Personnel and Public Employees Committee [Updated 05/24/2022 @ 10:45 a.m.]
Meeting Time: 05-24-22 15:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Personnel and Public Employees
Committee [Updated 05/24/2022 @ 10:45
a.m.]
05-24-22
15:00
18 8 0 7 1
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Personnel and Public Employees Committee [Updated 05/24/2022 @ 10:45 a.m.] 05-24-22 15:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5. An Ordinance Adding Chapter 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Procedure for Mayor or Councilmember Vacancies, and Amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions Generally File ID: 2022-01121
8 0 7 1
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 5. An Ordinance Adding Chapter 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Procedure for Mayor or Councilmember Vacancies, and Amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions Generally File ID: 2022-01121
Overall Sentiment
Brandy Tuzon Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 3:06pm 05-24-22
While I applaud efforts to codify how Sacramento City Council advisory commissions, committees and boards function, I am concerned that these proposals have not been shared prior to appearing on today’s agenda.
Please refer to the attached document for my detailed response.
Charlene Jones
Location:
Submitted At: 1:15pm 05-24-22
On behalf of the Sacramento Policy Analysis Network (SPAN) and the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County (LWVSC), we are writing to request three amendments to the proposed ordinance to regulate the procedures of city boards and commissions. We support the overall goal of clarifying and standardizing the procedures of city boards and commissions. However, we are concerned that two sections in this proposal could impact the efficiency and work product quality of city boards and commissions. Please see attached letter for specific recommended ordinance language.
Will Cannady
Location:
Submitted At: 12:51pm 05-24-22
My name is Will Cannady and I have served on the Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission for the last 5 years. I am writing today regarding the following:
SECTION 2.
2.40.160 Standing and ad hoc committees.
*City boards and commissions may not establish standing committees or ad hoc Committees.
I oppose the proposal to remove the option for boards and commissions to establish standing committees and ad hoc committees. City commissions need to have the capacity to work on ongoing tasks outside of our meetings.
Over the last year I personally led a committee to establish the Tim Haley Award Program. This program recognizes Sacramento residents who go above and beyond to support our disabled community and it is named after our friend the late Commissioner Haley. Our committee facilitated the opportunity for a small group of commissioners to put in the additional work required to make the award happen. I urge you to please consider removing this part of the ordinance.
Alan McMillan
Location:
Submitted At: 10:52am 05-24-22
I support the initiative to structure and document the processes and procedures regarding the use of commissions.
I do support the ability for a commissioner to retain their seat upon expiration until a replacement has been made, this will enhance the ability of the commission to continue their services if replacements are not readily made.
I do support term limits however I do feel enforcing the replacement of the Chairperson.The commission should be allowed to grant a second year if they deem appropriate. A two year term of the Chair brings more consistency and leadership to the commission.
I strongly oppose the elimination of Ad-Hoc committees. It can take two or three meetings to raise an issue. A month for a response, sometime two, and then respond to that a month later. This inhibits the effectiveness of the commissions to bring any timely advice to the City , and in the DAC case any support we can bring to disabled citizens of our city.
Alan McMillan VC DAC.
William Burg
Location: M__ndo_b
Submitted At: 9:16am 05-24-22
I oppose adoption of this ordinance as written; I currently serve as President of Sacramento Heritage Inc. Board of Directors but am commenting as a private citizen. There is no reason to forbid city boards and commissions from establishing subcommittees, and no justification is provided in the ordinance or staff report to explain why this step is being taken.
Recent changes regarding board and commission hearings have made it impossible for the Sacramento Heritage Inc. Board of Directors to meet (we have not met in about a year), because setting up a meeting now requires more work than staff and board have the capacity to execute. Eliminating subcommittees means that even if SHI can ever meet again, we cannot execute the functions of our organization (administering Historic Places Grant, designing & holding in-person & virtual walking tours, managing the city's Historic Plaque program.) Vote NO or remove the code regarding subcommittees from this ordinance.
Jackie Whitelam
Location:
Submitted At: 12:32am 05-24-22
I am opposed to adoption of this ordinance as currently written. While I agree that City boards and commissions should not establish standing committees, they should be able to establish ad hoc committees. Ad hoc committees are temporary committees formed for a specific purpose. During my two terms on the Preservation Commission, I found them to be useful in supplementing staff's efforts in the development of public policy.
Specifically, serving on the Adhoc Committee for Infill Development I and two other commissioners drafted Interim infill Development Guidelines for Historic Districts that led to the City's preparation and subsequent adoption of the Historic District Design Guidelines in December 2019. Simultaneously the City was developing its Streamline Ordinance. As I recall this effort was initiated by an Adhoc Committee of the Planning and Design Commission.
