HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 9808
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9808)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/13/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Review Council Procedures and Protocols
Title: Review Council Procedures and Protocols
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommended
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review the Council
Procedures and Protocols (Attachment A) and recommend revisions for staff to
incorporate and return to the Committee for further review.
Background
The Council handbook on Procedures and Protocols (Attachment A) describes
the way the Palo Alto City Council does its business and is a directional
guide. It is intended to accomplish two goals. First, the handbook is an
informational guide for anyone doing business or appearing before the City
Council. Second, the handbook is a compilation of Procedures and Protocols
that have been formally adopted by Council Resolution. Municipal Code
2.04.100 states the following related to the handbook:
Municipal Code 2.04.100 - Handbook of procedural rules
The council shall adopt by resolution a handbook of procedural
rules governing any aspect of the conduct of meetings and
hearings for the council and its standing committees, including
but not limited to agenda requirements, the order of business,
rules of order, rules of evidence, closed session procedures and
rules for public participation in meetings. The handbook of
procedural rules shall be deemed guidelines and failure to
comply with any procedural rule shall not be the basis for
challenge to or invalidation of any action of the council, nor shall
they be construed to create any independent remedy or right of
action of any kind.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Moreover, the Council Procedures and Protocols (CPP) includes a provision
for the Policy and Services Committee to annually review the Council
Procedures and Protocols (CPP) as stated below from Section 5 –
Enforcement:
Section 5 - Enforcement
Council Members have the primary responsibility to assure that
these protocols are understood and followed, so that the public
can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of
government. As an expression of the standards of conduct
expected by the City for Council Members, the protocols are
intended to be self-enforcing. They therefore become most
effective when members are thoroughly familiar with them and
embrace their provisions. For this reason, Council Members
entering office shall sign a statement affirming they have read
and understood the Council protocols. In addition, the protocols
shall be annually reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee
and updated as necessary.
City Council discussed the CPP at their October 29th, 2018 meeting. At this
meeting Council approved an ordinance (Attachment B) amending Municipal
Code section 2.04.190 to reduce number of Council Members on Finance and
Policy & Services from four to three, and section 12.10.060 to change the
votes required to resolve a certain type of appeal from five to a majority A
(Attachment B). Council also referred the review of additional discretionary
changes to Council Procedures and Protocols to the Policy and Services
Committee.
Discussion
Various changes to the Council Procedures and Protocols were previously
recommended by Policy & Services in Fiscal Year 2015, however the
recommended changes were not finally approved by Council. As the 2015
CPP version includes recommendations from previous Committee work and
staff work, and also reflects the current Council practice in procedures and
protocols, staff recommends the Policy and Services Committee work from
the attached 2015 version in reviewing the CPP. The most recent Council
adopted version is available on the City Council Webpage: City Council
Staff’s initial high-level review of the CPP includes a few areas for possible
discussion. The first is the overall purpose and structure of the CPP. As with
any document amended over time the structure and cohesiveness can
become fragmented. While much of the content of the CPP remains relevant,
staff would like to consider how the document might be more readable and
accessible for the public and Council.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
As mentioned by incoming City Manager Ed Shikada at the October 29
Council meeting, a good starting place in reviewing the CPP is to consider
the purpose of the document. The CPP has two parts, and the first is
Procedures. The intent of the Procedures appears to primarily be to inform
the public how they can interact with the City Council. If this is the intent of
the Procedures staff encourages a discussion about the content and
structure in context of this purpose, with an eye toward further clarity for
the public on how to most effectively interact with the Council.
Part two of the CPP is called Protocols. The intent of the Protocols appears to
primarily be to inform Council members how they will interact with one
another. Again, if this is the intended purpose of the Protocols staff
encourages a discussion with an eye toward further clarity in how Council
members can most efficiently and effectively interact with one another.
Prior to the November 13, 2018 Policy and Services discussion on the CPP
staff asked Council to share with staff their thoughts on how the CPP could
be improved (Attachment C). While we did not hear from every Council
Member, the feedback we did receive provides some insight into how the
CPP might be improved for discussion. For example, a specific area of
discussion related to the CPP is managing the volume and capacity of work
for a seven-member Council versus a nine-member Council. Currently there
are 37 boards and commissions that the Mayor annually assigns Council
liaison roles to. This is a very large number of commitments to cover and
may be practically challenging going forward.
Resources Impact
There is no resource impact identified at this time.
Attachments:
• Att A - 2015 Council Protocols
• Att B - 10-29-18 Item 9785 Council Procedures
• Att C - 11-2018 Council Member Feedback on P&P
City of Palo Alto Page 1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6170)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 10/6/2015
Summary Title: Updates to Policies and Protocols Handbook
Title: Discussion and Recommendation to Council Regarding City Council
Procedural Matters, Including Updates to Procedures and Protocols Handbook
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Background
On April 8, 2015 and May 21, 2015 the Policy & Services Committee discussed the Procedures and Protocols Handbook and ideas about enhancing meeting management. These items were referred to the Committee from City Council’s meeting on January 31, 2015. On February 17, 2015 the City Council held a Committee as a Whole meeting and also discussed the following items: procedures and protocols, meeting management, committees and staff relations. At this
meeting additional ideas about the Procedures and Protocols Handbook as well as the subject
of meeting management were also referred to the Policy & Services Committee. Ideas about the
subjects of committees and staff relations were deferred to the next Committee as a Whole
meeting.
On April 8, 2015 the Committee had its first discussion about the referrals and directed staff to
draft certain changes to the Procedures and Protocols Handbook. On May 21, 2015, the
Committee completed discussions related to the Handbook and meeting management. Staff
indicated that the edited draft of the Handbook would return to the Committee for review.
Discussion
Attached is the updated version of the Procedures and Protocols Handbook. Staff has edited
the document using the “track changes” tool in Microsoft Word. Staff recommends that the
Committee review the document and provide any clarifications or revisions as needed. The goal
of the meeting will be to complete the revisions and forward the updated document to City
Council for approval.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Committee also asked staff to update the Handbook to include language about alternative recommendations or ranges of options in staff reports. Additionally, the Committee recommended that staff presentations be made available in advance of the meeting and also posted online. In updating the Procedures and Protocols Handbook staff concluded that these items are not within the scope of this document. The City Manager can work with staff to incorporate alternative recommendations or ranges of possibilities, where possible, in staff reports. Additionally, the City Manager can work with the City Clerk to post staff presentations in advance of the meetings, where feasible. Finally, the Committee asked staff to review whether a new timing system can be installed in the City Council Chambers to help Council Members with time management. Staff will bring the Committee’s recommendations on this topic, together with technical options, to the City Council for action. If approved, staff will work within existing Capital Improvement Projects or create a new project to accomplish the task.
Resources Impact
Potential increase in staff time, facility and technology costs. Staff will bring costs increase, if
any, to City Council along with Committee recommendations.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Revised Procedure and Protocols Handbook(DOC)
• Attachment B: 5-21-15 Staff Report (PDF)
• Attachment C: 4-8-15 Staff Report (PDF)
• Attachment D: Referral Items from 2-17-15 (PDF)
• Attachment E: 4-08-15 PS Minutes (DOCX)
• Attachment F: 5-21-15 PS Minutes (DOCX)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES
AND PROTOCOLS HANDBOOK
Procedures and Protocols Approved 2/11/13XX/XX/2015
If you have any questions about this handbook, please feel free to contact the City Clerk by phone at (650) 329-2571 and e-mail at city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org or the City Attorney by phone at (650) 329-2171 and e-mail at city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES ___________________________________________1
INTRODUCTION & CONTENTS 1
SECTION 1 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COUNCIL MEETINGS 2 1.1 - Policy 2 1.2 – Purpose 2 1.3 - Summary of Rules 2 1.4 - General Requirements 2 A. Accessibility 2 B. Presiding Officer's Permission Required 3 C. Recording and Identification 3 D. Specific Requirements and Time Limits 3
SECTION 2 – COUNCIL MEETING & AGENDA GUIDELINES 5 2.1 - Policy 5 2.2 – Purpose 5 2.3 - Summary of Guidelines 5 A. Regular Meetings 5 B. Special Meetings 65 C. Study Sessions 6 D. Closed Sessions 6 2.4 - General Requirements 6 A. Regular Meetings 6 B. Telephonic Attendance Of Council Members At Council Meetings 6 C. Items Considered After 10:30 p.m. 8 D. Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications. 8 E. Agenda Order 9 F. Council Comment 9 G. Public Comment 9 H. Council Requests to Remove Item 109 I. Hearing of Removed Items 109 J. Consent Calendar Categories 109
K. Co llea gue s Me mo ’s Council Matters 1211
L. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 1312 M. Closed Sessions 1312 N. Adjournment 1312 O. Rescheduling Agenda Items 1312 P. Adding New Items to the Agenda 13 Q. Special Meetings 1413 R. Study Sessions 1413 S. Closed Sessions 14 T. Motions, Debate & Voting 15 U. Motions 1615 V. Debate and Voting 2120 W. Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Hearings _ 2322 X. Standing Committees 2625 Y. Ad Hoc Committees & Committee as a Whole 2726 2.5 - Election of Mayor 2827
CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOLS ________________________________________ 2928
SECTION 1 - CORE RESPONSIBILITIES 3029
SECTION 2 - COUNCIL CONDUCT 3130 2.1 – Public Meetings 3130 2.2 - Private Encounters 3130 2.3 – Council Conduct with City Staff 3231 2.4 - Conduct with Palo Alto Boards and Commissions 3433 2.5 - Staff Conduct with City Council 3534
SECTION 3 - OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES 3635 3.1 – Commit to Annual Review of Important Procedural Issues 3635 3.2 – Don’t Politicize Procedural Issues (e.g. Minutes Approval or Agenda 3635 Order) for Strategic Purposes 3635 3.3 – Submit Questions on Council Agenda Items Ahead of the Meeting 3635 3.4 - Submittal of Materials Directly to Council 3635 3.5 - Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to 3635 Planning Applications 3635 3.6 – Respect the Work of the Council Standing Committees 3736 3.7 – The Mayor and Vice Mayor Should Work With Staff to Plan the Council 3736 Meetings 3736
SECTION 4 - POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE – ROLE, PURPOSE, & WORK PLANNING 3837
SECTION 5 - ENFORCEMENT 3837
SECTION 6 - CITY COUNCIL E-MAILS FOR AGENDA-RELATED ITEMS 3938 6.1 - Policy 3938 6.2 - Procedure 3938
SECTION 7 - CITY COUNCIL AND BOARDS AND COMMISSSIONS POLICY FOR TRAVEL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT, March 2006 4140 7.1 - Eligible Activities 4140 7.2 - Out-of-Town Conferences or Meetings 4140 A. Reimbursement 4140 B. Meals and Incidentals 4241 C. Lodging Expense 4241 D. Transportation 4241 7.3 - Local or Bay Area Activities 4342 7.4 - Other Expenses 4342 7.5 - Activities Not Considered Reimbursable 4342 7.6 - Reports to Council 4443 7.7 - Violation of This Policy 4443 7.8 - Mayor and Vice Mayor Additional Compensation 4443 7.10 - Support Services 4443
CITY OF PALO ALTO COUNCIL PROTOCOLS ETHICS ADDENDUM 4544 A. Comply with Law 4544 B. Conduct of Members 4544 C. Respect for Process 4544 D. Decisions Based on Merit 4544 E. Conflict of Interest 4544 F. Gifts and Favors 4544 G. Confidential Information 4746 H. Use of Public Resources 4746 I. Representation of Private Interests 4746 J. Advocacy 4746 K. Positive Work Place Environment 4746
1
CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION & CONTENTS
This handbook describes the way the Palo Alto City Council does its business and is a
directional guide. It is intended to accomplish two goals. First, the handbook is an informational guide for anyone doing business or appearing before the City Council.
Second, the handbook is a compilation of Procedures and Protocols that have been
formally adopted by Council Resolution.
The handbook City Council Procedures is organized into two sections:
1) Public Participation in Council Meetings
This section explains the basic rules for speaking to the City Council. It covers things like when to speak, time limits, and how groups of speakers are handled.
2) Council Meeting & Agenda Guidelines
This section explains the different kinds of meetings the City Council holds,
what they are for, and how the meeting agenda is prepared.
2
SECTION 1 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COUNCIL MEETINGS
1.1 - Policy
It is the policy of the City Council to assure that members of the public have the opportunity
to speak to any regular or special meeting agenda item before final action. These rules
establish the rights and obligations of persons who wish to speak during City Council meetings.
1.2 – Purpose
These rules are intended to enhance public participation and Council debate so that the best possible decisions can be made for Palo Alto. Palo Alto has a long and proud tradition of open government and civil, intelligent public discourse. Open government meetings must allow everyone to be heard without fear of cheers or jeers. For these reasons, the
City Council takes these rules seriously. Disruptive or unruly behavior in violation of the law
can result in removal from the Council meeting and/or arrest and prosecution.
1.3 - Summary of Rules
Every regular City Council agenda has two different kinds of opportunities for the public to speak. The first is during Oral Communications. This part of the meeting is provided so that the public can speak to anything that is in the City’s jurisdiction, even ifwhen there is no
action listed on the agenda. The Council allows up to three minutes per speaker, but limits
the total time to 30 minutes per meeting. State law does not permit the Council to respond
to oral communications, but City staff may be asked to follow up on any concerns that are
raised.
The second opportunity to speak is during the public comment or public hearing portion of Each Agenda Item. Public comments or testimony must be related to the matter under
consideration. The Council allows three minutes per speaker for most matters. During “quasi-judicial” hearings (where the City Council is legally required to take evidence and
make impartial decisions based upon that evidence), the applicant or appellant may have up to ten minutes at the outset and three minutes for rebuttal at the end. These hearings are specially marked on the Council agenda.
A person who wants to speak to the Council must should fill out a speaker card and hand it
in to the City Clerk. The Clerk will give the cards to the Mayor or Vice Mayor so that the
speakers can be identified and organized in an orderly way.
1.4 - General Requirements
A. Accessibility
Palo Alto makes every reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of the
disabled. Any provision of these rules may be modified if needed to provide
reasonable accommodation. Persons needing assistance should contact: Larry
Perlin, ADA Director, City of Palo Alto, 650/329-2496 (voice) or 650/328-1199
(TDD).
*For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent.
3
B. Presiding Officer's Permission Required
The presiding officer at Council meetings (usually the Mayor or Vice-Mayor) is
legally required to “preserve strict order and decorum.”i This is important in order
to assure a fair opportunity for everyone to participate in an open and civil
setting.
• Any person desiring to address the Council must first get the permission of the presiding Presiding officer Officer by completing a speaker card and
handing the card to the City Clerk.
• The presiding Presiding officer Officer shall recognize any person who has given a completed card to the City Clerk.
• No person, other than a Council Member and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion without the permission of the presiding Presiding officerOfficer.
• No person shall enter the staff area of the Council dais without the
permission of the Presiding Officer or appropriate Council Appointed Officer.
C. Recording and Identification
Persons wishing to address the Council shall comply with the following:
• Use the microphone provided for the public and speak in a recordable tone,
either personally or with assistance, if necessary.
• State their name and address if presenting evidence in a hearing required
by law.
• Other speakers should state their name and address, but cannot be
compelled to register their name or other information as a condition to
attendance at the meeting.
D. Specific Requirements and Time Limits
1) Oral Communications Oral communications shall be limited to up to three minutes per speaker and
will be limited to a total of thirty minutes for all speakers combined.
• Oral communications may be used only to address items that are
within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction, but not listed on the
agenda.
• Oral communications may not be used to address matters where
the receipt of new information would threaten the due process rights of any person.
• All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to
any individual member.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Strikethrough
4
• Council members shall not enter into debate or discussion with
speakers during oral communications.
• The presiding Presiding officer Officer may direct that the City Manager will respond to the person speaking and/or the Council at
a later date.
2) Other Agenda Items
Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral
Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per
speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding Presiding
officerOfficer. The presiding Presiding officer Officer may reduce the
allowed time to less than two minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
3) Spokesperson for a Group
When any group of people wishes to address the Council on the same
subject matter, the presiding Presiding officer Officer will request that a
spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council.
Spokespersons who are representing a group of five or more people who
are present in the Council chambers will be allowed ten minutes and will to
the extent practical be called upon ahead of individual speakers.
4) Quasi-Judicial/ Planned Community Hearings
In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing, single applicants and appellants shall be given ten minutes for their opening presentation and
three minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed. In the case of a
quasi-judicial/planned community hearing for which there are two or more
appellants, the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided
among all appellants, and the total time allowed for all appellants shall be a
total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for
rebuttal before the hearing is closed; however, under no circumstances shall
an individual appellant be given less than five minutes for presentation and
three minutes for rebuttal. In the event a request is made and the need for
additional time is clearly established, the presiding officer shall independently, or may upon advice of the city attorney, grant sufficient additional time to allow an adequate presentation by the applicant or appellant in a hearing required by law.
5) Addressing the Council after a Motion
Following the time for public input and once the matter is returned to the
Council no person shall address the Council without first securing the
permission of the Council Presiding Officer so to doto do so, subject to
approval of the City Attorney with respect to any hearing required by law.
5
*For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent.
6) Decorum
The Palo Alto Municipal Code makes it unlawful for any person to:
• Disrupt the conduct of a meeting
• Make threats against any person or against public order and
security while in the Council chamber.
• Use the Council Chambers during meetings for any purpose other
than participation in or observation of City Council Meetings.
Any Council Member may appeal the presiding Presiding off icer’s
Off icer’s decision on a decorum violation to the full Council. Decorum
violations are punishable as a misdemeanor and may lead to a person
being removed from the Council meeting.ii
SECTION 2 – COUNCIL MEETING & AGENDA GUIDELINES
2.1 - Policy
It is the policy of the Council to establish and follow a regular format for meeting agendas.
2.2 – Purpose
The purpose of these guidelines is to facilitate the orderly and efficient conduct of Council
business. This purpose recognizes the value of establishing a community understanding of
meeting procedures so that broad public participation is encouraged. This purpose also
recognizes that Council Members must have a common approach to the discussion and
debate of City business so that meetings are both streamlined and thorough.
2.3 - Summary of Guidelines
The City Council generally conducts four different kinds of meetings. These are Regular Meetings, Special Meetings, Study Sessions, and Closed Sessions.
A. Regular Meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of
each month, except during the Council’s annual vacation. The meetings will are
scheduled to begin at 76:00 p.m. Regular meeting agendas must be posted in the City Plaza by the elevators no later than 7:00 p.m. on the preceding Friday on the preceding Fridayng as required by the Brown Act. It is City policy to make every
effort to complete and distribute the agenda and related reports by the preceding
WednesdayThursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. For major complex
projects and policies, the City will make every effort to distribute these reports two
weeks prior to the meeting when the item will be considered.
Once the agenda is posted, it shall also be uploaded to the City Council web page
for use by the public. It is City policy to make every effort to complete and
distribute the agenda and related reports by the preceding WednesdayThursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. For major, complex projects and policies, the
6
City will make every effort to distribute these reports two weeks prior to the
meeting when the item will be considered.
B. Special Meetings are “special” because the mayor Mayor or Council can call them
on a minimum of 24 hours notice, or are held on a different day of the week, at a different time or different location. Special meetings need not be held at City Hall, as long as the alternate location is within the City. The Council makes every effort to
provide notice well in advance of 24 hours, especially when the special meeting is
for the purpose of conducting a Study Session.
C. Study Sessions are meetings during which the Council receives information about
City business in an informal setting. The informal study session setting is intended
to encourage in-depth discussion and detailed questioning and brainstorming by
Council on issues of significant interest, including City policy matters, zoning
applications, and major public works projects. The Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure. Staff may be directed to bring matters back for future Council consideration as no action can be taken at a study session. Public comments on study session items may be received
together with oral communications immediately following the session or may be
heard during discussion of the item as determined by the Mayor. The Decorum
rules still apply to the behavior of the Council and public.
D. Closed Sessions can be part of regular or special meetings. Closed sessions are
the only kind of Council meeting that the public cannot attend. State law allows
closed sessions to discuss pending litigation, employment issues, real estate
negotiations and certain other matters. Members of the public are permitted to
make public comments on closed session matters. The Council must make a public report after the session when certain kinds of actions are taken.
These are guidelines, not rules. The Council intends that City staff and Council
Members will follow these guidelines. However, these guidelines should not be
used in a way that leads to inefficiency, unfairness, or the promotion of form over
substance. State law establishes a variety of mandatory meeting rules the City must
follow in order to assure open and public government, regardless of unusual
situations and consequences.
2.4 - General Requirements
A. Regular Meetings
Attendance Required. Council Members, the City Clerk, City Attorney, and City
Manager, along with any other city officers and department heads that have been
requested to be present, shall take their regular stations in the Council chamber at
76:00 p.m. on the first, second and third Mondays of each month, except during the
established Council vacation.iii The Mayor will ensure that during each regular
meeting there will be one 5 minute break.The Council expects its members to
attend regularly and notify the City Clerk of any planned absences. The Council
may levy fines of up to $250.00 against Council members who willfully or
negligently fail to attend meetings.iv
B. Telephonic Attendance Of Council Members At Council Meetings
7
The City Council Procedures provisions concerning Telephonic Attendance shall
apply to all Boards and Commissions as well as the City Council members.
Requests by Council Members to attend a Council meeting via telephonic appearance are actively discouraged. Telephonic attendance shall only be permitted not more than 3 times a year in in the event of extraordinary events
such as a medical, family or similar event emergency requiring a Council
Member’s absence. In addition, at least a quorum of the Council must participate
from a location within the City (Government Code Section 54953(b)(3)).
If these two threshold requirements are met, the Council Member who will be
appearing telephonically must ensure that:
• The meeting agenda identifies the teleconference location and is
posted at that location in an area that is accessible and visible 24 hours a day for at least 5 days 72 hours prior to the meeting.
• The teleconference location is open and fully accessible to the public,
and fully accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
throughout the entire meeting. These requirements apply to private
residences, hotel rooms, and similar facilities, all of which must
remain fully open and accessible throughout the meeting, without
requiring identification or registration.
• The teleconference technology used is open and fully accessible to all
members of the public, including those with disabilities.
• Members of the public who attend the meeting at the teleconference
location have the same opportunity to address the Council from the
remote location that they would if they were present in Council
Chambers.
• The teleconference location must not require an admission fee or any
payment for attendance.
If the Council Member determines that any or all of these requirements cannot be
met, he or she shall not participate in the meeting via teleconference.
Approved Teleconference Guidelines for Council Members:
• One week advance 5 days written notice must be given by the Council
Member to the City Clerk’s office; the notice must include the address
at which the teleconferenced meeting will occur, the address the
Council packet should be mailed to, who is to initiate the phone call to
establish the teleconference connection, and the phone number of the
teleconference location. If Ccellular telephones shall not beare used
to participate in teleconferenced meetings then Council members
needs to ensure speaker phone option is functioning.
• The Council Member is responsible for posting the Council agenda in the remote location, or having the agenda posted by somebody at the
location and confirming that posting has occurred. The City Clerk will
assist, if necessary, by emailing, faxing or mailing the agenda to
8
whatever address or fax number the Council Member requests;
however, it is the Council Member’s responsibility to ensure that the
agenda arrives and is posted. If the Council Member will need the assistance of the City Clerk in delivery of the agenda, the fax number or address must be included in the one-week advance written notice
above.
• The Council Member must ensure that the location will be publicly
accessible while the meeting is in progress.
• The Council Member must state at the beginning of the Council
meeting that the 72-hour posting requirement was met at the location
and that the location is publicly accessible, and must describe the
location.
Furthermore, the City Clerk will provide Council with a quarterly report detailing
the telephone charges associated with teleconferenced meetings.
C. Items Considered After 10:30 p.m.
The City Council makes every effort to end its meetings before 11:00 p.m. The
Council also generally does not take up new matters after 10:30 p.m. Before 10:00
p.m. the Council will decide and announce whether it will begin consideration of any
agenda items after 10:30 and, if so, which specific items will be taken up.
D. Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications. In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting
planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted to staff not
later than noon five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet.
If any correspondence or other information is submitted after this deadline to
Council Members or staff, and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff
will reschedule the item for a future Council meeting. If a Council member receives
planning application materials from a project applicant he or she shall notify the City
Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. There are no restrictions on the
rights of applicants or others to comment or respond to information contained within
the Staff Report. At the meeting the City Council may determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or Commission if significant changes to a project or significant new information become known. Nothing in this
statement is intended to restrict the rights of applicants or other interested parties to
respond to information contained in or attached to a Staff Report..
9
*For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. E. Agenda Order
City Council agendas will be prepared by the City Clerk and presented to the City
Council in the order described below. It is the Council’s policy to hear the major
items of business first at each meeting, to the extent possible. The City Manager, with prior approval of the Mayor, is authorized to designate upon the agenda of the
Council, and the City Clerk shall publish in the agenda digest, items that shall be
taken up first or at a specific time during the course of the meeting.v The City
Council may take matters up out of order upon approval by a majority vote of those
present:
1) Roll Call
2) Study Session/Closed Session
2)3) Special orders of the day 3)4) City Manager Comments
4)5) Oral communications, including oral communications related
to any study session that began immediately before the regular meeting 5)6) Approval of minutes 7) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
6)8) Consent calendar
Items may be placed upon the consent calendar by any council-appointed officer whenever, in such officer's judgment, such items are expected to be
routinely approved without discussion or debate. The consent calendar
shall be voted upon as one item. 9) Action Items
7)10) Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
F. Council Questions & Comment
Consent Calendar: No discussion or debate shall be permitted upon items upon the
consent calendar; however, any Council Member may request that his or her vote be recorded as a "no" or "not participating" due to a specified conflict of interest on
any individual item. Council Members may also explain their "no" votes at the end
of the Consent Calendar, with a 3 minute time limit for non-appeal items and 5 minutes for appeal item for each Council Member. Council Members may also
submit statements in writing to the City Clerk before action is taken. The City Clerk
shall preserve and make available such written statements in a manner consistent with the Brown Act and shall assure that the minutes of the meeting make reference to the existence and location of such written statements.
G. Public Comment
Formatted: Font: Arial, 11 pt
10
If members Members of the public wishing to speak to items on the Consent
Calendar, the Mayor will have the option of allowing the testimony prior to adoption
of the Consent Calendar., or removing the item from the consent calendar and hearing the public comment at a later time, prior to the vote on the item.
H. Council Requests to Remove Item Three Council Members may request that an item be removed from the consent
calendar prior to and following the public comment period on the agenda. The
City Manager’s office should be advised whenever possible, in writing, of a
request for removal no later than noon the day of the meetingSunday before the meeting.
I. Hearing of Removed Items Removed items will be heard either later in the meeting or agendized for a
discussion at a subsequent meeting, depending upon the number of speakers
and the anticipated length of the items that have been officially scheduled for discussion on a particular evening. The Mayor will decide when during the
meeting any removed items will be heard.
J. Consent Calendar Categories The consent calendar portion is the section where administrative and non-
controversial shall be presented. Mayor and City Manager should be sensitive to
high dollar value items and consider placing those items in the action agenda section. The consent section is presented in 5 categories in the following order:
1) Ordinances and Resolutions
The following ordinances and resolutions may appear on a consent
calendar:
• Second Reading (passage and adoption) of Ordinances.
• a resolution which are ceremonial in nature.
• Ordinances or resolutions that implement a prior Council policy
direction in the manner contemplated by the Council's previous actions, in the Adopted Budget (including the Capital Improvement
Program and especially in the department key plans); and the
Council Top Priority Workplan, among other sources..
• Budget amendment ordinances that accept funding such as grants
or gifts, provided Council has previously approved the activity or
program.
• Resolutions approving funding applications, such as grants or loans, provided that the program or activity has been previously approved
by Council.
2) Administrative Matters Including Contracts, Appointments, Approval of Applications, and Any Other Matter.
The titles of administrative matters need not be read. An administrative matter may be placed on the consent calendar if it is:
• An action that is merely the administrative execution of previous Council direction. The Council direction and vote will be quoted in the staff report accompanying the item.
Comment [MB1]: City Clerk recommends that section not be changed as we may or may not hear an item on night that it gets pulled.
Commented [HT1]: The City Attorney notes that the Municipal Code requires re-noticing of certain planning items removed from consent. The Procedures should acknowledge and align with these requirements.
Commented [HT2]: The City Attorney notes that the
proposed changes would likely result in some items currently heard on consent being moved to action. Council is encouraged to consider how it would accommodate additional action items.
Commented [HT3R2]: In addition, the City Attorney recommends updating the categories of consent items to align with current practice. Staff will provide committee members with proposed revisions at places.
11
• Contracts for which the subject or scope of work has been
previously reviewed by the City Council.
• A contract for goods, general services, professional services, public works projects, dark fiber licensing contracts or wholesale
commodities, purchases, as outlined in the Purchasing Ordinance,
provided such contracts represent the customary and usual
business of the department as included in the Adopted Budget.
Examples include: routine maintenance contracts, annual audit
agreement; software and hardware support agreements, janitorial
services, copier agreements or postage machine agreements.
• Rejection of bids.
• Designation of heritage trees.
• Designation of historic building at the request of the property
owner if there are no unusual policy ramifications.
• Approval of funding applications, such as grants or loans,
provided that Council has previously approved the general
program or activity.
• Formal initiation, for consideration at a later date, of a zoning code amendment or review process, such as preliminary review.
• Status report required by law for fee administration.
• Cancellation of meetings or scheduling of special meeting.
3) Request to Refer Items to Any Council Standing Committee, Committee, Board, Commission or Council Appointed Officer.
The consent calendar includes matters for which staff is merely seeking
Council approval of a referral to a Council standing committee or other
City official, advisory board or commission. This does not preclude staff
from making referrals to the standing committees. Staff uses such
referrals in order to expedite the business of the full Council, since its agenda is so full. Discussion of a complex issue by another body, provides an opportunity for public input and extended discussion by the
members of the body. The full Council is then able to benefit from the
minutes of that discussion when the item comes back to the Council for
final approval. This practice also allows the City/School Liaison
Committee to consider items of interest to both agencies without having
to go through the formality of a Council agenda referral.
4) Items Recommended for Approval if the Committee Unanimously Recommends Placement on the Consent Calendar, Unless Otherwise
Recommended by the Committee, Mayor, City Attorney or City Manager.
or Staff.
12
5) Items Recommended for Approval, and for Placement on the Consent Calendar, by any Council-Appointed Boards and Commissions, Provided that Other Public Hearing Requirements are Not in Effect.
6) Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
7) Action Items:
• Unfinished Business
• Public Hearings
• Reports of committees/commissions
• Ordinances and Resolutions
• Reports of officials
K. Council MattersColleagues Memo’s
Any two three Council Members may bring forward a colleague memo on any topic to be considered by the entire Council. Two ThreeCouncil Members are
required to place such a memo on the agenda, reflective of the Council
procedure requiring a motion and a second for consideration of a motion by the Council. Up to four Council Members may sign a colleague memo. The City
Attorney recommends that the colleague memo be limited to three Council
Members in order to avoid the potential of a Brown Act issue. Prior to preparing a colleague memo, Council Members will consult with the City Manager to determine whether he/shethe City Manager is or is not willing and able to
address the issues as part of his/her his/her operational authority and within
current budgeted resources. Colleague’s memos should have a section that identifies any potential staffing or fiscal impacts of the contemplated action. This
section will be drafted by the City Manager. Council Members shall provide a
copy of the proposed memo with to the City Manager or appropriate senior staff prior to finalization. Completed Council colleagues memos shall be provided to
the City Clerk’s staff by noon on the Tuesday 11 days prior to the Council
meeting that the memo is intended to be agendized, to provide time for the City Clerk to process for the Council packet.
The City Council will not take action on the night that a colleague memo is introduced if it has any implications for staff resources or current work priorities which are not addressed in the memo. The Council will discuss the colleague
memo and then direct the City Manager to agendize the matter for Council action
within two meetings, allowing City staff time to prepare a summary of staffing and resource impacts. Action may be taken immediately by the Council on colleague
memos where there are no resource or staffing implications or where these are
fully outlined in the colleagues memo. The Brown Act requires that the public be fully informed of the potential action by the Council via the Agenda 72 hours
before a scheduled Council meeting. In order to satisfy the Brown Act
requirements, the Council should consult with the City Attorney to ensure that the
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Comment [AK2]: Section needs further revision. Due to early publication date and staff work load, staff will provide Committee members with revision at places. As mentioned in staff report, revisions will be made, real time, during the meeting and Committee members can comment on changes.
