Personnel and Public Employees Committee
June 11, 2024

City of Sacramento
Personnel and Public Employees Committee Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2024-01008 6/11/2024 Discussion Item 7.

Consideration of Measure U Community Advisory Committee Recommendations to Modify Quorum Requirement and Allow Ad Hoc Committees
File ID: 2024-01008
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: 1) Discuss and consider Measure U Community Advisory Committee (Measure U Committee) recommendations to: a) modify the Measure U Committee’s quorum requirement; and b) allow City boards, committees, and commissions to establish ad hoc committees under specified conditions; and 2) pass a Motion either: a) forwarding one or more recommendations to the City Council for consideration; b) directing the Measure Committee and/or staff to come back to the Personnel and Public Employees Committee with more information regarding the recommendations; or c) holding the recommendations in Committee.

Contact: Ash Roughani, Special Projects Manager, (916) 808-7751, [email protected], Office of the City Manager Presenter: Measure U Committee Chair, Marjorie Dickinson Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Measure U Committee Recommendation to Modify Quorum Requirement 3-Measure U Committee Recommendation to Allow Ad Hoc Committees Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: At the Measure U Committee’s April 15, 2024 meeting, the Committee discussed which rules are within the City Council’s purview to change that govern the conduct of business of City boards and commissions. During that item, the Committee discussed two potential recommendations to the City Council and subsequently approved the recommendations at their May 20, 2024 meeting.

The Measure U Committee’s first recommendation is to modify the Committee’s quorum requirement in alignment with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Attachment 2). The Measure U Committee’s second recommendation is to allow City boards, committees, and commissions to establish ad hoc committees under specified conditions (Attachment 3). Both recommendations outline various implementation options.

File ID: 2024-01008 6/11/2024 Discussion Item 7.

Policy Considerations: City Council Resolution 2018-0393 adopted October 2, 2018 outlines the purpose and the powers and duties of the Measure U Committee specifically, to ensure that the expenditures of City resources reflect Council and community priorities, the committee shall review, report, and make non-binding recommendations on revenue and expenditures of certain funds from the Transactions and Use Tax (Sacramento City Code chapter 3.27.). In addition, the Resolution establishes the quorum for the Measure U Committee to conduct business as eight members.

Ordinance No. 2022-0024 clarifies that boards and commissions follow the same standards as the city council. Such standards include Sacramento City Charter, Political Reform Act, California Constitution, California Government Code, City’s Sunshine Ordinance, Ralph M. Brown Act, and the Council Rules of Procedure.

Economic Impacts: Not Applicable.

Environmental Considerations:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This action is not a project that is subject to CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines §15378(b)(5)).

Sustainability: Not Applicable.

Commission/Committee Action: The Measure U Committee approved these recommendations at its May 20, 2024 meeting.

Rationale for Recommendation: The City Council established the Measure U Committee to advise the Council on community priorities with respect to Measure U revenues and expenditures. Although the attached recommendations are outside of this scope, the Measure U Committee believes that adopting their recommendations would better facilitate their powers and duties to advise Council on community priorities.

Financial Considerations: Not Applicable.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not Applicable.

Proposal to Amend Measure U Community Advisory
Committee Resolution
In regards to the fixed quorum of 8
Overview:

In the Measure U Community Advisory Committee Resolution, there is a section that defines the quorum of the committee to be 8. This was likely due to the fact there are 15 seats available and the individuals writing this resolution did not consider the consequences and difficulties imposed by specifying the quorum as a fixed number.

Generally, and with almost all committees existing in the city, quorum for a meeting is defined by the Brown Act which states a meeting to be “...any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body…” The quantity of members of a legislative body is different from total seats available to be filled. This means that if there are seats open, or waiting for an appointment, or if individuals resign, all of which are common on volunteer committees, the quorum number changes accordingly. This however is not the case with Measure U.

Recurring Problems:

Because we have recently had 6 seats unfilled, and only 9 active members, a fixed quorum of 8 is a struggle for the Measure U Community Advisory Committee. In this case if two people are ever absent at the same time, the meeting must be paused or canceled entirely.

There was a meeting one month prior where a member went to go to the bathroom and the meeting was forced to adjourn because we no longer had a quorum.

Our committee has discussed this and feels it would be very advantageous to our operations if the city council amends our Resolution to remove the fixed quorum and defaults back to a standard Brown Act operation.

Amendment Proposal:

Quorum; V oting.

The quorum required for the committee to conduct business is eight members.The armative vote of a majority of the members present and eligible to vote is necessary to approve any item.

FinalThoughts:Thisshouldbeanon-controversial amendment becauseit bringsour quorumbacktothemorecommonwayof operating, soweurgeP&PEtomovetomotiontherecommendedamendmenttoresolutionno. 2018-0393.

Thankyousomuchfor helpingushelpyouandwelookforwardtoaneffectivecollaboration.

