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 23, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 20
20. 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] [Continued from 08/09/2022]
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: Keyan Bliss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 5:37 PM
To: Mindy Cuppy <[email protected]>
Cc: Graciela Castillo-Krings <[email protected]>; Flojaune Cofer <[email protected]>; Kim Williams <[email protected]>; Rachelanne Vander Werf <[email protected]>; Linda Ng <[email protected]>; Ali Doerr <[email protected]>; Brandy Boyd <[email protected]>; Nicolina Hernandez <[email protected]>; Alan McMillan <[email protected]>; Curtis Paullins <[email protected]> Subject: Joint Letter Concerning Discussion Item #20: Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.40 of the City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions
Good evening Mindy,
Attached is the letter in response to Item #20 on tomorrow's 5pm agenda from the Chairs and Vice Chairs serving on the following commissions and boards:
Sacramento Community Police Review Commission
Measure U Community Advisory Committee
Planning and Design Commission
Disabilities Advisory Commission
Active Transportation Commission
Utilities Rate Advisory Commission
Sacramento Ethics Commission
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Keyan Bliss
District 4 Commissioner (Vice Chair)
Sacramento Community Police Review Commission
707-295-3064
Pronouns: he/him/they
August 22, 2022
Mayor and City Council, City of Sacramento915 I Street, 1st Floor,Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: An Ordinance amending Chapter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, Relating Boards andCommissions Generally Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
As the chairs and vice-chairs of the City of Sacramento boards, committees and commissions, we aresupportive of having a written policy that standardizes our procedures. However, we believe additionalclarifying amendments are needed to ensure this policy does not inadvertently hinder the ability of boardsand commissions to do the important work they were created to do. Thus, we write to respectfully requestthat the City Council make three clarifying amendments to the proposed ordinance amending Chapter2.40 of the Sacramento City Code as outlined below:
Request #1: Eliminate Section 2.40.160 to allow boards and commissions to continue meeting inBrown Act-compliant standing or ad hoc committees.
Background Information:The current section in theordinance prohibits boards and commissions fromcreating standing or ad hoc committees. As this section would undoubtedly impact the work of volunteersserving on all commissions and boards to meet our respective mandates,it is crucial that City Councilclarify in the ordinance that working groups that do not violate the Brown Act are allowed to continue toexist or eliminate this section entirely to allow standing and ad hoc committees to exist in compliancewith the Brown Act.
Most of our boards, committees and commissions meet publicly at a maximum about 10 times a year. Ourmembers routinely work in small workgroups to do research, analyze complex policy, and meet privatelywith city staff and community stakeholders to solicit their input and feedback as we draftrecommendations. These working groups are less than a quorum, produce detailed meeting minutes, andhave no authority to make any decisions or move without explicit approval during a meeting of the fullbody with public notice and participation. Members of the public have long been invited to providecomments within our workgroups and even support workgroup members; information gathered isroutinely shared in agendized updates during board, commission and committee meetings. Furthermore,with the exception of the Planning Commission, the city boards, committees and commissions areadvisory to the Council and have no formal decision-making authority. Prohibiting the mayor and citycouncil from creating Ad Hoc groups may make sense because it precludes the public from participatingin policy discussions. But as unpaid volunteers without formal authority, allowing working groups willnot limit transparency, it will increase efficiency.
Based on the comments made by the members of the Personnel and Public Employees Committee on May24, 2022, when the item was discussed, and a subsequent meeting with City Clerk Mindy Cuppy, thestated intent behind this language is to enhance transparency and community participation. It is ourunderstanding that the Brown Act does not preclude these small working groups from existing, as long asthese consist of less than a quorum, are composed solely of members, do not have some “continuingsubject matter jurisdiction,” and do not have a meeting schedule fixed by formal action of a larger body.
The City Clerk and staff from the City Attorney’s office have assured us we will still be able to performthe same functions we do 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 couldbe interpreted by future council members or staff to be a prohibition on creating Brown Act compliantworking groups. Furthermore, it raises the question of how transparent or participatory such workinggroups would ultimately be even if they were permitted.
According to the City Clerk, we would no longer be required to establish these working groups in publicmeetings, could invite any members of the public to participate, and would no longer need to reportupdates on their work or discussions at public meetings. By this understanding, a working group couldessentially meet without notice with less than a quorum before any public meeting is held to discuss it,and without any requirement to disclose this discussion during public meetings. Most concerning is howthis action increases the likelihood of Brown Act violations by eliminating the formal mechanism of AdHocs which allows members to know who is discussing what topics and ensure that fewer than a quorumof members participate in discussions outside of a public meeting. Such working groups would not onlycreateless transparency, butsuch conditions wouldbe an unethical violation of basic principles ofdemocracy and actually damage trust between our commissions and the community members we areappointed to serve.