13
proposed title to the colleague memo contains all actions that the Council
Members want completed on the night of the Council review.
L. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
The purpose of this agenda item is to allow Council to question staff briefly on
matters upon which Council has taken action or given direction, make general comments as a reference to staff on factual matters of community concern, or
make brief announcements in a manner consistent with Government Code
section 54952.2. New assignments will not be given nor will major policy issues be discussed or considered. To the extent possible, Council will confer with staff before raising matters of nature under this agenda item. This agenda
item will generally be limited to 15 minutes in length and the public may not
speak to matters discussed;
M. Closed Sessions
Special closed sessions will be scheduled before or after regular or special Council meetings to the extent possible and appropriate. Closed sessions may
be scheduled during a regular or special Council meeting, but this is discouraged
by Council;
N. Adjournment
O. Rescheduling Agenda Items When the Council is unable to complete its agenda the remaining business will
generally be rescheduled as follows. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
supersede or conflict with state law.
1) Meeting Adjourned Sine Die
When a regular meeting is adjourned sine die (without a day), all unfinished items will be listed under unfinished business on the next regular Council meeting agenda; except, that where deemed necessary, the City Clerk, with
the City Manager's concurrence, may place those business items in a different order on the agenda.
2) Meeting Adjourned to Date Certain
When a regular meeting is adjourned to another regular meeting night, all unfinished items will be listed in their original order after roll call on the
agenda of such designated regular meeting.
3) Continued Items When an item on the agenda is continued to a subsequent meeting, such
item will be listed under unfinished business on such agenda unless the
Council by majority vote chooses to place such item in a different location on such agenda or unless the City Clerk, with the City Manager's
concurrence, deems it necessary to place such item at a different location
on such agenda. P. Adding New Items to the Agenda
No matters other than those on the agenda shall be finally acted upon by the Council. However, emergency actions (as defined in Government Code section 54956.5) and matters upon which there is a lawful need to take immediate action
(as defined in Government Code section 54954.2) may, with the consent of two-
Comment [AK3]: Section needs further revision. Due to early publication date and staff work load, staff will provide Committee members with revision at places. As mentioned in staff report, revisions will be made, real time, during the meeting and Committee members can comment on changes.
14
thirds, or all members present if less than two-thirds are present, be considered and
acted upon by the Council.
Q. Special Meetings
Special meetings may be called by the Mayor or City Council by providing a
minimum of 24-hours posted notice in the manner required by state law. To the greatest extent possible, special meetings called for other than regular meeting days should be scheduled by a majority of the Council present and voting at a
regular meeting.vi Unlike regular meetings, there are no circumstances that permit
the City Council to add new items to a special meeting agenda or notice.
R. Study Sessions
Study sessions are meetings during which the Council receives information about City business in an informal setting.
1) Time
Special study sessions will be held as needed.
2) No Formal Rules
Study sessions are intended to be conducive to in-depth factual
presentations by City staff and detailed questioning and brainstorming by
Council. The Council may discuss the material freely without following
formal rules of parliamentary procedure, and the Mayor shall have discretion
to determine the appropriate process for conducting the study session, including when public comment and oral communications will be heard.
3) Public Participation.
The general rules of decorum apply.
4) No Final Action
Staff may be directed to bring matters back for Council consideration at
future meetings, as no action can be taken.
S. Closed Sessions Closed sessions are the only kind of Council meeting that the public cannot observe. State law allows closed sessions to discuss pending litigation, employment
issues, real estate negotiations and certain other matters. To the greatest extent
possible, the City Attorney and City Clerk shall use standardized agenda
descriptions that are consistent with Government Code section 54954.5. Special
closed sessions will be scheduled before or after regular or special Council
meetings to the extent possible and appropriate. Closed sessions may be
scheduled during a regular or special Council meeting, but this is discouraged by
Council; The City Council will take a vote to go into Closed Session prior to
closed session beginning.
1) Announcements Before Closed Sessions
The mayorMayor/City Clerk shall announce the item or items to be
considered in closed session by reference to the appropriate agenda
number or letter, or in an alternate form that shall be provided by the City
Attorney.
15
2) Public Comments
Members of the public are permitted to make public comments on closed session matters. The City Clerk shall be present in the open session to
record Council attendance and any statements made during oral
communications or by the Council.
3) Attendance
The City Manager and City Attorney, or their designees, shall attend closed
sessions unless it is necessary to excuse them. Only such additional staff
shall attend as are necessary and then only if the legal privileges of
confidentiality obtained in an executive session are not waived.
4) Public Reports
State Law and a Palo Alto initiative require the Council to make a public
report after a closed session when certain kinds of actions are taken.vii
Reports from closed sessions shall be made by the Mayor, the Vice Mayor
in the Mayor's absence, or such other City representative as designated by
the Council or its committees. Such designated person is the only individual
authorized to make public statements concerning the closed session.
It is the policy of the City Council to inform the public of action taken in closed session to the greatest extent possible. It is recognized, however, that the need for confidentiality is inherent in closed sessions and that
certain matters if revealed may be a detriment to the results desired. The
Council shall publicly report: (a) any decision to appoint, employ, or dismiss
a public employee and the roll call vote thereon at its next public meeting,
(b) actions related to litigation and the roll call vote on such actions, unless
the report would, in the written opinion of the City Attorney for specifically
stated reasons, clearly jeopardize the city’s ability to effectuate service of
process on one or more unserved parties or impair the city’s ability to
resolve the matter through negotiation, mediation or other form of
settlement. Notwithstanding the City Attorney's written opinion, the Council
may under any circumstance, by majority vote, determine that it is in the City's best interests to disclose actions taken in closed session related to litigation. The public report shall be given as soon as possible, but no later
than the next regular meeting, and shall include the vote or abstention of
every member present. The City Attorney’s written opinion shall be made
public, along with any action taken and any vote thereon, as soon as any
litigation is concluded. The City Attorney shall record any action and vote
upon such forms as the City Attorney may deem desirable.
5) No Minutes
No minutes of closed sessions shall be kept. The City Attorney shall record the information necessary to comply with state law and the Palo Alto initiative.
6) Confidentiality
No person in attendance at a closed session may disclose the substance or
effect of any matter discussed during the session.viii
T. Motions, Debate & Voting
16
1) Policy
It is the policy of the Council to follow simplified rules of parliamentary procedure for motions, debate and voting. These rules focus on the types
of motions the Council can debate and when those motions are properly
used.
2) Purpose
The purpose of these rules to facilitate orderly and thorough discussion and
debate of Council business. These rules shall not be applied or used to
create strategic advantage or unjust results.
3) Summary of Rules
Palo Alto does not follow Roberts Rules of Order. See the Summary Table
below.
U. Motions
A motion is a formal proposal by a Council Member asking that the Council take a
specified action. A motion must receive a second before the Council can consider
a matter. Matters returning to the Council with unanimous approval from a standing
committee will be introduced without a motion if directed by the committee. Motions
may be provided to the City Clerk in advance of the City Council meeting so that the
Clerk can post the motion on the screen for community and Council members thus
saving transcription time.
1) Types of Motions
There are two kinds of motions. These are the “main” motion and any
secondary motions. Only one main motion can be considered at a time.
2) Procedure:
• Get the Floor
A Council Member must receive the permission of the Mayor (or
other presiding officer) before making a motion.
• State the Motion A motion is made by a Council Member (the “maker”) stating his or her proposal. Longer proposals can be written and may be in the
form of a resolution.
• Second Required
Any other Council Member (including the presiding officer) who
supports the proposal (or who simply wishes it to be considered)
may “second” the motion without first being recognized. A motion to
raise a question of personal privilege does not require a second.
• Motion Restated
The Mayor should restate the motion for the record, particularly if it is long or complex.
• Lack of a Second
17
If there is no second stated immediately, the Mayor should ask
whether there is a second. If no Council Member seconds the
motion the matter will not be considered.
• Discussion
The maker shall be the first Council Member recognized to speak on
the motion if it receives a second. Generally Council Members will
speak only once with respect to a motion. If the Mayor or Council
permits any Council Member to speak more than once on a motion,
all Council Members shall receive the same privilege.
• Secondary Motions
Secondary motions may be made by a Council Member upon getting the floor.
• Action
After discussion is complete the Council will vote on the motion
under consideration.
3) Precedence of Motions
When a motion is before the Council, no new main motion shall be
entertained. The Council recognizes the following secondary motions which
may be considered while a main motion is pending. These motions shall
have precedence in the order listed below. This means that a secondary
motion that is higher on the list will be considered ahead of a pending secondary motion that is lower on the list:
• Fix the time to which to adjourn;
• Adjourn;
• Take a recess;
• Raise a question of privilege;
• Lay on the table;
• Previous question (close debate);
• Limit or extend limits of debate;
• Motion to continue to a certain time;
• Refer to committee;
• Amend or substitute; 4) Secondary Motions Defined
The purpose of the allowed secondary motions is summarized in the
following text and table.
• Fix the time to which to adjourn
This motion sets a time for continuation of the meeting. It requires a
second, is amendable and is debatable only as to the time to which
the meeting is adjourned.
• Adjourn
This motion ends the meeting or adjourns it to another time. It
requires a second and is not debatable except to set the time to
which the meeting is adjourned, if applicable. A motion to adjourn
shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (a) when repeated
18
without intervening business or discussion; (b) when made as an
interruption of a member while speaking; (c) when the previous
question has been ordered; and (d) while a vote is being taken.
• Take a recess
This motion interrupts the meeting temporarily. It is amendable, but
is not debatable.
• Raise a question of personal privilege
This motion allows a Council Member to address the Council on a
question of personal privilege and shall be limited to cases in which
the Council Member's integrity, character or motives are questioned,
or when the welfare of the Council is concerned. The maker of the motion may interrupt another speaker if the presiding officer recognizes the "privilege." The motion does not require a second, is
not amendable and is not debatable.
• Lay on the table
This motion is used to interrupt business for more urgent business.
A motion to lay on the table requires a second, is not amendable
and is not debatable. It shall preclude all amendments or debate of
the subject under consideration. If the motion prevails, and the
subject is tabled, the matter must be reagendized in the future if
further consideration is to be given to the matter.
• Previous question
This motion “calls the question” by closing debate on the pending
motion. A motion for previous question requires a second, is not
debatable and is not amendable. It applies to all previous motions
on the subject unless otherwise specified by the maker of the
motion. If motion for previous question fails, debate is reopened; if
motion for previous question passes, then vote on the pending
motion. A motion for previous question requires a two-thirds vote of
those Council Members present and voting.
• Limit or extend debate
This motion limits or extends the time for the Council or any Council
Member to debate a motion. It requires a second, is amendable and
is not debatable. The motion requires a two-thirds vote of those
Council Members present and voting.
• Continue to a certain time
This motion continues a matter to another, specified time. It requires a second, is amendable and is debatable as to propriety of postponement and time set.
• Refer to a city agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer This motion sends a subject to another city agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer for further study and report
back to Council, at which time subject is fully debated. It requires a
second, is amendable, and is debatable only as to the propriety of
19
referring. The substance of the subject being referred shall not be
discussed at the time the motion to refer is made.
• Amend or substitute
This motion changes or reverses the main motion. It requires a
second, is amendable, and is debatable only when the motion to
which it applies is debatable. A motion to amend an amendment is
in order, but one to amend an amendment to an amendment is not.
An amendment modifying a motion is in order but an amendment
raising an independent question or one that is not germane to the
main motion shall not be in order. Amendments take precedence
over the main motion and the motion to postpone indefinitely.
Motion
Description 2nd
Required
Debatable
Amendable
2/3 Vote
Fix the time to which to
adjourn
Sets a next date and time for continuation of the meeting
X
Only as to time to which
the meeting is adjourned
X
Adjourn
Sets time to adjourn. Not in order if (a) repeated without
intervening business (b) made as an interruption of a
member while speaking; (c) the previous question has
been ordered; and (d) while a vote is being taken
X
Only to set the time to
which the meeting is
adjourned
Take a recess Purpose is to interrupt the meeting X X
Raise a question of privilege
Lay on the table Interrupts business for more urgent business X
Previous question (close
debate or “call the question”)
Closes debate on pending motion
X
X
Limit or extend limits of
debate
Purpose is to limit or extend debate
X X
X
Motion to continue to a
certain time
Continues the matter to another, specified time
X
X
X
Refer to committee
Sends subject to another city agency, body, committee,
board, commission or officer for further study and report
back to council, at which time subject is fully debated
X
Only as to propriety of
referring, not substance
of referral
X
Amend or substitute
Modifies (or reverses course of) proposed action. Cannot
raise independent question. Can amend an amendment,
but no further
X
Only if underlying motion
is debatable
X
20
21
V. Debate and Voting
1) Presiding officer to state motion
The presiding officer shall assure that all motions are clearly stated before
allowing debate to begin. The presiding officer may restate the motion or may
direct the City Clerk to restate the motion before allowing debate to begin.
The presiding officer shall restate the motion or direct the City Clerk to restate
the motion prior to voting.
2) Presiding officer may debate and vote
The presiding officer may move, second and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all Council
Members. The presiding officer shall not be deprived of any of the rights and
privileges of a Council Member.
3) Division of question
If the question contains two or more divisible propositions, each of which is
capable of standing as a complete proposition if the others are removed, the
presiding officer may, and upon request of a member shall, divide the same.
The presiding officer's determination shall be appealable by any Council
Member.
4) Withdrawal of motion
A motion may not be withdrawn by the maker without the consent of the Council Member seconding it. 5) Change of vote
Council Members may change their votes before the next item on the agenda
is called.
6) Voting
On the passage of every motion, the vote shall be taken by voice or roll call or
electronic voting device and entered in full upon the record.
7) Silence constitutes affirmative vote
Council Members who are silent during a voice vote shall have their vote
recorded as an affirmative vote, except when individual Council Members
have stated in advance that they will not be voting.
8) Failure to vote
It is the responsibility of every Council Member to vote unless disqualified for
cause accepted by the Council or by opinion of the City Attorney. No Council
Member can be compelled to vote.
9) Abstaining from vote
Council Members should only abstain if they are not sufficiently informed about an item, e.g. when there was a prior hearing and they were unable to
view the prior meeting before the current meeting. In the event of an
abstention the abstainer in effect, "consents" that a majority of the quorum of
the Council Members present may act for him or her.
22
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
10) Not participating
A Council Member who disqualifies him or herself pursuant to the Political
Reform Act of 1974 because of any financial interest shall disclose the nature
of the conflict and may not participate in the discussion or the vote. A Council
Member may otherwise disqualify him or herself due to personal bias or the
appearance of impropriety.
11) Tie votes
Tie votes may be reconsidered during the time permitted by these rules on motion by any member of the Council voting aye or nay during the original
vote. Before a motion is made on the next item on the agenda, any member
of the Council may make a motion to continue the matter to another date.
Any continuance hereunder shall suspend the running of any time in which
action of the City Council is required by law. Nothing herein shall be
construed to prevent any Council Member from agendizing a matter that
resulted in a tie vote for a subsequent meeting.
12) Motion to reconsider
A motion to reconsider any action taken by the Council may be made only during the meeting or adjourned meeting thereof when the action was taken.
A motion to reconsider requires a second, is debatable and is not amendable.
The motion must be made by one of the prevailing side, but may be seconded
by any Council Member. A motion to reconsider may be made at any time
and shall have precedence over all other motions, or while a Council Member
has the floor, providing that no vested rights are impaired. The purpose of
reconsideration is to bring back the matter for review. If a motion to
reconsider fails, it may not itself be reconsidered. Reconsideration may not
be moved more than once on the same motion. Nothing herein shall be
construed to prevent any Council Member from making a motion to rescind
such action at a subsequent meeting of the Council.
13) Appeal from the decision of presiding officer
When the rules are silent, the presiding officer shall decide all questions of
order, subject to appeal by a Council Member. When in doubt, the presiding
officer may submit the question to the Council, in which case a majority vote
shall prevail. Any decision or ruling of the presiding officer may be appealed
by request of any member. The presiding officer shall call for a roll call or
electronic voting device vote to determine if the presiding officer's ruling shall
be upheld. If said vote passes or results in a tie vote, the presiding officer's
ruling shall stand. If said vote fails, the decision or ruling of the presiding
officer is reversed.
14) Getting the floor; improper references to be avoided
Every Council Member desiring to speak shall address the chair and, upon
recognition by the presiding officer, every Council Member shall be confined
to the question under debate, avoiding all indecorous language and personal
attacks.
23
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
15) Interruptions
Except for being called to order, a Council Member once recognized, shall not
be interrupted when speaking, except as otherwise provided for in these rules.
A Council Member called to order while speaking shall cease speaking until
the question or order is determined, and, if in order, said Council Member
shall be permitted to proceed.
W. Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Hearings
Policy
It is the policy of the Council to assure that the due process rights of all persons are protected during City hearings. A “quasi-judicial” hearing is a hearing that requires
a higher level of procedural due process because of the potential impact on life,
liberty or property. Usually, quasi-judicial/planned community hearings involve a
single parcel of land and apply facts and evidence in the context of existing law.
Findings must be stated to explain the evidentiary basis for the Council’s decision.
Purpose
These rules are intended to assure that City Council decision making on quasi-
judicial/planned community matters is based upon facts and evidence known to all parties and to support the role of Boards and Commissions in making independent recommendations to Council.
General Requirements
For purposes of this Section IV, a Quasi-Judicial or Planned Community
Development Project subject to these rules is a formulated plan to go forward with a
particular project or development.
1) Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Proceedings Defined
Quasi-judicial/planned community proceedings subject to these procedural
rules include hearings involving the following matters:
• Conditional Use Permits
• Variances
• Home Improvement Exceptions
• Design Enhancement Exceptions
• Subdivisions, other than final map approvals
• Architectural Review
• Assessment protest hearings
• Other matters as determined by the City Attorney
• Appeals related to any of the above
• Environmental Review relating to any of the above
24
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
2) Restrictions on Council Communications Outside of Quasi-Judicial and Planned Community Zone Hearings
It is the policy of the Council to discourage the gathering and submission of
information by Council Members outside of any noticed public meeting, prior
to final recommendations by the Architectural Review Board or Planning &
Transportation Commission. The following procedural guidelines are intended
to implement this policy, but shall not be construed to create any remedy or
right of action.
3) Identification of Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Matters
The City Attorney, in conjunction with the City Clerk and City Manager, will identify agenda items involving quasi-judicial/planned community decisions on
both the tentative and regular Council agendas. This identification is intended
to inform the Council, interested parties, and the public that this policy will
apply to the item.
4) Council to Track Contacts
Council Members will use their best efforts to track contacts pertaining to such
identified quasi-judicial/planned community decision items. Contacts include
conversations, meetings, site visits, mailings, or presentations during which
substantial factual information about the item is gathered by or submitted to the Council Member.
5) Disclosure
When the item is presented to the Council for hearing, Council Members will
disclose any contacts which have significantly influenced their preliminary
views or opinions about the item. The disclosure may be oral or written, and
should explain the substance of the contact so that other Council Members,
interested parties, and the public will have an opportunity to become apprised
of the factors influencing the Council's decision and to attempt to controvert or
rebut any such factor during the hearing. Disclosure alone will not be deemed
sufficient basis for a request to continue the item. A contact or the disclosure
of a contact shall not be deemed grounds for disqualification of a Council Member from participation in a quasi-judicial/planned community decision unless the Council Member determines that the nature of the contact is such that it is not possible for the Council Member to reach an impartial decision on
the item.
6) No Contacts after Hearings
Following closure of the hearing, and prior to a final decision, Council
Members will refrain from any contacts pertaining to the item, other than
clarifying questions directed to City staff.
7) Written Findings Required
On any matter for which state law or City ordinance requires the preparation of written findings, the staff report and other materials submitted on the matter will contain findings proposed for adoption by the Council. Any motion directly
or impliedly rejecting the proposed findings must include a statement of
alternative or modified findings or a direction that the matter under
25
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
consideration be continued for a reasonable period of time in order for staff to
prepare a new set of proposed findings consistent with the evidence which
has been presented and the decision which is anticipated.
8) Rules of Evidence
Council hearings need not be conducted according to formal rules of
evidence. Any relevant evidence may be considered if it is the sort of
evidence upon which responsible persons rely in the conduct of serious
affairs. The presiding officer may exclude irrelevant or redundant testimony
and may make such other rulings as may be necessary for the orderly
conduct of the proceedings while ensuring basic fairness and full consideration of the issues involved. Evidentiary objections shall be deemed waived unless made in a timely fashion before the Council.
9) Burden of Proof
The applicant and appellant shall bear the burden of proof on all aspects of
the action or relief they seek. The person with the burden of proof must offer
evidence to the Council to support his or her position.
10) Council Members Who are Absent During Part of a Hearing
A Council Member who is absent from any portion of a hearing conducted by
the Council may vote on the matter provided that he or she has watched or
listened to a video or radio broadcast, or video or audio recording, of the entire portion of the hearing from which he or she was absent and if she or he has examined all of the exhibits presented during the portion of the hearing
from which he or she was absent and states for the record before voting that
the Council Member deems himself or herself to be as familiar with the record
and with the evidence presented at the hearing as he or she would have been
had he or she personally attended the entire hearing.
11) Appeals
Appeals to the Council shall be conducted de novo, meaning that new
evidence and arguments may be presented and considered. All matters in
the record before any other City board, commission or official shall be part of the record before the Council.
*For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent.
26
_______
X. Standing Committees
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
Policy
It is the policy of the Council to use standing committees in open and public
meetings to study City business in greater depth than what is possible in the time
allotted for Council meetings.
Purpose
These rules are intended to enhance public participation and committee meetings
so that the best possible decisions can be made for Palo Alto.
General Requirements
Council standing committees shall be subject to the following procedural rules:
1) Quorum
A majority of the committee membership shall constitute a quorum.
2) Referrals
Only the Council or City Manager shall make referrals to the standing
committees. Referrals will generally be directed to only one of the standing
committees. Items may be withdrawn from the committee and taken up for consideration by the Council at any Council meeting with the consent of a majority of the Council, and subject to any applicable noticing or agenda
posting requirements. Council members who submit matters to the Council
which are referred to a standing committee may appear before the standing
committee to which the referral has been made in order to speak as
proponents of the matter. Standing committee meetings during which such
referrals may be considered shall be noticed as Council meetings for the
purpose of enabling the standing committee to discuss and consider the
matter with a quorum of the Council present.
3) Function of committees
The purpose and intent of committee meetings is to provide for more thorough and detailed discussion and study of prospective or current Council agenda items with a full and complete airing of all sentiments and expressions of
opinion on city problems by both the Council and the public, to the end that
Council action will be expedited. Actions of the committee shall be advisory
recommendations only.
4) Minutes
The City Clerk shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution to the
Council of the minutes of standing committee meetings. The minutes for
these meetings shall be sense Action minutes which reflect the motions made
during these meetings. The minutes shall be delivered to all Council Members before the Council meeting at which the committee's recommendations are to be discussed.
27
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
5) Report of committee
The minutes of each committee meeting shall serve as the report to the
Council. Any member may write a separate report.
6) Agenda
The chairperson of each standing committee shall work with staff to prepare
the agenda for committee meetings, the sequence of study being, within
reasonable limits of practicality, the same as the sequence of referral.
7) Public Participation
Public comment on agenda items will be limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker, or any alternate time limit specified by the presiding
officer.
8) Conduct of standing committee meetings
The chairperson of each committee may conduct meetings with as much
informality as is consistent with Council procedural rules, which shall also be
in effect during committee meetings. The views of interested private citizens
may be heard in committee meetings, but in no case shall a committee
meeting be used as a substitute for public hearings required by law.
9) Oral Communications
Opportunities for oral communications shall be provided in the same manner as Council meetings.
Y. Ad Hoc Committees and Committee as a Whole
Policy
The Council may use Ad Hoc Committees or the Committee as a Whole on a
limited basis where necessary to study City business in greater depth than what is
possible in the time allotted for Council and Standing Committee meetings.
Purpose
These rules are intended to clarify the distinctions between Standing, and Ad Hoc
Committees, and the Committee as a Whole and to set up guidelines for creation of
Ad Hoc Committees and the Committee as a Whole..
General Requirements
Council Ad Hoc Committees and the Committee as a Whole shall be subject to the
following procedural rules:
1) Definition of Ad Hoc Committee
An Ad Hoc Committee is an advisory committee composed solely of less than
a quorum of members of the Council. The work of an Ad Hoc Committee is
limited to a single finite purpose. By contrast, a Standing Committee has
continuing subject matter jurisdiction extending for a lengthy time period
and/or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of the Council.
Commented [HT4]: The City Attorney notes that Council is not currently utilizing committee as a whole. Council may
do so without specific language to the procedures. Under these circumstances, Council is encouraged to discuss
whether committee as a whole language should be added at this time.
28
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
2) Definition of Committee as a Whole A Committee as a Whole is a committee composed of the entire City Council. The work of the Committee as a Whole is limited to a single finite purpose.
2)3) Brown Act
Ad Hoc Committees do not constitute legislative bodies and are not subject to the requirements of the Brown Act. The Committee as a Whole is subject to the Brown Act.
3)4) Appointment The Mayor or the City Council may appoint four or less members of the Council to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee. In contrast, only the Council and
not the Mayor alone can create a Standing Committee. The Mayor will
publicly announce any Ad Hoc Committee created by him or her, its membership and stated purpose and posted on the City Council website. The
City Manager shall prepare a report to Council about the anticipated time
commitment required for staff to assist the Ad Hoc Committee.
4)5) Duration
Ad Hoc Committees are created for a finite period of time. If an Ad Hoc
Committee does not complete its task by the end of the calendar year, it shall not continue unless reappointed by the new Mayor in the following year.
5)6) Members
Ad Hoc Committees shall consist of less than a quorum of Council members only, and shall not include any other persons such as members of other
legislative bodies.
6)7) Reporting
Ad Hoc Committees shall report their recommendations to the Council no less
than once per quarter in writing or orally. Any Council Member may during
the COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS request that an updated Ad Hoc Committee report be
placed on the next meeting’s agenda.
7)8) Termination of Ad Hoc Committee by Majority of Council A majority of the Council may vote to terminate any Ad Hoc Committee following placement of the issue on an agenda.
8)9) Conclusion A public announcement shall be made any time the Ad Hoc Committee has
concluded its work and/or upon dissolution.
2.5 - Election of Mayor
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.88", No bullets or numbering
29
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.060 governs the election of the Mayor.
Nominations for Mayor may be made by any individual Council Member and do not require a second.
CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOLS
The handbook is organized into eight sections to serve as guidelines:
1) Core Responsibilities 2) Council Conduct 3) Other Procedural Issues 4) Policy & Services Committee – Role, Purpose & Work Planning 5) Enforcement 6) City Council Emails for Agenda-Related Items 7) City Council and Board and Commissions Policy for Travel and Miscellaneous Expense Reimbursement, March 2006 City of Palo Alto Council Protocols Ethics Addendum
30
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
SECTION 1 - CORE RESPONSIBILITIES
All members of the City Council, including those serving as Mayor and Vice Mayor, have
equal votes. No Council Member has more power than any other Council Member, and
all should be treated with equal respect.
All Council Members:
A. Demonstrate honesty and integrity in every action and statement
B. Comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the
operation operations of government.
C. Serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community
D. Inspire public confidence in Palo Alto government
E. Work for the common good, not personal interest
F. Prepare in advance of Council meetings and be familiar with issues on the
agenda
G. Fully participate in City Council meetings and other public forums while demonstrating respect, kindness, consideration, and courtesy to others
H. Participate in scheduled activities to increase Council effectiveness
I. Review Council procedures, such as these Council Protocols, at least annually
J. Represent the City at ceremonial functions at the request of the Mayor
K. Be responsible for the highest standards of respect, civility and honesty in ensuring the effective maintenance of intergovernmental relations
L. Respect the proper roles of elected officials and City staff in ensuring open and
effective government
M. Provide contact information to the City Clerk in case an emergency or urgent
situation arises while the Council Member is out of town
31
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
SECTION 2 - COUNCIL CONDUCT
Councils are composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds, personalities,
values, opinions, and goals. Despite this diversity, all have chosen to serve in public
office in order to improve the quality of life in the community. In all cases, this common
goal should be acknowledged even as Council may "agree to disagree" on contentious
issues.
2.1 – Public Meetings
A. Use Formal Titles
The Council should refer to one another formally during Council meetings as Mayor, Vice Mayor or Council Member followed by the individual’s last name.
B. Practice Civility and Decorum in Discussions and Debate.
Difficult questions, tough challenges to a particular point of view, and criticism
of ideas and information are legitimate elements of a free democracy in
action. Be respectful of diverse opinions.
C. Honor the Role of the Presiding Officer in Maintaining Order and Equity.
Respect the Chair's efforts to focus discussion on current agenda items.
Objections to the Chair's actions should be voiced politely and with reason,
following the parliamentary procedures outlined in the City Council Procedural Rules.
D. Demonstrate Effective Problem-Solving Approaches.
Council Members have a public stage to show how individuals with disparate
points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits
the community as a whole. Council Members are role models for residents,
business people and other stakeholders involved in public debate.
E. Be Respectful of Other People's Time. Stay focused and act efficiently during public meetings. 2.2 - Private Encounters
A. Treat Others as You Would Like to be Treated.
Ask yourself how you would like to be treated in similar circumstances, and then treat the other person that way.
32
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
2.3 – Council Conduct with City Staff
The key provisions on Council-staff relations found in section 2.04.170 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: “Neither the council nor any of its committees or members shall direct, request or attempt to influence, either directly or indirectly, the appointment of any person to office or employment by the city manager or in any manner interfere with the city manager or prevent the city manager from exercising individual judgment in the appointment of officers and employees in the administrative service. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the city manager, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately.”
Governance of a City relies on the cooperative efforts of elected officials, who set policy, and City Staff, which analyze problems and issues, make recommendations, and
implement and administer the Council’s policies. Therefore, every effort should be made
to be cooperative and show mutual respect for the contributions made by each individual
for the good of the community.
A. Treat All Staff as Professionals.
Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and
dignity of each individual is expected. As with your Council colleagues, practice civility and decorum in all interactions with City staff. B. Channel Communications through the Appropriate Senior City Staff. Questions of City staff should be directed only to the City Manager, Assistant
City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Assistant City Clerk, City Auditor,
Senior Assistant City Attorneys, or Department Heads. The Office of the City
Manager should be copied on any request to Department Heads. Council
Members should not set up meetings with department staff directly, but work
through Department Heads, who will attend any meetings with Council
Members. When in doubt about what staff contact is appropriate, Council
Members should ask the City Manager for direction. However, nothing in
these protocols is intended to hinder the access Council-appointed liaisons
(e.g. to the San Francisquito JPA or NCPA) may require in order to fulfill their unique responsibilities.
C. In Order to Facilitate Open Government, All Council Members Should Make
Decisions with the Same Information from Staff On Agendized or Soon-To-Be
Agendized Items (i.e. Items on The Tentative Agenda or in a Council
Committee).
D. Never Publicly Criticize an Individual Employee, Including Council-Appointed
Officers. Criticism is Differentiated From Questioning Facts or the Opinion of
Staff.
All critical comments about staff performance should only be made to the City Manager through private correspondence or conversation. Comments about staff in the office of the City Attorney, City Auditor or City Clerk should be
33
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
made directly to these CAOs through private correspondence or conversation.
E. Do Not Get Involved in Administrative Functions.
Avoid any staff interactions that may be construed as trying to shape staff
recommendations. Council Members shall refrain from coercing staff in
making recommendations to the Council as a whole.
F. Be Cautious in Representing City Positions on Issues.
Before sending correspondence related to a legislative position, check with City staff to see if a position has already been determined. When corresponding with representatives of other governments or constituents remember to indicate if appropriate that the views you state are your own and
may not represent those of the full Council.
G. Do Not Attend Staff Meetings Unless Requested by Staff.
Even if the Council Member does not say anything, the Council Member’s
presence may imply support, show partiality, intimidate staff, or hampers
staff’s ability to do its job objectively.
