Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-10 Policy & Services Committee Summary MinutesPOLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 19 Regular Meeting October 10, 2023 The Policy and Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 7:00 P.M. Present: Tanaka (Chair), Lauing, Veenker Absent: Call to Order Chair Greg Tanaka Public Comment None Agenda Items 1. Approval of proposed changes to the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy – Not a CEQA project Adriane McCoy, City Auditor, provided a PowerPoint presentation with three proposed updates to the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Administration Policy. The first point suggesting adding a header, page numbers and a revision date. The first recommendation pertained to situations wherein a complaint is made against the three members of the Committee. They wanted to update the roles of individuals who would be replacing the Committee member with an allegation made against them to ensure there is no perceived or actual conflict of interest with the disposition of the case. Council Member Vicki Veenker concurred with having the alternates but she wanted to see more specific wording with regard to the members or would like to understand why it was worded as it was. Ed Shikada, City Manager, thought it was notable to put the role of the Committee in the context of the initial intake. Having individuals not directly alleged to be involved would allow the Committee to act quickly and move toward disposition such as bringing in someone externally as needed. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Molly Stump, City Attorney, added that the initial triage was intended to happen very quickly making it difficult to bring someone in from the outside for the initial piece. She explained the reasoning behind the original policy being drafted somewhat generally. She thought there was a need to rely on the skill and good will of three or at least two of the three on the Committee to chart a reasonable course to protect the City and the City Council and the official involved. Council Member Veenker asked for reasoning not to just say “the HR Director” because the City Attorney would still be there. Ms. Stump answered the status quo basic situation would attain that the Committee is the City Auditor, City Manager and City Attorney and each would play a distinct role based on their professional expertise and knowledge. She stated she would be very cautious about having an attorney stand in for the manager. She felt the sentence was awkwardly drafted but the HR Director is intended to stand in for the City Manager and the Chief Assistant City Attorney or an outside attorney is intended to stand in for the City Attorney. Council Member Ed Lauing stated he did read that section the way it was intended but still questioned the Director of HR reporting to the City Attorney and the Chief Assistant Attorney reporting to the City Attorney. He was not sure that was progress on distancing from someone in one of those two positions that was under review. Ms. Stump described an example scenario to explain the reasoning behind that process. Council Member Lauing asked if the “Chair” of this Committee was the Outside Auditor because of the independence there. Ms. Stump confirmed it was the Auditor. Council Member Lauing asked how the review moves to the next step. Ms. Stump answered that in almost all if not all cases that have occurred so far in the life of the Hotline, the determination has been made by the three officials meeting in the triage mode that the complaint made was personnel related and was referred to the HR Department for investigation with department management and resolved at that level. It then goes back to the Auditor who confirms that the appropriate steps have been taken to investigate and it has been resolved. Mr. Shikada used a specific example to elaborate on the best way to handle the complaint. Council Member Lauing asked if it was their understanding that the three-person Committee would vote to do that on a majority basis. Ms. Stump answered they have never disagreed. Chair Tanaka wanted to know who wrote the red lines in section three of packet page eight. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Ms. McCoy stated it was the three Committee members reviewed it together. She said if a distinction was made between the triage and the disposition, then the triage would still need an independent person to be engaged. Chair Tanaka asked if that is what the red lines say. Ms. McCoy answered this did not specify a triage versus ultimate disposition of an allegation but she thought that had just come up in the conversation. If they need to distinguish in terms of triaging the allegation at the onset so as not to have any conflict with that determination as well as once the situation has been assigned or determined it needs to go to an outside party would be a similar scenario. Chair Tanaka wanted to know the difference between the red and purple lines. Ms. McCoy stated they did not understand why the colors were changing in the document tracking. Chair Tanaka wanted to clarify if the rationale for proposing at a high level was to avoid a conflict of interest and that the next step would be determining who should replace that person. Ms. McCoy answered he was correct about both. Chair Tanaka asked how it struck her as the City Auditor to have a person replacing the accused person be a subordinate. Ms. McCoy said that would not be an ideal situation so the Committee discussed the amount of time it may take to bring in external parties. If there is any way to escalate that choice or minimize the amount of time it takes to select someone external, that would be the ultimate solution but historically that has not been the case. Chair Tanaka stated he agreed with her rationale that having someone subordinate to someone being accused left the subordinate person in a difficult position because they would be evaluating their boss. He concurred with her line of thinking. He suggested having someone on City Council stand in instead of an outside person. Ms. McCoy stated it was her understanding that that is not permissible. Chair Tanaka wanted to know why that would not be permissible. Mr. Shikada noted that all of these complaints or issues have been personnel complaints. As such, having a City Council member involved in the review and adjudication of a personnel complaint would cross a boundary between a policy role and the administration. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Chair Tanaka stated did not agree with Mr. Shikada’s opinion and he would like to see language that says that prohibits it. He thought it was incredibly compromising to ask a subordinate individual to become the boss’ judge. Mr. Shikada clarified that there is no judgment involved in the role of this Committee. Chair Tanaka said the Committee is reviewing an accusation so would have the power of saying no investigation is needed or recommending that City Council dig into the issue further. He reiterated the conflict of interest and compromising position that put the subordinate in. He asked the City Attorney to site where the law is that prevents a City Council member from stepping in if one of the three Committee members is accused. Ms. McCoy countered that she did not say that. Ms. Stump stated she did express structural concerns about having a Council member sit in at the initial triage stage. She described that the initial stage was the three officials meeting, looking at what has come in through the Hotline and ask what the nature is and the best way to investigate it. That group does not investigate and make decisions about it. The group decides where it goes next for an investigation to occur. Either an in-house or outside person is retained who then does an investigation. It goes through a regular process but these people do not do the process. Her structural concern is the one mentioned by the City Manager which is that the Council sits in a policy-making role and with respect to the CAOs, they do have a significant role of supervising, overseeing, hiring, reviewing and potentially firing the CAOs. If there was a serious allegation against one of the CAOs, the Council would be involved but it would not be one Council member but the whole Council unless and until the Council designated one or two to play a more specific role. It would not be that there would be a Council member who would come down to the Staff level to do the initial work but you would be informed at the right time that there was a significant issue with one of the CAOs and you would be charting a path forward and dealing with that. Chair Tanaka clarified there is no law that prohibits it and that her opinion was that because the Committee has the power to route who would do the investigation and how it would occur, that it is no conflict of interest that the person being accused is going to be influencing the decision of where it is going to get routed and processed. Ms. Stump said that what she is saying is complexed and nuanced and she would stick with the words she used and not the words he is choosing. She said the meaning of the words “conflict of interest” vary depending on the context and are usually tied to law or procedure. It is very common in the city attorney world to set up a screen within their office so that attorneys in the same office who do report to the same person can play different roles in a process and that type of process is recognized by courts. It is not addressed in this context of a hotline but in other context in which people’s knowledge of facts and independence need to be solid. What Council wants to do is a policy question and they can choose the direction forward they believe is wise. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Chair Tanaka opined that while the Hotline Review Committee would not make the final decision nor do the investigation itself, how a complaint is processed, especially when it is one of the CAOs being accused, they owe it to the people to make sure it is conducted with the utmost integrity possible. He opined that meant not having someone subordinate to the person being accused making that decision. He thought someone from outside was fine but the concern was that it takes a long time so he was fine if someone on Council being elected or appointed by a majority of Council. Council Member Veenker asked if a complaint had ever involved a Council-appointed officer. Ms. Stump answered yes and that there was a reasonable path charted. Council Member Veenker pointed out that the majority of the cases were not instructive because it was not one of them. She asked if the preliminary screening was just to route or if they have the option to say an investigation is not needed. Ms. Stump said that sometimes it has been determined that an investigation was not needed because there had already been an investigation. The Hotline has sometimes been used for repetitious complaints. Council Member Veenker clarified that this group could not decide that a complaint need not be looked at. Ms. Stump answered complaints of a lot of different natures need to be investigated in one way or another. Council Member Veenker pointed out that it would be a burden on the CAOs to have the option to say there is nothing to see. She asked if it is inaccurate to say as a CAO the City Attorney is subordinate. Ms. Stump stated she does not report to the City Manager. Council Member Veenker thought that was an important distinction. She felt some of those things made it less of a concern but she was still troubled by the optics. She preferred not to get involved as a City Council member. She did not know how one of the seven would be picked. She wondered if it would be easy to have somebody designated stand-in on retainer that has been a senior person in City management in the area that could be called without a big review process. She maintained that she felt the optics were better for everyone to go externally but she did not want it to be a long, lengthy process. Council Member Lauing added that it was really rare for this to happen but these corner cases were important. He asked to clarify that this particular ordinance was restricted to fraud, waste and abuse, not sexual harassment or ethics. Ms. McCoy confirmed he was correct. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Council Member Lauing felt the concept of having someone on retainer was an interesting option. His original thought was having an attorney on retainer or someone with city manager experience who deals with those kinds of issues as an external party because the Council, public and all City employees want to know that this will be looked at correctly and nothing will be covered up. If the person was on retainer, it would be quick to get the person to come in and take the place of the CAO who could step aside. He referenced Ms. McCoy’s statement that it was a two-step process and asked how that would be separated in the beginning of the investigation and who conducts the investigation. Ms. McCoy thought if the subject of the allegation was something that could be audited, reviewed or inquired by the City Auditor’s office without going to an external party then the disposition could be handled in that manner if appropriate. If it is not, then an external party would be chosen. Council Member Lauing clarified that would happen from the initial Committee who could say that it is something the Director of HR could look at. Ms. McCoy confirmed he was correct or that it may be something they just wanted the Audit Department to review. That would be the determination of how the allegation would be assigned or investigated. Council Member Lauing thought if that direction is chosen, wording to describe the two phases would be needed to make it clearer. Chair Tanaka thought the idea of having someone truly independent for optic reasons was supported. He suggested the Auditor update the wording to be reviewed at the next meeting. Ms. Stump stated the City does not use traditional retainers. She thought what he was suggesting would be entering into an on-call contract that would likely never be used but would be ready. Ms. McCoy described the second point in the proposed updates that spoke about limiting the reporting received from the Hotline system by any Committee member that experienced an allegation. Council Member Lauing opined that a person who has an accusation must be informed about it as part of the investigation and asked for confirmation. Ms. McCoy said that would be at the close of the investigation to ensure there was no perception that anything has been compromised during the process. Council Member Lauing stated at some point in the investigation the accused would be asked what happened. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Ms. Stump interjected that this is a whole professional area of expertise that should not be designed in that Committee. Council Member Lauing agreed but addressed that the accused should know at some point what they were accused of. Ms. Stump agreed but stated a professional investigator would gather facts by looking at documents and interviewing witnesses which may lead to other witnesses. If an individual is accused of wrongdoing, they will need to be interviewed typically toward the end of the process. People have employment and constitutional rights that professional investigators know how to honor. They only need to set the outline for how to move these things through. Council Member Veenker felt the concern was about the absolute nature of the statement, “She/he will not have access to such incident report.” Council Member Lauing concurred. Ms. Stump thought the meaning of that was that there is a piece of software the auditor and IT manage that keeps those documents and notes of the system. This statement confirms that if one of the three individuals is involved as a subject, they would not have access to that. She has never had access to any of those documents except the initial complaint so she can go to the initial triage meeting. Council Member Veenker suggested tweaking the language at the top of page 9 to comport with their procedures but sounding less absolute. Chair Tanaka thought there was a consensus that the language in general is supported but the parts his colleagues have mentioned need to be amended. Ms. McCoy talked about the last point adding a link to a paragraph that made reference to the location a person should go to if they are rendering an allegation against a Council Member, not an employee. Those types of complaints do not remain internal. They propose adding the actual link to the Commission being referenced. Council Member Lauing clarified that this was narrowly about fraud and waste and asked why that was taken to the FPPC because they are City employees and are not signing or approving contracts. Council Member Veenker noted it states, “referred to the FPPC, DA’s office or other appropriate outside agency”. She thought the point was that it would not be done internally. Ms. McCoy confirmed she was correct. Council Member Lauing thought the wording saying that the members of the Hotline Review Committee are appointed by City Council was odd. He stated technically those particular CAOs were many times inherited by City Council. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Ms. McCoy stated that paragraph just refers back to who will be the replacement. Chair Tanaka asked if there was any proposed language anyone would like to suggest. Discussion ensued about the proposed language changes. Council Member Lauing wanted to know at what point, content and timing would Council be informed supposing there was an investigation with an outcome. Ms. Stump answered the way forward in this rare situation would depend on the facts and circumstances. She was confident close attention would be paid to bringing the Council in at the right time and in the right way. She did not believe that needed to be scripted out in this policy. Council Member Lauing felt it was important that the public does not think this would stay private regardless of the outcome and there should be some way to say the outcome would be communicated to Council. Ms. Stump stated there is a reporting process in the Hotline policy already that is a high-level summary report that does not include details because it almost always would involve the conduct of City employees that are not appointed. With respect to their own employees, she explained how their responsibilities would be much more significant. Council Member Lauing thought it would be good for Council to know how many Hotlines were being investigated in a year or in a quarter and if a majority were in one department, they would want to question what is going on in that department. Secondly, he felt if a CAO had been under investigation, the public and Council would like to know who investigated it and the resolution. Ms. McCoy wanted to clarify the extent of detail he wanted to see in that quarterly report. Council Member Veenker pointed out that paragraph eight specifies they should get the number of reports made to the Hotline, their status, the general types of complaints received, any trends in the types of complaints received and then a general description of corrective action. MOTION: Council Member Veenker moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing that the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy be amended as discussed. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 2. Referral: Discussion and Possible Recommendation Regarding Friendship Cities SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Chantal Cotton-Gaines, Deputy City Manager, brought forward a referral related to adding Friendship Cities as part of the portfolio of international affairs. She explained the purpose of Friendship Cities and of the referral. She read questions that had been presented to the Committee to think about in terms of resource impacts. Chair Tanaka asked the colleague’s to discuss whether the City should identify a set number as a total number of Friendship Cities. Council Member Veenker said that in the Colleague’s memo, it was suggested that the Friendship City agreement would be limited to three years subject to Council renewal for a test of time. She liked the idea of seeing how it evolves, what resources it takes and if it stays lighter in those three years. She felt it could be reevaluated after that time and asked how many Friendship Cities were waiting in line. Ms. Cotton-Gaines stated there were two or three that were very actively reminding them that they had requested a relationship. Over the last five years, there had been enough delegations visiting where they would have requested it if they had the opportunity to become a Friendship City. Council Member Veenker asked, given the lighter touch of a Friendship City versus a Sister City, what difference there would be between the delegations that come now other than the name. Ms. Cotton-Gaines answered it would depend on how the relationship is developed. A delegation visiting Palo Alto from somewhere abroad and wanting to meet with a Staff member to learn more about the City is what a random delegation visit would look like. In terms of a Friendship City, she presumed there would be expectation of some sort of conversation that would be a through-line as opposed to a random presentation about the Council Manager form of government and all the amazing things there of Palo Alto. If there are additional conversations, learning opportunities between their community and Palo Alto in any kind of way could be as big or as small as the two parties make it. Council Member Veenker stated she could not find Neighbors Abroad’s policy for Friendship Cities and asked for information on that. Ms. Cotton-Gaines answered she did not have that information. Council Member Lauing felt they should be very limited on the total number of new friendships due to the extra demand on Staff. Council Member Veenker asked what the City would get from this. Ms. Cotton-Gaines stated the opportunity afforded to the City by these relationships was a learning opportunity for any international or domestic relationships. They have the opportunity to share things they are doing and to learn what other places are doing. The reason she limited it to the resources locally was because that was the scope the Council gave for the Committee SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 to review. They have more of a presence abroad on any of these things than they have teams to support. She gave an example of a comparison. She said that Neighbors Abroad does an amazing job for them but it still does require some City Staff diverting time from something else to put focus on things like organizing Staff to have presentations on the content related to when delegations are visiting, sending their elected officials abroad making sure they are armed with useful information to share, connecting staff to staff and resident to resident between the cities, coordinating gifts related to visits and making room reservations, etc. Council Member Veenker asked why some cities have substantial staff resources for this. Ms. Cotton-Gaines thought economic development in a lot of those cities was more greatly tied to their international interactions and part of that is different government structures. Council Member Veenker stated they recently started having an economic development and would perhaps grow that program. She did think there were benefits to