1 Lauren Berges
From: Laurie alderman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2:29 PM
To: Damien O'Bid
Cc: Mark Landman; Lauren Berges; John Bakker; Ben Ford; Laura Sparks; Susan Harvey; John Moore; George Barich
Subject: Re: My citizen's comment for Tuesday's city council meeting on the consent calendar--request for council members to pull the Measure G/S Citizen Oversight Committee item for discussion.
Attachments: damien locks me out of chat.JPG
Lauren, please add this to my written comment for tonight's meeting.
Excuses, excuses for your behavior, Damien.
1. I did not say the meeting was not properly noticed. I did not know that it was an amended agenda for Zoom only. When was the amended agenda posted? It was likely 24 hours or so before, given your history of updating/amending agendas over the years at the last possible legal moment to do so. I said it was treated differently than other meetings on the calendar, i.e. meeting dates being scheduled on the city calendar, disappearing with no cancellation notice, etc. The planning commission only a week later, was treated differently, in that it was scheduled, cancellation notices are posted.
2. The city has a long history, especially from 2009-2016, of treating the special meetings differently than city meetings. This includes the strategic planning, budget, and Measure G/S Oversight committees. They were held in the police community room with no webcast ability there and no minutes taken for years. Some even in the council chambers were treated differently by the city, i.e. no minutes taken. This is an issue in the federal lawsuit. To continue the practice of making the citizens have to search for when the special meetings are, needs to stop. Making citizens jump through hoops to find out the meeting was Zoom only was taking things to the extreme. I was the only citizen signed on to Zoom under these circumstances. These problems with participation in council meetings, and I being the only citizen who figured out the maze to sign on, has happened more than a couple of times since the pandemic began..
3. There is no explanation from you why the choice was made to not televise or webcast the meeting compared to other city meetings. There was no notice that it would not be treated as every other meeting is, with a webcast and broadcast, unless a citizen opened the agenda packet...which they would have to know there was the meeting scheduled (it wasn't even on the headlines for most of the weeks prior to the meeting and it had been rescheduled a few times). . Citizens needed to know beforehand that it was Zoom only, to sign on to Zoom (if they know how by going to the agenda packet to get the Zoom code and passcode, etc.) to be able to participate in the meeting to give public input. This change was not publicized at all...it could have been mentioned over the city's Facebook page, etc. about the change. Public Comment was at the beginning of the meeting --- the only agendized place where citizens have the legal right to speak...and of course, with the situation you created, no public comment happened during the agendized time, or in fact, for the whole meeting. I think I was the only citizen who signed onto Zoom for the whole meeting.
4. The chat feature was not disabled at the beginning of the meeting, or I would not have been able to leave my request (see attached). On the webcast published the day afterwards, you acknowledge my message (15.50) and then you disabled the chat feature at that time. You knew it was me, so you disabled chat at 15.50. It was a direct action against me.
2 5. I had no other options but to use chat. I first tried to get on the webcast, then checked the TV for a broadcast. Then I emailed you and Lauren at 6:10 that I would try Zoom. It took about 5 minutes to look up the Zoom code and password and sign on. I used the raised hand icon to no reply once signed on. You or Lauren did not answer my email (nor have you ever acknowledged that email since). The only option I had to contact you to participate/watch the meeting was through the chat function which was on.
Please own up to what the situation was. Admit some wrongdoing. Or keep the status quo, I don't care....do you ever wonder why there hasn't been hardly any public input in recent months, city council members? Maybe the citizens are tired of these games/hoops that are played to silence the citizens.
Sincerely,
Laurie Alderman
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 12:41:38 PM PST, Damien O'Bid <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Laurie,
As stated during the Measure S meeting, the meeting was properly noticed per the Brown Act (actually significantly exceeded the Brown Act requirement for this special meeting), with an amended agenda subsequently published that indicated the meeting would be hosted in the provided Zoom format only. Passive viewing was still available the next day, as you know.
We don’t allow the “chatting” function in Brown Act meetings and we intentionally disable it in Zoom before the meetings. All comments by the public or by elected/appointed officials must happen during the agenized times to ensure fair, transparent and orderly discussion on all City business.
If you would like to be on the Measure S mailing list, please let Lauren Berges know. Each meeting body has its own mailing list.
Sincerely,
Damien O'Bid
City Manager
City of Cotati
From: Laurie alderman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:13 PM
To: Lauren Berges <[email protected]>; Damien O'Bid <[email protected]>; Laura Sparks <[email protected]>; Mark Landman <[email protected]>; Ben Ford <[email protected]>; Susan Harvey <[email protected]>; John Moore <[email protected]> Cc: John Bakker <[email protected]>; George Barich <[email protected]> 3 Subject: My citizen's comment for Tuesday's city council meeting on the consent calendar--request for council members to pull the Measure G/S Citizen Oversight Committee item for discussion.
I request that the city council members request to pull the Measure G/S Citizen Oversight Committee letter item for discussion, to have the city manager/staff address the following issues:
1. The Measure G/S citizens oversight committee meeting date was changed a few times, such as a date in early December "disappeared" from the city's calendar. Any other meeting has a cancellation notice sent out if the meeting is not being held on that date posted. Please explain why there were multiple dates for the committee meeting, yet they are noticed differently than other special meetings, i.e. the planning commission meetings.
2. Please have the city manager explain why the Measure G/S Citizen committee agenda was not sent to the city's email subscribers for all city meetings.
3. Please have the city manager justify why the Measure G/S Citizen committee meeting was not live broadcast or webcast as all other meetings are, such as the special meeting a week later of the planning commission that was fully broadcast on the city's webcast, Cotati TV Channel 28 and on Zoom.
4. Please have the city manager explain why when it was requested in the chat feature that the meeting be rescheduled/delayed until telecommunications were fixed (and acknowledged at 15.50 in the Zoom recording), why he stated the meeting was just on Zoom, and then disabled the chat feature at that time, knowing it was me who had made the request.
5. Please have the city manager explain why my emails to him and Lauren Berges regarding the webcast, broadcast and Zoom situation, at 6:10 p.m. were not replied to at any time.
6. Please have the city manager and staff explain why the Measure G meeting was not listed in the upcoming events/meetings headline section, until I pointed out the omission on social media, and then it was updated to be in the headlines section.
Thank you,
4 Laurie Alderman
Under the Public Records Act (California Government Code §6250-6270), e-mail messages of local agencies are public records which are subject to disclosure to the public or may be subpoenaed.
Under the Public Records Act (California Government Code §6250-6270), e-mail messages of local agencies are public records which are subject to disclosure to the public or may be subpoenaed.
Under the Public Records Act (California Government Code §6250‐6270), e‐mail messages of local agencies are public records which are subject to disclosure to the public or may be subpoenaed.