H. Respect the “One Hou r” Rule f or Staff W ork .
Requests for staff support should be made to the appropriate senior staff member, according to the protocol for channeling communications. Any request, which would require more than one hour of staff time to research a
problem or prepare a response, will need to be approved by the full council to
ensure that staff resources are allocated in accordance with overall council
priorities. Once notified that a request for information or staff support would
require more than one hour, the Council Member may request that the City
Manager place the request on an upcoming Council agenda.
I. Depend upon the Staff to Respond to Citizen Concerns and Complaints.
It is the role of Council Members to pass on concerns and complaints on behalf of their constituents. It is not, however, appropriate to pressure staff to solve a problem in a particular way. Refer citizen complaints to the appropriate senior staff member, according to the protocol on channeling
communications. The senior staff member should respond according to the
Policy and Procedure for Responding to Customer Complaints. Senior staff
is responsible for making sure the Council Member knows how the complaint
was resolved.
J. Do Not Solicit Political Support from Staff.
The City Charter states that “Neither the city manager or any other person in the employ of the city shall take part in securing or shall contribute any money toward the nomination or election of any candidate for a municipal office.” In addition, some professionals (e.g., City Manager and the Assistant
City Manager) have professional codes of ethics, which preclude politically
partisan activities or activities that give the appearance of political
partisanship.
34
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
2.4 - Conduct with Palo Alto Boards and Commissions
The City has established several Boards and Commissions as a means of gathering
more community input. Citizens who serve on Boards and Commissions become more
involved in government and serve as advisors to the City Council. They are a valuable
resource to the City’s leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect.
Council Members serve as liaisons to Boards and Commissions, according to
appointments made by the Mayor, and in this role are expected to represent the full
Council in providing guidance on Council processes or actions to the Board or
Commission. Refrain from speaking for the full Council on matters for which the full
council has not yet taken a policy position. In other instances, Council Members may
attend Board or Commission meetings as individuals, and should follow these protocols:
A. If Attending a Board or Commission Meeting, Identify Your Comments as
Personal Views or Opinions. Council Members may attend any Board or Commission meeting, which are
always open to any member of the public. Any public comments by a Council
Member at a Board or Commission meeting, when that Council Member is
not the liaison to the Board or Commission should make a point to clearly
state it is an individual opinion and not a representation of the feelings of the
entire City Council.
B. Refrain from Lobbying Board and Commission Members.
It is inappropriate for a Council Member to contact a Board or Commission member to lobby on behalf of an individual, business, or developer, or to advocate a particular policy perspective. It is acceptable for Council Members
to contact Board or Commission members in order to clarify a position taken
by the Board or Commission.
C. Remember that Boards and Commissions are Advisory to the Council as a
Whole, not as Individual Council Members.
The City Council appoints individuals to serve on Boards and Commissions,
and it is the responsibility of Boards and Commissions to follow policy
established by the Council. Council Members should not feel they have the power or right to unduly influence Board and Commission members. A Board and Commission appointment should not be used as a political reward.
D. Concerns about an Individual Board or Commission Member Should be
Pursued with Tact.
If a Council Member has concerns with a particular Board or Commission
member fulfilling his or her roles and responsibilities and is comfortable in
talking with that individual privately, the Council Member should do so.
Alternatively, or if the problem is not resolved, the Council Member should
consult with the Mayor, who may address the issue to the Council as appropriate.
E. Be Respectful of Diverse Opinions.
A primary role of Boards and Commissions is to represent many points of
view in the community and to provide the Council with advice based on a full
spectrum of concerns and perspectives. Council Members may have a closer
35
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
working relationship with some individuals serving on Boards and
Commissions, but must be fair to and respectful of all citizens serving on
Boards and Commissions.
F. Keep Political Support Away from Public Forums.
Board and Commission members may offer political support to a Council
Member, but not in a public forum while conducting official duties.
Conversely, Council Members may support Board and Commission members
who are running for office, but not in an official forum in their capacity as a
Council Member.
G. Maintain an Active Liaison Relationship.
Appointed Council liaisons or alternates are encouraged to attend all
regularly scheduled meetings of their assigned Board or Commission.
2.5 - Staff Conduct with City Council
A. Respond to Council Questions as Fully and as Expeditiously as is Practical.
The protocol for staff time devoted to research and response is in application
here. If a Council Member forwards a complaint or service request to a
department head or a Council Appointed Officer, there will be follow-through
with the Council Member as to the outcome.
B. Respect the Role of Council Members as Policy Makers for the City.
Staff is expected to provide its best professional recommendations on issues. Staff should not try to determine Council support for particular positions or recommendations in order to craft recommendations. The Council must be able to depend upon the staff to make independent recommendations. Staff
should provide information about alternatives to staff recommendations as
appropriate, as well as pros and cons for staff recommendations and
alternatives
C. Demonstrate Professionalism and Non-Partisanship in all Interactions with
the Community and in Public Meetings.
D. It is Important for the Staff to Demonstrate Respect for the Council at all
Times. All Council Members Should be Treated Equally.
36
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
SECTION 3 - OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES
3.1 – Commit to Annual Review of Important Procedural Issues
At the beginning of each legislative year, the Council will hold a special meeting to
review the Council protocols, adopted procedures for meetings, the Brown Act, conflict
of interest, and other important procedural issues.
3.2 – Don’t Politicize Procedural Issues (e.g. Minutes Approval or Agenda Order) for Strategic Purposes 3.3 – Submit Questions on Council Agenda Items Ahead of the Meeting
In order to focus the Council meetings on consideration of policy issues and to maintain
an open forum for public discussion, questions which focus on the policy aspects of
agenda items should be discussed at the Council meeting rather than in one-on-one
communications with staff prior to the meetings. Any clarifications or technical questions
that can be readily answered can be handled before the meeting. Council Members are
encouraged to submit their questions on agenda items to the appropriate Council
Appointed Officer or City Manager by 5:00 p.m. the Wednesday prior to the meeting. as far in advance of the meeting as possible so that staff can be prepared to respond at
the Council meeting. More detailed procedures relating to agenda questions can be
found in the addendum to these protocols titled “Policy and Procedures for Council E-
mails for Agenda Related Items.”
3.4 - Submittal of Materials Directly to Council
If Council receives planning application materials related to agenda item matters they
will notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible.
3.5 - Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications
In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to
information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting planning
applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted to staff not later than noon
five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet. If any correspondence
or other information is submitted after this deadline to Council Members or staff, and Staff
determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item for a future Council
meeting. If a Council member receives planning application materials from a project
applicant he or she shall notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. There are no restrictions on the rights of applicants or others to comment or respond to information contained within the Staff Report. At the meeting the City Council may
determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or
Commission if significant changes to a project or significant new information become
known. Nothing in this statement is intended to restrict the rights of applicants or other
interested parties to respond to information contained in or attached to a Staff Report.
37
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
*For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 3.6 – Respect the Work of the Council Standing Committees
The purpose of the Council standing committees is to provide focused, in-depth
discussion of issues. Council should respect the work of the committees. If a matter is
taken forward to the full Council for approval and it receives a unanimous vote at Committee, the item will be placed on the Consent Calendar unless otherwise
recommended by the Committee, Mayor or staffCity Attorney or City Manager if any of
these entities believe the item is of significant public interest..
discuss future meetings. Consideration in building the agenda should be given to the
potential length of the meeting and at what point items of significant public concern may
be heard.
The purpose of the meeting is not to work on policy issues. Normally, only the Mayor
and Vice Mayor are expected to attend the pre-Council meetings with the City Manager and other CAOs, and Department Managers. The Mayor and Vice Ma yor’s role is to
represent the interest of the entire Council. Consideration in building the agenda should
be given to the potential length of the meeting and at what point items of significant public concern may be heard.
Comment [AK4]: Section needs further revision. Due to early publication date and staff work load, staff will provide Committee members with revision at places. As mentioned in staff report, revisions will be made, real time, during the meeting and Committee members can comment on changes.
3.7 – The Mayor and Vice Mayor Should Work With Staff to Plan the Council Meetings
There are three purposes to the pre-Council planning meeting: 1) to plan how the
meeting will be conducted; including review of approximate time allocation of staff report
presentations and to ensure adequate time for large complex items 2) to identify any
issues or questions that may need greater staff preparation for the meeting; and 3) to
38
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
SECTION 4 - POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE – ROLE, PURPOSE, & WORK PLANNING
The Municipal Code states that the role of the Council Policy & Services Committee is to: …consider and make recommendations on matters referred to it by the council relating to parliamentary and administrative procedures and policy matters pertaining to intergovernmental relations, personnel policies, planning and
zoning, traffic and parking, public work, and community and human services.
(§2.04.220)
In 2009 and 2010, the Council reviewed the purpose and structure of the Committee and
adopted recommendations on several items related to this. This section documents
these agreements related to the Committee.
Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Policy & Services Committee is to review and identify important community issues and City policies and practices to ensure good public policy.
The Committee shall consider and make recommendations to Council on matters
relating to parliamentary, and administrative protocols, procedures and policy matters.
SECTION 5 - ENFORCEMENT
Council Members have the primary responsibility to assure that these protocols are understood and followed, so that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government. As an expression of the standards of conduct expected by the
City for Council Members, the protocols are intended to be self-enforcing. They therefore
become most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with them and embrace
their provisions. For this reason, Council Members entering office shall sign a statement
affirming they have read and understood the Council protocols. In addition, the protocols
shall be annually reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee and updated as
necessary.
39
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
SECTION 6 - CITY COUNCIL E-MAILS FOR AGENDA-RELATED ITEMS
6.1 - Policy
The Council adopted protocols provide a framework for the policy on e-mail
communications between Council Members and Staff on agenda-related items, including
the following: A. In order to facilitate open government, all Council Members should make decisions with the same information from Staff on agendized or soon-to-be
agendized items (i.e. items on the tentative agenda or in a Council
Committee)
B. Submit questions on Council agenda items ahead of the meeting, In order to
focus the Council meetings on consideration of policy issues and to maintain
an open forum for public discussion, questions which focus on the policy
aspects of agenda items should be discussed at the Council meeting rather
than in one-on-one communications with Staff prior to the meetings. Any clarifications or technical questions that can be readily answered can be handled before the meeting. Council Members are encouraged to submit their questions on agenda items to the appropriate Council Appointed Officer or
City Manager as far in advance of the meeting as possible so that Staff can
be prepared to respond at the Council meeting.
In its settlement agreement with the San Jose Mercury News of February 2003, the City
Council agreed to consider a policy under which the Council would waive any
deliberative or other privilege, other than attorney-client privilege, that it might assert with
regards to e-mails on agendized items. This policy and procedure implements that
agreement. The Council, in adopting this policy, does not waive attorney-client-privilege or any other privilege associated with a closed session authorized under the Brown Act.
6.2 - Procedure
A. Council Members should direct any questions on staff reports to the City
Manager or designee. Questions on reports from the City Auditor, City
Attorney, or City Clerk should be directed to the appropriate Council
Appointed Officer. Council Members should not direct any questions on
agenda items to other members of the City Manager’s Staff or the Staff of the
other Council Appointed Officers.
B. Council Members will submit questions on agenda items no later than 9
a.m5:00 p.m. . on the Monday Wednesday prior to of the Council meeting at
which the item will be discussed. Any questions received after that time may
be responded to via e-mail, or alternatively, will be responded to at the Council meeting.
40
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
C. Staff will not engage in “dialogues” with individual Council Members regarding
questions, i.e. follow-up questions to initial questions will be responded to at
the Council Meeting.
D. Staff will give highest priority to responding prior to the Council meeting via e-
mail only on items on the Consent Calendar. Questions which address the
policy aspects of the item on the Council agenda will not be responded to
prior to the meeting, although Staff welcomes such questions in advance of
the meeting in order to prepare for the Council and public discussion.
Technical and clarifying questions on non-Consent Calendar items will be responded to as time permits.
E. If the Staff will be responding to a Council Members Consent Calendar
question at the meeting rather responding to the question via e-mail, Staff will
inform the Council Member as early as possible after receipt of the
question(s).
F. Questions and all Staff-prepared responses will be forwarded to all Council
Members as well as put up on the special web page created for public review
of Council agenda questions and Staff responses. Staff will include the name of the Council Member posing the questions in the “subject” field of the e-mail response.
G. Written copies of all Council Member agenda questions and Staff responses
will be at Council places at the meeting; additionally copies will be made
available in the Council Chambers for members of the public.
41
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
SECTION 7 - CITY COUNCIL AND BOARDS AND COMMISSSIONS POLICY FOR TRAVEL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT, March 2006
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
This policy is set by the City Council and applies to Council Members and to Board and
Commissions members, who will be referred to as “Officials” in the policy. In
reimbursing travel and miscellaneous expenses, a municipal purpose requiring the
expenditure of public funds must be in evidence; also, in accord with the Charter and Municipal Code, such expenditures must be from authorized appropriations. 7.1 - Eligible Activities
The following activities (“Eligible Activities”) are recognized by the Council as advancing
municipal purposes and are eligible for expense reimbursement, subject to limitations on
activities and specific and total expenditures described elsewhere in this policy:
A. Communicating with representatives of regional, state and national
government on adopted city policy positions;
B. Attending educational seminars designed to improve officials’ skill and
information levels;
C. Participating in regional, state and national organizations whose activities
affect the city’s interest;
D. In collaboration with city staff, implementing a city-approved strategy for attracting or retaining businesses to the city. All other expenditures require prior approval by the City Council at a regular or special meeting.
7.2 - Out-of-Town Conferences or Meetings A. Reimbursement
All payments for travel and meetings shall be on the basis of either
reimbursement of expenses advanced by the Council Member/Official or
payments made directly to travel agencies/websites, hotels, airlines or the
organization sponsoring the meeting. All requests for payments or
reimbursements must be accompanied by supporting vouchers, invoices or paid
detailed receipts and a copy of descriptive literature about the conference or
meeting. The Mayor or Chair for Officials must approve, in advance, individual
travel requests for out-of-town meetings and conferences, e.g., Annual League of
California Cities Conference, National League of Cities Conference, etc., including Eligible Activates. Allowable expenses for local or Bay Area Eligible Activates do not require prior approval by the Mayor or Chair.
The total reimbursement shall not exceed the budget adopted by the Council for
this purpose.
42
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
All reimbursements shall comply with the limits of Policy and Procedures 1-02
(Citywide Travel Policy).
Expense reports should be submitted within 30 days of end of trip. Inability to
provide such documentation in a timely fashion may result in expense being
borne by the Council Member or Official.
B. Meals and Incidentals
Notwithstanding the preceding general policy regarding reimbursement, a Council Member or Official may submit a payment request (supported by conference literature) for advance payment of meals and incidentals allowance
according to the Internal Revenue Service authorized mileage reimbursement
rate and payment for meals and incidentals consistent with City Policy and
Procedures 1-02. If the amount advanced is exceeded, additional reimbursement
may be requested upon return from the meeting. Requests for additional
reimbursement must be supported by a detailed report and receipts for all meals
and incidentals. The Mayor shall pre-approve additional reimbursements, and if
the expenses are determined to be excessive, they may not be approved.
C. Lodging Expense
Reimbursements or payment of hotel bills will be limited to the highest group or
governmental rate available and will cover room charges, applicable taxes and
any other item listed in this policy for the Council Member or Official. Telephone calls to Palo Alto City Hall may be made collect. Other charges on the bill such as extra guests and the like are not reimbursable.
D. Transportation
• Air Transportation
Reimbursement or payment will be limited to economy class commercial
air carrier, or an available group travel rate if lower.
• Private Automobiles
Private automobiles may be used for personal or group transportation on
extended trips. Reimbursement shall be made at the rate established by
the Internal Revenue Service authorized mileage reimbursement rate
consistent with the City Policy and Procedures 1-02. Mileage reimbursement for private automobiles shall not exceed the cost of round trip air transportation (economy class) and rental car, if applicable, or an available group travel rate if lower.
• Rental Car
Economy level only when Council Member or Official has traveled by
airplane out of the Bay Area.
• Shuttle/Taxi
When traveling out of the area.
43
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
7.3 - Local or Bay Area Activities
Council Members or Officials who have been requested or designated to represent the City may receive the actual cost of:
A. Meals, if they are a scheduled feature of the activity, e.g., SCCCA dinner
meetings.
B. Registration fees where applicable.
C. Mileage if activity is outside the City (mileage claims should be submitted
monthly, with details: date and type of meeting, number of miles traveled to be
indicated), consistent with City Policy and Procedures 1-02.
D. Council Members and Officials may be reimbursed by the City for use of a private
bicycle to attend local or Bay Area activities outside the City of Palo Alto
consistent with City Policy and Procedures 2-9.
7.4 - Other Expenses
A. Airport parking fees, but Council Members and Officials must use long-term parking for travel exceeding 24 hours.
B. Meal expenses and associated gratuities must be within the limits set in City
Policy and Procedures 1-02.
C. Telephone/Fax/Cellular expenses will be reimbursed for actual expense incurred
on City business.
D. Internet Fee up to $15 per day, if a Council Member or Official is traveling on
official business and needs access for City-related business.
E. Baggage Handling Fee up to $3 per bag will be reimbursed. F. Ethics Training Expenses – AB1234 requires ethics training every two years and
such fee and related expenses are eligible for reimbursement.
7.5 - Activities Not Considered Reimbursable
A. Voluntary attendance at any conference or meeting, not representing the City.
B. Meetings of social or service organizations.
C. Meetings of voter groups or with individual citizens concerned with agenda items.
D. Election campaign activities.
E. Alcohol and entertainment expenses.
44
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
F. Personal portion of the trip and other non-mileage automobile expenses.
7.6 - Reports to Council
Council Members and Officials shall provide brief verbal reports on meetings attended at
the City’s expense at the next regular Council/Board/Commission meeting. If multiple
Officials attended, a joint report may be made. All related documents are subject to the
Public Records Act and can be periodically reviewed by auditors.
7.7 - Violation of This Policy
Use of public resources or falsifying expense reports is in violation of this policy and may
result in any or all of the following:
A. Loss of reimbursement privileges
B. A demand for restitution to the City
C. The City reporting the expenses as income to the elected or appointed Official to
state and federal tax authorities
D. Civil penalties of up to $1000 per day and three times the value of the resources
used
E. Prosecution for misuse of public resources
7.8 - Mayor and Vice Mayor Additional Compensation
The Mayor shall receive $150 monthly and the Vice Mayor $100 monthly to defray
additional expenses of these offices.
7.10 - Support Services
The City Clerk’s Office makes travel arrangements for Council Members. This service includes conference registration, hotel reservations, per diem advances and reimbursement of unforeseen expenses. The department liaison for each board and
commission will be responsible for arrangements for Officials.
45
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
CITY OF PALO ALTO COUNCIL PROTOCOLS ETHICS ADDENDUM The citizens, businesses and organizations of the city are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government, which has earned the public’s full confidence for integrity. To this end, the City Council has adopted Council Protocols and this Code of Ethics for members of the City Council to assure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation.
A. Comply with Law
Members shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California and the
City in the performance of their public duties. These laws include but are not
limited to: the United States and California constitutions, the city Charter, laws
pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities and open processes of governments and City ordinances and policies.
B. Conduct of Members The professional and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive
conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of
other members of the Council, boards and commissions, the staff or the public.
C. Respect for Process
Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of
order established by the City Council governing the deliberation of public policy
issues, meaningful involvement of the public and implementation of policy
decisions of the City Council by City staff.
D. Decisions Based on Merit
Members shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations.
E. Conflict of Interest
In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common
good, members shall not use their official positions to influence decisions in
which they have a material financial interest or where they have an
organizational responsibility or personal relationship, which may give the
appearance of a conflict of interest.
F. Gifts and Favors
It is contrary to the city of Palo Alto’s ethical standards for any council member to accept gifts or gratuities from an individual, business, or organization doing business, or seeking to do business, with the City or who is seeking permits or other entitlements from the City.
Commented [HT5]: The City Attorney comments that this section should be reviewed and amended as needed to conform with current state law requirements. Staff will provide proposed versions at places.
46
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
The acceptance of gifts can convey an appearance of favoritism and conflict of
interest. Gifts can be perceived as attempts to influence City operations or as
compensation for services rendered and can erode the public confidence in the
impartiality of decisions made by Council Members.
Council Members exercise good faith in carrying out this Protocol. It is
impossible to list every situation and fact pattern, so it anticipates that Council
Members will exercise their good judgment in determining whether the item is a
gift or not.
This policy is supplemental to the gift limitations of the Fair Political Practices
Commission’s Limitations and Restrictions on Gifts, Honoraria, Travel and Loans.
The following are not considered gifts under this Protocol:
• Gifts which the Council member returns (unused) to the donor, or for
which the Council Member reimburses the donor, within 30 days of
receipt.
• Gifts from a Council Member’s spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin or the spouse of any such
person, unless he or she is acting as an agent or intermediary for another
person who is the true source of the gift.
• Minor gifts of hospitality involving food or drink, that the Council Member
receives in an individual’s home or at another location of business.
• Gifts approximately equal in value exchanged between the Council
Member and another individual on holidays, birthdays, or similar
occasions.
• Informational material provided to assist the Council member in the
performance of their official duties, including books, reports, pamphlets,
calendars, periodicals, videotapes, or free or discounted admission to
informational conferences or seminars.
• A bequest or inheritance.
• Campaign contributions.
• Personalized plaques and trophies with an individual value of less than $250.
• Tickets to attend fundraisers for campaign committees or other
candidates, and tickets to fundraisers for organizations exempt from
taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
47
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
• Free admission, refreshments, and similar non-cash nominal benefits
provided to the Council Member at an event at which the Council Member
gives a speech, participates in a panel or seminar, or provides a similar
service. Transportation within California, and any necessary lodging and
subsistence provided directly in connection with the speech, panel,
seminar, or similar service, are also not considered gifts.
• Passes or Tickets which provide admission or access to facilities, goods,
services, or other benefits (either on onetime or repeat basis) that the
Council Member does not use and does not give to another person.
• Wedding gifts
• A prize or award received in a bona fide competition not related to official
status.
(These exceptions are paraphrased from FPPC publications.)
• Gifts from Sister Cities or other entities, other municipalities, if forwarded
to the City.
G. Confidential Information
Members shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning the property,
personnel or affairs of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests.
H. Use of Public Resources
Members shall not use public resources, such as City staff time, equipment,
supplies or facilities, for private gain or personal purposes.
I. Representation of Private Interests
In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, members of Council
shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the
Council or any other board, commission or proceeding of the City, nor shall members of boards and commissions appear before their own bodies or before the Council on behalf of the private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies.
J. Advocacy
Members shall represent the official policies or positions of the City Council,
board or commission to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for
this purpose. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members
shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the City, nor will they
allow the inference that they do.
K. Positive Work Place Environment
Members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work
place environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing
48
_______
City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
with the City. Members shall recognize their special role in dealings with City
employees to in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.
i Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.080(b). ii Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.120(c); 2.04.150(b) iii Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.010(b). iv Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.050(a). v Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.070(c) vi Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.020. vii Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.030. viii Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.040.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5804)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 5/21/2015
Summary Title: Updates to Policies and Protocals Handbook
Title: Continued Discussion Regarding City Council Procedural Matters,
Including Updates to Procedures and Protocols Handbook (Continued from April 8, 2015)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
On April 8, 2014 the Policy & Services Committee discussed the City Council’s
Procedures and Protocols Manual. The committee did not complete the discussion and referred the item to a future meeting.
Attached is the staff report from April 8, 2015 which includes background, the manual
and other relevant materials. The goal of the meeting will be to continue discussions
based on the categories of protocols and procedures, meeting management,
committees and staff relations.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: April 8, 2015 - Staff Report #5676 (PDF)
• Attachment B: 04-08-15 P&S DRAFT Minutes (DOC)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5676)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 4/8/2015
Summary Title: Updates to Policies and Protocols Handbook
Title: Referrals from January 31, 2015 City Council Retreat and February 17,
2015 City Council Meeting Regarding Procedural Matters, Including Updates to Procedures and Protocols Handbook
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation As directed by the Council, discuss referred procedural matters and recommend updates to the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook and other possible procedural modifications.
Background On January 31, 2015, the City Council discussed updates to the Council’s procedures and protocols and referred certain elements to the Policy & Services Committee. On February 17, 2015 the City Council held another meeting focused specifically on procedures and protocols, meeting management, committees and staff relations. At this meeting certain ideas about procedures and protocols as well as meeting management were referred to the Policy &
Services Committee. Ideas about committees and staff relations were deferred to the next
committee as a whole meeting.
Discussion
The current Procedures and Protocols Handbook (Handbook) is attached to this report. During
the meeting staff will provide language reflecting possible changes, focusing first on updates
that have been agreed-upon, substantially discussed, or are recommended by staff to meet
legal process requirements. At the meeting, the Committee may recommend these or other
language changes. In addition, the Committee may recommend changes to Council procedures
not contained in the Handbook.
Resource Impact
Depending on the direction given, there could implications to staff time, facility and technology
costs.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Policy Implications Review of the existing Procedures and Protocols Handbook is consistent with policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan’s Governance Chapter.
Environmental Review A review of the Procedures and Protocols Handbook does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:
• Attachment A: Notes from 2-17-15 (DOCX)
• Attachment B: Council Protocols and Procedures Manual (PDF)
• Attachment C: 1-31-2015 City Council Retreat Agenda (PDF)
• Attachment D: 2-17-15 City Council Meeting Agenda (PDF)
1
Referral Items
Items going to Policy & Services
1. Discussion of Procedures and Protocols
a. Telephone participation
b. Consent calendar
i. Brief comments
ii. Changing back to 2 votes to remove item
iii. Specify dollar amount for what goes on consent
iv. Consider that brief comments related to opposition to a Consent Item may be
made by CC member prior to vote taken on Consent Calendar. This is already
true for reason for “no votes”.
v. Consider what items are appropriate for the Consent calendar. For example,
should they be non-controversial items, items that are of no greater than x
dollars.
c. Agenda setting
i. Clarifying role of Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Manager
2. Meeting management
a. Meeting efficiency: In the event that a Council Member intends a motion other than the
staff recommendation, provide the motion to the City Clerk via digital means. This will
alleviate the staff having to transcribe in real time and save time in deciphering and
editing by the author. Holman
b. Meeting efficiency, transparency, balanced information: Staff reports to offer options
that are available to the Council (Board/Commission). This will save time exploring and
crafting motions by Council members. Holman
c. Meeting efficiency, public participation: Make every effort to keep us on schedule,
commit to hearing the public who have come to speak to an item in the timeframe that
the item was noticed. If this cannot be accomplished due to an especially complex item
on the same agenda, make best effort to inform the public their item will not be heard.
The mayor will remind Council of this during the meeting. Holman
d. Set a hard ending time for Council sessions at 11pm and plan accordingly. Exceptions
only under extreme circumstances. Schmid
e. When Council time estimates call for it, limit Council times for questions (pre-Council
written questions should cover most of key issues) Schmid
f. Give Chair more discretion to limit Council comment time Schmid
g. Give Council periodic agenda item to make comments on Council agenda priorities
Schmid
h. Greater use of “committee as a whole” meetings of the CC to have less formal and
deeper discussions of given high level topics. These would be similar to Study Sessions,
but involve more informal dialogue among CC members, similar to how the annual CC
retreat functions. Burt
2
Referral Items
i. Consider adding language that defines use of/gives clarity to use of “committee of the
whole” such as procedures, study sessions, policy direction, dissemination of a wide
range of topics not otherwise agendized, etc. Holman
j. We should challenge ourselves to a Council meeting "moonshot" with the goal of
keeping council meetings to 3 hours. This will require saving time on nearly all aspects
of meetings; DuBois
i. Staff reports - limit to 15% of allocated time, be concise and focus on new info
not in report,
ii. Public comment - recognize people that make a point, poll the audience for
agreement, and then ask that only NEW points be made
iii. Consider a "chess clock" style of time keeping - all council members have a
suggested 40 minutes for Q&A/Motions per meeting to be split among items as
they desire. Start as a recommendation, allowing people to exceed time limit it,
but track and report it to encourage self-regulation.
iv. Try to change culture so that everyone doesn't feel need to speak on every
item.
v. Use electronic devices to send motion to clerk to save time dictating/editing.
vi. Specify sub-times in large agenda items and study sessions, x% for presentation,
y% for Q&A
k. Time and topic management Kniss
l. Breaks…to take or not to take. Kniss
m. Public Comment - Better time to take, than at the start of the meeting? Kniss
n. I have three suggestions with the goals of improving efficiency of City Council meetings,
saving time; saving money (for staff and consultant time); and encouraging civic
participation. Wohbach
i. Schedule of Council meetings
Change regular Council meetings to the first and third Mondays of each month,
with the second and fourth Mondays reserved as "overflow" in case of
unfinished business from the regular meetings. This adds an incentive to be
concise and keep meetings on schedule (to avoid extra meetings), and saves
time for all involved. Also, unfinished items would be picked up again in a week
at a short meeting, rather than disappearing into the ether.
ii. Digital timers
Add two digital timers to the presentation wall (facing Hamilton Ave) in Council
Chambers. Start the first timer (at zero, counting up) at the start of each agenda
item. Start the second timer (at zero, counting up) when each person begins a
comment. Apply to council members, staff, and public, whether or not there is a
time limit to their comments. This would serve as a subtle, constant, and public
reminder to be concise.
iii. Utilizing written record and technology; avoiding reading aloud at meetings
Staff reports, updates, slide presentations, and resolutions should be made
available digitally and in print in advance of (and following) meetings and
3
Referral Items
entered into the official record without generally needing to be read aloud
during a meeting. Where possible, this should apply to other city meetings
(committee, commission, and public outreach) as well. Verbal comments should
add valuable content, rather than simply voicing an already written document.
Items going to Committee as a Whole
1. Committees Discussion
a. Discuss formation of Comprehensive Plan Committee and Health City, Health
Community Committee
b. Increasing authority of existing City-School Committee
2. Discussion of Core Values
3. Staff Relations
a. Holman - Council to set policy by prioritizing projects/directives for the staff based on a
work plan provided by the various CAO's. Prioritization to be based on timeliness,
urgency, desire, nearing completion, staffing, etc.
i. Reason: It should not be a pressure on staff to decide/guess what they should
be working on among a long list of projects especially as prioritization is a policy
decision.
b. Holman - Direct staff to bring to Council those issues/trends emerging and otherwise
that present policy questions that are best discussed and decided after public vetting of
the issue. Issues should be brought forward in a timely manner and as soon as is
practicable, individually or collectively whichever is the more timely. There might also
be issues that staff wants to/should make Council aware of such as the lot combinations
that currently appear to be taking place on California Avenue. Examples include:
i. loss of retail/services uses converting to general office
ii. basement space converting from traditional retail support use to general office
(leads to changed office population, parking/traffic concerns, etc)
iii. increased office occupancy density beyond what is considered in code (4 per
thousand)
iv. parking considerations that may need reconsideration from a policy perspective
(mixed use)
v. demolition of historic homes whereby the owner has circumvented Individual
Review (CEQA) by proposing a single story home and then sells to another
owner who then proposed a two story home.
c. Burt - Proactive senior staff level participation in identification of community trends that
may need CC policy reconsideration prior to accumulated severe impacts and
consequent crisis management.
Page 1 April 08, 2015
Policy and Services Committee
DRAFT MINUTES
Special Meeting
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Chairperson Burt called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Berman, Burt (Chair) DuBois, Wolbach
Absent:
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. Referrals from January 31, 2015 City Council Retreat and February 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Regarding Procedural Matters, Including Updates to Procedures and Protocols Handbook.
Khashayar Alaee, Senior Management Analyst, reported Attachment A of the report was a list of items that the Council referred to the Policy and Services Committee (Committee). The information contained in the at-places memorandum was included in the Staff Report, because it did not pertain to
the Procedures and Protocols Handbook (Handbook).
James Keene, City Manager, noted the background information of the Staff
Report summarized information discussed by the Council. The Committee
could discuss other issues within those areas.
Chair Burt suggested the Committee's meeting would be informal. In past
meetings to revise the Handbook, the Committee provided its input through
consensus. The City Clerk captured the Committee's actions for a formal
referral of items to the Council.
Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk, concurred. She would provide a draft for approval.