the City. She asked if gifts and travel arrangements would be involved with a Friendship City with a lighter lift. Ms. Cotton-Gaines answered that was the open question. If a Friendship City was really the light touch as described, could they be held to that because they do not want to afford more to a Friendship City than to an existing Sister City. Mr. Shikada said it was important to note that the Staff assignment was to identify the fiscal resource impact and not to suggested a lack of value gained through these relationships. This is a question of priority and how much effort to put behind the concept. Council Member Veenker stated to answer the question about resources, not only how much they put into it but how much they get out of it informs her decision. Mr. Shikada said taking full benefit of a Friendship or Sister City relationship might involve a greater investment of their own resources, such as to send key Staff to do study tours at the Sister Cities to get the firsthand knowledge. He noted the focus on economic development was expressly locally focused as opposed to the type of international economic development their Sister Cities are interested in. Council Member Veenker stated the list was surprising to her because it was not a list she would have expected to see for a Friendship City that she thought was a lighter thing than their other relationships. Ms. Cotton-Gaines offered that is part of why the idea of even a pilot or limited term of something stands out because if the City designs it in a way where it is intended to be the lowest possible touch level ever and comparing that in relation to their Siter Cities, maybe that is what it will actually be but it may prove to be more time and the reevaluation opportunity is critical. They have listed what they have seen as efforts necessary for any international touch point. There is always a staff to staff piece even Neighbors Abroad is doing the bulk of the work. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 That is why the bullet points are there. She referenced the range of interaction for their eight Sister Cities varies greatly and gave examples of that. Council Member Veenker said if they are the ones initiating the staff to staff, perhaps they set a different expectation for the Friendship Cities as opposed to what they have typically done for the Sister Cities. It is more of an independent resident to resident thing with the blessing of the City and presentation here and there but not all of the things they just talked through. Ms. Cotton-Gaines felt that could potentially work but it would require a lot of discipline on the part of the City to not make it grown any further. Mr. Shikada added that it was entirely within the scope of the Committee’s discussion if that were a level of guidance that would address the issue of resources required. Council Member Lauing thought the City Manager was saying that the benefits were on them to put out there. He had the responsibilities of putting out the costs to get to whatever the benefits are. He felt the focal points of opportunities of having international relationships could be driven by economic development. The global sentence is that they are not excluding relationships with important international partners if they do not have a new, expanded designated program on specific Sister Cities. Chair Tanaka felt if Neighbors Abroad or other private groups could support this without a lot of Staff support, time or money from the City budget, he supported it. If it means they have to impact the City economically, that is where the line is drawn. He felt the number should be set by what Neighbors Abroad could support. He felt that focusing on a few Sister Cities would be good. The next question was if this would be a pilot program with no more than two or three cities with an evaluation after a year or two. Council Member Veenker asked how many Sister Cities do U.S. cities typically have. She felt some had gone dormant but had not be formally disassociated. She thought they were struggling to do something lighter that would not be a burden on Staff to allow flexibility to take advantage of the new world and new opportunities. She thought they should do it on a trial. Council Member Lauing thought it should be narrow and where the Committee could suggest an endpoint based on but not absolutely committed to the Colleague’s memo. Chair Tanaka reiterated he is game for anything as long as it does not require City resources. The next question was what number of events or visits would the City allow related to each individual Friendship City. This note was in relation to total amount of time to be spent on each Friendship City especially in comparison to existing Sister or Sibling City relationships. Council Member Lauing thought they should use Staff’s judgment. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Council Member Veenker agreed with Council Member Lauing to leave that to Staff’s discretion. She pointed out there might be things that were of lesser impact they could trade off for this. Chair Tanaka stated he is game for it if it does not use City resources. He agreed with Council Member Veenker stating he was okay with making the trade if there were things that were of lesser impact but not cutting services to the City people depend on. His main concern is giving Staff more than they can handle. He presented the next question which asked how the City can limit Friendship Cities to just that without each one becoming a new Sister City. Council Member Lauing thought if they promoted anyone it would have to be a later decision based on results there and there was no automatic entry to Sister City. Ms. Cotton-Gaines thought that should be discussed in the early conversations with whichever cities they choose to establish a Friendship City, especially if the City represents a different part of the world than the existing