CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Angelique Ashby, Vice Mayor, District 1
Sean Loloee, District 2
Jeff Harris, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Jay Schenirer, District 5
Eric Guerra, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency
City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
CORRESPONDENCE
Description of Attached: Correspondence received after publishing the Agenda.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, August 9, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 30
30. 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 (Passed for Publication 07/19/2022; Published 07/22/2022) [Two-Thirds Vote Required]
File ID: 2022-01191
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: 1) Pass a Motion to waive Rule 7, section K.1 of the Council Rules of Procedure which requires ordinances to be referred to the Law and Legislation Committee before coming to council; and 2) adopt an Ordinance adding Chapter 1.14 to the Sacramento City Code, relating to the procedure for Mayor or Councilmember vacancies, and amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, relating to boards and commissions generally.
Contact: Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk, (916) 808-5442, [email protected], Wendy Klock-Johnson, Chief Assistant City Clerk, (916) 808-7509, [email protected], Office of the City Clerk
From: Graciela Castillo-Krings <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 2:08 PM
To: Mindy Cuppy <[email protected]>
Cc: Mary Opler <[email protected]>; Keyan Bliss <[email protected]> Subject: Discsussion Item #30 - Amending Chapter 2.40 of the City Code, Re: Boards and Commissions Generally
Good afternoon Mindy,
Attached is the letter the SCPRC Commissioners have submitted in response to tomorrow's agenda.
Please let me know if you have any question
Thank you,
Graciela
Chair, SCPRC
714-791-2066
1 | P a g e
August 8, 2022
Mayor and City Council, City of Sacramento
915 I Street, 1st Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Discussion Calendar Item #30: Ordinance amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating Boards and Commissions Generally
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
The Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (SCPRC) is supportive of having a written policy that standardizes procedures across city boards and commissions. However, we believe additional clarifying amendments are needed to ensure this policy does not inadvertently hinder the ability of boards and commissions to do the important work they were created to do.
As the chair and vice-chair of the SCPRC, we write to respectfully request that the City Council make three clarifying amendments to the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code.
Specifically, we request the following changes:
Request #1: Amend Section 2.40.160 to allow boards and commissions to continue meeting in Brown Act-compliant ad hoc committees.
Background Information: The current language in the ordinance prohibits boards and commissions from creating standing or ad hoc committees. If the Commission is to meet its mandate of “monitoring the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of city policing initiatives and programs” (Sacramento City Code Chapter 2.110.020), it is crucial that City Council clarify in the ordinance that working groups that do not violate the Brown Act are allowed to continue to exist or eliminate this section entirely to allow standing and ad hoc committees to exist in compliance with the Brown Act.
The SCPRC currently meets publicly at a maximum about 10 times a year. Our commissioners routinely work in small workgroups to do research, analyze complex policy, and meet with Sacramento Police Department and community stakeholders to solicit their input and feedback as we draft recommendations.
Members of the public have long been invited to provide comments to our workgroups. Any information gathered and policy recommendations must be brought to the larger body for discussion and action. These working groups are always less than a quorum, and have no authority to make any decisions or move anything forward until the full body meets and the matter is discussed publicly.
Based on the comments made by the members of the Personnel and Public Employees Committee on May 24, 2022, when the item was discussed, and a subsequent meeting with the City Clerk, the stated intent behind this language is to enhance transparency and community participation. It is our understanding that the Brown Act does not preclude these small working groups from existing, as long as these consist of less than a quorum of the SCPRC, are composed solely of members SCPRC, do not have some “continuing subject matter jurisdiction,” and do not have a meeting schedule fixed by formal action of a larger body.
The City Clerk and members of the City Attorney’s office have assured us we will still be able to perform the same functions we have done in our current Ad Hoc Committees. However, we remain concerned that the lack of written clarification within the proposed ordinance will not guarantee these assurances and 2 | P a g e
could be interpreted by future council members or staff to be a prohibition on creating Brown Act compliant working groups. Even if they were allowed, it begs the question of how transparent or participatory such working groups would ultimately be. According to the City Clerk, we would no longer be required to establish these working groups in public meetings and would no longer need to report updates on their work or discussions at public meetings. Such working groups would not only create less transparency but they would actually damage the trust between our commission and the community members rather than encouraging their participation.
Request #2: Amend Section 2.40.170 (a) to allow Chairpersons and vice-chairpersons to serve no less than two consecutive terms and provide continuity contingencies for commissions and boards.
Background: The current section of this ordinance prohibits Chairpersons and vice-chairpersons from serving more than one consecutive one-year term. We request the City Council to change this section to allow Chairpersons and Vice-chairpersons to serve at least two consecutive terms and create a clause that will allow the current Chair or Vice-chair to serve beyond this term limit if there are no volunteers who accept these positions.