Chair Burt was struggling with a method to act on meeting management items if they were not part of procedures and protocols. He viewed meeting management as a major subsection of procedures and protocols. He questioned whether the Committee should discuss items referred to the
Page 2 April 08, 2015
Committee of a Whole in order to assist the future meeting of the Committee of a Whole. Topics contained in the at-places memorandum were not necessarily aspects of procedures or protocols. He suggested the Committee begin with comments regarding major areas. The Committee could then discuss items in the order they were listed in Attachment A. He wanted to review the Handbook for items not referred to the Committee, because many topics in the Handbook were not clear or did not reflect current practice. Council Member DuBois preferred to review the Handbook page-by-page so
that Committee Members did not repeat themselves.
Council Member Berman agreed with utilizing either format.
Council Member Wolbach suggested the Committee review the at-places
memorandum and the Staff Report, followed by review of Handbook items
that Committee Members identified as needing work.
Chair Burt indicated that was similar to the high level discussion he
suggested. As the Committee reached consensus on topics, then it could
review the Handbook page-by-page, discussing where items could be placed in the Handbook and identifying other items for discussion.
Mr. Keene did not believe the Committee had sufficient time to cover all topics it wished to discuss. If there was not a context problem, the Committee could make recommendations to the Council in groups. Staff could incorporate formal changes into the document and present that to the Committee for review, at which time the Committee could identify other topics from the Handbook for discussion.
Chair Burt historically construed procedures as similar to rules and protocols
as similar to guidelines. Some Council Members did not agree with his
interpretation. He requested the City Attorney comment on similarities and
differences between procedures and protocols.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, explained that the document described itself as
a handbook. Those terms did not suggest legally binding, detailed
requirements. The first document tended to be more rule-based and
specific. The second was issues of tone and expectation and more
aspirational with respect to behavior.
Chair Burt indicated that was a description.
Mr. Keene questioned whether the evolution of the documents was linear. The order of policies and procedures was inverted.
Page 3 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt noted the first section was named procedures, and the second protocols. The Council had been interchanging the terms, when they were originally intended to have different meanings.
Ms. Stump advised that the Council making rules for conducting its business could be useful in terms of organizing expectations and communicating with the public. The Council was the supreme authority for governing the City of Palo Alto, and it was in charge of the way it conducted business. At any given point, the Council retained the authority to modify the policies,
procedures, or protocols by a majority vote.
Mr. Keene added that the Council could make modifications on the spot.
Ms. Stump clarified that one exception was the involvement of third-party
rights. Most of the rules pertained to the Council conducting its business
and working with Staff.
Chair Burt did not believe the Council could modify its rules when the
procedure was also contained within the Municipal Code.
Ms. Stump agreed that the Council did not have discretion to change its
rules as a matter of Resolution or Motion.
Chair Burt suggested Committee Members consider modifications as a self- imposed rule or a guideline. He began the discussion with regards to telephone participation. He related his recollection of the reason for the Council implementing the policy for telephone participation. He questioned whether the rule was too restrictive and whether Committee Members wished to change it.
Council Member Wolbach requested the City Attorney frame the discussion in the context of the Brown Act. Ms. Stump reported the series of bullet points at the top of Page 7 described
legal requirements. The Council could not reduce those items. The Council
had to be in an area accessible to the public; post notice of a meeting in
advance; and allow admittance without a fee.
Council Member Berman believed a Council Member should be allowed to
participate in meetings via telephone on a limited basis. Perhaps Council
Members could be restricted to participating by telephone in only three meetings per year. The current wording of the policy did not allow a Council Member to fulfill the requirements of the policy and the Brown Act. The procedure allowed Council Members to participate by telephone only in cases of emergency; yet, the Brown Act required notice be posted 72 hours in
Page 4 April 08, 2015
advance. Emergencies typically were not known 72 hours prior to their occurrence.
Chair Burt read Procedure 2.4B.
Council Member Berman inquired about rules for telephone participation in other cities.
Council Member Wolbach emphasized a contradiction between Procedure 2.4B, participation only in the case of an emergency, and Approved Teleconference Guidelines for Council Members, participation with a week's notice. Again, emergencies typically were not known in advance. He
suggested one of the statements be deleted.
Chair Burt suggested Committee Members determine the terms of any
requirements for telephonic participation prior to determining the wording of
any language.
Council Member DuBois concurred with allowing telephonic participation but
limiting the number of times it could occur. He asked if posting a notice at
the remote location 72 hours in advance was a requirement.
Ms. Stump believed it was, but she would confirm that.
Council Member DuBois suggested limiting telephonic participation to one time per quarter with notice as required. He understood another issue was whether the rule should be different for Closed and Open Sessions.
Ms. Stump did not believe the one week notice was required by the Brown Act. However, the City Clerk needed to ensure notice was properly sent to and posted at the remote location and that phones were available in both locations. The one week notice allowed Staff to support a Council Member's telephonic participation.
Council Member DuBois inquired about the use of Skype or other means of
videoconference. Perhaps that section should clarify the technologies that
could be utilized.
Mr. Keene noted the Teleconference Guidelines precluded the use of cellular
telephones.
Ms. Stump advised that the use of cellular telephones was lawful; however,
the cellular telephones had to provide a speaker function. The Brown Act
required public access to and public comment at the Council meeting and the remote location.
Page 5 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt referred to the Brown Act requirement to post a notice at the remote location 72 hours in advance, and inquired about the length of time the City Clerk would need to accommodate telephonic participation.
Ms. Minor would need one to two days to post notice on the website and to provide notice to the remote location.
Chair Burt calculated the notice would need to be posted Thursday for a Monday meeting in order to meet the Brown Act requirement. Mr. Keene clarified notice would have to be posted Friday evening for a
Monday meeting.
Chair Burt asked if five calendar days would allow the City Clerk sufficient
time.
Ms. Minor answered yes. She would have to prepare and notice a revised
Agenda for telephonic participation.
Mr. Keene suggested the City Clerk could include information in the packet
released on Thursday if she received notice on Wednesday.
Chair Burt suggested Committee Members consider the different aspects of
Closed and Open Sessions. Telephonic participation was less disruptive in a
Closed Session. He questioned whether the rule should allow a Council
Member to participate telephonically only in a matter of critical importance to the Council Member.
Council Member DuBois referred to Skype's chat function whereby a Council Member could signal the City Clerk that he wished to speak. That ability could be less disruptive for Open Sessions.
Chair Burt asked if Council Member DuBois was referring to the audio only function of Skype. Council Member DuBois indicated either the audio or the video function of
Skype. The chat function would allow the Council Member to indicate his
wish to speak.
Chair Burt felt the video would be more disruptive; whereas, the chat
function could be less disruptive. That would not have to be addressed in
protocols.
Council Member DuBois concurred.
Page 6 April 08, 2015
Council Member Wolbach clarified that the chat function provided a text notification rather than a verbal notification. He asked if the City Clerk was legally required to fax or mail notification to the remote location.
Ms. Stump replied no. Notice had to be provided to and posted at the location.
Council Member Wolbach suggested Committee Members also consider telephonic participation and notification thereof for Council Committee meetings and Special Meetings.
Council Member Berman requested Staff review and update all policies and
procedures for the ability to use new technologies.
Mr. Keene remarked that allowing Council Members to participate by phone
three times a year would result in 27 absences. Potentially the full Council
would not be present for two meetings per month. Telephonic participation
was disruptive. The Committee could consider the role or outcome for which
the Committee would allow telephonic participation. One, a Council Member could want to vote on a particular issue. Two, a Council Member could want to speak on and influence a particular issue. Third, a Council Member wished to ensure his comments were made in the meeting. Currently, a Council Member could provide his comments in writing to the Council for public information. The Committee could determine the objective in order to structure other limitations. Perhaps the Committee wished to restrict the number of Council Members who could participate telephonically in a
meeting.
Chair Burt felt the number of Council Members wishing to participate
telephonically in order to influence outcomes through their vote would
escalate. That would quickly become problematic. He cautioned against
loosening restrictions too much. He inquired whether Committee Members
agreed to a Council Member providing notice of telephonic participation five
calendar days in advance of the meeting. He inquired whether Committee
Members wished to consider more liberal language allowing telephonic
participation in Closed Sessions.
Council Member DuBois advised that the remote location would need to be closed and private for participation in a Closed Session.
Chair Burt indicated the language could state that requirement.
Council Member DuBois did not see a need to distinguish between Closed and Open Sessions.
Page 7 April 08, 2015
Council Member Wolbach asked if the 72-hour notice required by the Brown Act applied to a Closed Session.
Ms. Stump explained that the remote location would have to convene in the open, allow public attendance and comment, and then move to a Closed Session. The remote location would then need to be secure and private, as required by law.
Council Member DuBois inquired whether the remote location would have to convene with the Council in open session for the vote to move to a closed session and then move to a closed session. Ms. Stump responded yes. A Closed Session for the remote location would be handled in the same manner as the Council meeting.
Council Member Wolbach suggested any language for telephonic participation in a Closed Session require and enforce security of a remote
location.
Chair Burt stated the Handbook was not an enforcement tool. He inquired
whether the Committee wanted the same or different guidelines for Closed
and Open Sessions.
Council Member Berman preferred to determine guidelines for telephonic
participation in an Open Session first. Telephonic participation in Closed
Sessions should not be unlimited.
Council Member DuBois suggested retaining language to discourage Council Members from participating telephonically. Procedure 2.4B could be revised to "emergencies once every three months."
Council Member Wolbach wanted to allow a Council Member who was cogent but hospitalized for an extended period to participate telephonically, even if the Council Member exceeded a limit of once every three months. He asked if the Committee could discourage without prohibiting actions.
Chair Burt suggested the Committee could weaken or retain "actively
discourage." "Shall only" was prescriptive. "Extraordinary events" without
"emergency" would mean events that were not routine.
Council Member DuBois wanted to allow one telephonic appearance per
quarter even though the circumstances were not extraordinary.
Chair Burt understood the question then became whether infrequent remote
participation should be based upon the circumstance or the frequency.
Page 8 April 08, 2015
Council Member Wolbach offered language of "once a quarter except in extraordinary events such as medical, family, or emergencies requiring an absence." If a Council Member was out of the City for good reason, he could participate telephonically.
Chair Burt asked if the Committee would agree to language of "not more than once a quarter except in these extraordinary circumstances."
Council Member DuBois wished to retain the requirement for the presence of a quorum in the Council Chambers. Chair Burt agreed. Council Member DuBois was concerned that Chair Burt did not discuss the
first sentence.
Chair Burt attempted to frame a high-level question of whether the
Committee would agree to a proposal of "not more than once a quarter
except in these extraordinary family or medical emergencies."
Council Member Berman accepted that language.
Council Member Wolbach concurred as well. He reiterated his concern of
actively discouraging without prohibiting telephonic participation.
Chair Burt advised the Committee could retain the language of "actively
discourage."
Council Member Wolbach was attempting to imagine ways to implement
that. Discouraging an action without prohibiting it was tricky.
Chair Burt stated that applied to almost all Council policies and procedures. The procedures were largely self-enforced with the Mayor having lead responsibility to inquire about significant breaches of procedures and protocols.
Mr. Keene understood the Committee wished to allow Council Members one telephonic appearance per quarter or four per year. The Committee was attempting to craft language that provided extraordinary situations under
which Council Members could exceed four telephonic appearances per year.
The Committee was attempting to accommodate the Council and continue
Council cohesion. The Committee could suggest a provision that allowed a
Council Member facing an extraordinary family situation to petition the
Council for an exception to the policy. If the family situation was
extraordinary, it would be unusual for a Council Member to consider
attending a Council meeting as more important than being with the family
Page 9 April 08, 2015
member. If a Council Member was hospitalized for an extended period, the Council could allow an exception.
Chair Burt advised that Council Members could participate telephonically 36 times per year plus an unspecified number of times for emergency situations in that scenario. That could be quite a few telephonic appearances per year. The Committee should consider the ramifications of any proposed language.
Council Member Berman would support allowing one telephonic appearance every six months along with appearances under extraordinary circumstances. Chair Burt felt that would be a cautious change. Council Member Wolbach was not opposed to remote attendance at
meetings through a teleconferencing service, provided the participant
utilized a chat function to request an opportunity to speak. He would
support telephonic participation either two or four times per year.
Council Member DuBois preferred an allowance of one telephone appearance
per quarter with an exception for an emergency situation. He did not
believe Council Members would utilize the maximum number of telephonic
appearances given the language of "actively discourage."
Chair Burt noted the proposals were one telephonic appearance per quarter plus emergency situations; one telephonic appearance per quarter with Council Members petitioning for telephonic appearance in emergency situations; and one telephonic appearance every six months with Council Members petitioning for telephonic appearance in emergency situations. He recommended a modest rather than significant liberalization of the provision. Council Member DuBois suggested liberalizing telephone appearances for the Council before doing the same for Boards and Commissions. Chair Burt agreed. The Committee had not requested input from Boards and
Commissions. He did not believe the Committee had reached consensus.
He recalled that Council Members had participated telephonically, but not
according to Procedure 2.4B. He did not recall Council Members appearing
telephonically due to a family health emergency. He did not believe Council
Members would utilize Procedure 2.4B often. He would agree to either two
or four telephonic appearances per year for situations other than an
emergency; an allowance for emergency situations; and a provision to
ensure Council Members did not breach the exception for emergency situations. He did not wish to exclude a Council Member who was physically incapacitated and unable to sit on the dais.
Page 10 April 08, 2015
Council Member DuBois asked if the hospitalized Council Member would need to move to a public place to hold the teleconference.
Chair Burt reported the hospitalized Council Member would need to have the door open. He inquired whether the Committee would agree to whatever number of occurrences in non-emergency situations and retain the emergency provision.
Council Member Wolbach suggested striking "similar" from ”a medical, family or similar emergency." Chair Burt wanted to retain "similar" as it provided some latitude. Mr. Keene inquired whether the Committee wished to strike "emergency" as it conflicted with the five-day rule. Perhaps the language could be "similar
event."
Chair Burt concurred with "similar event" rather than "similar emergency".
He asked if the Committee wished to retain the remainder of the sentence.
Council Member Wolbach replied yes.
Chair Burt requested preferences for two or four telephonic appearances per
year.
Council Member Wolbach suggested three per year.
Council Member Berman agreed.
Council Member DuBois asked if three telephonic appearances meant three times per year or one time every four months.
Chair Burt responded three times per year at the Council Members discretion.
Council Member DuBois asked if the City Attorney would review the five Brown Act clauses. Chair Burt advised that the City Attorney would review appropriate legal
questions. He asked if the Committee wished to treat Open and Closed
Sessions differently.
Council Member Berman felt the provision for three telephonic appearances
should pertain to both Open and Closed Sessions.
Page 11 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt agreed. The provision did not allow three telephonic appearances for Closed Sessions and three more for Open Sessions. He inquired about an existing policy for telephonic appearances by Boards and Commissions.
Ms. Stump reported most City Boards and Commissions had internal guidelines or rules. She did not know if those guidelines addressed telephonic participation, but they could.
Council Member DuBois suggested the language for telephonic participation three times per year apply to Council Members only such that the remaining language would be retained.
Council Member Wolbach concurred.
Chair Burt reiterated that all provisions, except three telephonic
appearances, would apply to Boards and Commissions.
Mr. Keene asked if the Committee wished to revise the language regarding
cellular telephones to allow use of cellular telephones in speaker mode only.
Council Member Burt responded yes.
Council Member Wolbach reiterated the request for Staff to recommend
revisions to include modern technologies as well as legal questions.
Chair Burt noted a number of possible changes to the Consent Calendar. Some of those changes individually had some merit. In the aggregate, they could compound issues of meeting management.
Council Member Wolbach believed removal of Individual Review (IR) items required four votes as stated in Ordinances. Procedure 2.4H lacked clarity. Chair Burt would add those topics to the list for discussion. Council Member DuBois suggested two items were essentially duplicates.
Perhaps the Committee could choose one as the highest priority and discuss
it first.
Chair Burt inquired whether Consent Calendar procedures could be found
elsewhere in the Handbook.
Ms. Stump felt the rules could be better organized. She would review the
Handbook for other references to the Consent Calendar.
Chair Burt suggested the Committee organize topics in the Handbook at a
future time. He requested comments regarding Consent Calendar items
prior to consideration of the impact on meeting management. The existing
Page 12 April 08, 2015
policy allowed Council Members to speak briefly to no votes only. Council Members could not ask clarifying questions. The alternative was the Council debating each item placed on the Consent Calendar, which defeated the purpose of placing items on the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Berman would not support allowing Council Members to address Consent Calendar items orally. Council Members could ask questions, receive responses, and submit comments in writing prior to the meeting. Council Member DuBois agreed. Council Members could ask questions
regarding Consent Calendar items prior to the meeting.
Council Member Wolbach felt Council Members should be allowed to address
items briefly. At times, Council Members voted no or abstained simply to
address items. He suggested the language include "actively discourage."
Chair Burt noticed Council Members recently had taken to voting no in order
to address an item on the Consent Calendar. The "actively discourage"
language could be included. He suggested delaying further discussion of
Consent Calendar items.
Council Member Berman suggested limiting the number of items Council Members could address and the length of Council Member comments. Council Members could speak for 30 or 60 seconds.
Mr. Keene wanted to provide potential implications when the discussion of Consent Calendar items continued. Perhaps the Committee wished to state explicitly the problem it was attempting to solve or the improvement it hoped to achieve. Chair Burt recommended the Committee contemplate whether allowing an occasional comment of limited duration would result in fewer items removed
from the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Keene commented that brief comments could be advantageous or
disadvantageous.
Chair Burt noted the previous Council policy required only two votes to
remove an item from the Consent Calendar, which was recently changed to
three votes.
Council Member DuBois referred to the five categories of Consent Calendar items, which did not contain appeals. The Committee could consider whether to allow a hearing of appeals. He asked under which category an appeal would fall.
Page 13 April 08, 2015
Ms. Stump reported the rules could be found in different sections of the Zoning Code depending upon the type of appeal. The Committee could consider changes to those procedures; however, some of those changes might require Ordinances.
Council Member DuBois suggested the Committee consider applying changes to certain categories of Consent Calendar items.
Chair Burt requested initial comments regarding requiring two votes to remove an item from the Consent Calendar. Council Member Berman would possibly support two votes for certain categories. Overall, he preferred to retain three votes. Currently three
Council Members could discuss items outside a meeting without violating the
Brown Act in order to obtain a sense of the support for removing an item.
Council Member Wolbach was inclined to require three votes universally. No
item should require more than three votes for removal. There was no need
to reduce the number votes to two, if the Council allowed brief comments
from Council Members.
Chair Burt inquired whether an IR would fall under Category 4.
Ms. Stump answered yes. To the best of her recollection, it was the only Consent Calendar item that required four votes for removal. An IR was adopted as part of the carefully calibrated system that allowed some outlet for IR but set a high threshold for small projects of single family homes. Any change would follow the process for adoption of an Ordinance.
Chair Burt advised that a Committee recommendation to change the vote for IR would need to be handled separately from policies and procedures. He requested comments regarding changing the threshold vote to three. Council Member Berman needed to understand reasons for initially setting
the vote at four prior to discussing changing the number.
Council Member DuBois referred to the concept of reducing the threshold to
three if the appellant demonstrated a certain amount of support from people
other than co-appellants.
Council Member Wolbach felt the combination of requiring four votes and
notification to the City Manager encouraged Council Members to
communicate. Requiring four votes increased the chance of Council
Members violating the Brown Act. He would support changing the notification process, allowing Council Member comment, changing the vote threshold, or a combination of those.
Page 14 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt noted the Committee would discuss changes to the notification provided to the City Manager. Changing the notification to the City Manager had a broader impact than just the IR.
Council Member DuBois would support changing the vote threshold to three; however, he had no strong feelings either way.
Chair Burt advised the Committee would review a draft of changes at a future meeting, and suggested the vote threshold for an IR be continued to that meeting.
Council Member Berman asked if the Committee reached consensus on
lowering the removal threshold from three to two votes.
Chair Burt answered no. He wanted one round of comment to gauge the
Committee's consensus. Next, he would review the topics in aggregate.
Currently the procedures allowed Council Members to comment after a no
vote on a Consent Calendar item, but not before the vote. Council Members
were given three minutes to comment on a no vote. He asked if the Committee wanted to allow comments before a vote or retain the current procedure.
Mr. Keene explained that the current procedure allowed Council Members to clarify their no vote. If Council Members commented beforehand, they could influence the vote.
Council Member Berman wanted to retain the current procedure. Mr. Keene believed the reason for the Consent Calendar was to allow the Council to read information and to vote on items quickly. If Council
Members expressed concern about an Item, then they could remove an item
from the Consent Calendar rather than influencing other Council Members
prior to voting. Allowing a Council Member to comment prior to the vote
was a de facto removal of the item.
Chair Burt could be influenced by the Committee's response to Item 1,
Section B Sub-section V: Consider what items are appropriate for the
Consent calendar. For example, should they be non-controversial items,
items that are of no greater than x dollars. He suggested setting aside Council Member comments before or after a vote to discuss items to be placed on the Consent Calendar. He seemed to recall additional information about the types of items to be placed on the Consent Calendar. Some items were removed from the Consent Calendar, because the City Manager or the Mayor recognized that those items were contentious. If a Council Committee vote was unanimous, the Council Committee's recommendation was placed on the Consent Calendar to aid the efficiency of Council
Page 15 April 08, 2015
meetings. In a recent Finance Committee meeting, one Council Member advocated strongly for a unanimous vote in order to avoid a Council discussion. The Committee could consider language regarding unanimous votes from Council Committees being placed on the Consent Calendar but not for political purposes.
Council Member Berman asked if the intent was to place items on the Consent Calendar or the motivation to place items on the Consent Calendar. Chair Burt stated it was the motivation to place an item on the Consent
Calendar in order to achieve a political purpose.
Council Member Berman felt that was appropriate. In 2014, the Finance
Committee recommended an item with a unanimous vote be placed on the
Action Agenda in order to obtain Council input.
Chair Burt indicated that was the appropriate deference to the Council.
Council Member DuBois noted that each member of a Council Committee
should realize the purpose and not vote for political reasons.
Chair Burt advised that the lack of a protocol prevented a Council Member from protesting. He inquired whether the Committee could agree to include that language.
Council Member Wolbach replied yes. He suggested placing the language at the end. Council Member DuBois was interested in the concept of a dollar amount threshold for Consent Calendar items. He asked if the Council had a fiduciary responsibility to discuss an item involving funding over a specific
amount.
Ms. Stump responded not currently. Many very large items were routine.
Council Member DuBois remarked that the public could become upset when
the Council did not discuss large funding amounts such that the item became
controversial.
Chair Burt explained that some large amounts did not involve discretionary
decisions, while some smaller amounts reflected discretionary or value decisions. That was the distinction for utilizing a threshold dollar amount. The dollar amount was not an effective trigger.
Page 16 April 08, 2015
Council Member Berman agreed. Perhaps some trigger other than a dollar amount would be appropriate. Using a dollar amount would capture too many items that were not appropriate for Council discussion.
Council Member Wolbach advised that placing an item on the Consent Calendar did not avoid public scrutiny or disclosure. Removing an item from the Consent Calendar was more important. He did not believe there was a need to restrict items placed on the Consent Calendar. Chair Burt suggested the Committee might want to review guidance for noncontroversial Consent Calendar items.
Mr. Keene reported the largest expenditures often were the simplest.
Smaller expenditures could have policy implications. Items were placed on
the Consent Calendar, because other drivers determined they should be
placed there. Other tests were utilized to manage Consent Calendar Items.
More often than not, the largest expenditures occurred in Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) projects that had been vetted and approved.
Staff could better articulate that items had been subjected to different levels
of Council review. Matters that signified policy change or the need for policy change were difficult to administer.
Chair Burt referred to the requirement to notify the City Manager of interest in removing an item from the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Wolbach noted the requirement was contained in Procedure 2.4H.
Mr. Keene advised that Procedure 2.4H was the existing language. In practice, Staff requested Council Members notify the City Manager the Sunday evening prior to a Monday meeting. Chair Burt indicated the practice was good and should be followed whenever
possible. Use of "should" was strong language. At times, public comment
during the meeting raised legitimate reasons for removing an item. Other
times, Council Members did not appreciate the need to remove an item in
advance of the meeting. He preferred the language be revised to "Council
Members would provide advance notice whenever possible."
Mr. Keene would support language that clearly signaled the intention without being prescriptive. If items were removed without prior notice, then he would have to reschedule the item to a future meeting because Staff would not be present. Removal of Consent Calendar items that were time- sensitive were relatively rare.
Page 17 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt suggested adding language to provide notice to the City Manager as early as possible. He felt Procedure 2.4G was ambiguous. He had forgotten that the Mayor as Chair could remove an item from the Consent Calendar.
Ms. Stump did not believe the procedure meant the Mayor could remove an item. The sentence was confusing. In practice, it could mean many things. It was not logical to take public comment regarding removal of an item after a vote approving the Consent Calendar had occurred. The Committee should clarify the two types of relevant public comment. Chair Burt inquired about the intent of the other clause. Ms. Stump would not read that to authorize the Mayor on his/her own
initiative to remove an item from the Consent Calendar. Rather if a
sufficient number of Council Members had indicated a desire to remove an
item, then the Mayor could allow public comment when the Consent
Calendar was called or defer public comment to the time the Council heard
the item.
Chair Burt indicated that was consistent with Council practice. He inquired whether the Committee could agree to authorize Staff to provide language reflecting the City Attorney's explanation.
Council Member Wolbach requested Ms. Stump repeat her explanation.
Ms. Stump advised that Staff and Council favored a generous interpretation of the rules. The Council allowed the public to comment on removal of an item. If the Council voted to remove an item, the Council allowed additional public comment when the item was rescheduled before the Council. If the item was heard the same night it was removed, then Staff would discourage additional public comment. The public had the opportunity to address the
Council on the removal itself. Staff could provide language.
Council Member DuBois suggested allowing an appellant who had paid the
required fee be allowed to speak for ten minutes regarding the Consent
Calendar item before the vote. If an item was not removed from the
Consent Calendar, then the appellant was not allowed to address the item.
Chair Burt reported the appellant could speak for three minutes under public comment regarding the Consent Calendar. Perhaps the appellant could have additional time to speak.
Council Member Berman would support that; however, he preferred the appellant be given ten minutes to speak on behalf of a group of people, as was the current practice.
Page 18 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt agreed with allowing the appellant to speak, but felt ten minutes was too much time. The appellant would address the issue of removal rather than the merits of the case. The Committee would revisit the issue slightly later in the discussion. The Committee did not revise the requirement for three votes to remove routine items from the Consent Calendar; did not institute a dollar amount for Consent Calendar items; and did not prescribe items to be placed on the Consent Calendar. He returned to the topic of allowing Council Member comments prior to the vote on the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Wolbach remarked that Council Members should be allowed
to express their wish to remove an item prior to the vote. Before the vote
was the correct time for such comments. Restricting comments to 30 or 60
seconds and to one item was appropriate.
Chair Burt reiterated that undecided topics could be discussed when Staff
returned with proposed Handbook revisions. He wished to consider Council
Member Wolbach's proposal further.
Council Member DuBois felt some of the topics were interrelated. He could
support the proposal. He asked if Council Members could speak only prior to the vote.
Chair Burt replied yes.
Council Member DuBois would support requiring four votes to remove an appeal from the Consent Calendar if the appellant was allowed additional time to speak.
Ms. Stump reported Staff would write a clear rule that complied with current practice for public comment. A member of the public would be allowed to speak for three minutes regarding the Consent Calendar, unless the Mayor
reduced the time allowed for public comment.
Council Member DuBois wished to allow the appellant additional time to
speak.
Chair Burt added if the appellant had paid for the appeal.
Mr. Keene reiterated that revisions to the Handbook would be presented to
the Committee for discussion. The IR and appeal questions had other
aspects of change that were under consideration in various ways. The
Committee's recommendation should be when the Council discussed the issue of amendments or changes to the process, then the Committee recommended thus and such, unless the Committee felt it could be done out of context.
Page 19 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt felt the number of minutes provided an appellant could be out of context.
Mr. Keene meant that the process was different to amend the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Stump advised the Committee could not change the Zoning Ordinance by adopting a Resolution changing the procedures, if the Zoning Ordinance required four votes.
Chair Burt concurred. The Committee was discussing the length of time an appellant could speak if he had paid the appeal fee and the appeal was on the Consent Calendar. Ms. Stump was almost certain the Zoning Ordinance did not specify speaking
time limits.
Council Member Wolbach asked if an appeal being placed on the Consent
Calendar meant the Planning Director had found against the appellant and in
favor of the applicant.
Ms. Stump explained that the Planning Director made a decision on a
recommendation, and the decision was final unless an appeal was filed. The
Planning Director did not make a decision on the appeal.
Council Member Wolbach suggested the Committee recommend additional time for the applicant to speak if the appellant was granted additional time.
Chair Burt disagreed in that the proposal was to allow the appellant additional time to speak for removal of an appeal from the Consent Calendar. Council Member Wolbach withdrew his suggestion. Chair Burt asked if Committee Members agreed to allow the appellant to speak for five minutes regarding a Consent Calendar item. He noted the
remaining topic for the Consent Calendar was allowing Council Members to
speak briefly to a single item prior to voting on the Consent Calendar.
Council Members would not be allowed to speak both before and after the
vote.
Council Member Wolbach suggested continuing the topic to the next
meeting.
Chair Burt would continue to the topic if the Committee could not reach
consensus.
Page 20 April 08, 2015
Council Member DuBois favored Council Members speaking to one item for 60 seconds.
Council Member Berman could support a trial period for the proposal.
Chair Burt requested additional time to consider the topic and suggested the topic be continued.
Ms. Stump requested clarification that for all land use appeals the appellant would be allowed five minutes to speak while the applicant would be allowed the customary three minutes. She asked if the Committee wished to revisit the voting threshold for removing an IR.
Chair Burt advised the voting threshold for an IR was continued. The topic
of Council Members addressing Consent Calendar items prior to the vote was
continued.
Council Member DuBois inquired about the Committee's recommendation for
noncontroversial items being placed on the Consent Calendar.
Chair Burt asked if the Committee wanted language reflecting that Consent
Calendar items not have significant controversy.
Mr. Keene offered language of "every attempt should be made not to place controversial items on the Consent Calendar."
Chair Burt added that the Mayor and City Manager at their discretion should attempt not to place controversial items on the Consent Calendar."
Council Member DuBois asked if the language should be qualified with the idea that it was related to policy.
Chair Burt believed that language was a bit narrow.
Council Member DuBois noted the Committee had not considered agenda
setting.
Chair Burt asked if the guidance for agenda setting could be found in the
Municipal Code or in the Handbook.
Ms. Stump would check.
Council Member Berman indicated guidance could be found in Protocol 3.7.
Ms. Stump explained that Protocol 3.7 did not pertain to placement of items on the agenda, but the order of items.
Page 21 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt noted Protocol 3.7 provided three purposes of the pre-Council meeting. He construed future meetings to mean future agendas. In his experience, the City Manager would determine agenda items that would accomplish efficient working of the government or fulfill prior Council direction. The Mayor or Vice Mayor would occasionally offer input or recommendations or request an item be scheduled at a certain time.
Ms. Stump reported the City Manager's role was slightly broader than described by Chair Burt. The City Manager was responsible for presenting agenda items to which the operations of the City called the Council's attention.
Chair Burt clarified that he referred to the operations in the first category.
Ms. Stump added the operations were slightly broader than routine. The
City Manager identified items that warranted and called for the Council's
guidance. Most agenda items were initiated by the City Manager through his
Staff.
Mr. Keene advised that many items had other proscriptions from the Council
or in the City Charter. He did not have discretion for bringing forward many
operation items. He presented items to the Council that the Council may not
have known about, but he believed they were important or a policy decision was needed.
Chair Burt heard a description of how the City functioned and the dynamic of the Council running the City's business. He did not hear a question of whether change was needed, but whether the Council wanted language that more clearly described the reality.
Council Member Wolbach was interested in hearing the Vice Mayor's role in the process. Chair Burt was surprised that the Protocol did not distinguish the role of the
Mayor and Vice Mayor. The Council gave the Mayor authorities. The Vice
Mayor was present in case the Mayor was not. A second question was
whether the Protocol adequately described the dynamic between the City
Manager and the Council's representative(s) and correctly described the
roles of the Mayor and Vice Mayor.