Sister Cities. Council Member Veenker added the expectation being that just because the relationship goes well, they will not necessarily become a Sister City but not saying they cannot. Council Member Lauing said they could cap some number of Sister Cities now and that could be changed later. Chair Tanaka thought it has to be a trade and not just an add. The next question was if a Friendship City formal agreement last for a set number of years and then conclude as a formal relationship allowing for more opportunities to connect broadly. Council Member Veenker thought it could be set for a set number of years and there would have to be an analysis and potential renewal but the default is that it would expire. She wondered if they could say there is an option to downgrade to a Friendship City or setting a 5 or 10-year expiration date and see how it goes. Council Member Lauing stated it would be a sunset provision and it made sense. He asked why keep ones that were unproductive. Chair Tanaka agreed that he liked the idea of a sunset provision. Council Member Veenker asked what the exact referral was. Ms. Cotton-Gaines described what the City Council was asking of them. Chief Tanaka stated that presumably it could be recommend Council approve a Friendship City program with the following add-ons or criteria. Council Member Veenker stated the draft agreement stated to remain in effect for three years and they could either do that or change it. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Discussion ensued regarding the wording of the motion. Chair Tanaka liked the idea of the program but could not support it due to Staff resource issues. MOTION: Council Member Veenker moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing to recommend the City Council approve a Friendship City program that shall be: a. Reevaluated within 3 years and that any Friendship Cities entered into shall expire within 3 years of execution absent mutual agreement to extend. In that first 3-year time period, no more than 2 Friendship Cities shall be established, and the City shall host no more than one delegation visit per year per Friendship City; and b. That the provisions suggested in the Colleague's Memo related to the volunteers of Neighbors Abroad taking primary responsibility and that it fits with Neighbors Abroad policies; and c. Direct staff to evaluate current existing Sister City relations and the potential processes to transfer to Friendship City or other status. MOTION PASSED: 2-1, Tanaka no 3. City Council Referral to Discuss and Recommend City Council Procedures and Protocols on: Censure and International Travel Sections (Follow Up Discussion) Ms. Cotton-Gaines stated this is another follow-up related to the referrals for the Procedures and Protocols Handbook related to censure taking into account edits they shared a couple months prior and international travel, bringing back language based off the suggestions from the Committee in April. Ms. Stump stated Council asked this Committee to work on expanding, fleshing out and refining the brief set of paragraphs regarding the censure policy a few months prior. She outlined a proposed revision addressing those items and cleaning up and clarifying the draft. She described proposed changes to Sections 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3. Council Member Veenker commented labeling Section 8.3b “Disciplinary Actions” rather than “Definitions”. In the admonition paragraph, she suggested changing the sentence, “An admonition may be issued by the City Council prior to a formal investigation or any findings of facts regarding allegations” to “While an admonition may be issued by the City Council prior to a formal investigation or any findings of facts regarding allegations, a significant factual basis should exist before issuing an admonition”. In the last sentence stating, “In general, however, Council will provide its members with an opportunity to respond to before taking any action”. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 She suggested inserting “the alleged violation” so it would read “opportunity to respond to the alleged violation before taking any action”. Ms. Stump stated those were excellent edits and she had copied them down. Chair Tanaka stated that because a Council Member is elected, there is no real effect from these disciplinary actions. They could resign but would not have to. Ms. Stump stated there are a couple relatively minor sanctions listed. It is correct that an elected Council Member maintains their seat. Chair Tanaka liked the idea that this could not be used a political tool. He asked how to prevent the action of someone using this process if they disagree with another person. He believes City Council works because they do not agree with each other and they debate ideas but there should not be political backlash for disagreeing. He wanted to know if the City Attorney had suggestions on that. Ms. Stump answered that is a question for Council to determine in terms of how the colleagues treat one another. The idea of a censure policy was not a staff initiative but a robust process of opportunity to be heard to ensure there is a full opportunity to respond. She added the City does not have to have or use a censure program and it is up to the Council to determine that. Council Member Lauing stated this was discussed prior and the intention was around issues of behavior and conduct. Chair Tanaka thought what one might consider inappropriate behavior might just be someone’s differing opinion. The way the policy is structured is majority rules. If the majority does not like the minority, they can just censure them. Council Member Veenker opined they cannot keep people from abusing it. It would require a majority to abuse the process and the hope is that if that happened, the Community would make them pay. The alternative to taking that risk is to not have one at all. Her concern was not being able to admonish someone for inappropriate behavior. Ms. Stump described proposed changes to Section C. She recommended changing the sentence that states, “The ad hoc committee shall review the findings of the investigation and arrive at a recommendation” to “If directed by the Council, the ad hoc committee shall review the findings of the investigation and arrive at a recommendation. Council Member did not feel strongly about making that change. Council Member Lauing felt the sentence was okay the way it was. Chair Tanaka asked for an explanation of the purpose of the change. