it was “improper” for officials to disclose information discussed in closed session, 76 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 289, 290-91 (1993), there was previously no enforcement mechanism to prevent such disclosures.” COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION: Why was this deleted? Why eliminate an historical perspective of one of the most important legislative acts overseeing every meeting? This Policy Manual is also a resource for residents.
RECOMMNDATION: Restore original language
City Council / Mayer
Agenda Item A-4
March 9, 2024
ELIMINATING REFERENCE TO CITY ATTORNEY’S ORIENTATION
MANUAL
(Page 28 – 5th Bullet Point) [Page 34 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“[See also the City Attorney’s Orientation Manual for a discussion of prohibited gifts….]”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION: Why was this deleted? Why eliminate a reference where not only a Councilmember, but a resident may seek greater information.
RECOMMNDATION: Restore original language
ELIMINATING INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS AS TO ADDING ITEMS TO AGENDA
(Page 36 – Placing Items On Agenda) [Page 42 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“The Council holds formal meetings in the Council Chamber of the City Hall on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m. and on such other days as necessary.
“The Council holds Informal meetings in the Council Chamber of the City Hall on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 2:30 p.m. and on such other days as necessary. At the informal meetings the Council shall not take any formal binding action upon any resolutions, ordinance, or other action required by law to be taken by the council. Such action occurs at the formal meetings.”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
These paragraphs are important to establish a context to the proceeding section.
RECOMMENDATION: Restore deletions.
City Council / Mayer
Agenda Item A-4
March 9, 2024
COUNCILMEMBER NO LONGER HAVING AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO
REQUEST A STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM
(Page 36 – Policy) [Page 42 of Agenda Report]
Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“Any City Ccouncilmember may request an item be placed on a future study session Informal meeting agenda with the consent of the Mayor.
These items are limited to one hour of staff time to research and write the report. Alternatively, a majority of the City Council may place an item on the study session meeting agenda.”
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
There are several problems with this proposed change.
First, the Mayor may refuse.
Second, one hour is not sufficient “... to research and write the report…” It seems as though it is another reason to reject an Agenda Item. For example, a potential “call-up” requires far more than an hour to prepare.
Third, the “alternative” of the a majority of the City Council requesting an Agenda Item seems to inevitably violate the Brown Act definition of a “serial meeting.” [Under most circumstances, a Councilmember cannot speak to more than one other Councilmember on a subject.]
RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate the additions.
City Council / Mayer
Agenda Item A-4
March 9, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENT TRANSMITTAL TO COUNCIL
(Page 41 - Last bullet point) [Page 47 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“If a public comment is provided for a City Council meeting, the correspondence should be forwarded to the City Clerk’s office for inclusion the packet. The City Clerk may forward to the City Council, City Manager, Assistant City Manager and City Attorney a copy of the correspondence in advance of the City Council meeting.” COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
Does this mean that the City Clerk can, at the Clerk’s discretion, not forward public comment to the City Council?
RECOMMENDATION: Clarify what a City Clerk can or cannot do, relative to public comment submitted to the City Council
In addition, there should be further clarification as to when such public comment such public comment is transmitted.
STAFF / COMMISSIONS NO LONGER BEING ABLE TO TAKE POSITION ON
LEGISLATIVE MATTER
(Page 45 - 2nd Bullet Point) [Page 51 of Agenda Report] Excerpt From Agenda Report:
“On all other topics, staff, Commissions and other parties or individuals must obtain City Council authorization to develop and transmit a City position on a legislative matter. City Council authorization must be obtained from a majority of the City Council through action at a City Council meeting.”
City Council / Mayer
Agenda Item A-4
March 9, 2024
COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION:
Why are Staff and Commissions being excluded? Is not the purpose of Staff and Commissions to highlight issues for the Council? And why are “individuals” being excluded?
Since authorizations must be obtained from the City Council, it seems pointless to exclude anyone.
Does not the Council want as much input as possible from as many different viewpoints?
RECOMMENDATION: Restore the deletions
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
From: Thomas A. White
To: City Clerk
Subject: Today"s (Mon March 11th, 2024) Study Session - Agenda Item 4 City Council Policy Manual Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 2:03:05 PM
TO BE READ ALOUD
Dear Mayor and Council –
These are the Municipal League’s comments at this time to the proposed updating of the City Council Policy Manual:
1. All relevant state and local authorities should continue to be cited for each applicable policy in the Manual. These are an important part of the Manual’s legislative history and valuable guide to its correct interpretation.
2. Brown Act public comment should continue to be agendized at the beginning of every public meeting and continue without interruption until all comments have been heard. Any delay in being heard or bifurcation to a later agenda item is an unjustified suppressant of the public’s right to timely and collectively direct its elected representatives in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the Council’s obligation to provide the greatest possible opportunity for public comments to be encouraged and facilitated without delay.
3. The requested inclusion of agenda items proposed by
Councilmembers should not be subject to approval of the Mayor, and there is no just cause to grant any such veto power to the Mayor. This is a longstanding and successful policy. There has been no abuse and there is no evidence to support altering the current standard.
Additionally, no limit on staff time to research and write a report should be imposed as a condition for a Councilmember to add a study session agenda item.
4. Any Councilmember should be free and without restriction to interview any commission candidates, and should not be governed or restrained by the recommendation of any Council ad hoc or liaison committee.
Thomas White
Chairman, Board of Governors
The Municipal League of Beverly Hills