Mr. Keene believed that, in practice, the Mayor was clearly the lead. The
Vice Mayor did not and should not share the Mayor's role of making
decisions. The Protocol adequately described the purposes. The Mayor was a single member of the Council. Other procedures indicated Staff did not take individual direction from an individual Council Member. The Protocol should be reconciled with current practice.
Page 22 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt asked if the Committee wanted to clarify the Mayor's obligation to reflect the interests of the Council as a whole in the agenda setting. That language was broad and discretionary, but it provided a context for the expectation.
Council Member Berman indicated the Mayor's role was similar to a Council liaison role.
Mr. Keene suggested language that referenced the fact that Staff worked on behalf of the full Council, not on behalf of the City Manager. Chair Burt offered language clarifying the fact that the Mayor represented the Council and the Vice Mayor could confer but did not have the Mayor's
authority. Second, the Mayor should make his best efforts to reflect the
interests of the Council as a whole.
Council Member Wolbach asked what would happen if the City Manager felt
an item needed to be on the agenda soon and the Mayor and Vice Mayor
disagreed. That was the type of clarification the Committee was considering.
Mr. Keene advised that many issues required conversation. Specific
language made it easier for the City Manager to insist on setting an item on the agenda.
Chair Burt added that Council Members could agendize items.
Council Member Wolbach suggested clarifying the roles such as "either the City Manager or the Mayor had the power to place an item on the agenda. The role of the Vice Mayor was advisor."
Chair Burt inquired whether that language would be problematic.
Mr. Keene believed the language did not coincide with the City Charter. The Mayor as a single Council Member could not place items directly on the agenda. In practice, the Mayor attempted to influence the City Manager to
place items on the agenda.
Council Member Wolbach asked if the Mayor guided while the Vice Mayor
advised.
Chair Burt recalled that two Council Members could agendize items through
Council Comments and a Colleague's Memorandum. The current City
Manager worked to respect and accommodate the interests of the Council as reflected through the Mayor.
Council Member DuBois requested clarification of the Vice Mayor's role.
Page 23 April 08, 2015
Ms. Stump reported the Vice Mayor's role, according to the City Charter, was to attend meetings in the absence of the Mayor. The Vice Mayor attended the pre-Council meeting as training.
Council Member DuBois asked if any Vice Mayor had dominated the pre- Council meeting.
Mr. Keene responded no. Vice Mayors usually deferred to the Mayor.
Ms. Stump remarked that the Mayor often requested the Vice Mayor's assistance with tasks during the pre-Council meeting.
Chair Burt stated Protocol 3.7 did not reflect that activity.
Mr. Keene did not recall an overt disagreement between the Mayor and the
Vice Mayor at a pre-Council meeting.
Chair Burt restated the three questions before the Committee. He did not
believe additional language was needed to clarify the relationship between
the Mayor and City Manager.
Council Member Wolbach felt the purposes of the Handbook were public
facing and education for new Council Members.
Chair Burt asked if Council Member Wolbach wished to propose language.
Council Member Wolbach suggested Staff prepare draft language for the roles of City Manager, Mayor, and Vice Mayor during agenda setting. Language could be similar to "the City Manager made decisions with the advice and guidance of the Mayor and additional input from the Vice Mayor with all three considering the needs of the City and the full Council."
Chair Burt understood the Committee wanted language that reflected the respective roles of the City Manager and the Mayor, and the limited role of the Vice Mayor clarified in the agenda setting process. The Mayor's role was to reflect the interests of the full Council. He noted the Council had begun
providing the City Clerk with Motions via electronic means, but he did not
want the language to be prescriptive. He recommended "encouraging to the
extent feasible" Council Members to provide Motions via electronic means.
The language presumed the Council Member had drafted language in
advance of the meeting or early in the meeting.
Council Member DuBois suggested new technologies could transmit proposed
Motions more quickly.
Page 24 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt noted some people were more comfortable verbalizing language rather than writing it.
Mr. Keene felt the mechanics of providing Motions was worthy of discussion. Dumb terminals were provided on the dais in order to manage the concern and public perception regarding Council Member communications that was not part of the public record. If Council Members were typing during the meeting, the public could question whether Council Members were communicating privately. Chair Burt did not believe Council policies prohibited electronic and handwritten communications.
Ms. Stump reported many cities did have such a prohibition. It was not
illegal to have substantive communications addressing the item and policy,
except if the communication created a Brown Act violation within the
meeting. Many, many people felt private communications during a meeting
were fundamentally inappropriate. Many cities adopted rules that banned
the practice.
Chair Burt remarked that no language would circumvent the public perception that use of electronic devices implied private communications; however, the City Attorney just stated that was legal. He inquired whether the Committee wanted to draft a guideline prohibiting electronic communications amongst Council Members during a meeting.
Council Member Berman suggested the Committee continue the topic to the next meeting. Council Member Wolbach understood Council Members' use of electronic devices during a meeting was subject to a public records request. Ms. Stump reported a case on that issue was before the California Supreme
Court. The Superior Court ruled those communications were public records;
however, the Court of Appeal disagreed. That issue was broader than simply
conduct during a Council meeting. The case arose from Council Members
communicating with the public during a meeting.
Chair Burt took up the topic of Staff Reports providing options along with a
recommendation. This was a policy question that had arisen a number of
times. He requested Staff comment regarding alternatives being presented in Staff Reports and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Stump distinguished between legislative matters, where the Council could draft any procedure, and land use items, where the Municipal Code required a decision. In the latter case, existing laws directed Staff to apply
Page 25 April 08, 2015
those laws to an application. The Staff Report provided Staff's actions and methods to comply with laws.
Council Member DuBois asked if Staff could offer options once an appeal of a decision had been filed and placed on an agenda as an Action Item.
Ms. Stump answered yes. Staff could assist the Council in the ways it needed. Whether Staff did that through confidential legal advice or proscribing the content of Staff Reports required careful thought.
Mr. Keene recognized that Staff had a professional responsibility to make recommendations in reports. The City Charter anticipated that the City Manager had the right and responsibility to participate in Council discussions but not to vote; therefore, a recommendation was acceptable. To the extent that Staff built a rationale to support a conclusion, people questioned the
lack of alternatives. Within the body of the work, the Committee should
recognize conflicts and the need to adequately represent those conflicts.
Drafting alternatives to the Staff recommendation asked Staff to put
themselves in the perspectives of other people. More language was needed
to clarify that Staff would do its best to identify and present the range of
issues.
Chair Burt felt codifying the language would allow the public to see that Staff was following Council direction. He questioned where that language could be placed as it was not a Council procedure.
Ms. Stump advised that a set of policies and procedures was issued at the manager level. Perhaps that would be the appropriate place to describe generally Staff Reports.
Chair Burt suggested the Handbook refer to the Manager level policies and process.
Council Member Wolbach suggested the language be placed in Protocol 2.5, Staff Conduct with City Council, especially if the language referred to other documents. Chair Burt believed the title for Protocol 2.5 would need to be changed or a
section added to it.
Council Member Berman asked if the requirement for Council packets to be
issued five days in advance of the meeting was contained in a document.
Mr. Keene was not sure if that provision was contained in the Handbook.
The Handbook had not been amended to reflect the new timeframe for Council packets.
Page 26 April 08, 2015
Council Member Wolbach requested Staff update the Handbook to include changes made in the past few years.
Chair Burt advised that that was part of his suggestion for the Committee to review the Handbook page-by-page.
Council Member DuBois was interested in continuing the topic to the next meeting in order to review meeting management items.
Chair Burt requested Staff provide draft language for Staff Report content. He did not believe Item 2c of Attachment A should be contained in the Handbook. Guidance to Mayors could reflect information on the topic. It was helpful to have common sense written down in a non-prescriptive manner.
Council Member DuBois agreed Item 2c was common sense. However, including every possible topic would make the Handbook too lengthy.
Chair Burt suggested Item 2c be included in the section for the Mayor
conducting the meeting.
Council Member Wolbach emphasized the need to inform the public if an
item on the agenda would not be heard.
Chair Burt agreed. "Making every effort to keep us on schedule" did not add
value to the procedures.
Council Member Wolbach advised that hearing the public during the noticed
timeframe was the same as keeping on schedule.
Chair Burt felt it was more nuanced. The timeframes for agenda items was
an informal notice.
Ms. Stump reported language was placed at the top of each agenda to inform the public that the timeframes were guidelines.
Chair Burt believed the language should be "make an effort to allow the public to speak within the timeframe that was contained in the guidelines."
Ms. Stump offered language of "inform the public of the progress of the night's agenda and whether items were anticipated to be removed or continued." Council Member Berman wanted to remove "commit to."
Page 27 April 08, 2015
Council Member DuBois interpreted that clause as the Council would commit to hearing public comment even if the item was not taken up until much later in the meeting.
Chair Burt concurred. "Commit to" should be softened such that it was an effort rather than an obligation.
Ms. Stump recalled that the Council had contemplated that in the past and had declined to do it, because it was disruptive and created inefficiencies. Chair Burt offered language of "make efforts to hear the public who have
come to speak to an item."
Ms. Stump would provide language.
Council Member DuBois advised that the Mayor in another city polled the
audience regarding a point made in public comment and requested public
speakers not make the same point.
Chair Burt noted that related to Item 2.j.ii of Attachment A.
Council Member DuBois felt the Mayor's style would determine whether that
management technique was feasible.
Chair Burt suggested a trial period.
Council Member DuBois added that the public should still be allowed to speak.
Chair Burt suggested the language be "encourage" or "suggest" rather than "ask that only new points be made." He did not want to place it in the Handbook.
Council Member DuBois felt the Council needed a friendly method to shorten public comment. Council Member DuBois disagreed with setting a hard ending time for Council meetings. Chair Burt noted the Council had rules for taking up new items. He
suggested the Committee review rules from other jurisdictions. The tradeoff
was creating a new debate on whether to continue debate.
Council Member DuBois asked if the Council policy was not to take up a new
item after 10:30 P.M.
Page 28 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt replied yes. The question was whether that procedure was sufficient or whether additional procedures were needed.
Ms. Stump clarified that the rule did not ban the Council from taking up a new item after 10:30 P.M.
Chair Burt suggested the Committee consider that topic further at the next meeting.
Council Member Wolbach suggested the Council vote on taking up items after 10:30 P.M. or extending the meeting beyond 11:00 P.M. or 11:30 P.M.
Chair Burt asked if the Committee concurred with continuing further discussion of meeting management. Council Member Berman answered yes.
Future Meetings and Agendas
Chair Burt reported a draft schedule was provided to the Policy and Services
Committee. Staff listed a series of different topics. He requested the
Committee discuss priority and sequence of topics along with the capacity to
cover topics in a meeting. The Committee could consider holding three
meetings in a month. For the next meeting, he expected the Auditor's
Quarterly Report to move quickly. The work plan could require a deep
discussion. The minimum wage topic could draw a great deal of public comment as well as a deep discussion. Agenda items for the following meeting would likely move more quickly. He asked if the substantive agenda items for the following two meetings were appropriate or if other items were more urgent.
Council Member DuBois inquired about a date for completing discussion of protocols and procedures. Chair Burt asked about the urgency of the Smoking Ordinance. Khashayar Alaee, Senior Management Analyst, advised Staff was on track to
complete it.
James Keene, City Manager, advised that Staff was rolling out the first part
of the ban and would be working through enforcement issues. Those issues
could inform a discussion of the Smoking Ordinance. He preferred the
Committee complete protocols and procedures prior to the Smoking
Ordinance.
Page 29 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt noted the Council referred several items to a future Committee of the Whole meeting. A number of those items could be referred to the Committee. He did not find Colleague's Memorandums listed in the draft schedule.
Mr. Alaee did not have a list of Colleague's Memorandums. The Colleague's Memorandum regarding neighborhoods was removed from the agenda.
Chair Burt reported Mayor Holman was drafting a Colleague's Memorandum regarding the Architectural Review Board (ARB). He inquired about Colleague's Memorandums that had been presented to the Council. Mr. Keene would review those with the City Clerk. Chair Burt asked if there were Colleague's Memorandums other than the
Minimum Wage Ordinance.
Mr. Keene advised the Smoking Ordinance was originally a Colleague's
Memorandum.
Council Member Berman suggested the Minimum Wage Ordinance and the
City's legislative program be scheduled for April 28, 2015; the City Auditor's
reports be scheduled for May 12, 2015; and the Smoking Ordinance and policies and protocols be scheduled for the following meeting.
Chair Burt wanted to maintain the momentum to accomplish as many items as possible. A number of other items would be referred to the Committee. He inquired about a possible date for the Committee as a Whole meeting.
Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk, indicated a date had not been set.
Chair Burt suggested the Committee hold a special meeting in April.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, noted the Tall Tree Award Ceremony was scheduled for April 21, 2015. Chair Burt suggested a special meeting on May 5, 19, or 26.
Mr. Keene noted the Finance Committee was holding budget meetings
throughout May. Staff could better support a Committee meeting on May
26.
Council Member Berman was available May 26.
Council Member DuBois indicated a Council meeting was scheduled for May
27.
Page 30 April 08, 2015
Chair Burt asked if the City Clerk had confirmed a Council meeting on May 27.
Ms. Minor requested Council Members hold May 6 and May 27 for Council meetings.
Mr. Keene was not sure the Council meeting on May 6 would be held.
Ms. Minor advised that Board and Commission Study Sessions were scheduled for May 6.
Council Member DuBois could attend Committee meetings on May 26 or 19.
Council Member Berman was available on both dates.
Chair Burt would schedule a Committee meeting on May 26.
Council Member Wolbach was available on May 26.
Council Member DuBois asked if any aspect of the Residential Parking Permit
(RPP) Program would be presented to the Committee.
Mr. Keene did not believe the first phase would be presented to the
Committee.
Council Member DuBois inquired about aircraft noise.
Mr. Alaee indicated the Committee referred air traffic noise to the Council.
Mr. Keene reported if the historical data study and analysis was below the threshold, then it would proceed to the Council.
Council Member Berman inquired about the overall timing and implementation of topics.
Chair Burt did not believe any of the revisions to policies and procedures were urgent. The continued discussion could fill a meeting on its own. Perhaps the Committee could tentatively schedule an item for a portion of an upcoming meeting. The Minimum Wage Ordinance and work plan would fill one meeting. The earliest possible date was May 12, 2015. He suggested procedures and protocols be added to the May 12 Agenda with the
understanding that it could be continued to May 26.
Mr. Alaee advised that the Auditor's Quarterly Report, work plan, and the
Minimum Wage Ordinance would be on the Agenda for April 28.
Page 31 April 08, 2015
Council Member Wolbach recalled a concern regarding scheduling the Minimum Wage Ordinance and the work plan in the same meeting.
Chair Burt indicated the Committee might not complete discussion of the work plan and could continue it to a subsequent date.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M.
Policy and Services Committee
Final Minutes
Special Meeting Thursday, May 21, 2015
Chairperson Burt called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Berman, Burt (Chair) DuBois, Wolbach
Absent:
Oral Communications
None.
Agenda Items
1. Continued Discussion Regarding City Council Procedural Matters,
Including Updates to Procedures and Protocols Handbook (Continued
from April 8, 2015)
Khashayar Alaee, Senior Management Analyst: Good evening, Chair Burt
and Committee Members. Khash Alaee, Senior Management Analyst with
the City Manager's Office. Just to quickly reorient us and place tonight's
conversation in context, the City Council on January 31 at its Retreat
discussed updates to the City Council's Procedures and Protocols and
referred certain elements to the Policy and Services Committee. Again on
February 17, the City Council held a Committee as a Whole meeting and
focused on the Procedures and Protocols, meeting management, Committees
and Staff relations. At this meeting, certain items about the Procedures and
Protocols as well as meeting management were referred again to the Policy
and Services Committee. Some ideas about the Committees and Staff
relations were deferred to the next Committee as a Whole meeting. As we
talked about at our April 8 meeting, the Committee has discretion to talk
about any of those items and make recommendations to the Council or to
the Committee as a Whole. On April 8, the Committee began to take the
referrals and items and made recommendations to Staff about changes to
the actual Handbook and Manual. The Committee discussed the referral
items. If I could ask you to look at packet Page 5, if you guys all have your
packet.
1
2 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Tonight's packet?
Mr. Alaee: Yeah, tonight's packet. Everyone there? If you look at Number
1, the discussion of Procedures and Protocols. At our meeting on the 8th,
we were able to have substantive conversations about Number 1 and all the
sub-elements; the telephone participation, the Consent Calendar as well as
the agenda setting. We began to have conversations about the meeting
management items. There were a lot of different ideas put out there, but it
was not as substantive as the first three items. The City Clerk has put a set
of the Minutes in front of you. Just to orient you on a little bit of what we talked about. Beginning on Page 3 of the meeting Minutes is where the
telephone conversation began. That conversation goes through Page 21. At the top of Page 21, you'll notice the first sentence in there says agenda setting. That's where we begin to start talking about that. That conversation carries through to Page 24. At the top of Page 24, right below consensus, in that first sentence you see the word Motions. That's where we started to discuss Motions. That then carried through and the conversation started to move into meeting management. That gives you a little bit of a sense of what we got through. It seems to me that to focus on packet Page 5, 6 and 7 and continue the conversations about meeting management is where the Committee had left off. Certainly on Page 7, the items going to the Committee as a Whole, we could continue conversations about that. If I could also refresh your memory that on April 8 we put an at-places memo. There was some items left off the Staff Report. We've placed another at- places memo tonight. It's double-sided. On the back of the first Page, Page 2, is the at-places memo from April 8. Hopefully that reorients us a little bit to where we had left off. Staff did start taking some of your comments and putting them in the Handbook. Truthfully, it's a difficult process to take the feedback and put it in the Manual. Due to time constraints and workload constraints, we weren't in a position to feel comfortable providing you or the public with what we have done so far. Our preference is we finish the conversation, update the whole Manual, certainly have the Attorney's Office review it, and then bring the final package to you and the public. With that, I turn it to you, Chair, for any direction and next steps.
Chair Burt: Let me just get recalibrated. I'm trying to recall whether we were using the referral items as our sequence or just the sequence as it exists in the Policy and Procedures.
Mr. Alaee: Correct. From reading the Minutes and my recollection, you were using the referral items to start to go through the Handbook. We had done pretty well with finishing Number 1. It seemed to me you had given us enough direction on those items. If you look at the set of Minutes, towards the end a lot of popcorn ideas were being popped for all the items in Number 2. There was no clear direction. We had gone pretty clearly through 1a, b
3 May 21, 2015
and c. The meeting was getting towards the end, and the ideas were just
flowing.
Chair Burt: I have some miscellaneous notes that we went through the
existing Procedures and Protocols that aren't necessarily listed here.
Whether I or others have those, we can look at whether we do a final run-
through at the end that tries to capture what we didn't capture in this
format. Colleagues, if we go to packet Page 5 from this evening's Council
packet, the second section Meeting Management, 2a talks about trying to
provide Staff with digital versions of draft Motions. We've actually been experimenting with that this year and seen more of that. Just one level of
question, do we think it's a good idea? The second one is how would we capture that in our Procedures or Protocols. Anyone have any initial comments? Marc.
Council Member Berman: From my standpoint, it's been very helpful for those who have been using it. I don't think it should be mandatory. I think it should definitely be utilized by those who want to, to get ahead of the game and be able to provide that to the Clerk. It saves time during the meetings for those who are able to.
Chair Burt: To try to take that and capture it. As we look at 2a, the way this was put out, it's directional. We might want to consider language that City Council Members are encouraged, if we go the direction that you just ... Council Member Berman: That's my preference.
Chair Burt: Others? Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: I'd agree.
Chair Burt: Tom.
Council Member DuBois: I'm good with that.
Chair Burt: All right. We're moving a lot faster tonight than last time.
Council Member DuBois: If we could talk through some of these last items.
Chair Burt: I'm looking at the second sentence of 2a and asking myself whether, in addition to the Policy, we should give a context. That is helpful
for future Councils. They look at a Procedure and say, "Why is this here?" There probably would be a good way to re-frame that just to give a little
more context. The next one is—we got into a little bit of discussion of this
last time; the City Manager was here—Staff Reports offering options that are
4 May 21, 2015
available to the Council. I saw in review of our Minutes last time that the
City Attorney had weighed in a little bit on that. The City Manager had. I
don't know if there were any follow-up thoughts. Molly, do you have
anything?
Molly Stump, City Attorney: The spirit of this suggestion in many cases is
helpful and a useful one. I do think that it has to be applied in the
particularized case that's before the Council. If I recall correctly, my
particular concern was that subset of issues that the Council is sometimes
involved in, where you're adjudicating a particular project. The Staff is really called upon in that case to give you their best view of how the current
rules apply to the facts before them in the project. In that kind of case, it may be that there's less ability to provide alternatives that stand on equal footing or are of equal weight. There are areas of course, as you know from your recent work on a couple of projects, where there is a fair amount of Council discretion. In those cases, the Staff is able to say that the Planning Director or the ARB reached this conclusion, that these findings can be made. Council has discretion to judge this and may come to a different conclusion. Sometimes I think that can be done. In other cases, there's less ability. I guess I would want this also perhaps to be put in language that recognizes that the particular item and the elements of the item may provide for lots of room to do that or less room to do it.
Chair Burt: Cory. Council Member Wolbach: Would it be appropriate in the language to that effect to specifically refer to the distinction between quasi-judicial agenda items and others?
Chair Burt: Yeah. One way that we might do that is have it as a preface. To the effect that we're not limited by quasi-judicial hearing Protocols or however we want to describe it, and then go on to put it that way. We could simply say ...
Council Member Wolbach: Where appropriate?
Chair Burt: Yeah. Within the quasi-judicial, it doesn't mean that they can't provide any alternatives. It's just that they're more constrained. We basically want to acknowledge those constraints and encourage Staff, especially in legislative matters but where permitted in quasi-judicial, to provide alternatives to the Staff recommendation. One of the things that's historically been an issue is in particular when there's reference to Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, to put a balance between those policies and programs that support a given recommendation and also to list some that are pertinent where the recommendation may be in conflict. My
5 May 21, 2015
recollection is that that's been one of the issues. Molly, did you want to
wade in on that?
Ms. Stump: Yes. I think the Committee's going in a good direction. If we
could be given the direction to draft some specific language that would
encourage that, but recognize there may be cases where there might be
limits on that process of providing alternatives. We've talked about the
quasi-judicial. There may be others. For example, where you are setting
municipal utility rates based on Cost of Service Studies. Again, you need to
be basing those rates on the evidentiary record before you. There sometimes is an ability to ask for more information, return the item,
sometimes less so. Again, I think it's the same general direction that you'd like to see where possible alternatives are provided. Chair Burt: Ed, did you want to add something?
Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager: Sure. To pick up on comments the City Manager made last time. In addition to the potentially legal boundaries and the context in which Staff Reports are done, from a policy development perspective and in advising the Council in bringing forward recommendations, the City Manager pointed out Staff's obligation to develop recommendations and effectively defend or justify those recommendations. That said, it is appropriate to expect that Staff would be able to explain some of the dimensions of discretion that exist within developing those recommendations. The language that Molly pointed out works. By encouraging the discussion and the consideration and explanation of the variations that are brought forward to the Council.
Chair Burt: I might put it slightly differently. While recognizing the role and responsibility of the Staff to put forward their best professional recommendations, we're looking for the reports to acknowledge the alternative interpretations of the Comp Plan or relevant portions of the Comp Plan that may be considered. That doesn't constrain Staff from saying, "However, in the net our recommendation is such and such for the reasons we stated." My question for colleagues would be does that seem to capture the intent and do we feel that we've given Staff enough direction to allow them to come back with specific language to reflect that. Tom. Council Member DuBois: This discussion is coming back to me. I think what we're saying is we want to see the range of possibilities along with the recommendation. As long as that point is clear. Ed, what I heard you to be saying was more detail on justifying the point of view, but also more about the range of options. Mr. Shikada: Understood.
6 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Are we okay? Great. The next item has to do with meeting
efficiency and public participation. This is really just about trying to
anticipate, either before a meeting or during a meeting, if things are drifting off of an initial schedule to inform the public as best we can. That doesn't
seem very contentious to me. Yes, we could have it as a Policy to do so. I'd put it in this category that one of the functions of the Policies and Procedures is just to remind us of good practices when we go through. Even if it's not
stipulating what shall be done, it's very helpful to not have to have every Mayor reinvent the wheel and think of what are best practices, but just to give recommended guidelines. Molly, was there something you wanted to add? No. Anybody have anything in particular on that? Other than that, maybe we just include it as essentially a note of a practice. Marc. Council Member Berman: I agree completely, but I just want to make sure. Maybe I’m reading it wrong. It seems to have a preference for committing to hearing the public who have come to speak to an item in the timeframe that the item was noticed. Then it says if this can't be accomplished ... In our Policy and Procedures, I wouldn't say that it's a hard and fast rule that the public will have the opportunity to speak during the time that was advised in the agenda. There's always terminology on the agenda that says the timeframes are just guesses or whatever the phraseology is that we use. I think that would be very disruptive, if we were to stop a conversation and then hear public comment on a different topic and then go back. I wouldn't recommend that. What you were recommending earlier is the right idea. Chair Burt: That's a good point. Let's look at that first sentence there. That's a little different from what I was alluding to. If the public comes to speak to an item, we have one question. Do we want to make sure that we make every effort to allow them to speak even if we're not going to be able to take that item up in full that night? We've been doing that. Sometimes saying, "We're going to continue the item, but let's allow the members of the public who came tonight to speak to it." Then we have another question of to what extent would we feel obligated to allow them to speak in the timeframe that's on the tentative timeline on the agenda, which is clearly just an advisory reference point. I would agree that we don't want to have the meeting be disjointed to achieve that, even though we do want to make efforts to allow them to speak in approximately the timeframe that we and they are anticipating. Tom, did you have suggestions?
Council Member DuBois: I'm just looking through my notes. In my notes, we completed through Section d last time. Looking through the Minutes on Page 26-27, it captures what we're saying right now pretty well.
7 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Good. I have to say that for whatever reason the Minutes in the
packet were not the intended Minutes, and so we didn't get them until an
hour ago.
Council Member DuBois: I know. I'm just looking at them right now.
Chair Burt: I got through about half of the Minutes. What do you find
there?
Council Member DuBois: On Page 26 and 27, we talked about the intent to stay on schedule. Let people speak at the right time. Rather than
committing, we softened the language. It seems to be in line with what we're saying right now.
Council Member Berman: We affirm that one.
Chair Burt: At least we're thinking consistently.
Council Member DuBois: So far this seems to hold together pretty well. It doesn't seem like random items popping up. If you guys have enough here, we covered this one. Chair Burt: Good. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm sorry. It looks like we continued maybe during item 2d.
Council Member DuBois: I think we stopped right after d.
Council Member Wolbach: Did we really conclude that discussion or were we just starting to share thoughts on that with no consensus?
Council Member DuBois: That's right about where we stopped. We could probably pick it up there.
Council Member Wolbach: I'd be okay with jumping back to 2d. Chair Burt: That was the next thing. We were on c, and the next thing I was going to ask about was d. From your reading of the Minutes, did we get through a recommendation for d or just part way into discussion?
Council Member DuBois: I think we agreed that we didn't want a hard ending time, at least I didn't want a hard ending time. Then we were talking about current Policy around looking at the schedule at 10:30 and deciding what to do.
8 May 21, 2015
Mr. Alaee: On Page 28 of the Minutes, it states that Council Member
Wolbach suggested that the Council vote on taking up items after 10:30 or
extending the meeting beyond 11:00 or 11:30.
Chair Burt: At that time, our meeting was pretty late, and I suggested we continue that item. That's where we apparently left off, which was Cory suggesting that the Council vote on taking up items that begin after 10:30. Our existing Procedure, let's just refresh ourselves on that.
Ms. Stump: It's on Page 8 of your Procedures. It says that the Council makes every effort to end meetings before 11:00, also generally does not take up new matters after 10:30. Before 10:00, the Council will decide and announce whether it will begin consideration of any agenda items after 10:30.
Chair Burt: Cory, does that differ from what you were suggesting?
Council Member Wolbach: Give me just one moment please. I don't think that we've been following that current Procedure very closely. That's a good refresher. (crosstalk) Chair Burt: This is on taking up items. I think we actually have.
Council Member Wolbach: Okay. The idea of having the decision before 10:00, about whether we're going to take something up later, that gives good guidance if there's a situation where for some reason it's after 10:00 and we do make a decision that we want to press through with something. I don't want to feel constrained. If the current language allows for that flexibility, then I'm fine with retaining it as is.
Council Member DuBois: I agree it's pretty good the way it is in this regard.
Chair Burt: Okay. Marc.
Council Member Berman: I agree that it's good the way it is. Should we— whether just through advice to Staff or actually putting it in the Policies and Procedures—have some mechanism in there that says—this past Monday we didn't necessarily follow it. I think we took up an item after 10:30 without having a discussion about it before 10:00. Maybe the City Manager at 10:00
or the most opportune time stops the discussion to remind the Council it's
10:00 and it has another item or two more items. That might spur us to either be more concise or decide at that point that we're not going to take
up the following items.
9 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: I don't know whether that's something the Clerk might be able
to track as a reminder.
Beth Minor, City Clerk: (inaudible)
Chair Burt: Good. Should we then put language in here that says that the
Clerk will make efforts to remind the Council? I don't know if that starts
getting a little ...
Council Member Berman: That could work. Remind the Council of this Policy.
Chair Burt: Or to raise the need for Council to consider taking up an item. Molly, do you want to wade in?
Ms. Stump: My suggestion would be at that level, it's really more direction to the current Staff and a reminder. Your Procedures now don't include that level of instruction to support Staff.
Chair Burt: Good. The other thing that was in this recommendation from Vice Mayor Schmid was a hard ending time at 11:00 P.M. I can't remember whether we specifically addressed that in any way or what the consensus is of the Committee on that. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: The key question here on Council Member Schmid's recommendation is what qualifies for an extreme circumstance. He allows for the qualification that there can be exceptions under extreme circumstances.
Chair Burt: That's only key if we think that extreme circumstances are the only time that we would continue an item past 11:00. If we don't go past that threshold, we don't have to worry about extreme circumstances.
Council Member Wolbach: Good point. I'm not terribly excited about this idea.
Chair Burt: We guessed that. Maybe this is a good opportunity. I know a number of times you've pushed to have us barrel through. One of the overriding considerations in why we attempt to do this is not whether the Council can endure—although there is a question of whether we make the best Policy at that time—but whether we do the public's business when the public is awake. That is a transparency and public participation issue aside from the question of the quality and endurance of the Council.
10 May 21, 2015
Council Member Berman: I agree 100 percent. Maybe one thing we could
say is no new items will be taken up after 11:00 P.M. other than the Council
comments which is always the last item. If it's so substantive that we feel
like we need to take it up, we probably shouldn't be taking it up after 11:00
P.M. anyhow.
Chair Burt: The only exception that I've recalled to that and the only one
that seems to make sense is something that truly is urgent and, for
whatever reason, it was agendized toward the end of the meeting. That's
where maybe this extreme circumstances or ...
Council Member Berman: Extenuating.
Chair Burt: Yeah. Extenuating or urgencies. It's implicit in that if we're
going to start an item after 10:30, it has to have a vote. That doesn't give guidance that says we shouldn't be starting anything after 11:00 unless it's a real urgency. Maybe we want to add that? Tom.
Council Member DuBois: I don't. We're nine adults. I don't know if we need to be that specific. We can make the judgment call. I like the language that's in there, that we do the check at 10:00. Chair Burt: Okay. Anybody else? All right. E is when the Council time estimates call for it, limit Council times for questions. Then it says pre- Council written questions should cover most key issues. Council Member DuBois: There's a whole bunch of separate points about time management. I'm wondering if going through these in the order that they're here is the best way to do it.
Chair Burt: I'm not sure it is, but I haven't organized them in a different order. If you have suggestions, I'm open to it.
Council Member DuBois: Should we look through this and the next Page and pull out all the meeting time?
Chair Burt: I see. It does jump around there. Council Member Wolbach: They're organized by Council Member who submitted them, I think.
Chair Burt: No. (crosstalk) Meeting Management section.
Council Member DuBois: In this Meeting Management section, maybe pull out from each Council Member the issues that have to do with time.
11 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Yeah. There is some repetition. Like Council Member Kniss
says just the topic of time and topic management. That's not specific.
Council Member Wolbach: J iii, which is Tom's chess clock, certainly applies.