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Ms. Stump stated the purpose of the change was to provide flexibility for Council to decide later in light of the specific circumstances what they wanted the ad hoc committee to do. Council Member Veenker clarified that she thought given the nature of a particular investigation, Council might want to review the findings in full as a body as opposed to having ad hoc do. Chair Tanaka asked if Council could do the same thing even without the proposed changes. Ms. Stump answered this provides structure in advance so everyone knows what the steps will be. Chair Tanaka asked what could not be done without these changes. Council Member Veenker stated the process would look political without the changes. Chair Tanaka asked what additional power these changes gave the Council. Ms. Stump felt it was actually limiting Council by setting up a structure and a set of steps to follow. Council Member Veenker commented on the sentence stating, “In all cases, an opportunity to be heard will be afforded to any Council Member who may be subject to discipline” but for admonition is it not necessarily though they encouraged it. She felt it was inconsistent with paragraph B. Ms. Stump agreed and proposed changing it to “Subject to informal reprimand or censure”. Council Member Veenker proposed changing the word “and” to “and/or” in the sentence at the end of subparagraph 1 stating, “Proposed disciplinary actions may include admonition, informal reprimand, direction to correct or censure”. Ms. Stump stated that could be changed. Council Member Veenker proposed rewording the first sentence in paragraph 2 to state, “If a Colleagues Memo proposes discipline of a Council Member” and leave out the word “censure”. Ms. Stump agreed with that change. Chair Tanaka went back to the Definitions and asked if it was trying to say when there is a violation of law or policy, either one, two, three or some combination of them can be triggered. Ms. Stump clarified that was correct. Chair Tanaka stated one and two included the words “if it is in violation of law or City policy” and asked if that should be included in b section. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Ms. Stump said it is currently in paragraph C1 which states, “Should two or more Council Members believe that actions by a Council Member are inconsistent with federal, state or local law, this Handbook or any other document adopted by Council, then they can get the process started”. She agreed that statement should be made earlier and stated she would put that at the beginning of b. Ms. Stump discussed proposed changes to C6 and C9. She suggested it would more accurate and less confrontational to use the word “witnesses” rather than “accusers” in paragraph nine. She also pointed out a typo in the same paragraph that read “witness” rather than “witnesses”. Council Member Veenker agreed the word “accusers” feels uncomfortable but wondered if there could be an accuser who is not a witness. She suggested the word “complainant”. Ms. Stump agreed it could state “complainant or witnesses”. She went on to discussed proposed changes to paragraph d. Council Member Lauing asked if the two-thirds of the Council did not include the one accused. Ms. Stump stated that is not how it is written. Every Council Member has an opportunity to vote. Council Member Lauing opined the accused would most likely vote in favor of themselves. He thought if the bar is raised to two-thirds, it should be of the remaining Council Members. Ms. Stump explained that once a Council Member is elected, they hold that seat and have a right to vote on every item that comes before Council. Council Member Veenker expressed concern of two or more accused on Council. Council Member Lauing suggested looking at the case studies and then back to the number. If the accused cannot be recused, he thought they should go back to a majority. Council Member Veenker asked if the City Attorney knew how other cities handled this item. Ms. Stump stated she would have to go back and look. She stated neither the Council or Staff could require a recusal on this item unless there is a financial conflict of interest. Council Member Veenker felt if recusal could not be required, the majority vote was more attractive. Council Member Lauding recollected reading the four links were that they were all majority votes. He felt that makes more sense. He wanted to change the language back to “majority of Council”. Council Member Veenker felt comfortable with going to that as a recommendation to the full Council and then looking more carefully at the comparisons when they get there. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Chair Tanaka thought it was important to preserve the ability to disagree and the bar should be really high to prevent it being used as a political tool. He asked Staff how many times Palo Alto has actually censured anyone. Ms. Stump was not aware of any time that has happened. Chair Tanaka wondered how much of this has been done by the Council versus the people. If someone is really out of line, they will get recalled. He believed they were treading on thin ice making it easy to censure a colleague. He felt this was a political decision. Council Member Lauing thought he was missing the core point that it is evidentiary based and not an allocation that is not supported by evidence. He felt it is too easy now for one person to support an accused person. Chair Tanaka felt if it really was evidentiary based where 12 people selected had nothing to do with anyone involved in the case, lawyers arguing the facts, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, he would agree with it. But there are seven people that ran for their own political agenda which may or may not agree with others and he thought they vote how they feel. There is no mandate that they have to vote on any fact. Ms. Stump stated that was correct for legislative items but for quasi-judicial items they needed to make decisions based on the evidence before Council. She added in the American political system, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt only applies in the criminal context when someone is subject to imprisonment or criminal fines. It is not relevant in administrative proceedings. What is proposed for censure is clear and convincing evidence. That is another procedural safeguard. Chair Tanaka felt clear and convincing evidence could just be a matter of opinion. Council Member Veenker thought Chair Tanaka raised a good point about free speech, freedom to disagree and not wanting to chill speech. She was not concerned that this would as the disciplinary actions were just more speech. The only time anything is done is censure when the higher clear and convincing standard has to be met. Chair Tanaka felt the difference was that the parties deciding were not independent. Ms. Stump described the proposed changes to one, two and three under paragraph d. She felt some of it was repetition and could be deleted. Council Member Veenker suggested changing the sentence at the end of number two to read “to correct the behavior or the result of the particular behavior”. Ms. Stump stated that change could be made. Chair Tanaka asked about where it states, “a clear violation or beyond reasonable doubt”. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Ms. Stump stated that in d it stated the super majority requirement and the Committee has chosen to go back to a majority of Council and then in d3, it stated “based on clear and convincing facts” and that is a standard that is greater than the minimum standard in the system. Chair Tanaka stated in the end that is just the interested parties’ opinion and no way to hold that to clear and convincing. He felt it should be a fairly large number of votes because it could become very political. MOTION: Council Member Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Veenker to recommend the City Council include in the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook a Censure Policy incorporating the changes discussed by the committee. MOTION PASSED: 2-1, Tanaka no Ms. Cotton-Gaines stated the intention of the International Travel Section was to add two to three paragraphs to the Travel Section of the Procedures and Protocols Handbook. She outlined the proposed additions. Council Member Lauing asked if this language captures the situation that an international trip was needed and not only allocated to Sister Cities or other city relationships. Ms. Cotton-Gaines thought it would be worth explicitly stating something to that effect. She expressed hesitation because she was not sure if the City Council’s funding for travel in general covers that but she would check. Council Member Veenker pointed out a typo that should say “six total trips” instead of “tips” in the last sentence under the paragraph titled, “ Travel Related to Sister Cities etc.”. She asked if the blank in the following sentence should be filled in to read “the Vice Mayor”. Ms. Cotton-Gaines stated she left that blank for the Committee to provide their recommendation. Council Member Veenker commented the phrase regarding the $40Kshould say something like “as adjusted according to CPI”. Council Member Lauing agreed with filling in the blank to state “Vice Mayor”. Chair Tanaka felt filling in the blank to state “Vice Mayor” seemed reasonable to him or majority of Council. He asked how they got to $40K when it was at $35K. Ms. Cotton-Gaines stated the Committee had a very robust discussion and picked $40K. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 19 Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/10/2023 Chair Tanaka stated he would not support this motion. He felt Zoom was a good alternative and that if they want to travel they should use their own money. MOTION: Council Member Veenker moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing to recommend the City Council include in the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook a International Travel Policy incorporating the changes discussed: Mayoral travel being approved by the Vice mayor, and the annual amount will be adjusted annually according to CIP (net $40,000). MOTION PASSED: 2-1, Tanaka no Future Meetings and Agendas Ms. Cotton-Gaines announced between November and December there are quite a few items discussing their annual discussion on Procedures and Protocols Handbook where they solicit ideas they have. The last referral they have related to the Handbook that has not yet been discussed is the Council Discretionary Expenditures, related to if individual Council Members can use any of the funding. Other items include updating the 2024 priorities, the legislative guidelines and a few items related to audits. She stated she would try to spread them out and work with the Chairperson if the agendas are looking too full. Council Member Lauing asked what the direction is on the 2024 Council priorities. Ms. Cotton-Gaines answered annually this Committee has an opportunity to have a pre- discussion around the 2024 priorities before it goes to the full City Council at the retreat in late January or early February. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.