Jackie Whitelam, Member and Preservation Commission Chair (2016-2022) Barry F. Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 7:40pm 05-23-22
I do oppose:
SECTION 2.
Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Article III. Meetings of Boards and Commissions
2.40.160 Standing and ad hoc committees.
*City boards and commissions may not establish standing committees or ad hoc committees.
I am requesting this portion (City boards and commissions may not establish {ad hoc committees} of Code (2.40.160) be removed from the AMENDING CHAPTER 2.40 OF THE SACRAMENTO CITY CODE, RELATING TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS GENERALL Y .
I want to make sure this portion of Code 2.40.160 is removed so all Sacramento City Boards and Commissions have the ability and authority to establish and convene Ad Hoc Committees.
If I am miss understanding the intent the way Code 2.40.160 is written in the Agenda, I do apologize and will gladly withdraw my request.
regards,
Barry F . Boyd
Commissioner - Planning and Design Commission
Planning and Design Commission Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to Parking Requirements Joe Flores
Location:
Submitted At: 3:49pm 05-23-22
Hello Personnel and Public Employees Committee,
My name is Joe Flores and I am a current Commissioner on the Parks and Community Enrichment Commission.
In 2018 and 2019, I had the honor to serve as the Commission Chair, and one aspect of today's proposal I do not agree with is 2.40.170 Chairperson and vice-chairperson.
See the attached letter for my full thoughts.
Joe Flores
Parks and Community Enrichment Commission - District 5
Chair 2018 & 2019
May 24, 2022
Members of the Personnel and Public Employees Committee, While I applaud efforts to codify how Sacramento City Council advisory commissions, committees and boards function, I am concerned that these proposals have not been shared prior to appearing on today’s agenda.
2.40.060 Vacancies
As stated in the staff report, members are allowed to hold over in expired terms until a new appointment is made. Formalizing this practice will ensure the council’s advisory bodies can continue to function while replacements are sought and appointed. I recommend that moving forward, when a member receives notification that their term is expiring, they also be informed that they can continue to serve until their replacement is seated. This is not currently the practice.
2.40.080 Failure to attend meetings.
There is an existing attendance policy in place for members who miss meetings, but it is not enforced. How would the proposed change this? The language appears to lack a mechanism to trigger and process for enforcement.
2.40.160 Standing and ad hoc committees.
The Disability Advisory Commission has created ad hoc committee at the advice of city staff.
How would passage of this section impact existing ad hoc committees we have used to do time consuming work such as reviewing nominations for recognition awards, analysis of the city’s accessibility and drafting correspondence. Will advisory bodies need to meet more frequently?
2.40.170 Chairperson and vice-chairperson.
Limiting the number of terms a member can serve as chair and vice chair could also limit the effectiveness of an advisory body. For example, not all members of the Disability Advisory Commission are seated at the same time and our work frequently overlaps calendar years. A change in leadership could stall progress and stifle meaningful work by dedicated volunteers.
2.40.200 Review of boards and commission.
Missing altogether is the annual reporting for the council’s advisory commissions, committees and board discussed by this committee in February. If the goal is to streamline and establish consistency for how advisory bodies function, it should be part of this ordinance.
Please be mindful that not all commissions, committees and boards are created equally and that some of these policies and procedures may not work for all.
Sincerely,
Brandy Tuzon Boyd, Chair
Disabilities Advisory Commission
Hello Personnel and Public Employees Committee,
My name is Joe Flores and I am a current Commissioner on the Parks and Community Enrichment Commission. In 2018 and 2019, I had the honor to serve as the Commission Chair, and one aspect of today's proposal I do not agree with is 2.40.170 Chairperson and vice -chairperson. This would prevent the ability for a person to serve as Chair or Vice Chair for consecutive years. As a 2 -term Chairperson myself, I truly feel that I fully grasp the power of the seat into my second year. The time it takes to work with the YPCE Executive team, YPCE Staff and working with fellow commissioners , does take more than 12 months to acclimate. There is value in maintaining workflow and stability in creating the monthly agendas and work items for each commission meeting.
Not all commissions are built equality , as we are tasked to address different aspects of city business to advise the council on. A high profile, highly visible commission like Parks and Community Enrichment, projects takes years to complete, and also takes time after the ribbon cutting to evaluate outcomes of the programing or installed amenity, and the proposed streamline policy for all commissions to follow forces commissions to fit in a pre -defined box, thus breaking the spirit of the reason why dynamic and diverse subject matter experts & community leaders are chosen to serve on the commission in the first place.
