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 30, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 16
16. 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 and 08/23/2022]
File ID: 2022-01596
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
1 From: Mindy Cuppy
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 7:29 AM
To: Agenda
Subject: FW: Joint Response to Proposed Changes in Discussion Item #16: Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.40 of the City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions
Attachments: Joint Response to Changes for Amending Chapter 2.40 on Commissions_Boards.pdf From: Keya
n Bliss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:23 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]>; Susan Underwood <[email protected]>
Subject: Joint Response to Proposed Changes in Discussion Item #16: Ordinan ce Amending Chapter 2.40 of the City Code, Relating to Boards and Commissions
Good evening Mindy,
Attached is a letter in response to Item #16 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 Ethi cs 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 29, 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 (BCCs), weare supportive of having a written policy that standardizes our procedures andwe appreciate the updatesthat have been made to this ordinance since its introduction in May. However, we still believe additionalclarifying amendments are neededto ensure this policydoes not inadvertently hinder the ability o fBCCsto do the important work they were created to do. Thus, we write to respectfully request that the CityCouncil make three clarifying amendments to the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 2.40 of theSacramento City Code as outlined below:
Request #1:Eliminate Section 2.40.160 to allow boardsand commissions to continue meeting inBrown Act-compliant standing or ad hoc committees.
Rationale:The current section in the ordinance prohibitsboards, committees and commissions (BCCs)from creating standing or ad hoc committees. The newest proposal is similarly burdensome: requiringapproval for the creation of a sub-committee from the Personnel and Public Employees Committee(P&PE) every year would undoubtedly restrict the ability of volunteers serving on BCCs to meet ourrespective mandates in a timely or efficient manner.
Because most BCCs meet publicly 10 times per year, preparatory work must be done outside of themeetings. Unlike City Council which has full-time staff to conduct research, analysis and reports tosupport its work, BCCs do this work in ad hoc committees composed of less than a quorum of members,that provide reports during public meetings.
As they exist currently, BCC ad hocs are not staffed by the city and we do not feel that staff involvementis necessary for the preparatory work to proceed.Staff are not needed to oversee hours of research andreport writing/editing each week, nor are they availableto serve in this capacity as they do with CityCouncil.
The Brown Act does not preclude ad hoc committees from existing, as long as they consist of less than aquorum, are composed solely of members, do not have some “continuing subject matter jurisdiction,” anddo not have a meeting schedule fixed by formal action of a larger body. The City’s Sunshine ordinanceprohibits City Council from forming ad hoc committees to prevent policy discussions from happening inprivate. However, a key distinction is that unlike City Council, BCCs are advisory in nature and cannotmake binding decisions (with the exception of the Planning Commission).Given the necessary role ofadhoc committees to do preparatory work for BCCs, we recommend that BCCs be excluded from the city’sprohibition on ad hocs.
Request #2:Add a new Section to the ordinance thatwill standardize the process for how board orcommission recommendations are submitted to the City Council.
Rationale:One of the frustrations that we have experienced is due to the lack of a standard process forhandling BCCs’ recommendations submitted to the City Council. We were pleased that the City Councilmet on February 22, 2022 and voted to have P&PE explore solutions to these issues which were alsoraised in the Audit of the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission. 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, we recommend that whenever a board or commission submits a policy recommendation forCity Council consideration, it be agendized for review and evaluation by either the Budget Committee orthe Law and Legislation Committee. We recommend the following language be added to the ordinance:
2.40.210.Whenever a board, committee or commissionsubmits policy recommendations to theCity Council, these recommendations shall be agendized first for consideration by either theBudget Committee and/or the Law and Legislation Committee within 90 days of submission. Theboard, committee or commission shall be invited to send a representative to present therecommendations.
Request #3:Add a new Section to establish a clearprocess for direct communications between citystaff and members of boards or commissions.
Rationale:Standard practice for boards, committeesor commissions (BCCs) is to funnel any formalrequest, presentations, or reports to any city department through the Board’s or Commission’s assignedstaff. While this allows for formal tracking of requests and workload management, it has also createdsituations where city staff are unable or unwilling to respond directly to inquiries made by board membersor commissioners. 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, committees or commissionsmay communicate directly inwriting with city staff as long as the assigned staff for the board or commission is included in anycorrespondence.
Request #4:We are pleased that the City Council changedthis section 2.40.170 to allow Chairpersonsand Vice-chairpersons to serve at least two consecutive 1-year terms.
We appreciate the work that is being done to create a standardized process that will improve theoperations of BCCs in our city. The requested changes will not only bring clarity to the ordinance, butwill also validate the work that is being done by the volunteers serving on these important bodies. Weawait 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 Commission Ali Doer Westbrook, Chair - Active Transportation CommissionCurtis Paullins, Vice Chair - Active Transportation CommissionRae Vander Werf, Vice Chair - Utility Rate Advisory CommissionSusan P. Underwood, Chair - Sacramento Ethics 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 5Councilmember Rick Jennings, District 7Councilmember Mai Vang, District 8City Manager Howard Chan, City of SacramentoCity Clerk Mindy Cuppy, City of Sacramento 1 From: clerk
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 8:15 PM
To: Agenda
Subject: FW: For Posting in Public Comment to Discussion Item #16 for City Council meeting August 30, 2022 - I fully OPPOSE portions of Agenda Item #16
From: bboyd432@yahoo.
com <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 6:59 PM
To: Mindy Cuppy <[email protected]>
Cc: clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: For Posting in Public Comment to Discussion Item #16 for City Council meeting August 30, 2022 ‐ I fully OPPOSE portions of Agenda Item #16
City of Sacramento
City Clerk's Office
Public Comment
City Council Report
915 I Street, 1st Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2022-01596 8/30/2022
Discussion Item #16
File ID: 2022-01596 8/30/2022
Discussion Item 16.
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 I fully OPPOSE portions of Agenda Item #16
Discussion Item #16
1) Pass a Mo
tion to waive Rule 7, section K.1 of the Council Rules of Procedure which “requires” ordinances to be referred to th
e Law and Legislation Committee “before” coming to council; and 2) adopt an Ordinance adding Chapter
1.14 to the Sacrame
nto City Code, relating to the procedure for Mayor or Councilmember vacancies, and amending Cha
pter 2.40 of the Sacramento City Code, relating to boards and commissions generally. • Prohibits boards and commissions from establishing standing committees and ad hoc committees. • Limits the amount of service as a cha
irperson to one consecutive term to create opportunity for more voices to serve in this capacity.
There seems to be a push to continue to reduce and/or minimize the authority, responsibilities and the overall oversight and protections for Sacramento City residents that the Sacramento City's Independent Citizens Boards 2 and Commissions currently do. Without Ad Hoc Committees the research and work that is put into coming up with solutions that benefits Sacramento City Residents will be removed.
Can you imagine not having the ability to do this type of work that the Sacramento Disability Advisory Commission, Sacramento Community Police Review Commission, Planning and Design Commission (Parking Revisions to Parking Requirements), Measure U Community Advisory Committee (Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program) and, many other “Independent” Sacramento City Boards and Commissions Ad Hoc Committees do?!
I strongly oppose the above stated proposed restrictions to the Sacramento City Boards and Commissions, as well as the bypassing of the "required" process of an ordinance going before the Law and Legislation Committee (which allows more Public Comment to be heard) before coming to the City Council for a vote!!!
Who is/are the individual, individuals and/or special interest that is/are behind this Power Grab?!
Barry F. Boyd
Commissioner – Planning and Design Commission
Planning and Design Commission Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to Parking Requirements