Most people serving on boards and commissions are volunteers. When these volunteers step into a leadership role and must follow city processes and procedures, there is often a learning curve that requires a great deal of time and orientation to effectively serve in these roles. Giving the chair and vice chair the opportunity to serve in this capacity for two years would help be more effective in conducting the affairs of the Commission and thus serving the community in a more impactful manner.
Request #3: Add a new Section to the ordinance that will standardize the process for how board or commission recommendations are submitted to the City Council.
Background Information: One of the frustrations that the SCPRC and other Commissions have experienced is the lack of process for how recommendations submitted to the City Council are handled. In fact,the City Council met on March 22nd and voted to have the Personnel and Public Employees Committee explore addressing this problem. This ordinance provides a perfect opportunity for the City Council to establish a standardized process to ensure the time and effort of volunteers is respected and that the work they produce in these bodies is considered in a timely manner. To that end 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.
We recommend the following language be added to the ordinance:
2.40.210. Whenever a board or commission submits policy recommendations to the City Council, these recommendations shall be agendized first for consideration by by either the Budget Committee and/or the Law and Legislation Committee within 90 days of submission. The board or commission shall be invited to send a representative to present the recommendations.
Request #4: Add a new Section to establish a clear process for direct communications between city staff and members of boards or commissions.
Background Information: Standard practice for boards or commissions is to funnel any formal request, presentations, or reports to any city department through the Board’s or Commission’s assigned staff.
While this allows for formal tracking of requests and workload management, it has also created situations where city staff do not feel they can respond directly to inquiries made by board members or commissioners. At least for the SCPRC, this has led to misunderstandings and miscommunications that 3 | P a g e
could be avoided by simply creating a clear process that allows direct communication between the appointed bodies and city departments such as the Sacramento Police Department or the City Manager’s Office.
We recommend the following language be added to the ordinance:
2.40.211. Members of city board or commission may communicate directly in writing with city staff as long as the assigned staff for the board or commission is included in any correspondence.
We appreciate the work that is being done to create a standardized process that will improve the operations of boards and commissions in our city. The requested changes will not only bring clarity to the ordinance, but will also validate the work that is being done by the volunteers serving on these important bodies.
Sincerely,
Graciela Castillo-Krings Keyan Bliss
Chair, SCPRC Vice Chair, SCPRC
Mario Guerrero Richard Falcon
Commissioner, SCPRC Commissioner, SCPRC
Basim Elkarra
Commissioner, SCPRC
Cc:
Mayor Darrell Steinberg
Vice Mayor Angelique Ashby, District 1
Mayor Pro Tem, Eric Guerra, District 6
Councilmember Sean Loloee, District 2
Councilmember Jeff Harris, District 3
Councilmember Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Councilmember Rick Jennings, District 7
Councilmember Mai Vang, District 8
City Manager Howard Chan, City of Sacramento
City Clerk Mindy Cuppy, City of Sacramento
From: City"s Boards and Commissions Program
To: Hang Tran
Subject: Fw: Agenda Item 30 Tuesday 8-9-22 - LWV on proposed city code 2.40.
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 12:15:45 PM
Attachments: page1image384.png
page1image23832.png
page1image24192.png
page1image24456.png
LWVSC AdHocsFINAL 2 page 8.7.22.pdf
From: Paula Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 11:01 AM
To: Darrell Steinberg (City) <[email protected]>; Angelique Ashby <[email protected]>; Eric Guerra <[email protected]>; Jeff S. Harris <[email protected]>; Rick Jennings <[email protected]>; Sean Loloee <[email protected]>; Jay Schenirer <[email protected]>; Katie Valenzuela (City) <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; Howard Chan <[email protected]>; City's Boards and Commissions Program <[email protected]>
Cc: Mindy Cuppy <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 30 Tuesday 8-9-22 - LWV on proposed city code 2.40.
August 8, 2022
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda August 9, 2022 Item No. 30 Honorable Sacramento Mayor and City Council Members,
As you may recall, the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County (League) submitted a letter to the Personnel & Public Employees Committee in opposition to proposed changes to city code (Chapter 2.40, Article III. 2.40.160) which would prohibit establishment of standing and ad hoc committees of any city commission or board. We also sent a subsequent letter to the full City Council and our city’s boards and commissions clarifying the League’s “good governance” advocacy history and support for transparency of City Council ad hoc committees. We have not called for the prohibition of boards and commissions to use ad hoc committees, knowing how indispensable these mechanisms can be to carrying out their responsibilities.