Two was mine, similar to that, also talking about having a clock or timer.
Chair Burt: How about this? We see a number of items that are—3 appears
to be time management also. 2e and f. We could open discussion on any of
the time management issues or we could proceed sequentially as they're before us, even though that may not be the most efficient way to do it. We
also have an obligation to take up whatever was referred to us, even if we don't need to have a whole bunch of discussion before determining whether we're going to accept it or not.
Council Member DuBois: I'd suggest we look at 2e and f, j iii and iv and ii, which are all the ones specifically about timing.
Council Member Wolbach: Those ones in particular refer specifically to constraining or encouraging Council comments to be brief. The others refer to Staff or Staff Reports. We could take those up maybe as a separate group.
Chair Burt: Let's go through 2e and then 2f, and we'll just jump over there. Limit Council time for questions. That's something that the Mayor has discretion with the consent of the Council to do and has been getting done as a request more than a binding limitation. One question is do we think that works and something we want to continue to allow. If so, then we want to have some language that would reflect that. I don't see anybody jumping in. Tom.
Council Member DuBois: Having done this for several months now, I'm starting to lean towards harder limits particularly around question periods, because we usually follow it with a more open-ended comment period. Sometimes we'll say we're going to do a three-minute question round, but the timing and enforcement of that round is inconsistent. When the public speaks, they get the green, yellow, red lights, but we don't get that. Even if we say we're going to do a three-minute question round and we had a three- minute countdown clock that we could see. I feel like that's the first step. If people ignore it, then maybe we have to come back and talk about something else. A lot of times we'll say it's a three-minute question round and several people will stick to three minutes, a couple of people won't. It's not really equitable.
12 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Let me add a couple of other considerations. One is that these
are questions. If a Council Member asks a question in 10 seconds and Staff
takes 2 minutes and 50 seconds to answer it, that's problematic. If a
Council Member uses the question for rhetorical questions that are really
their own advocacy of policy positions, that also is problematic. The third
thing is it's important that the public participation be adequate, but the
Council and the public are not equal participants in creating legislation.
Council Member DuBois: I was using three minutes as an example, not to
say we should only have three minutes. When the Mayor says, "Let's do a two-minute question round or a five-minute question round," it doesn't
usually happen that way. That was my point. Chair Burt: One of the problems is that we don't have visible to Council Members the amount of time. A countdown clock being visible would be useful. We've talked about this, and that doesn't require being in the Procedures. I wonder if that's something we might be able to get out here. It could even be below the table here and just reset, or maybe below Beth. I don't know if it'd have to be wired so the Vice Mayor would start it. It's really disruptive when the buzzer goes off and a Council Member is in the middle of a question. I find that offensive and disruptive to clear thinking. It would be helpful for us to have that visibility of how much time is going on. Between a guidance from the Mayor with the consent of the Council and an awareness, I think that goes quite a ways. Council Member DuBois: Your point about asking a question and getting a ten-minute answer, I don't know how we manage that. Maybe another approach is to do a round based on number of questions. Council Members could ask three questions each or something. I don't know. It's a tough issue. Like you said, if you ...
Chair Burt: It is. We also have items where a Council Member may have no familiarity or didn't do any homework on an item. Another Council Member may have familiarity and a set of questions that are valued by the rest of the Council. We do have times where we have gratuitous questions. We're not going to solve all those problems. Those are just some of the vagaries of how this is going to go on. The more rigid we are, the more we don't allow for flexibility that may be valuable. It's a balance. We also don't want to have no constraints. From my experience, what we've been doing this year in suggesting time limits on those has been helpful. If we aren't looking for it to be a perfect cure, then it's in the right direction. I would like to see a countdown clock. That would be additionally helpful. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: That actually is very similar to what Tom was suggesting in j iii and what I was calling for in 2. We'll probably have a lot
13 May 21, 2015
of consensus that that wouldn't be a bad idea. One question there is do we
want to put it somewhere where it's public or just for our reference, facing
us. I'm open to either of those. One other thing we might want to consider,
whether it's in written Procedures or just as practice, is if a Council Member
asks a question that has a necessarily long explanation from Staff that uses
up that Council Member's time and that Council Member has some other
questions, just to ask at the pleasure of the Mayor and the rest of the
Council if they can continue with their questions in that situation.
Chair Burt: It's a question of whether that's required, given that these are not binding as it is. In response to one of your questions, the clock should
be visible to the Council and not to the general public. Tom. Council Member DuBois: It's a good step. What I was proposing went a step beyond that, which was a budget of time for each Council Member for the evening that they would manage between questions. The idea is that I would set the chess clock, but you would have 40 minutes or 50 minutes. If you use zero minutes on Item 3, you'd have more time for Item 4. That was the idea, but in the concept it would be almost a tally of how much time each Council Member was speaking. I have a feeling we don't want to go that far, but it was beyond just a countdown per question. Chair Burt: I wouldn't support that. I don't know how others feel.
Council Member DuBois: Not to argue this point, but what we're trying to get to is a way to force Council Members to prioritize their comments, be more succinct, but also don't ask spurious questions. If we had something like everybody gets five questions or three questions, it'd really make you think about if you're asking the three most important questions. Again, a countdown clock is a good first step, but if we have other ideas to get more to forcing people to prioritize a little bit, it would be a good step.
Chair Burt: I'll give you an example of where I personally would run into this problem. There are areas where—in part because this Council has fewer people with land-use experience and some of these other areas—nobody would go until I would on those items. My preference would be to go later and allow colleagues to ask as many of the questions as I might want to ask. I might have ten questions that I know need to be asked, and I don't want to be the one who asks all of them. It creates that kind of dilemma. Where I felt pressured by colleagues to ask as many of the important questions as possible, and it wasn't my choice.
Council Member DuBois: It raises a different issue, but it's tied to this, which is instead of on each item seeing who wants to go first, should we have a rotation? You go first on an item, and then Cory goes first and then I
14 May 21, 2015
go first. It just rotates. That way it's not a waiting game for who's going to
ask questions last or who's going to ask questions first. There would be a
set order.
Chair Burt: If I might, Marc? There are tradeoffs to that. That works in this
regimenting mindset, but that's not the best way to make legislation and the
best way to conduct the arguments. Yeah, it parcels things, but it doesn't
necessarily result in the best discourse. Marc.
Council Member Berman: In an ideal world, some of these things might work. When you think about it logistically, how would it work? You'd end up
with arguments on Council about that second thing wasn't a question; it was a follow-up to the first question. I worry about what we're talking about creating, nobody would be able to manage it. Plus who would do it? The Mayor and the Vice Mayor normally serve that role, but they're also trying to follow the dialog and have their own thoughts in their head. The City Clerk's not going to be keeping track of that stuff, I don't think. You all seem pretty busy enough during the meetings as is. We just need to be cognizant of some of these logistical hurdles as well. This is something we talk about every year. Maybe this year we take some steps forward to see if maybe they are having a positive impact. If they're not, we can reevaluate next year.
Council Member DuBois: I like the idea. We have one idea that I haven't heard anybody disagree with. Can we come up with one or two others that we do as experiments?
Chair Burt: We've already done them. Let me give some context. As I said about ten minutes ago, the practice of the Mayor with the consent of the Council saying, "I'd like colleagues to try to limit their questions to X number of minutes," hasn't historically been common. It's been helpful this year. As a result, it's moderately improved the questioning period by colleagues. We seem to have consensus on the value of us having visibility for a chess clock or something. That's two right there. I would argue that those aren't very constraining, but they're constructive. If you start going in the other direction, there are clear tradeoffs to every one of the things that you're advocating. Just as we discussed in our last meeting, let's be cautious about overshooting in our corrections. We can always come back and calibrate it a little bit more. If you go from one swing of the pendulum to another, you probably haven't got it right, because these really are circumstances that have pros and cons to every one of these alternatives. Cory. Council Member Wolbach: Beyond what we've been doing with the practice of the Mayor saying we're going to use this round for questions and do a later round for comments and Motions and a clock that we can see—the idea
15 May 21, 2015
of having a clock that tracks overall speaking time—I would exclude the time
that it takes for Staff to respond. Through the course of the meeting, it
might be useful if it's not too much burden on Staff. I'd be open to that as
long as there's not the constriction accompanying it, just as constructive
information for Council Members to be aware.
Chair Burt: You said as long as it's not too much burden. Logistically how
are you going to do that in the middle of a meeting, track each Council
Member's time and then subtract the Staff response times?
Council Member DuBois: If there was a timer on the on/off at your mike,
then it would be up to each Council Member. Again, as an experiment to see. Chair Burt: You guys are trying too hard on this. Marc.
Council Member Berman: I'm with Pat. Just logistically speaking, I don't see how we accomplish that. I like the ideas, but a lot of people leave their mikes on probably for too long or they talk without having them on, if you're Greg Scharff. We've got two pretty good ideas; let's move forward on those and see if that helps our meeting management. Council Member DuBois: Before we move on, I'm not really advocating for any position. I was trying to throw out ideas to spur other ideas. It feels like very small steps, and I don't have a lot of confidence it's going to make a big improvement. I would just ask you guys if you have any other ideas, even if it's something we just try for a meeting or two in a way the public doesn't see. If we just want to try some things, I'd be up for that.
Chair Burt: We've already tried one with moderate success this year. Having the visibility of a clock is another one. Those are my two.
Council Member Berman: Pat, I don't know if you remember it. I think it was last year or the year before where we tried the Vice Mayor keeping track of the time that people were talking. It didn't work. The Vice Mayor just forgets and gets caught up in the meeting. Frankly we shouldn't be placing that burden on the Vice Mayor. I'm open to other ideas so long as they're logistically feasible and will have more benefits than tradeoffs.
Chair Burt: I'll add one other thing that in 3 1/2 years we'll have a smaller Council, and that probably will have some benefit in some of these regards. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm fine with moving forward with just having one change for now. A question is if, as Tom's suggesting, we try something
16 May 21, 2015
on an experimental basis, then we could do that without it being in the
Policies and Procedures, especially if it's not something that's constraining.
If we want to establish a timekeeping system that's connected to our on/off
switch on our microphones just for our information, I don't think that needs
to go into this document. We could probably try that if we wanted to. I
would actually be okay with that. That would be a simple logistical way to
do it.
Chair Burt: It's not simple electronically.
Council Member Wolbach: It would be logistically simple during the meeting
and would not require a lot of extra Staff or the Vice Mayor's attention, but it requires the electronic setup. Chair Burt: This is not a smart mike. Tom.
Council Member DuBois: We talked about questions. Vice Mayor Schmid also had an item on comments. We really haven't talked about comment time separately from question time.
Chair Burt: Let's see if we're done with the question time part. We have a consensus that this would not be in part of the Procedures, but we want to try to get a clock visible that could be ...
Council Member Berman: You might need two. Me on the edge over there, I can't see anything that's ...
Council Member Wolbach: Get one there and over there.
Chair Burt: Whatever. One or more countdown clocks would be visible to the Council.
Ms. Minor: I can look into different options that there are. If they're in two different locations, it might be difficult for Staff to stop and start them.
Chair Burt: No, they can be wired together. There's no problem there. They'd be showing the same thing. You wouldn't be running them with two different toggles; you'd have one toggle.
Ms. Minor: Right. We'd have to figure how we could do it so that all of it fits in here, to be able to have one there and one here and be able to do it. Chair Burt: That's easy. It's just cantered slightly from here for the person at the far end and vice versa. That's physically not much of an issue.
17 May 21, 2015
Council Member DuBois: Let's just get the scoreboard clocks from the Paly
gym before they tear it down, and then we'll have the air horn that goes off.
Chair Burt: That's your new one that you wanted to add? Spoken like a
basketball player. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: My guess is the answer is probably not easy. Is
there a way that's not too difficult that it could be displayed on our screens?
Chair Burt: Our time?
Mr. Alaee: We get the sense where you guys are going with the countdown clocks. Let us research the technology available and how we can integrate that into the existing system and not make it too complicated and have to go through the RFP process.
Chair Burt: That's right.
Council Member Wolbach: That takes care of my whole issue under 2.
Chair Burt: Tom, the next thing you were bringing up was the discussion.
Council Member DuBois: I don't think we've really limited that at all.
Chair Burt: One limitation. There are some things in the Procedures that place certain limits. One is we're limited to one round on each item that we're going to vote on. If somebody else speaks, then everybody else has a right to the second round. We've been having that not followed rigidly. Under existing Procedures, that's under the discretion of the Mayor. It's not the need for a new Procedure. Some of these things have always been a question of how the Chair exercises the existing rules as well.
Council Member DuBois: I don't have a specific proposal right now. I made a comment about trying to change the culture so that everyone doesn't feel like they have to speak on every issue. We've been talking about sticks; are there incentives we could consider? If somebody doesn't speak on an item, they get extra time on another item. I don't know. Council Member Berman: The incentive is we get to go home early. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Council Member DuBois: I was done. If you guys don't think there's anything to be done in addition, we can move on.
18 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: I'll just make one comment. This year we've had late meetings,
but in comparison to other years we are having more substantive agenda
items that we have actually been working through. My overall sense is that
we're having moderately good efficiency per substantive agenda item, but
we have more substantive agenda items this year. We are having long
meetings. I actually perceive some improvement in the efficiency of the
meetings despite their length, because (crosstalk).
Council Member DuBois: Yeah, I'd agree with that. We've taken on some
really big issues. Changing course takes a lot of time and discussion. If we were just on a roll and not making substantial changes, it would go a lot
quicker. Chair Burt: Any other discussion on limiting discussion time? No recommendation to do so, then? Okay. Let's see. Anything else under Meeting Management that we haven't covered through the discussion we just had? Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: There's a couple of things we might put under that category. Tom's suggestions, under j ii, public comment. Also Suggestion l about breaks. Chair Burt: Let's go to j ii.
Council Member DuBois: Could we go to j i first?
Chair Burt: Okay.
Council Member DuBois: If we look at the meeting from beginning to end, the idea is where could we save time. A lot of times we'll have an hour for an agenda item with no real assignment for how much each component of that hour is used. This wasn't necessarily that Staff was taking too much time. It was the idea that whatever time we have for an agenda item, allocate so much time for Staff, for questions and try to manage items so that we don't get behind schedule.
Chair Burt: Good comments. One of the things we're doing tonight is looking at changes to Policies and Procedures. We're going to want to separate where we're talking about good practices versus any specific recommended changes to Policies and Procedures.
Council Member DuBois: This point would be emphasizing that Council Members should have read the reports and that the time for presentation or overview should be kept to a certain percentage as a recommendation or guideline.
19 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Marc.
Council Member Berman: I'm intrigued by the idea of having a percentage of the allocated time be for Staff Reports. Staff Reports are always very
informative, but sometimes—one time recently that comes to mind—the Staff Report was twice as long as it needed to be for the item. Staff Reports hold a dual purpose. One is for the Council and one is for the public. I don't
expect the public to read the Staff Reports. I'd still want to encourage the presentations to be thorough, but I want to encourage them to be more concise.
Chair Burt: Let me add here this is akin to Council Members speaking. We don't want Council Members to speak and waste time. We don't want Staff Reports to waste time. We have times where we have Staff Reports that basically Staff says, "No. We don't need to make any written presentation." We have other times where there's a need to be more than this 15 percent.
Council Member DuBois: Again, that was a number. If we have an hour, is 45 minutes too long for the Staff Report? Probably.
Chair Burt: You're saying if we have an hour. What I was trying to say was I don't see a way to have a rule that covers all circumstances.
Council Member DuBois: Again, I was saying encourage or suggest, not a hard limit. Like we were talking about our own time, give a guideline.
Chair Burt: That's not the way this is written nor was it stated. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: It looks like the City Attorney has a comment here. I'd (crosstalk) as well.
Ms. Stump: Just an observation. I agree this really varies depending on the item. Sometimes no report is needed. Sometimes there is time that's needed. The amount of time that's needed may change between the time that the packet is published, ten days before, and when the meeting actually occurs. It can be influenced by questions that have come up in the community and questions that the Council has asked. Perhaps this is really a suggestion to the Chair. At the pre-Council, the City Manager gets a chance to talk with the Chair about what is the current situation. The Chair can jot down some guidelines, perhaps even share them with his or her
colleagues, about how they foresee managing that item that night, rather than trying to publish it or trying to make a rule about it.
Chair Burt: Marc.
20 May 21, 2015
Council Member Berman: That sounds like a good suggestion. I don't even
know if it's the City Council's role to make limits on Staff Report or if it's the
City Manager's role. I don't know that dynamic and how that would work. We can provide good guidance and suggestions tonight, but I don't know
how it would fit in our actual Policies and Procedures.
Chair Burt: Cory.
Council Member Berman: We're actually right now talking about both j i and also j vi, combined. I'm more interested in j vi than in j i because, as we've
discussed, it's hard to have a general rule when things vary so much. The City Attorney's comments are very interesting and a good reminder that things can change between the time of publication of an agenda and the night of the meeting, as far as how substantive the Staff presentation might have to be. I do like the idea of having something, even if it's just as an estimate. I don't know if there's a way to do that that's either part of the agenda or supplemental to the agenda, so that it's not bound by the rules of the agenda publication. I'm trying to think if there is a way to do that as a guideline that could be updated on the day of the meeting and available in the back of the room. I'm open to ideas about that. Chair Burt: One potential is along the lines of what the City Attorney alluded to, which is there can be a reference to the pre-Council meeting. They go over the agenda and a sub-issue within that can be anticipated allocation of time for the Staff Report. That might make it a more deliberate process, so it doesn't just happen. I can't see how something more restrictive than that works in the range of circumstances that we actually have. For you guys who are new to the Council, it's all nice in theory to say, "We'll do it this number of minutes across the board." It doesn't reflect the reality of the range of issues and the complexity, from things that are perfunctory to things that are very complex, things that require much more Staff input and things that require much less. This effort at rulemaking just doesn't reflect the reality of how meetings not just do function but how they need to function. There has to be latitude. Hopefully we'll have good meeting leadership. I'm perfectly fine with putting some suggestions and guidelines that will help that, but it's naïve to be too prescriptive and try to find a prescriptive solution in most of these circumstances. There may be some where we can, and we've done a few things.
Council DuBois: I don't see anything in the guidelines about the pre- meeting. Can we suggest that for large agenda items ...
Chair Burt: You don't see anything about the pre-meeting or ...
21 May 21, 2015
Council Member DuBois: In the guidelines (crosstalk).
Chair Burt: We have it; we do. We may want to expand upon it.
Council Member DuBois: What section is that?
Ms. Stump: It's towards the end.
Chair Burt: Of Procedures, right?
Ms. Stump: It's on Page ...
Council Member Berman: (inaudible)
Ms. Stump: Yes, Page 36. Thank you.
Chair Burt: 3.7, this is where we could provide some additional suggestions. I wouldn't support things that are prescriptive, but it's useful to include, for instance, that they will review the approximate time for Staff Reports versus other portions of an item.
Mr. Shikada: If I could add also, Chair and Members of the Committee? Based on my experience, I would also share that this varies greatly by the, quite frankly, the temperament and the interaction and the tenor of interaction between Staff and the Council. In some cases there can be times at which the Chair can make it very clear to the City Manager that presentations have been going long. That word is very easy for the City Manager to pass along to Staff, tighten them up. That can reflect the comfort level that the Council has at any given moment in time. Again, that varies greatly based on what's happening in the community overall and the Council's impression of the matter on which the Staff is presenting the
information. Chair Burt: I'd add that there may be a time where we say, "In the next
month, we've got this really full agenda that we've got to get done. At a
different time, we might have a different amount of time we'd allocate for an
agenda item, but we're going to truncate it." That becomes a guiding
principle for a month or two. That's part of the dynamics of the
circumstance. I don't think you can try to prescribe this as a set rule. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: I very much agree. What I'm interested in are
those things that provide better information for all Members of the Council
and potentially for the public going to the meeting to have an expectation,
even if it's only an estimate. If we're going to suggest any changes to 3.7—
I'm open to whether we do or don't—it might be to expand Item 1 within
22 May 21, 2015
that to mention something about estimated length of time for Staff
presentations.
Council Member DuBois: I would make it more general, more of Number vi.
Instead of just saying Staff time ...
Chair Burt: You said Number vi?
Council Member Wolbach: He's referring to his vi.
Council Member DuBois: I'm sorry, we're jumping between different lists.
Discuss interim times for large meetings including things like Staff time, questions, comments, Motions. I didn't want to just focus on Staff time. It was really the idea of the whole thing.
Chair Burt: I would say that for large, complex items, that might be useful. Trying to do that on every agenda item gets ...
Council Member DuBois: (inaudible) large items.
Chair Burt: Yeah. How do we feel about a combination of what Cory and Tom alluded to, which is under 3.7, Number 1, including review of approximate time for Staff Reports and for large, complex items approximate time allocations for different aspects of the agenda item. I wouldn't say that those get published. This is between the Mayor and the City Manager. Is that good enough guidance?
Mr. Shikada: Yes.
Council Member Wolbach: Just a question there. Would they then provide that, as had been discussed earlier, to other Council Members? So we all have a sense of what to expect walking into the meeting. I'm open to arguments either way. I'm trying to move back to that question that had been raised earlier.
Chair Burt: Marc. Council Member Berman: The length of presentation time, no. We don't need to know that. I don't need to know that. This year the Mayor has been doing a good job of letting us know at the beginning of items that we're going to have three-minute rounds for questions and that kind of thing. It can be done at that point. I don't know that I need an at-places memo giving me a heads up on it.
23 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: It's really a question of how far we want to go in terms of
putting these good practices into our Procedures and Protocols. For
instance, what Marc just described is a good practice for the Mayor, under
her discretion, to say, "This is a significant item and here's how we have this
set up," versus us saying, "Thou shalt do so."
Council Member DuBois: I'm in agreement with that. I'm looking at Cory's
n iii which is related to this. Specifically, you're getting to things like
presentations that aren't available until the night of the meeting.
Chair Burt: Can you clarify what you're saying here? What you're
recommending? Council Member DuBois: Avoiding reading aloud at meetings. That gets to part of the time of a Staff presentation if they're just reading something out loud. Then making sure that presentations are available digitally, ideally in advance of the meeting. For people following at home, it can be difficult. There are often items that weren't in the packet. I don't know if you want to speak to what you meant.
Chair Burt: Go ahead, Cory. Council Member Wolbach: When I was providing these, these weren't necessarily things that I thought needed to go into Policies and Procedures. Some of these were definitely just recommendations for best practices for Staff and Council to consider. That's how I felt about that item.
Chair Burt: It's important to bear in mind that there may be practices that are Staff practices that fall outside of the Council Policies and Procedures.
Mr. Shikada: If I might do a postscript on that as well. At the risk of speaking out of turn, I believe the City Manager would welcome that type of feedback informally at any time. It's often that those can be conveyed on a one-on-one basis and, presuming no conflict typically among the feedback that's coming from Council, then once again the City Manager can immediately act on that with Staff. As a means of maintaining some alignment in feedback on how the presentations are being received and any issues whether they be concerns or perhaps guidance in providing that back to Staff making the presentations.
Chair Burt: Great. Have we covered all the time management stuff? Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: Also within that is the question of whether or not to take breaks, whether or not to prescribe breaks. Kniss mentioned it in Item l.
24 May 21, 2015
Council Member Berman: I find that to be a case-by-case basis. I don't
know how we'd write that into our Policies and Procedures. That's just my
thought.
Chair Burt: Tom.
Council Member DuBois: Just thinking on the fly. If we did know a break
was coming up, we might have less people leaving during actual meeting
time. That would be the only thing.
Chair Burt: Let me ask this question. Do we think it is appropriate over the course of a Council meeting to routinely have at least one break? Council Member Wolbach: Yes, I do think that is appropriate. Whether it's in Policies and Procedures or not, I would encourage a five-minute break every two hours.
Chair Burt: We get tempted when we're feeling the pressure of a meeting to cut it out, skip the break. If we as a Committee want to recommend that as part of these changes, there be at least one five-minute break per Council meeting.
Council Member DuBois: I'm not trying to be overly prescriptive, but there'd be value to knowing it was a particular time. Chair Burt: It would be valuable, but I don't know how you would know that unless you are willing to break up items.
Council Member DuBois: If it became a tradition that there was a 9:00 break for five minutes, people would not get up and walk out during a discussion.
Chair Burt: The tradeoff is if we always have a 9:00 break at that time, then we'd have to be willing to break in the middle of an important item, to split it for that purpose. Council Member DuBois: I'm just throwing out there that I see the value of the break in not having people get up. When a break's a surprise, then I'm not sure we're going to get as much benefit from it.
Chair Burt: It doesn't have to be one of those two extremes. The Mayor can say, "Let's plan for a break at the end of this item." That may not be a precise time, but it gives us an estimate.
25 May 21, 2015
Council Member DuBois: Maybe the suggestion would be to put it on the
agenda between items.
Chair Burt: Except we don't necessarily know how long an item is going to
go. Those are only estimates, and they often are far off. This goes back to
in a perfect world we could be all prescriptive. That's just not the legislative
environment. That's not where we actually do function. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: I agree with the point about if it's on the agenda,
that makes it tough. Items can run long. Having something written in our general Procedures or Policies about recommending a break every two hours
would not be a bad thing to include with flexibility given to the Council and Mayor as the meeting progresses. On the question of whether we want to have a break in the middle of an item, that's something where it depends on the circumstances. I want to leave it up to us or the Mayor to decide at that time. I can actually see potentially an advantage to having a break sometimes. If you have a long and very contentious and complex item, sometimes stretching your legs, clearing your head for a minute can actually help you focus when we come back. (crosstalk)
Chair Burt: I'm not saying you would never have one in an item. I'm saying that what you don't want to do is have a rigidly prescribed time, so that you're in the middle of an important discussion and the buzzer goes off and we have to take a break. Council Member Wolbach: I completely agree.
Chair Burt: Let me just try to move this forward by seeing whether there's support for simply an addition to the Procedures that each Council meeting will have a minimum of one five-minute break. That doesn't limit it that we can't have more breaks or longer breaks or any of those things. It just puts a minimum threshold and a reminder in there.
Council Member Wolbach: Do we have anything right now?
Chair Burt: No, we don't have anything right now.
Council Member Berman: I'm fine with that. This is up to the Chair of the meeting, but maybe you put the timer on for five minutes. I don't think I've ever seen us take a five-minute break. We always take five-minute breaks, but they never go just five minutes. That's something to keep in mind. I've seen us have breaks run to 15 minutes. That's excessive.
Chair Burt: Having the buzzer on the break is a good practice. I don't think we have to put it in Protocols, but it's a good practice.
26 May 21, 2015
Council Member Wolbach: Sounds good to me.
Chair Burt: You're okay with saying we're going to have one break per meeting. We can even say one break per meeting; we don't have to say
how long. All right. Let's see. Are there any other things under Meeting Management or we've covered that well enough? It's listed under Meeting Management, but one of the substantive things is Committee as a Whole.
We don't have that in our Procedures and Protocols. That's one thing we'll want to discuss. Shall we take that up at this time?
Council Member Wolbach: One item that I'd suggested is less about management within the meeting, but how we schedule and plan meetings. That's what I have under n i. I'm okay with taking it up now or later.
Chair Burt: Let's see if we can dispose of that one quickly.
Council Member Berman: That has some support.
Chair Burt: I see what's there. I thought we had a prior discussion of this maybe at the Committee as a Whole. I don't see how doing this has any relation to reality. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: As I mentioned, we talked about this briefly at the Retreat several months ago. My expectation is that this wouldn't necessarily result in fewer meetings, in that we would almost always end up with the second or fourth meetings. Even if this was just a guideline where we have to break it occasionally based on the number of things on the monthly or the annual agenda for the Council. My major reason for suggesting this was to provide clarity and expectations for members of the public, especially about when a continued item would be picked up. Let's spend the first half of the month on this chunk of issues and get through them hopefully in the first meeting. Anything we don't finish we can be put on the second. In the second half of the month, take up another set of issues. In that way when items are continued, they're brought up the following week rather than at some point often undetermined in the future. There might be other ways to achieve the same goal that's less prescriptive.
Chair Burt: It's founded on a premise that we might have second Mondays
that we don't need meetings for. That's just not there. What we actually
have in our procedures is our regular meetings are only the first three
Mondays of the month. It seems like that doesn't exist because we
invariable need four. This states it as if we only have a need for two. That's
why I'm going, "This is a nonstarter." You said we might occasionally break
27 May 21, 2015
this. That's not what we'd be doing; we'd be always breaking our rule. I
don't believe in rules that are always going to be broken. What's the point?
Council Member Wolbach: Certainly I will acknowledge that the reality, at
least over the last several months, has been that we've ...
Chair Burt: It's not the last several months. It's the last several decades,
Cory. You've been on the Council the last several months. I don't want to
get in a long debate on something that's a nonstarter to me.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm not trying to debate it. We have an
obligation to take up the issues, and I figured I'd explain where I was coming from. My goal was to find ways that items that get continued don't get continued indefinitely with a lot of confusion for the public. That's my number one objective with this. If there are other ways that we could achieve that goal, I'm completely open to those ideas.
Chair Burt: We can ask Staff and colleagues, if that's the stated objective, how that might be done. Marc.
Council Member Berman: In an ideal world, at some point hopefully in the not too distant future, we get back to having meetings only the first three Mondays of the month. That fourth Monday can be used for that purpose. Pat's right that there's just a boatload going on right now. I haven't been Mayor or Vice Mayor—I've sat in on a couple of pre-Council sessions—so I haven't totally seen behind the scenes. I know it's a juggling act trying to keep all the trains moving on time. I don't think we can set up a system that's that clear cut as to guaranteeing when things will be rescheduled if they're pulled or that kind of thing.
Council Member DuBois: The Mayor's been trying to do that to a degree, by having some extra meetings or more Study Sessions or moving non-Action Items to other times, which is getting to what you're thinking about, freeing up the actual meeting to try to get through items. I don't think we've continued that many items. We've had discussion sessions that have continued. Chair Burt: When we have continued items and when it has a need to continue promptly, that's what we've done. The City Manager and the Mayor look at what flexibility there is or prioritization there needs to be in the subsequent meeting's agenda. A typical discussion is which of these things are not time sensitive on next week's agenda. They move it about. That's how you go about doing business that recognizes the circumstances of each situation and goes about that thoughtfully. Ed, did you have something?
28 May 21, 2015
Mr. Shikada: I appreciate the discussion. I'm not sure this will necessarily
help. I would call to the Committee's attention one similar discussion that
happened in the Finance Committee over the last couple of weeks, which was to suggest moving portions of the meeting during the business day. As
a result, there were some juggling of meetings, and they started earlier on a few of the meetings related to the Budget. Once again, I'm not exactly sure how that would work. Talking about the trains being scheduled, how Staff
might organize agenda items if it were of interest to the Council to potentially have some items that were conducive to conducting during the business day to happen at that point in time. Just something for your consideration. Chair Burt: Ed, I'll just add as a Council that is not by definition full-time positions, the times historically when that's been done is when on a Committee we had the four Committee Members who either had enough discretion in their work or didn't have a conflict. It was by that consent. As the Council as a whole, it'd be a problem. The other factor that goes into that is the public availability for that is less. If it's something that there's a significant public input, then we're less inclined to make that adjustment, even though there are some practical advantages to doing so. I haven't seen a real problem in how we're dealing with unfinished items. It's not very common. When it does occur, we have a deliberate process by which we either schedule it for the next meeting or, for reasons that are pretty transparent and rational, schedule it for a different meeting. I'm trying to figure out the problem we're trying to solve.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm fine with moving on. I was fine ten minutes ago.
Chair Burt: Tom.
Council Member DuBois: The next section here where things have been referred to the Council as a whole ...
Chair Burt: Where are you referring to?
Council Member Berman: 2h.
Council Member Wolbach: I don't think we're done with this list yet.
Council Member DuBois: Aren't we? I'm sorry.
Council Member Wolbach: There's the public comment stuff under j ii and m also.
29 May 21, 2015
Council Member DuBois: Which section are you?
Council Member Wolbach: Still looking at the (crosstalk).
Council Member Berman: 2j ii.
Council Member Wolbach: Yeah, 2j ii and 2jm—sorry, 2m—are also kind of meeting management. They're both about public comment.
Chair Burt: Let's break those up. They're both about public comment.
Council Member DuBois: I think we already spoke about mine. Previously in the Minutes, it was a suggestion to the Mayor if she wanted to try that basically.
