I got off the track from the Sustainability Task Force – I was having a conversation with Mark Stemen about whether or not Staff needed to be present at committee meetings, who was allowed to notice the public, who was allowed to take minutes, etc.
I can appreciate both sides of this argument, cause I rode this merry-go-round over the old Redevelopment Agency Citizens Oversight Committee. Sure, I wanted some citizen’s oversight too, a group who was allowed to sit in on the meetings and report back to the general public, get the word out what was going on with the RDA credit card. What we got was a group of people who thought they should be allowed to give recommendations to council, but didn’t have to notice their meetings, could have running e-mail chat discussions involving a majority of their members, with no record available to the public. I wanted a staffer assigned to their group, but a “conservative” – led council under Mayor Dan Herbert declared they couldn’t afford a staffer, and, acknowledging the illegal nature of such a group, disbanded the committee.
Of course that was a bunch of crap – that same council signed the MOU that linked salaries to “revenue increases but not decreases…”, raising salaries by 14, 19, 22 percent year after year, effectively emptying our city’s coffers and sending us into perpetual debt. Later, surviving members of that council signed the contracts that have us paying 81 – 100 percent of staff benefits and pensions.
So now here we are – we really CAN’T afford staff to sit in these meetings. It’s really getting ridiculous. In past, the clerk’s staff kept the minutes for these meetings. The clerk’s salary is about $135,000/year, but her staffers make less than half of that. Now that Presson’s staff has been cut down to one surviving member, Brian Nakamura is sending management staff to take notes at these meetings. Nakamura himself, at $212,000/year, was taking notes at the Economic Development Committee meetings. He’s assigned Planning Director Mark Wolf to take notes at the Sustainability Task Force meetings. I’m not sure, but I’ll guess that Wolfe’s salary is in excess of $150,000 a year. I’m not complaining, Wolfe is a competent person – but we’re talking about a secretary’s job here, not a person who’s responsible for coordinating a bunch of citywide projects. Figure the difference yourself, more than twice the salary.
The reasoning behind assigning Wolfe was that the STF has been placed under the Planning Department. That makes sense, because the original notion behind the STF was to make city services and development more efficient – gee, the way things turn around, huh?
I have to give Stemen credit for trying to save the city some money. And I’m not accusing him of being dishonest or incompetent. He told me in an earlier post, “I have no argument with you over the cost of staffing or the Brown Act…If I have a beef about the Brown Act is is with the City. They are interpreting the Act in a way that says only they can notice the public, and more importantly, only they can take minutes, which is not true. ” I disagree – that’s what Staff is for, and if they’re not doing the job correctly, they need to be replaced with qualified staffers, not usurped in a hostile takeover.
He did relate a story about the park commission that bothers me, and reminds me of my experience with the RDA COC. “Last night at the BPPC meeting, Dan E told the members of the tree committee they could not meet without him or staff, and they didn’t have time right now, even though the committee has not met in months. Mark H asked directly if a member of the committee could take minutes, and he [Efseaff] had to admit they could, but he would prefer they not. So they won’t, and thus the key documents the rest of the City staff needs from the BPPC sit on a shelf in draft form.”
I said I’d check with Staff (ha ha) and find out. I know, that’s pretty circular, but Staff are the people we hire to keep the Book of Rules, so that’s who we consult.
I looked at the description for the job of city clerk available at the Human Resources link on the city website:
Typical Duties:
Serve as Clerk to the City Council; plan and direct the publication, filing, indexing, and safekeeping of all
proceedings of the Council; record and publish all ordinances; attest and certify various City documents;
serve as custodian of the City Seal; plan and direct municipal elections consolidated with County
elections; serve as a filing officer for required disclosure under the Political Reform Act; serve as filing
officer for claims and legal actions against the City; plan and direct the maintenance and safekeeping of
all historical and official municipal records and documents on a City-wide basis; respond to a variety of
inquiries and requests for information regarding past City Council actions and documents; direct the
preparation, organization, printing and distribution of the agenda for City Council meetings; supervise and
participate in the keeping of proceedings, ordinances, resolutions, and minute orders; develop and
implement systems, policies and procedures; administer the provisions of various State laws, including
the California Elections Code, Political Reform Act of 1974, Brown Act, Public Records Act and other
applicable laws; prepare and administer the Council and City Clerk’s Office budgets; administer Oaths of
Office to elected and appointed officials, department heads and City employees; countersign bonds and
other evidences of indebtedness issued by the City; attend and keep a permanent journal of proceedings at
all meetings of the City Council; coordinate City Clerk activities and work with other City departments
and with outside agencies; select, supervise, train and evaluate assigned staff; administer the overall
workload of the City Clerk’s Office, including review and evaluation of work products, methods and
procedures; plan and organize special City events; supervise use of Council Chamber Building facilities;
secure bids for official advertising in newspapers; supervise procedures for appointments to Boards,
Commissions and Committees; perform related assignments as necessary.
I bold-faced those items I found related to this issue, but there it all is. I’m bothered that it doesn’t say, “attend or assign staffer to attend and keep a permanent journal of proceedings at all board and commission meetings…”. But, I do see, the city clerk is the authority on the rules for record keeping, and that she is supposed to “develop and implement systems, policies and procedures,” by which to keep those records. She’s also supposed to be the city’s authority on the Brown Act. I’ve read the Brown Act, and I really liked the presentation city clerk Debbie Presson gave at the STF meeting, so she’s the one I asked.
Hi,
I’ve been having a conversation with some folks, including Mark Stemen, chair of the Sustainability Task Force, regarding the taking of minutes at committee meetings.
Mr. Stemen and some others believe that staff is not required at these meetings, that it is okay for a committee member to be responsible for taking minutes, as well as getting the public notice out in time. That does not make sense given your excellent presentation on the Brown Act Debbie. I was under the impression that having these meetings without staff present and without staff notice of the pubic is a violation of the Brown Act, please correct me if I’m wrong.
I’d appreciate it if somebody could clarify here. Apparently, Dan Efseaf told park commissioners that they could have meetings without staff, and take their own reports, but he’d rather they didn’t? – thanks, Juanita Sumner
She responded:
You are absolutely right. If there is a task force or commission that has been created and members appointed by the Council….staff needs to be there to provide support and information during the meetings and to ensure that not only does the agenda noticing meet all requirements but the minutes as well. The legislative history is critical to the process. I will pass that reminder on to staff as well.
Thank you for asking the question.
I felt stupid for putting that off as long as I had, but it was Christmas and I don’t like to be a flea on Staff. Not every minute, anyway. But it was as easy as asking. I’m glad I did too! No, it is NOT okay for any city-appointed commissions, committees or task forces (and there are legal definitions for each of these) to have meetings of a majority (more than half their members) without a staffer present, or without staff notice to the public.
I think it’s a good idea. I’m not accusing anybody of anything, but stuff gets kind of loose and fast when the public gets left out of the equation. But, I don’t like the way Brian Nakamura seems to be using the Brown Act as an excuse not to have the meetings. He’s obviously having meetings about public policy behind closed doors – where has the Farmer’s Market conversation been going on? That is what he wants – to do business without the onerous burden of public input. I’m guessing he’s entertaining offers for the sale of Bidwell Ranch.