Addendum:

RESOLUTIONNO. 2018-0393- EstablishingtheMeasureUCommunityAdvisoryCommittee RecommendedAmendmentstoCityCode2.40.160
inReferencetoAdHocandSubcommittees.

Overview/ HistoryOnAug30,2022theCityCouncilmadechangestohowitsvolunteer-basedcommitteesandcommissionscouldoperate.TheMeasureUAdvisoryCommitteewritestoaddresschangestocode2.40.160,whichpassedina5-4voteandremovedtheabilityforboardsandcommissionstocreateadhocs.

Thementionedgoalof2.40.160wastobothincreasepublictransparencyandreducecitycostofstaffsupportingtheseadhoccommittees.Allmembersofthecouncil,includingCouncilmemberAngeliqueAshbywhointroducedtheamendments,stateditwouldbeimportanttorevisitthesechangeslaterandre-evaluateifthiscodewasworkingasintendedinmeetingthesegoals.Aftertwoyears,nowisthetime.

Publictransparencyfor thesecommissionshassignificantlyregressedaswell astheabilityfor commissionstofunctioneffectively.Inthisdocument,youwillseeourrecommendationthatwebelievewilladdressthiswhilemaintainingcitycostimprovements.Amend2.40.160toallowforthecreationofadhoccommitteeswithguidelinesonhowtheymustoperate.

Analysis:1) Tobeeffective,workoutsideofscheduledmeetingtimesmustoccur.Itisnotpossibletoperformthecommitteedutiesofwritingrecommendationletters,researchingandprovidingin-depthanalysis,andconductinglong-formdiscussions,withone3hourmeetingpermonth.2) Itisnotfinanciallysustainableorpracticaltohavecitystaffattendallmeetingsbetweenmemberswhichwouldberequiredtooperateeffectively.VolunteerboardsdonotandcannothavealltheresourcesaffordedtotheCityCounciltocreateunscheduledmeetingsorasubstantialamountofsubcommitteesthroughP&PEreview.3) Duetotheabove2pointsnotallcollaborativeworkcanbeconductedinapublicmeetingforvolunteerboardsandcommissions.

Boardsandcommissionshavebeenallowedthreeoptionsforcollaborationoutsideoftheirscheduledmonthlymeeting:1) Membersofthecommitteewillhavetodiscussoutsideofameetingandoutsideofpublicview(offthedais)whoisgoingtomeetwhoanddowhatwork. Thisdoesnotworkbecauseit:a) Substantiallyreducespublictransparencyintotheworkdonebythesebodies. b) HasahigherriskofviolatingtheBrownActwithaserialmeetingduetothelackofunanimouscoordinationduringapublicandBrownActcompliantmeeting.c) Createsanunregulatedenvironmentwhereofficialbusinessisbeingconductedbutisnotmadeofficialbythechairorcommittee.d) Addssignificantfrictiontoeffectivelydelegatework. 2) ThecommitteecanapplytoP&PEtogetanofficiallysanctionedsubcommittee. Thisdoesnot workbecause:a) Priortothepassingof2.40.160,MeasureUoverthecourseofthreeyearshadestablishedadhoccommitteestodoalltheworkthatwasneededpertheordinance.Now,onesingularsubcommitteewasapprovedandcannotdotheworkofallpreviouslyestablishedadhocs.b) Theavailabilityofstaffingandspaceofofficialsubcommitteesislimited.Itisnotpossibletoprovidestaffandhousingtoallmeetingsrequiredforthecommitteestodotheworktheyaretaskedwith.c) Itiswastefultospendstaffresourcesinsituationswhereindividualsgathertodoworksuchascollaboratingonwritingrecommendationstocouncil,conductresearch,etc.d) Recentattemptsatcreating/extendingsubcommitteeshavebeendeniedbyP&PEduetostaffingcosts.Becauseofthis,atthistimenosubcommitteesexistforanyboardsandcommissions. 3) EstablishaworkinggroupwithONLYtheChairandVice-Chair. Thisdoesnot workbecauseit:a) Severelylimitsthecapabilityofacommitteetodoeffectivework.Allworkislimitedtotwoindividualsandexcludesalargeportionofthecollectiveworkingpowerofafullcommittee’svolunteerforce.

It'sapparent that thecurrentlyapprovedwaysof conductingbusinessarenot sufficientor practical. Nor dotheymeet theobjectivesof transparencywhichoriginallyjustifiedthepassingof thiscode. Assuch, werecommendthecodebechangedtomeet thecity'sobjectives.

OurProposedChange:

Wehaveproposedchangeswhichwouldensureboardsandcommissionswill:- Keepcityresourcingcostslowbynotrequiringstaffingforadhoccommittees- Maximizetransparencyofboardandcommissionactionswhilealsomakingthenecessaryworkwhichtakesplaceoutsideofpublicmeetingsastransparentaspossible.- Ensureworkrequiredofthecommitteescangetdoneinaneffective,andcollaborativemanner.