Chair Burt: This issue of whether to take public comment at a time other than the beginning of a meeting. There are some elected bodies that do that. Palo Alto's spirit has been one where—this is reflected elsewhere in our Procedures and Policies—it's to make the greatest opportunity for public participation. Moving it to the end would meet legal requirements and be less open to the public for their participation. It goes back to the inefficiency of democracy. The more we're an open democracy and the greater the public process, the more conflict there is with efficiency. We have to decide what our values are. Council Member Berman: I agree.
Council Member DuBois: Yep.
Chair Burt: Does that cover it? Can we go to committee of the whole? Council Member DuBois: I was going to suggest we look at these items that didn't make the list next, because they seem to be more for us than the
Committee as a Whole. Chair Burt: You're talking about the backside of the at-places item?
Council Member DuBois: Yeah.
Council Member Wolbach: Just to clarify, what Chair Burt was suggesting is
before getting to the items on Page 3 that are assigned to the Committee as
a Whole, there are a couple of things relating to Policies and Procedures on
Page 2, Item h and Item i, that refer to Committee as a Whole.
30 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Yeah. We haven't historically used Committee as a Whole. This
is something that the City Manager had raised as a way for us to be able to
address things where we want the less formal setting and conduct of a
meeting that we have as a Study Session, but be able to take action. We've
used it essentially in our second Retreat, but it's not in our Procedures and
Protocols. We don't have such a critter that's identified there. The first
question is do we think this is something we want to adopt as a form of a
meeting. Then we can go into the particulars about it. What do we think
about having a third category of meetings other than regular scheduled
meetings and Study Sessions? Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: As you've stated, one of the primary objectives of it would be to have a more informal discussion, where you have more back and forth for the Council as a whole. That's a question of whether we like having (crosstalk).
Chair Burt: Right. That's the question. What's your opinion?
Council Member Wolbach: I'll be honest with you. Going back to our earlier discussion about the sequence of people speaking in regular Council meetings, there have been times in a regular Council meeting when for myself and noticing it for others, I would have liked a little bit more informality and a chance to go back around. Have a couple of rounds of questions. By the time I've heard other Council Members ask their questions, I realized there was something important I'd never thought of before that came to mind. Whether it's in a separate meeting or allowing for a little bit more informality in the regular Council meetings, I would like that.
Chair Burt: It's a separate subject.
Council Member Wolbach: If the regular Council meetings were able to achieve that, then I don't think it's necessary. That's why (crosstalk).
Chair Burt: Let me just say then if it's done in regular Council meetings, we have to revisit the whole conversation we had earlier about restricting time and all of that. This is part of the tradeoff problem. I agree with you. This is part of why I was arguing for flexibility in how regular Council meetings are conducted. We're a deliberative process which hopefully means we're listening to the public and listening to each other. Over the course of a meeting, it may either prompt thoughts or change our minds. That's a good thing. Let's focus for the moment on the concept of the committee of the whole. Let me put it out there so we can move forward. It's a good idea, and we should at least allow for that as a form of meeting that allows the City Manager and the Mayor to use that form where it seems to be the most
effective way for the Council to proceed on business.
31 May 21, 2015
Council Member Berman: I agree. My concern about all this isn't with the
form of the meeting. It's a good form of meeting; it can be helpful with
certain topics. I can't decide whether or not it falls under this topic of discussion or not, the frequency of them and the frequency of the non-first
third Monday of the month meetings. I'm happy to just throw that out as a general concern. If it comes up later, I'll not bring it up. I don't know if we meant to talk about the frequency of these as well as the benefits of the
form of the meeting. I want to make sure that we don't use this as a fifth and sixth and seventh Council meeting of the month.
Chair Burt: Tom. Council Member DuBois: We had a meeting of the whole, and we're saying it was not defined essentially.
Council Member Berman: Yeah, which is odd.
Council Member DuBois: I'm looking at the rules on Committees, and the ad hoc committee specifically says it's less than a quorum of members. Was it really just a special Council meeting that we had? Chair Burt: It was, yes.
Ms. Stump: Legally, yes, it's a Council meeting. Council Member DuBois: Where it makes sense is for topics where an ad hoc committee may not work because so many Council Members want to participate. The Comp Plan may be a good example where we may not want to appoint a committee of four of us. If a Comp Plan issue came up, we may want to have a committee of the whole meeting. That flexibility is good. The question is how much do we need to define. If we do define it—I'll echo Marc—that we should have a little bit of an indication of how often it should be used or when it should be used.
Chair Burt: I would agree. I'm trying to think about how we would give guidance to not overuse it. Just like a Study Session, it can be on the same evening as a regular Council meeting. We've had a lot of times where we have Study Sessions. We call it a Study Session, because we wanted to be able to dig deeper and have the informality of probing into a topic, but we can't take action. If we could foresee that that may happen, that we may want to take action after a Study Session, then we schedule in succession an agenda item on the topic that was in the Study Session. It gets broken up. If you take what we did at the one Committee as a Whole meeting, we were able to go through and as the meeting progressed say, "Is this a specific
32 May 21, 2015
proposal? Let's have a motion and vote on it." It was a series of Motions
within a broad agenda item. In fact, it was how we got referred a bunch of
these. It worked well. I can tell you over the years there's a lot of times
where we got done with a Study Session and it got referred to—let me give
you an example. We had a joint meeting with the UAC, and we gave five
directions that we wanted to see the UAC pursue this coming year. It was a
Study Session, so we didn't take any votes on them. If you look at the
meeting and review it, there was strong consensus on the Council on all the
items. There was almost no dissent. It went back and the UAC thought
they had guidance from the Council to proceed. Staff said, "No, there was no vote taken. There's no such guidance." It might be a little more
awkward when we have a joint meeting, but it does give an example of how we have Study Session-like meetings where we want to be able to take actions.
Council Member DuBois: There's a lot of good language in the language around ad hoc committees that we could use.
Chair Burt: Give us the Page and stuff.
Council Member DuBois: Make sure I have the right packet. I'm looking at (crosstalk). It's Page 26 of the Protocols and Procedures. It's a limited basis where necessary to study City business in greater depth than possible in time allocated for a Council meeting. The Mayor would decide when there is a committee of the whole. The difference here is that it's all members instead of less than a quorum. If we just directed Staff to model it on this, change it where it needs to be change. That would accomplish it.
Chair Burt: Does that sound good?
Council Member Berman: Sure.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Pardon me?
Council Member Wolbach: Sounds okay to me. Obviously the Brown Act would apply, so that would be one of those things that Staff would remove, that language. Chair Burt: Molly, does that sound good? Okay, great. Before we go to the at-places memo, do we have any other things that we haven't gotten
through on these referrals? We're going to have the whole discussion on
what goes into the Committee as a Whole. We have a whole Page of that,
Page 7 of the packet and Page 3 of the referral items.
33 May 21, 2015
Council Member Wolbach: I've been trying to check these off as we've been
going through them. I don't know if we've addressed Schmid's Item 2g,
give Council periodic agenda item to make comments on Council agenda
priorities. That's on Page 5 of the packet.
Chair Burt: We do receive from the Clerk the upcoming agenda and then
those things that are a list of future agenda items that no meeting date has
been set for. Correct?
Ms. Minor: That's correct. There's also another one that I'm sending out that now lists the Action Items and Study Sessions.
Chair Burt: I don't see what prevents Council Members from doing exactly what Vice Mayor Schmid is asking for.
Council Member Wolbach: Yeah. I'm just trying to put myself in his shoes, which is very difficult. I wonder if maybe he's referring to our annual Priorities, a periodic chance to have a Study Session or a committee of the whole or some agendized item to discuss how we're making progress towards those annual Priorities. I wonder if that's what he means.
Chair Burt: Which letter again are you referring to right now?
Council Member Wolbach: G. I could be wrong. I'm just trying to read it. It's give Council periodic agenda items to make comments on Council agenda priorities. I'm trying to think why would we want to have a periodic discussion of our Priorities, except maybe just to see how we're making progress on it. I don't know if that's ...
Chair Burt: I'm trying to think through that.
Council Member Wolbach: I could be mistaken or reading into it.
Council Member DuBois: The question is if we individually mail in questions or comments from the upcoming agendas the Clerk sends out, is that the same thing as having a periodic discussion of are we spending our time on the right things. I think that's what he's trying to get to. Council Member Wolbach: Like a midyear review. Maybe after the break, check in and say, "How are we doing on our Priorities that we set during the Retreat." I'm not sold on it, but that's what (crosstalk). Chair Burt: It's a separate question whether that might be a good practice. Is that something that a Council Member raises at Council Comments and
says, "I'd like to ask this to be agendized." Do we put it into our regular
34 May 21, 2015
Procedures and Protocols? Holy smokes. (inaudible) one-by-one. What are
the thoughts? I'm not yet convinced that it should be in Procedures and
Protocols.
Council Member Wolbach: That's where I am.
Chair Burt: Not a bad idea, but leave it out of Procedures. Do we want to
go into the Committee as a Whole in greater depth?
Council Member Wolbach: Maybe Tom is right that we should address these first, because they ...
Chair Burt: Okay. I can do it either way. The suggestion has been made that we go to the at-places memo. Most of these are not Council Policies and Procedures. These are not changes. We're going to go off topic here if we do that. I'm okay. This is informal enough, but these are things that are specifically not in the Procedures and Protocols.
Mr. Alaee: Chair Burt, that is correct. That's why they weren't in the original Staff Report. In conferring with the City Manager before we brought the item on the 8th, he said that we better bring them because they were brought up at the Retreat.
Chair Burt: Let's put those off until the end, because they're out of sequence. Council Member DuBois: Where is something like the revolving door policy captured?
Chair Burt: Wait. We're going to talk about that later.
Council Member DuBois: Where is it, if it's not in here?
Ms. Stump: It's in the Municipal Code.
Chair Burt: We'll talk about where it is when we bring up that item. Committee as a Whole. Here are some of the sub-subjects. We've already
asked Staff to frame it around the way we do ad hoc committees and things, but let's see whether there is anything else here that we would add to that
direction as a result of considering what's before us. 1a sounds specific to a
one-time event and outside of what we're discussing here. We've already
addressed in the Committee as a Whole 1b. That does need to come back to
the Council. I guess it would come back when we have these changes to
Procedures.
35 May 21, 2015
Mr. Alaee: Correct. Presumably we'll get through everything tonight. If we
don't, then we'll have another meeting. We'll bring all the changes back in
the Manual to you, and then we can review it again.
Chair Burt: In the interests of proceeding, interrupt me if you disagree. I'll
say 1a is not applicable to Procedures. 1b was already covered by the
Council as a whole. We do have the discussion of Core Values, but that
should be over on this other sheet. It's not part of the Policies and
Procedures.
Council Member Berman: Are they trying to ask here what types of things
should be sent to a committee of the whole? Mr. Alaee: Yes. Just to frame this for the Council again. At the Retreat, these items were already referred to the committee as the whole.
Council Member Berman: We already did that.
Mr. Alaee: (crosstalk) Committee as a Whole. We've just identified them here for you in case you wanted to have a more substantive conversation.
Chair Burt: This is not about the nature of the committee as the whole. This is about potential agendas of the Committee as a Whole.
Mr. Alaee: Topics that will be discussed. Council Member DuBois: At the committee of the whole meeting, we said that we may discuss these at Policy and Services but they'll (crosstalk).
Chair Burt: Sorry. That's different from what I understood. My apology.
Mr. Alaee: Correct. This is just in case you want to add any more substance or give us more direction to do homework before we bring them back.
Chair Burt: As we go through this meeting, this like the things at-places is outside of our Policies and Procedures. At the beginning of the meeting, if you recall, I said, "There are some other things in our Policies and Procedures that were not identified by colleagues going into the start of the year." We have our annual review of Policies and Procedures. I had some notes and other colleagues may have notes about issues that need to be cleaned up in Policies and Procedures. At this time, I'd like to go into any other recommended changes to Policies and Procedures. If possible, do it sequentially as we have them in the existing Policies and Procedures. I have some notes, but others can proceed first if they have any.
36 May 21, 2015
Council Member DuBois: Can we just go through the Pages and then you
speak up (inaudible)?
Chair Burt: I'm trying to remember at the last meeting whether we did
proceed that way sequentially or no.
Council Member Berman: I don't think we'd gotten to that point, because ...
Chair Burt: If we can do it expeditiously and only pause where we actually
have recommendations. Page 1, 2 or 3, anything?
Council Member Wolbach: I don't have any. Chair Burt: I have something small on Page 5. Maybe I mentioned this last time. It's this directive that says meetings will begin at 7:00 P.M. I'd say more language of "are to begin" or "are scheduled to begin."
Council Member Berman: Frankly they all begin at 6:00 now anyhow.
Chair Burt: That's a good point. We should say that the regularly scheduled meeting time is 7:00 P.M. Is that a more accurate way to put it? Council Member DuBois: Should we talk about changing the regular time to 6:00? Ms. Stump: That was done last year. The Municipal Code now reflects that the Council meeting starts at 6:00. This just needs to be trued up.
Chair Burt: It does say that it does start at 6:00 or it may start at 6:00?
Ms. Stump: No. It provides for a regular start time at 6:00. When the Clerk notices a meeting for 6:00, it's a Regular Meeting. When she notices it for 5:30 or 5:00, it's a Special Meeting. It's an Ordinance that Council passed.
Chair Burt: What if we don't start it at 6:00? What if we start at 7:00?
Ms. Stump: That would be a Special Meeting also.
Chair Burt: That's a Special Meeting at 7:00.
Ms. Stump: The Council passed an Ordinance last year. For more than a year, every meeting was a Special Meeting starting at 6:00, so the Council passed an Ordinance providing the regular start time would be 6:00.
37 May 21, 2015
Council Member Wolbach: You said this just needs to get cleaned up to
reflect that.
Ms. Stump: The Municipal Code trumps the Procedures, but Procedures
should be aligned.
Chair Burt: We'd need to just reflect that, say the regularly scheduled
meeting time is 6:00 P.M.
Mr. Alaee: Just to add onto that. When the Municipal Code was updated, the Clerk did update the Procedures with some minor edits. We haven't
brought that forward pending this conversation. If you look in the next paragraph, it's been changed to the sentence that begins with it is City Policy to make every effort to complete and distribute an agenda and related reports by the proceeding Wednesday. It's now been converted to Thursday, 11 days prior to the meeting. That's been updated as well.
Chair Burt: It might be useful to not only say that the regularly scheduled meeting start time is 6:00 P.M. Other start times will be listed as Special Meetings. Maybe it's clear enough elsewhere, but this might be the appropriate location, so that in one place it says what Molly just described. Council Member Wolbach: Would that go under a or would it go under b, which is Special Meetings. Just to say any meeting starting at a different time. Chair Burt: Either way.
Ms. Stump: You certainly could say that. That is what State law requires, but you could repeat that here if you'd like.
Council Member Wolbach: That clarity might be useful.
Chair Burt: Just a note under c which is our Study Sessions. It says it's intended to encourage in-depth discussion. What we do have sometimes is direction and moderately frequently because they're typically one hour, you'll have one round of questions. My point is that seems to be in conflict with the stated intention of Study Sessions. We lose that ability to have discourse and follow-up questions. It doesn't mean that we have to change this. It's one of those where we need to reflect on abiding by it. It says it's in an informal setting. Some are on the dais, and the setting is not any less formal. That probably needs to be changed to something that says it's conducted informally or less formally. Does it ...
38 May 21, 2015
Council Member Berman: Unless us being crammed together is informal.
That's right.
Chair Burt: I like the idea of having them in other settings.
Council Member Berman: We just don't always do that.
Chair Burt: Those are my comments on that. A new e would be where we'd
put in Committee as a Whole. On 2.4A, it says attendance required. Maybe
that's okay. I don't know what the consequence is of not doing what's required.
Council Member Berman: Levy fines. This is so vague it's fine. Chair Burt: Maybe it's fine the way it is. We've already got through the telephonic discussions at our prior meeting. That, I think, takes us all the way over to ...
Council Member Wolbach: Can I just ask a quick question?
Chair Burt: Yeah, sorry.
Council Member Wolbach: You mentioned under 2.3E add a section on Committee as a Whole. When we were talking about committees of the whole earlier, we were looking at maybe adding it on Page 27. Do we want to do that in both places?
Chair Burt: Potentially yeah.
Council Member Wolbach: That's fine. I just wanted to clarify.
Chair Burt: This is a much larger project, which is part of what I brought up at the outset of the meeting. We still haven't defined what a Policy is versus a Procedure or a Protocol. That is something we should yet take up. What we have is a hodgepodge of things. As I stated at the beginning of the prior meeting, I have always interpreted the first section as the Procedures as being more directive, and the second section of the Protocols as being more guidelines. Even the directive one is not legally binding in any way. We have no introduction that even attempts to describe the difference between a Procedure and Protocol, even if those descriptions are not legally binding in some way. That's one question. Do we mean for the Procedures to be more prescriptive? If so, do we want to have Staff come back with suggested language that we can weigh at our wrap-up meeting on this? Tom. Council Member DuBois: Were you going to say anything?
39 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Marc.
Council Member Berman: No.
Council Member DuBois: I think we had this discussion last time. I was happy with our City Attorney's description. Just looking at the Minutes, the terms themselves aren't legally binding. There was an intention in the document, but it doesn't bother me the way it is.
Chair Burt: Why do we have two things then? Why do we have Procedures and separately Protocols, if they aren't different? Council Member DuBois: We use the terms interchangeably. I know there's the two sections.
Chair Burt: They really are different. Without the distinction we start using them interchangeably, and that wasn't the original intent. There are differences. If there is no difference and we're using them interchangeably, they should be one, not two. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: I don't know if you want to take up the task of trying to define them this evening or not. Perhaps each of these, the section on Procedures and the section on Protocols, could begin with a short preamble or something explaining in this section we will explain either the City's Procedures or the City's Protocols for the purpose of X, Y, Z. I don't know if we want to get into the definitions tonight or at a future meeting.
Chair Burt: What I was suggesting is that Staff come back; we give them a framework for them to come back with language that we can review at the wrap-up meeting. The framework that I would suggest is that Procedures are more directive, and Protocols are more guidelines. Not that simple of a description. They'll probably have several sentences, but along those lines. If you look at the content, it aligns roughly with that kind of .... The other thing is that I have a recollection from a decade or more ago, maybe 15 years ago, listening in to Council discussions around their updates. They were along the lines of what I'm describing. Because it was never codified, we've lost sight of it, and we start saying they're interchangeable. That wasn't why there were two different sets of guidelines. They weren't interchangeable historically. We don't have to make the decision tonight, other than perhaps to ask Staff to come back with prospective language, and
then we can decide whether we do want to go forward with such a recommendation or not. In the interests of moving it forward, I'd
recommend that we ask Staff to at least give us some draft language, and
then we can (crosstalk).
40 May 21, 2015
Council Member DuBois: Sounds great.
Council Member Wolbach: Sounds okay to me.
Council Member Berman: I'm fine with that.
Council Member Wolbach: Would we want to suggest that Staff do that as a
preamble to each section?
Chair Burt: Mm-hmm.
Council Member Berman: That would be the right place. Great. Chair Burt: Let's see, where did we leave off? We had gone through telephonic conversations as well as on Page 8 discussions about meeting closure time. I had a note under Council comment. I'm sorry. Council Comment, at the end.
Council Member Berman: No Council comments.
Chair Burt: This is F on Page 9. This is under Consent Calendar. I'm just trying to find whether this is all under Consent. No. This is always a little confusing to me. Council Member Berman: L on Page 12, no.
Chair Burt: This is 2.4F. I don't know, Beth, if you have any guidance here.
Ms. Minor: (inaudible)
Chair Burt: It pops up as Council comment, but it's actually a description of what to do with the Consent Calendar. We have other places that we have Consent Calendar. If this is under the agenda, we want to keep that there. We should simply re-title it. It's about Council comments on Consent Calendar items or something to that effect. Cory. Council Member Wolbach: What's missing here is a section heading to say that this is addressing Council comment. It looks like this several-Page section of the Protocols ...
Chair Burt: This is under Section 2, which is Council meeting and agenda guidelines. Then 2.4 is general requirements of Council meetings and agenda guidelines. That's what we're in.
41 May 21, 2015
Council Member Wolbach: Right. It looks like it goes through meetings and
the sections of the meeting in roughly the sequential order that they
typically are agendized. That's why it goes from Consent Calendar. We're
under E6. It's listing the first few items that are usually at the start of a
meeting. Under agenda order, which is E, and then it goes to a discussion
about Consent Calendar.
Council Member Berman: You're saying it could be under (crosstalk).
Council Member Wolbach: Actually what I think the ...
Chair Burt: I'm sorry. Let me just jump in here. It's not really following a good flow, but F is about Consent Calendar. The point I was trying to make is that if Subsection F is about Consent Calendar, we should title it that way. Beth.
Ms. Minor: It appears that both Section F and G refer to the Consent Calendar, whether it's Council comment or public. We could put a subsection under the 6 above, where it shows Consent Calendar, and make those as a part of it or include it in that above.
Chair Burt: That's just about agenda order. That's why 1 through 6 fall under E. They're about order. F and G are about how to conduct the item. They need their own subsections. F and G could be combined to Consent Calendar item, and one part of that is Council comments. The other part is public comment.
Council Member Wolbach: If I might add ...
Chair Burt: I'm sorry. H is Council request to remove an item.
Council Member Wolbach: The whole next Page is Consent also.
Chair Burt: I'm sorry. As I'm going through it, we need a whole section on Consent, and then these become subsections.
Council Member Wolbach: That's why I was (inaudible) earlier. Now the way it's currently formatted, it looks like it was inserted in the midst of the agenda order, and that's why the agenda order ends with Consent Calendar. It doesn't include Action Items or Council Member Comments. Those get
picked up as Item 7 on Page 11. (crosstalk)
Chair Burt: Let's just take what you said. It does seem that under E the
balance of the agenda order should be included there. Then we have a
whole section on Consent Calendar items. I do have a couple of comments.
42 May 21, 2015
Before we leave Consent Calendar items, if it's okay I'd like to hit that. One
thing is that we already say the Mayor has the option of allowing testimony
prior to adoption of the Consent Calendar. Do we simply want to change
that? Are there circumstances where we don't want to allow the public to
speak until after we've removed items or voted on them? The Mayor has
been doing that, and it's a good practice. If the public's going to speak, it
should be before we take action rather than after we take action. I'm seeing
the City Attorney give agreement.
Ms. Stump: Yes. The rule is awkward the way it's written. The way the Council's practice has developed recently is pretty sound. If you're going to
approve an item on Consent, legally you want to have given the public a chance to speak to that item before you approve it. Where you know you're going to remove it, it's fine to delay the public comment until the item is heard. You wouldn't want to do it the other way around. It almost presupposes the result. Or you take the public comment regardless and then take your vote.
Chair Burt: I'm not quite clear how to reflect what the City Attorney just stated. There is this other circumstance where if we know we're going to remove it, the public may have different comments if they've been told we're going to remove it. Their comments are generally please remove it. We aren't going to go into the substance usually that evening; although, sometimes the public came for that purpose and they want to speak to that substance. Do we simply want to ask Staff to come back with language that reflects these two circumstances? How do we know we're going to remove until we've heard from the public? Marc.
Council Member Berman: One thing we could try is before public comment on the Consent Calendar items, the Mayor asks Council if anybody wants to remove an item. If so, then great. If not, then we go to public comment, and maybe public comment sways Council Members' opinion and has that effect. At least that gives that opportunity.
Chair Burt: That's probably the reality. Do we want Staff to come back with language that reflects what Marc just described? That the Mayor would give the Council Members an opportunity to remove items from Consent. If they do at that time, public comment on that item would follow the removal from Consent. If items were not removed from Consent, the public would be allowed to speak, and the Council would have an opportunity to remove it from Consent at that time. Cory and then Tom. Council Member Wolbach: You'd have two opportunities to pull something, before and following public comment.
43 May 21, 2015
Council Member Berman: (inaudible)
Ms. Stump: Essentially the Council has that now. Until you approve the
Calendar, you can ...
Council Member DuBois: How is that different?
Ms. Stump: It's not that formal about exactly when you have to take it off.
Chair Burt: I'd say the difference is it's never been clear, and it's been done
a whole bunch of different ways at the discretion of the Mayor, including not
letting the public speak until after the Council has decided not to remove
something from Consent and not giving the Council another opportunity.
The lack of clarity has been problematic over the years.
Council Member DuBois: Where would this change be, and could you say it again?
Chair Burt: It would need to be reflected in Council request to remove the item as well as under the public comment. We just have to look at how to fit these concepts into those two sections, I would think. Council Member DuBois: It sounds like you want to change G and not give
the Mayor the discretion. Chair Burt: Oh, correct. That's what Molly just said. It is probably not lawful to have that discretion.
Council Member DuBois: Just to be clear, we're just editing G. Am I missing something? I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
Chair Burt: The H edit is that we would have a second opportunity to remove it from Consent after hearing from the public.
Council Member Berman: To formalize the process.
Chair Burt: That would have to be in H, because it talks about when the Council can request to remove an item. Both changes would have to be there.
Council Member Wolbach: Just to clarify for everybody's benefit. One change to G would be to remove from the Mayor the discretion to refuse public comment. Secondly, the change to H would be an opportunity to remove an item from Consent both prior to and following any public comment.
44 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Correct. Are we okay?
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. There's no timing in H right now at all.
Chair Burt: We've asked them to come back with language that will reflect what we just described.
Council Member DuBois: All right.
Chair Burt: I don't know why I have some other note here about appeals and Individual Review. I guess that was a placeholder to remind me about whether we want to have any discussion on changing any threshold for Individual Review. There was some discussion—maybe this was at the Retreat or the Committee as a Whole—about changing thresholds, how many Council Members would need to concur with pulling an IR item from Consent. We didn't change anything, did we?
Ms. Stump: I don't believe so, no, Council Member. Just to inform folks, there are various requirements in this regard that are in our Municipal Code, in the Zoning Code, and in other places. The Procedures and Protocols are not complete. The Code is the last word on these particular types of appeals. That's where the IR requirement is.
Chair Burt: You gave that guidance at the beginning of the last meeting, that some of these things would be most of all a recommendation to the Council to change the Municipal Code. If that occurred, then we'd track it here. I don't know whether we want any consideration at this time. It maybe belongs more in that other bucket list that we're going to hit later. There's no point in talking about a Protocol change if it's a Muni Code change. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: I've got something to say, but I'll let Khash go first. Mr. Alaee: It's Item Number 2 on the at-places memo.
Chair Burt: Thank you. That was fast.
Council Member Wolbach: I was just going to ask that we do give direction now to Staff to provide clarity in this document that we're editing for whatever the thresholds are, whether they get changed or not. They should be very clear here.
45 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: A good point, that the Procedures and Protocols reflect what's in
the Muni Code. This is still the guideline and the reminder for the Mayor and
the Council of what it is, and we don't have to fumble through the Muni Code
to figure out what the threshold is.
Ms. Stump: Yes. Just to be clear, the Procedures have a backstop or a
standard rule. For example, the number of votes to remove a contract item,
there isn't a different Procedure in the Muni Code. It's whatever you have in
your Procedures. It used to be two; now it's three.
Council Member Berman: Can I ask—sorry to interrupt—the Chair? Do you
have a sense for how late you intend on tonight's meeting going? It's 9:20. Chair Burt: Yeah. Not past 10:00. Twelve, near the top—I'm sorry.
Council Member Wolbach: I was just going to highlight for Staff that of those items that we want to maybe relocate under—as we try to consolidate and complete the agenda order on Page 9, E, it looks like Item 7 on Page 11 is one of those. Actually it looks like all of these are. Several of them are items that really go under agenda order.
Council Member DuBois: Six (inaudible).
Chair Burt: They may be placed both locations. One to simply talk about the order. The other to speak about the substance of ... Council Member Dubois: It's just a formatting error. Six and 7 on Page 11 really belong under E. Is that going to (crosstalk)
Chair Burt: My point is they also belong under E, but there are two purposes. One is to simply list the agenda.
Council Member DuBois: They're not Consent Calendar categories, which the other items in that list are.
Council Member Berman: They definitely don't belong (crosstalk).
Council Member DuBois: The list is ...
Council Member Wolbach: It's this list.
Council Member DuBois: No, I'm talking about here.
Council Member Wolbach: What I'm saying is there's a formatting error that leads to this list being here.
46 May 21, 2015
Council Member DuBois: Right. Six here (crosstalk)
Chair Burt: E is the agenda order.
Council Member Berman: (inaudible) 6 and 7 aren't here and here. Don't (inaudible).
Chair Burt: I see. At the top of Page 10, J i, see. It's all under J.
Council Member Berman: Which is Consent Calendar.
Council Member DuBois: Six and 7J don't belong there.
Chair Burt: Yeah. Six and 7 are K and L, right?
Council Member DuBois: No. I think they're actually ...
Chair Burt: I mean a new ... reordered in ...
Council Member Wolbach: That's what I'm saying. They're actually 6 and 7 from List E. Council Member DuBois: Actually they're 7 and 8.
Council Member Wolbach: They would be 7 and 8 for ...
Council Member Berman: There's no substance (crosstalk).
Council Member Wolbach: ... lists under E on Page 9. This is the formatting
complexity.
Chair Burt: Is there somewhere else—I assume there is—under Action
Items where we go into all the details?
Council Member Berman: You hope so.
Chair Burt: That may be that the way they're listed there. Council Member Wolbach: The same thing is true of Items L and N on Page
12.
Council Member Berman: Those have substance under them. That's more
than just a list.
47 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: Action Items have a whole section about how we conduct
ourselves under Action Items. I'm just trying to relocate it where we go into
the discussion of Action Items. That's much of what we're doing.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm fine with just asking Staff to clean up the
formatting. Just let you guys figure it out.
Mr. Alaee: If I could throw a suggestion to the Committee. When we do
this, we'll probably benchmark other agencies' Policies and Procedures, look
at best practices, look at some more professional associations. We may
provide some Staff revisions to the whole document to align with that.
Maybe if the Committee wants to focus on some of the broader Policies,
substantive stuff, we'll deal with those.
Chair Burt: It does seem that J6 and 7 actually belong to part of E.
Elsewhere, at least Action Items needs to have its own section. I don't know whether Agenda, Changes, Additions and Deletions, whether we have
substance, maybe we'll find that as we go through it. I'm at the top of Page 12 which is about Council matters. I tend to think it should have its own header about Colleague's Memos. This is actually all about Colleague's Memos, that first paragraph. Actually two paragraphs. We call it K, Council matters, but it's Colleague's Memos as I dug into it. That's just a re-titling issue.
Council Member Berman: The entire thing.
Chair Burt: Yeah, three paragraphs.
Council Member Berman: You're right.
Chair Burt: Or two paragraphs.
Council Member Berman: It is technically (crosstalk).
Chair Burt: As I looked at it, there are a number of things. First, if you look at the third line. It says prior to preparing a Colleague's Memo, Council Members will consult with the City Manager to determine whether he/she is or is willing—I think there's some wording error there—whether he/she is or is willing and able—weird—to address the issues as part of his/her operational authority. The his/her or he/she, we should say the City Manager. This sounds like an error when we were struggling with gender. Within current budgeted resources. First the process is generally that Council Members draft a Colleague's Memo amongst each other and refine it somewhat, and then submit it to the City Manager and the City Attorney for their comments, with the City Attorney being a more defined role to give
48 May 21, 2015
feedback on whether there are any aspects to it that are legally problematic.
The City Manager will at his discretion raise a suggestion or otherwise that
can be accepted or rejected by the makers of the Memo. Then we have
another aspect which is an obligation to have the City Manager provide any
comments on fiscal impact. We have a prescribed section of the Memo that
does that. These paragraphs get convoluted. They don't necessarily reflect
that practice nor the sequence. I saw a number of things that needed to
be—I don't know what that one sentence means.
Council Member Wolbach: I think I figured that one out.
Chair Burt: You look down at the last sentence in that first paragraph. We need to update it. It says it's by noon on the Tuesday, so that's changed. It's got to go to the Clerk on the Tuesday before the meeting that the Memo is intended to be agendized. The makers of the Memo often don't know when they're going to be agendized, and that ends up being between the Mayor and the City Manager. I thought elsewhere in here—no, it isn't. There's no clarity on how soon a Colleague's Memo should be agendized. Even if we don't have clarity, there should be guidance. We wouldn't want a City Manager to be able to essentially pocket veto a Memo. There should be some guidance that it will be as soon as it can be practically scheduled in the agenda. Something to that effect. It doesn't say X weeks. Tom.