We reiterate our opposition to city ordinance language that disallows the use of ad hocs. The rationale for such a proposal continues to be unclear. The questions of transparency or concerns with Brown Act adherence fail to substantiate such a drastic restriction of means to get the job done. While mention of boards and commissions employing a “working group” to serve in lieu of an ad hoc committee has been made, the difference between a working group’s composition and an ad hoc remains unclear.
Forming ad hoc committees to address issues is common in California among legislative and advisory bodies. Literally meaning “for this” in Latin, ad hoc bodies are formed for a specific purpose and are temporary. The committees aren’t subject to the Brown Act, although the city’s Sunshine Ordinance would signify that reporting back by ad hoc committees to the respective board or commission at a public recorded meeting would address transparency. Without the availability of ad hoc committees, commissions and boards would be required to extend public meetings beyond what is reasonable or practical, while attempting to meet their range of obligations.
In addition, the proposed ordinance changes fail to address what has been long advocated by the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission and supported by the League, referenced in our May 23, 2022 letter as a proposed addition to the city ordinance:
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......cont. 1 of 2
921 11th Street, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 447-8683
(916) 447-8620
lwvsacramento.org
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.
The League was proud to support Mayor Steinberg and the Council in early 2017 as they approved community-led reforms to make Sacramento a model of more accountable government. We must assure that our boards and commissions are equipped to manage effectively as volunteer members who elevate community voices and advise the legislative bodies of government.
For these reasons, we ask:
1) the proposed city code 2.40.160 (Standing and ad hoc committees. City boards and commissions may not establish standing committees or ad hoc committees) be removed from debate; and
2) the proposed city code 2.40 incorporate language that would require the City Council to consider Commission recommendations in a prompt and responsive fashion.
The League carries a legacy of serving in two distinct roles. One is broad non-partisan voter service. The other is advocacy through grassroots work to improve policies and laws that affect our larger communities. In this second role, we submit this position and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paula Lee
Paula Lee, President
League of Women Voters of Sacramento County [email protected] (916) 447-8683 Cc: [email protected]
921 11th Street, Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 447-8683 (916) 447-8620 lwvsacramento.org
August 8, 2022
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda August 9, 2022 Item No. 30
Honorable Sacramento Mayor and City Council Members,
As you may recall, the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County (League) submitted a letter to the Personnel & Public Employees Committee in opposition to proposed changes to city code (Chapter
2.40, Article III. 2.40.160) which would prohibit establishment of standing and ad hoc committees of any city commission or board. We also sent a subsequent letter to the full City Council and our city’s boards and commissions clarifying the League’s “good governance” advocacy history and support for transparency of City Council ad hoc committees. We have not called for the prohibition of boards and commissions to use ad hoc committees, knowing how indispensable these mechanisms can be to carrying out their responsibilities.
We reiterate our opposition to city ordinance language that disallows the use of ad hocs. The rationale for such a proposal continues to be unclear. The questions of transparency or concerns with Brown Act adherence fail to substantiate such a drastic restriction of means to get the job done. While mention of boards and commissions employing a “working group” to serve in lieu of an ad hoc committee has been made, the difference between a working group’s composition and an ad hoc remains unclear.
Forming ad hoc committees to address issues is common in California among legislative and advisory bodies. Literally meaning “for this” in Latin, ad hoc bodies are formed for a specific purpose and are temporary. The committees aren’t subject to the Brown Act, although the city’s Sunshine Ordinance would signify that reporting back by ad hoc committees to the respective board or commission at a public recorded meeting would address transparency. Without the availability of ad hoc committees, commissions and boards would be required to extend public meetings beyond what is reasonable or practical, while attempting to meet their range of obligations.
In addition, the proposed ordinance changes fail to address what has been long advocated by the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission and supported by the League, referenced in our May 23, 2022 letter as a proposed addition to the city ordinance:
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……cont. 1 of 2
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.
The League was proud to support Mayor Steinberg and the Council in early 2017 as they approved community-led reforms to make Sacramento a model of more accountable government. We must assure that our boards and commissions are equipped to manage effectively as volunteer members who elevate community voices and advise the legislative bodies of government.
For these reasons, we ask:
1) the proposed city code 2.40.160 (Standing and ad hoc committees. City boards and commissions may not establish standing committees or ad hoc committees) be removed from debate; and 2) the proposed city code 2.40 incorporate language that would require the City Council to consider Commission recommendations in a prompt and responsive fashion.
The League carries a legacy of serving in two distinct roles. One is broad non-partisan voter service.
The other is advocacy through grassroots work to improve policies and laws that affect our larger communities. In this second role, we submit this position and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paula Lee
Paula Lee, President
League of Women Voters of Sacramento County
[email protected] (916) 447-8683