Amend2.40.160toallowforcreationofadhoccommitteesandprovideguidelinesonhowtheymustoperate.

A. Cityboardsandcommissionsmayestablishadhoccommittees.1. Adhoccommitteesmusthaveaclearlydenedpurpose2. Adhoccommitteesmusthaveatimeframetoaccomplishthepurposeofnomorethan11months3. Adhoccommitteesmustbeadvisoryonlytothefullcommittee.Thefullbodymaynotdelegateanydecision-makingpower,andtheadhoccommitteemustreturntothefullbodytomakeanyactionorrecommendation BrownActandSunshineCompliance:

Overview:TheBrownActdoesnotapplytoadhocortemporarycommittees.Theseadhoccommitteesmust:1) Becomposedoflessthanamajorityoftheboard.2) Strictlydefinethepurposeofthecommittee.3) Setatimeframetoaccomplishthatpurpose.4) Advisoryonly.Theboardcannotdelegateanydecision-makingpowerandthecommitteemustreturntothefullboardtomakeapublicrecommendation.

TheCityofSacramento,toincreasetransparency,introducedtheSunshineOrdinancewhichincludedcitycode4.04.040.Thisstates:“CounciladhoccommitteesshallbeconsideredcitylegislativebodiessubjecttotheRalphM.BrownAct.”Notethatthereisadifferencebetweencitycouncilestablishedadhoccommitteesandadhocsformedbyboardsandcommissions.

Ifadhoccommitteeswerepermitted,andnotrestrictedunder2.40.160,adhoccommitteesformedbyspecificallyboardsandcommissionsareNOTsubjecttoBrownActcompliance.TheythereforeDONOTrequirepublicmeetings,advancedschedules,meetingnotes,norcitystafftosupport.

Assuch,wefeelitiswithinthespiritofBrownActcompliance,publicparticipation,efficiency,transparency,andfrugalitytoallowforboardstoestablishadhoccommittees.

FinalPointsWhenboardandcommissionvolunteershavefeltdiscouragedduetothedisempowermentandimpedancetobeeffectiveleadingtovacanciesandresignations… WhentheLeagueofWomenVoters,whosimultaneouslyareaprimaryadvocatefor transparencyviatheSunshineOrdinance,andarealsofortheremovalof2.40.160becausetheyunderstandthedetrimentitcausestotheboard'seffectiveness...

Whencommitteescanonlymeetforanowlimited3hoursessioneverymonthandhavelosttheirabilityto,fromthedais,organizeanddelegatework,causingthecommitteetobecomesignificantlylesseffective… Whendedicatedcitizenvolunteersfrommanycommitteesvoicetheirconcernsinunisonaroundtheissuestheyfaceduetothiscode… …Somethingneedstochange.

Toquoteacouncilmemberwhiledeliberatingovertheoriginalproposal“Ifwearen'tpreparedtogiveboardsandcommissionsthefullaccesstotheresourcesthatwehaveasacouncil,thenit'sfundamentallynotoktothenholdthemtothesameequivalentstandards.” Letboardsandcommissionsdotheworktheyarechargedwith.Wehaverunthe2.40.160experimentlongenoughtounderstanditsnegativeconsequencesontransparencyandthehindranceithasonboardsandcommissionscarryingouttheirdutieseffectively.Withtheaboverecommendations,wecanmaintainthelowstaffingcostsandimprovetransparencyandeffectivenessofourcitiescommissions.

Weurgethecouncil tomakeamotiontodaytoaccept our recommendationandmoveustowardsamoreeffective, collaborativecity.

Addendum:PreviousLetter SubmittedtoCouncil Aug2022, signedbymultiplevolunteer committeemembers:GracielaCastillo-Krings,Chair-SacramentoCommunityPoliceReviewCommissionKeyanBliss,ViceChair-SacramentoCommunityPoliceReviewCommissionFlojauneCofer,Chair-MeasureUCommunityAdvisoryCommitteeKimWilliams,ViceChair-MeasureUCommunityAdvisoryCommitteeBrandyTuzonBoyd,Chair-DisabilitiesAdvisoryCommissionAlanMcMillan,ViceChair-DisabilitiesAdvisoryCommissionAliDoerWestbrook,Chair-ActiveTransportationCommissionCurtisPaullins,ViceChair-ActiveTransportationCommissionRaeVanderWerf,ViceChair-UtilityRateAdvisoryCommissionLindaNg,ViceChair-SacramentoEthicsCommissionNicolinaHernandez,Chair-PlanningandDesignCommissionhttps://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=5354&meta_id=695260 SacramentoPolicyAnalysisNetwork(SPAN) andtheLeagueof WomenVotersofSacramentoCountyLetterurgingremovalof2.40.160ALSOJonMarshack-PreservationCommissionerofsevenyearsandChairofthatcommissionfortwoyears,Iurgeyoutoremove[2.40.160].https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=26&clip_id=5280&meta_id=683809