Request #2:Add a new Section to the ordinance thatwill standardize the process for how board orcommission recommendations are submitted to the City Council.
Background Information:One of the frustrations thatwe have experienced is due to the lack of astandard process for handling recommendations submitted to the City Council. This ordinance provides aperfect opportunity for the City Council to establish a standardized process to ensure the time and effortof volunteers is respected and that the work they produce is considered in a timely manner. To that end werecommend that, whenever a board or commission submits a policy recommendation for City Councilconsideration, it be agendized for review and evaluation by either the Budget Committee or the Law andLegislation Committee.
We recommend the following language be added to the ordinance:
2.40.210.Whenever a board or commission submits policyrecommendations to the City Council,these recommendations shall be agendized first for consideration by either the Budget Committeeand/or the Law and Legislation Committee within 90 days of submission. The board orcommission shall be invited to send a representative to present the recommendations.
Request #3:Add a new Section to establish a clearprocess for direct communications between citystaff and members of boards or commissions.
Background Information:Standard practice for boardsor 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 situationswhere city staff are unable or unwilling to respond directly to inquiries made by board members orcommissioners. This can be avoided by creating a standard process that allows direct communicationbetween the appointed bodies and city departments such as the Sacramento Police Department or the CityManager’s Office.
We recommend the following language be added to the ordinance:
2.40.211.Members of city boards or commissions maycommunicate directly in writing with citystaff as long as the assigned staff for the board or commission is included in any correspondence.
Request #4: Amend Section 2.40.170 to allow Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons to serve no lessthan two consecutive terms and provide continuity contingencies for commissions and boards.
Background Information:The current section of thisordinance prohibits Chairpersons andVice-Chairpersons from serving more than one consecutive one-year term. We request the City Council tochange this section to allow Chairpersons and Vice-chairpersons to serve at least two consecutive termsand create a clause that will allow the current Chair or Vice-chair to serve beyond this term limit if thereare no volunteers who accept these positions.
Board, Commission and Committee leadership roles require a great deal of time and orientation toeffectively serve in these roles. They are also essential to maintaining the continuity and direction of ourwork, which often includes reviewing and researching policy, conducting analyses, and producing reportsor recommendations which often extends beyond a single calendar year. As many of us have learnedfirst-hand, it can take as much as 6-8 months before we fully orient to our roles as Chairs and Vice-chairs,meaning most of each year would be spent orienting to new leadership. Furthermore, while many peopleare interested in serving on a Board, Commission or Committee, assuming the role of Chair or Vice Chairis time consuming and requires a higher level of time commitment. Significantly limiting the eligibility ofwilling members to serve could result in vacancies in these essential positions or pressuring members toserve beyond their interest and capacity. For example, the Measure U Advisory Committee’s current chairand vice chair have served 4 consecutive terms because no other members nominated themselves for theroles, despite repeatedly encouraging members to take on the roles and offering mentorship for them.
We appreciate the work that is being done to create a standardized process that will improve theoperations of boards and commissions in our city. The requested changes will not only bring clarity to theordinance, but will also validate the work that is being done by the volunteers serving on these importantbodies. We await your respectful response.
Sincerely,
Graciela Castillo-Krings, Chair - Sacramento Community Police Review CommissionKeyan Bliss, Vice Chair - Sacramento Community Police Review CommissionFlojaune Cofer, Chair - Measure U Community Advisory CommitteeKim Williams, Vice Chair - Measure U Community Advisory CommitteeBrandy Tuzon Boyd, Chair - Disabilities Advisory CommissionAlan McMillan, Vice Chair - Disabilities Advisory CommissionAli Doer Westbrook, Chair - Active Transportation CommissionCurtis Paullins, Vice Chair - Active Transportation CommissionRae Vander Werf, Vice Chair - Utility Rate Advisory CommissionLinda Ng, Vice Chair - Sacramento Ethics CommissionNicolina Hernandez, Chair - Planning and Design Commission Cc:Mayor Darrell SteinbergVice Mayor Angelique Ashby, District 1Mayor Pro Tem, Eric Guerra, District 6Councilmember Sean Loloee, District 2Councilmember Jeff Harris, District 3Councilmember Katie Valenzuela, District 4Councilmember Jay Schenirer, District 5 Councilmember Rick Jennings, District 7Councilmember Mai Vang, District 8City Manager Howard Chan, City of SacramentoCity Clerk Mindy Cuppy, City of Sacramento