Handcuffing the ability to be creativ e does not serve commission goal in serving t he community and to advise the council. I do believe all commissions should follow general and overall best practices administratively, but not allowing the commission some flexibility is not a best practice to achieve best outcomes. Staff would always be on boarding new Chairs come every January – losing some efficiencies thus less effective commission.
For Example, one of my best items I championed at the Park Commission as Chair was establishing a Recognition Award for community Volunteers – to honor and say thank you to organization that provided a service that benefited either the Youth, Parks or enriched the Community at large. It was a way for folks to come to city hall, and during the commission, be recognized for their service. To create this Recognition Award and its logistical parameters, I was able to create an ADHOC committee, to create the details and to make recommendations to the Commission and YPCE staff to administer this idea.
If 2.40.160 Standing and ad hoc committees . Is codified, then my above example would not have been able to have been created.
Many many thank you ’s across
the city would not have been
had.
I do understand up dating and
streamlining Boards,
Commissions & C ommittee
Procedures, but a one-size fits
all model is not the best way in
doing so. There has to be some
flexibility to let the commission
find and utilize their collective
voices, and limiting those tools
to find their voice will just create a bunch of rubber stamping advisory committees for council. And in my tenure, this was not true.
I am available to assist and provide staff more thought if I am called upon to do so.
Thank You.
Joe Flores
Parks and Community Enrichment Commission - District 5
Chair 2018 & 2019
1 May 23, 2022
Sacramento City Council
Personnel and Public Employees Committee
Sacramento City Council
City Hall
Sacramento, CA
RE: Item 5 - Boards & Commissions Procedures - Amendments Requested
Dear PP&E Committee Members:
On behalf of the Sacramento Policy Analysis Network (SPAN) and the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County, we are writing to request three amendments to the proposed ordinance to regulate the procedures of city boards and commissions. We support the overall goal of clarifying and standardizing the procedures of city boards and commissions. However, we are concerned that two sections in this proposal could impact the efficiency and work product quality of city boards and commissions.
Specifically, we request the following changes:
1. Amend 2.40.140.D. This section authorizes commissions to hold special meetings with the approval of the City Clerk. However, the section does not include any standards by which the City Clerk makes such approvals. We recommend this section require the City Clerk approve a special meeting unless staffing or logistical constraints would prevent holding the meeting.
2. Eliminate Section 2.40.160: This section would prohibit commissions and boards from establishing standing or ad hoc committees. However, these committees enable bodies to carefully consider complex proposals in a more timely manner. Many city commissions and boards meet monthly, or less frequently, and have no full-time dedicated staff, so community volunteers are required to work on an ongoing basis to develop reports and policy recommendations for the City Council. As the City Council (which uses standing and ad hoc committees) is well-aware, some policy proposals may take time and several meetings, including meetings to hear from experts and the public, to develop. Having committees which can meet between meetings can improve the effectiveness of boards and commissions. Moreover, if a commission or board has an
2 extensive charge or lengthy agenda, such policy deep-dives with substantial recommendations may not be possible without a committee structure. We therefore recommend eliminating this requirement.
3. Add 2.40.210. One concern we have heard from volunteers serving on city boards and commissions is that, after their recommendations are submitted to the City Council, there is no clear process or timeline which the Council uses to consider these recommendations. Reports are sometimes received on the City Council’s “consent calendar” without discussion, presentation, or further action. This undermines the purpose of advisory bodies and could be seen as dismissing the work of residents who serve on boards and commissions to improve their city. We believe this ordinance is an excellent opportunity to create a productive process for more thoughtful and timely action on board or commission policy recommendations. We recommend that, whenever a board or commission submits a policy recommendation for City Council consideration, it be agendized for the Law and Legislation Committee’s evaluation. A representative of the board or commission should be invited to present in the same manner as city staff present analyses. The ordinance could provide:
2.40.210. Whenever a board or commission submits policy recommendations to the City Council, these recommendations shall be agendized first for consideration by the Law and Legislation Committee within 90 days of submission. A representative of the board or commission shall be invited to present the recommendations.
In addition, we further recommend that the P&PE Committee, rather than forward this draft ordinance to the full City Council now, hold this item over to another meeting so that staff may solicit input on this proposed ordinance (e.g., a survey) from members currently serving on city boards and commissions, and have staff present that feedback at the next meeting.
We commend the City Council for bringing forward an ordinance to improve the city’s boards and commission procedures. Affirming the work of our community and hearing the perspectives of Sacramentans currently volunteering their time on these boards and commissions will further strengthen this ordinance.
Thank you,
/s/ Brenda Main /s/ Nicolas Heidorn
President Director
League of Women Voters Sacramento Policy Analysis Network of Sacramento County