Council Member DuBois: It says within two weeks. Chair Burt: That's after we first get it. That goes into the next area, which is what we do when it comes to the Council and whether we refer it to a Standing Committee or go into a deeper discussion. That doesn't reflect the way we do Colleague's Memos either. Somehow the practice has drifted away from what's in this Procedure by quite a bit.
Council Member Berman: The first question is, is current practice better than this. I'd probably argue yeah.
Chair Burt: I would too. We've morphed into the right current practice, and we never had the Procedure track the practice. Council Member Berman: Should we give general guidance to Staff right now of draft a new section that reflects current practice with the caveat of there being some mechanism to make sure that there's a general timeframe within which it'll be initially agendized?
Chair Burt: Mm-hmm.
Council Member Berman: Does that cover it?
49 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: I think so.
Council Member Berman: You might have other good points that you wanted to ...
Chair Burt: That covers it well enough for me. Is that okay? Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: I was just going to say I agree with that direction to Staff. As far as that one sentence, the idea was that prior to bringing the Colleague's Memo to the full Council, that you'd find out is this going to require additional budgetary assignments, as you referenced as fiscal. Chair Burt: There's operational authority and current budgeted resources.
Council Member Wolbach: That way Staff would be prepared to tell the Council when the Council considers it how substantial a change would be required.
Chair Burt: That's in our current practices. This actually says prior to preparing. Our current practice is prior to submitting. Council Member Berman: Yeah, during preparation of.
Chair Burt: The preparation process involves the colleagues going through their few drafts. When they think it's close enough, they ask the City Manager and the City Attorney for their input. If the City Manager says, "You can't ask me to do that. I don't have operational authority to do this," and it's not a question of whether it's in current budgeted resources, it's asking what would be the budget impact.
Council Member Wolbach: There actually might be a good question here. Do we want to encourage or direct Council Members to come very early on to the City Manager, so that they have a sense of whether—maybe what they're asking for, maybe they weren't aware, didn't realize it's already being addressed or is already covered. That way as they go through iterations of putting a draft together, they have early (crosstalk). Chair Burt: I don't think we want to prescribe it. We typically have at least three Council Members drafting. Hopefully among those three at least one has a sense of the operational authority. We don't have an issue of whether it's within the current budgeted resources. It's really what would be the financial impact of it. The Policy can drive budget decisions. This, as it's written, is saying if it's not within the current budgetary discretion, you can't bring it up as legislators.
50 May 21, 2015
Council Member Wolbach: I'm not sure necessarily it does say that. It
might just be so that when it does come up for discussion, that's one of the
things that everybody will be prepared to discuss and understand.
Council Member Berman: Let's just make sure the new one reflects ...
Chair Burt: Let's see. The second to last sentence says to the extent
possible, Council will confer with Staff before raising matters under this
agenda item. That's saying that if we're going to ask a question or make a comment ...
Mr. Alaee: I'm sorry, Chair Burt. Where are you? Chair Burt: L, Page 12, Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements. If I read this correctly, it's saying that we're being told— and this is not something I've observed in practice at all—that in advance of a Council Member question or comment, we're supposed to confer with Staff in advance, before we raise anything at Council Questions or Comments. I've never seen that in practice. Molly.
Ms. Stump: Thank you, Chair Burt. When I read that, I thought that that might refer to a dynamic that doesn't typically happen with this Council under this agenda item, which is a very specific question of an operational nature or a concern about something that's going on where maybe the City Manager would have needed to be prepared to address the item. This Council tends to use Council Questions, Comments and Announcements more to announce activities that are fully within your control, that you've been doing in the community and you want to share with the public and your colleagues.
Chair Burt: If we have that potential contingency that you just described, maybe we should say if a Council Member has a question of this nature, they should do the following. Does that seem reasonable? Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: That seems reasonable. I would also suggest that the issue of oral Colleague's Memos or raising an issue shouldn't be lost here. We might want to provide a little bit more clarity, not that I necessarily want to encourage the practice of oral Colleague's Memos (crosstalk).
Chair Burt: Let me just pause here, because your point's well taken, except that maybe elsewhere we may have reference to the ability to agendize items by two Council Members under Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements. I'm pretty sure it's somewhere else in our Procedures
51 May 21, 2015
and Protocols. Let's put that as a placeholder, and maybe we need to
consolidate those. I believe that it is elsewhere, and I can't recall where.
Council Member Wolbach: I might have missed it.
Chair Burt: Under Closed Sessions, we now have to take a vote. That's not
reflected there under M. Under O2, I don't think that reflects how we do it.
When a Regular Meeting is adjourned to another Regular Meeting night, all
unfinished items will be listed in their original order after roll call. We don't
do that. I'd suggest, once again, that we ask Staff to come back with language that reflects current practices. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: That brings up one of the issues I was talking about much earlier in the meeting, one of my ever general suggestions about having items that get continued pushed to the very next meeting. Apparently that was, at least implied here, to be our previous role.
Ms. Stump: I think that this was drafted to track the Brown Act, but it doesn't reflect this Council's practice. I think this Council has the practice that it wants, which is that when agenda items are continued, there is a prioritization and the Chair, the City Manager and the Clerk work together to juggle and get it right as opposed to do it in a rote way which might not reflect the priorities.
Chair Burt: Where did I have the Closed Sessions? I see that we have Closed Sessions under M and then we have it under S. I'm not clear, no real reason. That needs to be cleaned up so that we have one section for Closed Sessions. I don't have anything until I get over to Page 23 or maybe further. I don't think I have anything for quite a ways. Anybody else have any in the subsequent Pages?
Council Member Berman: I don't.
Chair Burt: Just check one thing, because I made notes in a prior iteration of this. I don't want to skip anything. I'm all the way over to Page 36 before I have anything else. I don't want to run past it if anybody else has anything. Council Member Berman: Packet Page 36 or Protocol Page 36?
Chair Burt: Protocol Page 36. The work of Standing Committees. One of the things that is already in the Protocols but has been somehow misunderstood is this notion that if something comes from a Standing Committee unanimously, it will necessarily be on the Consent Calendar. In
both 3.6, maybe it's just 3.6. It says that unless otherwise recommended
52 May 21, 2015
by the Committee, Mayor or Staff. We had talked about that we've done
that as a Committee, but the Mayor or the Staff—I don't know whether Staff
ought to be City Manager. I think it should. Molly agreed there.
Council Member Wolbach: Maybe City Manager or City Attorney. Not with
our current executive team that that would ever be a conflict.
Chair Burt: Are there times where something might, at your discretion,
want to come off of Consent that was unanimous?
Ms. Stump: It seems like a very remote possibility.
Chair Burt: I throw it in there, because we wouldn't want to preclude that if
you thought it was appropriate.
Ms. Stump: Right. I wouldn't be precluded from speaking up, if I thought it was appropriate. I guess it's fine to add it.
Chair Burt: There was a question—Tom.
Council Member DuBois: If we're going to change that, Page 11 captures what you want, Item 4 on Page 11.
Chair Burt: It does. This is one of those places where we have some replication between Procedures and Protocols. Let's put that as a future broader clean-up. We're doing a lot this year just to correct a bunch of errors. This can be ...
Council Member DuBois: I'm just saying Page 36 captured what 4 says. Unless otherwise recommended by the Committee, then it may (crosstalk).
Chair Burt: It says the same thing both places.
Council Member Berman: I might be speculating, but maybe what I'm getting at is should there be something in there that says if a Committee believes that an issue would be controversial ... Chair Burt: Some guideline.
Council Member Berman: Yeah.
Chair Burt: That sounds good.
Council Member Berman: The Committee's advised to place it on Action.
53 May 21, 2015
Chair Burt: If it is of significant public interest or controversial, the
Committee should consider placing it under—really that's a guidance for the
Mayor, the Committee or the City Manager. Right?
Council Member Berman: Correct, yes. Three different bites at the apple.
Hopefully the Committee picks up on that and makes that recommendation.
If not, then the Mayor ...
Chair Burt: If it's of significant public interest or controversial ...
Council Member Berman: Controversial in nature.
Chair Burt: ... that they should consider. We don't want to stipulate it. It's just a reminder. Now under 3.7, under the title, it talks about the Mayor and Vice Mayor ...
Council Member Wolbach: What page?
Chair Burt: Page 36. The Mayor and Vice Mayor working with Staff to plan the Council meetings. It's really the Mayor and the City Manager.
Mr. Alaee: Real quick on this section. You guys had somewhat of a substantive conversation, from what my notes show, last time that we already have some notes for. Those describe the adequate relationship between the City Manager and the Mayor; add more specific language about what is the role of the Vice Mayor; do we want the language to reflect the views of the City Council as a whole, not just the Mayor; the Mayor is the representative of the Council at these meetings as the liaison role. These are some of the comments that you guys had mentioned. Intent of representing the best intent of the Council; again clarify the roles between all three in the agenda setting process.
Chair Burt: That's great that you brought that up. That was part of that first chunk that we addressed, and it applies here. You're already going to attempt to capture that. That's great. That's more than I had just going through. Page 37 in Section 4, there's an underlined section that says the Committee shall consider and make recommendations to Council on matters relating to parliamentary and administrative procedures and policy matters. I was taking this to mean the administrative procedures were City Council procedures. Are we talking here about other administrative procedures in
how the City Manager runs the organization? Do you follow what I'm asking
here? Whose administrative procedures are being referred to here? There
are a whole bunch of administrative procedures internal to the organization
that we as a Council—I can't remember when and how we ever weighed into
those. Is that part of our purview?
54 May 21, 2015
Mr. Alaee: I don't want to speak for the City Attorney. It's a good point, and probably we'd need to look at it. When we bring it back, we could bring back further context.
Chair Burt: There are a lot of HR Procedures and all that. I don't know where the boundaries are on that. Whether there is a point in time where the Council does adopt those Procedures, and we just don't look at them frequently or we don't have a role in that.
Ms. Stump: This is a Council/Manager form of government. Certainly there are many, many, many procedures and practices that are handled out of the Manager's Office, and don't come to Council and probably shouldn't. Certain ones that rise to the level of being of broader community concern or
community attention, the Manager will typically bring them or the Council can invite them to come here. There's not a bright line.
Chair Burt: I'm not even sure whether administrative procedures is referring
to this document, because it follows parliamentary. It says that the Committee makes recommendation to the Council on matters relating to
parliamentary and administrative procedures. I suspect that intention is
referring to these documents, and we should say, in that case, Protocols and
Procedures Handbook or whatever. You'll look hard at that and come back.
That covers everything I had. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: The issue of when a Council Member wants to
raise an issue but either has not had an opportunity or is unable because of
Brown Act restrictions to gather the necessary forces to produce a written
Colleague's Memo, how they present it during oral comments at the end of a
meeting. You suggested earlier that you thought it was reflected
somewhere else. The (crosstalk) on Page 12 ...
Chair Burt: I have it in the back of my head. Beth, do you have any
recollection on ...
Council Member Wolbach: Maybe in an Ordinance or something.
Chair Burt: Maybe you do, Molly. This ability of Council Members to
agendize items through Council Member Comments, I thought is somewhere
in here.
Council Member Berman: You'd figure it would be.
55 May 21, 2015
Council Member Wolbach: I've spoken with some people in Mountain View.
Apparently their Procedure there is quite different. It's interesting. If you
did a written Colleague's Memo there, you'd be criticized for it.
Chair Burt: Either way, can Staff look at whether there is another location
where that practice or Protocol is actually referenced in writing?
Ms. Stump: We certainly can research that. It's my recollection that it
actually isn't, and the written Colleague's Memo is the form that this Council
has historically used for Council Members to initiate an item onto the
agenda.
Chair Burt: I've got it in the back of my head differently. There is a place
where it says you can agendize, and it's actually pretty specific. I don't
think I'm making this up. It requires that it actually come on the next
Council meeting. It's something that we may want to clean up, but I'm pretty sure it's in there. I'll look for it. I don't think I dreamed that one.
Council Member Wolbach: As much as we would probably want to have language specifically saying that it's strongly, strongly recommended that Council Members use the written Colleague's Memo procedure in order to bring matters to start getting it agendized, because of Brown Act violations, I would want to make sure that there is an opportunity for items to be raised during Council Member Comments. Chair Burt: Let's find out what our existing Procedure is. If my recollection is correct, it's more liberal than we may want, not less so. I've got to find it, and I'll try and go back and look for it myself.
Council Member Wolbach: My concern is that, as you were warning earlier, we will in updating the Procedures swing too far towards constraining it. I want to make sure we find a nice middle ground.
Chair Burt: Anybody else, anything else on Policies and Procedures and Protocols? It's Policies and Procedures, but the Staff Report calls it Policies and Protocols. That's our nomenclature thing. We had this other at-places. It's 9:50; we don't, in all likelihood, have time to go through either this or the balance of the discussion around the particular items that we want to have go before the Committee as a Whole. Briefly, if anyone wants to provide any brief comments that will tee us up for our next meeting on these, you're welcome to do it at this time. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: Just a clarification. The items on Page 7 of the packet, items going to the Committee as a Whole, those are going to the Committee as a Whole anyway. As Staff was saying, maybe the next ten
56 May 21, 2015
minutes would be an opportunity if we do have any last minute additions
that we want to add to this. They're already on their way to the Committee
as a Whole.
Chair Burt: Do we have a Committee as a Whole agendized?
Mr. Alaee: You don't have a Committee as a Whole agendized. If I may
make a suggestion. What we can do, since we are done with the Handbook,
is bring a smaller Staff Report that just highlights the items on Page 7 and
the items on the at-places. Then the Committee can have a conversation just about those. Then we can ...
Chair Burt: You can take a little more time to come back with the draft changes.
Mr. Alaee: With the Handbook, correct.
Chair Burt: That sounds great.
Mr. Alaee: If that leads to a natural discussion of looking at our schedule ahead, that would be fine unless there's other items the Council wants to talk about.
Future Meetings and Agendas
Chair Burt: We have before us our upcoming schedules.
Khashayar Alaee, Senior Management Analyst: On the 9th, we are teed up to talk about Project Safety Net and the Colleague's Memo regarding strengthening the engagement with the neighborhoods. It's pretty much a copy and paste to bring the remaining items from tonight to any future meeting. I don't know if PSN and the Colleague's Memo are substantive and you'd want to wait to bring these items back. I'm pretty sure we could turn the remaining items of tonight around pretty quickly and bring them on the 9th as well. If you want to do that.
Council Member Berman: It doesn't hurt to agendize it. If we don't get to it, we don't get to it. Mr. Alaee: We'll bring that back right away. From my standpoint
(crosstalk).
Chair Burt: I'm sorry. You're thinking of bringing it back when?
Council Member Berman: 6/9.
57 May 21, 2015
Mr. Alaee: 6/9.
Council Member Berman: Putting it on the agenda.
Council Member DuBois: At the end.
Chair Burt: The Project Safety Net is going to be a pretty full discussion.
Council Member Wolbach: Both of those will be.
Mr. Alaee: I was just throwing that out there for you.
Chair Burt: I'm skeptical that it can fit in there.
Council Member DuBois: Can we put it on the end? If we get to it, we get to it.
Chair Burt: I don't mind doing what Tom just said. Go ahead and agendize it. If we have time, we can bring it up in that meeting.
Council Member Berman: That was my idea.
Council Member Wolbach: At the end of the meeting. Chair Burt: For the moment, I'm assuming we won't have time. Our next meeting is on September 8th. Although there are four items, those four are not ones that are going to take a lot of time for each item. We don't have a P&S meeting in the second half of August, and we get back in mid-August from our vacation. I'm concerned that if we don't get to the Committee as a Whole items until after vacation or worse yet September, our year is running out. There was supposed to be another Committee as a Whole that we'd be having this year. We ought to try and drive it sooner. Council Member Berman: Can any of this stuff that's scheduled for September 8th come in late August?
Chair Burt: I'm questioning whether to have a meeting in late August that addresses this Committee as a Whole as being more time sensitive. Council Member Berman: Yeah.
Chair Burt: Do it in August, the P&S meeting in August.
58 May 21, 2015
Council Member Berman: Do a P&S in late August, and do this stuff that
we're pushing off. I don't think it'll take three hours.
Chair Burt: We'll just keep these in September is what I’m saying.
Council Member Berman: Okay. Sure. I'm fine with that. I just didn't
know if what we're pushing off needs a full meeting.
Chair Burt: We wouldn't be pushing it off.
Council Member Berman: I wasn't sure if the meeting as a whole stuff
needs a full meeting or if we can add other stuff to that. Chair Burt: If we have an August meeting ...
Council Member Wolbach: (crosstalk) items up.
Chair Burt: If you're ready to come back with a draft of Procedures and Protocols in August, then that would be the natural meeting. If not, then maybe we would move some of the September items to the August meeting.
Mr. Alaee: Correct.
Chair Burt: Do we want to look at calendars right now on this August meeting? Mr. Alaee: The standing date and time for the Committee is the second Tuesday of every month.
Chair Burt: The second Tuesday. I'm sorry.
Council Member Berman: I don't even know when break ends.
Beth Minor, City Clerk: (inaudible) August. That's before they come back (crosstalk).
Mr. Alaee: Oh, is it? Chair Burt: The second Tuesday, right. That's the problem.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm pretty open in August currently.
Council Member Berman: I've got to figure (inaudible).
Chair Burt: We should do it after the Council is scheduled to return.
59 May 21, 2015
Council Member Berman: Which is the 17th, right? That's the third Monday.
Chair Burt: Yeah. If we have the following Tuesday, which would be the 22nd. How is that? I'm sorry. I got that wrong. We get back the 17th.
We're on Thursday. Thursday is what we do, right?
Mr. Alaee: No. The regular meeting is the second Tuesday.
Chair Burt: It's regularly Tuesday. I have other Council meetings on the 27th. I'm sorry, that's a Thursday again. The 25th or the 18th?
Council Member Berman: I could do either.
Council Member Wolbach: Same.
Council Member DuBois: I think that's okay. I'm taking my son to college sometime in there. I don't know when yet.
Council Member Berman: You can play it by ear.
Mr. Alaee: Tuesday, the 18th.
Chair Burt: Can you let Khash know? Because the rest of us are flexible for either of those dates, we'll let your schedule determine it. Mr. Alaee: Just before we conclude, I want to clarify. For the next meeting on the 9th of June, all I'm going do is ...
Council Member Wolbach: You mean the 9th of June.
Mr. Alaee: I'm sorry, the 9th of June. All I'm going to do is copy and paste the items from the at-places memo and the items on that Page 7, and just put them in a Staff Report, bring them here if we have time to continue the conversation. Then we're targeting to bring the Handbook back in August.
Chair Burt: Correct. Council Member Berman: Yep. Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 9:57 P.M.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
October 29, 2018
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code and
Adoption of Amendments to Council Procedures and Protocols to
Conform to a Seven-Member Council; Discussion and Direction to
Staff or Referral to Policy & Services of Additional Discretionary
Changes to the Code and/or Council Procedures and Protocols
Recommendation
1. Amend the Municipal Code and Council Procedures and Protocols to conform to a seven-
member Council:
a. Adopt on first reading an ordinance (Attachment A) amending Municipal Code section
2.04.190 to reduce number of Council Members on Finance and Policy & Services from
four to three and section 12.10.060 to change the votes required to resolve a certain
type of appeal from five to a majority; and
b. Amend the Council Procedures and Protocols to reduce four to three the number of
Council Members who may sign a Colleagues’ Memo and who may serve on an Ad Hoc
Committee.
2. Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff or Refer to Policy & Services additional discretionary
changes to the Municipal Code and/or Procedures and Protocols
Background and Discussion
On November 4, 2014, Palo Alto voters amended the Palo Alto Charter to reduce the number of
Council seats from nine to seven, effective January 1, 2019.
Many provisions of the Municipal Code and Procedures and Protocols Handbook provide for
Council action by “a majority” of Council. When Council had nine members, a majority was five;
when it has seven members, a majority will be four. This will occur seamlessly and requires no
action to implement. In a few places, however, the Code and the Procedures and Protocols
refer to a specific number of Council Members. In several situations, the number must be
reduced to comply with state law. In others, Council has discretion to maintain or change the
number specified.
First, the Municipal Code and Procedures and Protocols provide for four-member Council
committees. This must be changed to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act. The Brown Act,
which sets procedural requirements local governmental bodies, states that subcommittees are
limited to less than a majority of the primary body. When the number of seats on Council is
reduced to seven, Council committees (both regular “standing” committees, and temporary “ad
hoc” committees) will be limited to a maximum of three Council Members. The attached
Page 2
changes to the Municipal Code and Procedures and Protocols adjust the size of standing and ad
hoc committees to three Council Members.
In addition, and also to comply with the Brown Act, the Procedures and Protocols should be
amended to provide that no more than three Council Members may participate in a Colleagues
Memo.
Staff identified one additional section of the Municipal Code that should be changed to align
with a seven-member Council. Section 2.10.060 states that five votes are required to resolve a
type of permit appeal. In context, it is clear that section 2.10.060 intends to refer to a simple
majority of Council. The attached ordinance updates the language to provide for a simple
majority.
In addition to these changes, there are a number of changes that are not legally-mandated, but
that Council may wish to consider. Staff recommends that Council refer these to Policy &
Services for discussion and recommendation, or, in the alternative Council could provide
direction to staff. These include:
1. Current procedure requires three votes to remove an item from Consent. (Procedures and
Protocols, section 2.4(H).) Council could retain the three vote procedure or modify it.
2. The Zoning Code specifies the number of Council votes required to remove appeals from the
Consent calendar. (For example, Municipal Code section 18.78.040(a)(2) provides that three
votes are required to remove appeals from Consent.) Council could retain current requirements
or modify them.
3. Various changes to the Procedures and Protocols were previously recommended by Policy &
Services but have not been finally approved by Council. If the matter is referred to Policy &
Services, staff will refresh those items with the Committee and forward the resulting
recommendations to Council. In addition, Council Members may wish to propose additional
modifications, as part of a regular review and updating process.
Environmental Review
The proposed procedural changes to the Code and Procedures and Protocols are not a project
for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental review is not
required.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: ORD Amending to Conform to 7 Member Council (10-12) (PDF)
• Amendment to Council Handbook (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 3
Attachment A
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
th TS/ORD Amending 2.04
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.04.190
(Standing Committees – Special Committees) of Chapter 2.04 (Council
Organization and Procedure) of Title 2 (Administrative Code); and Amending
Section 12.10.060 (Coordination with City) of Chapter 12.10 (Street Cut Fees) of
Title 12 (Public Works and Utilities) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Conform
to a Seven-Member City Council.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows:
A. In November, 2014, the Charter of the City of Palo Alto was amended by the
electorate to reduce the City Council to seven members (from the current nine member
council) effective January 1, 2019.
B. In order to prevent conflicts with the California Brown Act, relevant sections of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code must also be amended to reflect the seven-member Council.
SECTION 2. Section 2.04.190 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as
follows (deleted text is in strikethrough, new text is underlined):
2.04.190 Standing committees - Special committees.
(a) Not later than the second regular council meeting in January, the mayor shall appoint two
standing committees, consisting of four three members each from the members of the council.
The mayor shall appoint each council member to only one standing committee and shall
appoint the chairperson of each committee. The mayor, or the vice-mayor at the request of the
mayor, may act as an ex officio, voting member of each committee when one or more regular
committee members are absent.
(b) The standing committees shall be designated, respectively, committee on finance and
committee on policy and services, and shall meet at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall on the day
established by Section 2.04.200.
(c) Council members may attend meetings of committees of which they are not members,
without participating in any manner, but only committee members or ex officio committee
members shall vote in committee in accordance with subsection (a) of this section.
(d) Council members who submit matters to the council which are referred to a standing
committee may appear before the standing committee to which the referral has been made in
order to speak as proponents of the matter. Standing committee meetings during which such
referrals may be considered shall be noticed as council meetings for the purpose of enabling
the standing committee to discuss and consider the matter with a quorum of the council
present.
Attachment A
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
th TS/ORD Amending 2.04
(e) In addition to standing committees the mayor may, subject to approval of the council,
appoint such other special committees of council members, private citizens or both as deemed
desirable and necessary to assist and advise the council in its work.
SECTION 3. Section 12.10.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as
follows (deleted text is in strikethrough, new text is underlined):
12.10.060 Coordination with city.
(a) Before a person, utility or public utility applies for an "Application and Permit for
Construction in the Public Street" to construct in the public rights-of-way or any street, alley,
sidewalk or other public place, the applicant shall notify the director of public works-city
engineer, and the city engineer, or designee, shall review on behalf of the applicant the utility
master plans and the city's five-year repaving plan on file with the department of public works.
The applicant shall coordinate, to the fullest extent practicable, with the utility and street work
shown on such plans to minimize damage to, and avoid undue disruption and interference with
the public use of such public rights-of-way, streets, alleys, sidewalks or other public places. Such
coordination shall include:
(1) Whenever two or more parties have concurrently proposed a major excavation in the
same block during a five-year period, they shall meet and confer with the director of utilities, or
designee, regarding whether it is feasible to conduct a joint operation. If the director, or
designee, determines that it is feasible to conduct a joint operation, a single contractor shall be
selected and a single application fee charged.
(2) Any person, utility or public utility aggrieved by the director's decision to require a joint
operation may, within thirty days of receipt of the director's written notice, file an appeal with
the city manager in written form in a manner prescribed by the director. Within thirty days of
the filing of a timely appeal from the director's determination, the city manager shall review the
appeal and issue a recommendation to the council to uphold or overturn the action or
determination of the director. The recommendation of the city manager shall be placed on the
consent calendar of the council within thirty days of the filing of the appeal. In determining
such appeal, the council shall consider the impact of the proposed excavation on the
neighborhood, the applicant's need to provide services to a property or area, facilitating the
deployment of new technology as directed pursuant to official city policy, and the public health,
safety, welfare and convenience. The council may adopt the recommendation of the city
manager, or remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require five votes a
majority vote, and take action to uphold or overturn the recommendation of the city manager.
The decision of the council is final.
(b) To avoid future excavations and to reduce the number of street excavations, any person,
utility or public utility providing utility or communications service shall be requested, when
practicable, to install sufficient conduit to accommodate the reasonably foreseeable future
business growth needs of that person, utility or public utility.
Attachment A
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
th TS/ORD Amending 2.04
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are
hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a
“project” within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the
environment, either directly or ultimately.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after
the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Deputy City Attorney
In November, 2014, the Charter of the City of Palo Alto was amended by the electorate
to reduce the City Council to seven members (from the current nine member council) effective
January 1, 2019.
In order to prevent conflicts with the California Brown Act, relevant sections of the Palo
Alto City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook must also be amended to reflect the
seven-member Council.
Subsection (K) (Council Matters) of Subsection 2.4 (General Requirements) of Section 2
(Council Meeting & Agenda Guidelines) of the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook
is hereby amended as follows (deleted text is in strikethrough, new text is underlined):
K. Council Matters
Any two Council Members may bring forward a colleague memo on any
topic to be considered by the entire Council. Two Council Members are
required to place such a memo on the agenda, reflective of the Council
procedure requiring a motion and a second for consideration of a motion
by the Council. Up to four three Council Members may sign a colleague
memo. The City Attorney recommends that the colleague memo be
limited to three two Council Members in order to avoid the potential of a
Brown Act issue. Prior to preparing a colleague memo, Council Members
will consult with the City Manager to determine whether he/she is or is
willing and able to address the issues as part of his/her operational
authority and within current budgeted resources. Colleague’s memos
should have a section that identifies any potential staffing or fiscal
impacts of the contemplated action. This section will be drafted by the
City Manager. Council Members shall provide a copy of the proposed
memo with the City Manager or appropriate senior staff prior to
finalization. Completed Council colleagues memos shall be provided to
the City Clerk’s staff by noon on the Tuesday prior to the Council meeting
that the memo is intended to be agendized, to provide time for the City
Clerk to process for the Council packet.
The City Council will not take action on the night that a colleague
memo is introduced if it has any implications for staff resources or
current work priorities which are not addressed in the memo. The
Council will discuss the colleague memo and then direct the City Manager
to agendize the matter for Council action within two meetings, allowing
City staff time to prepare a summary of staffing and resource impacts.
Action may be taken immediately by the Council on colleague memos
where there are no resource or staffing implications or where these are
fully outlined in the colleagues memo. The Brown Act requires that the
public be fully informed of the potential action by the Council via the
Agenda 72 hours before a scheduled Council meeting. In order to satisfy
the Brown Act requirements, the Council should consult with the City
Attorney to ensure that the proposed title to the colleague memo
contains all actions that the Council Members want completed on the
night of the Council review.
Subsection (3) (Appointment) of Subsection (Y) (Ad Hoc Committees) of Subsection 2.4
(General Requirements) of Section 2 (Council Meeting & Agenda Guidelines) of the City Council
Procedures and Protocols Handbook is hereby amended as follows (deleted text is in
strikethrough, new text is underlined):
3) Appointment
The Mayor or the City Council may appoint four three or less members of
the Council to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee. In contrast, only the
Council and not the Mayor alone can create a Standing Committee. The
Mayor will publicly announce any Ad Hoc Committee created by him or
her, its membership and stated purpose and posted on the City Council
website. The City Manager shall prepare a report to Council about the
anticipated time commitment required for staff to assist the Ad Hoc
Committee.
Council Member feedback on how the Council Procedures and Protocols
11.8.18
Council Member Fine:
1. Maintaining the threshold to pull consent items/zoning approvals at 3 votes.
2. Potentially folding the rail committee into the full council (particularly if we have 2 recused)
3. Strengthening the rules around dialing into meetings - we've never really settled what is/isn't
allowed. Potentially, maybe you can only dial in domestically?
4. Implementing timers for council comments
5. An idea from Fremont: public comment cards include language that says "1-10 speakers: 3
minutes each, 11-20 speakers: 2 minutes each, 20+ speakers: at council discretion"
6. Reviewing council assignments... do we want to stop any of them?
Council Member Kou:
1. Include page numbers
2. 1-3 Summary of Rules - delete "but limits the total time to 30 minutes per meeting."
3. A. Specific Requirements and Time Limits 1) Oral Communication - delete "and will be limited to
a total of thirty minutes for all speakers combined."
4. Consent Calendar H. Council Requests to Remove Item - Change three to two council members
to remove consent item
Council Member Holman
1. Oral Communications speakers should be allowed no less than 3 minutes unless 30 minutes of
speakers in which case the time will be divided by the number of speakers. On no occasion
should speaker time be reduced to less than 2 minutes.
2. 1.3 and 1.4 d 1 (repetitive)
3. NOTE: Not so very long ago, it was 5 minutes standard. On page 44 you will see that
“meaningful” public involvement is referenced.
4. Last minute and significant proposals by either staff or council members are not considered on
the night of submittal but are instead continued to a future Council meeting, sent to PTC, ARB or
back to staff for analysis.
5. NOTE: This is consistent with the language about last-minute significant applicant proposals.
This deprives everyone of understanding the implications if not the meaning of such proposals.
6. Change the number of CC members it takes to pull an Item from Consent from 3 to either 2 or 1.
Look at other cities’ rules that require either 1 or none.
7. Companion with the above is establishing “standards/threshold” for what is appropriate
candidate for Consent (without prior Finance, P&S, UAC etc. review)
8. NOTE: see current recommendation by a prior P&S
9. CC member who has indicated a NO vote on a Consent Calendar item is given opportunity to
state the reasons prior to the vote on the Consent Calendar.
10. Consent Calendar items—CC member may ask a clarifying question prior to the vote
11. D 2 Page 3: See Oral Communications above
12. Clarify purpose of Study Sessions, for what purposes they should be used, and identify a method
of collecting a consensus for staff guidance when a City consideration or project.
13. Establish clearer role and limitations of CAO Committee
14. Clarify how matters are agendized for P&S and Finance discussion and action
15. Election of Mayor and Vice-Mayor---clarify that the elections are subject to the Brown Act
16. Closed sessions – clarify that CAO evaluations are also subject to the confidentiality rules
17. Clarify, strengthen the role of the Mayor in conducting and participating in meetings to be
pursuant to parliamentary procedures such as Robert’s Rules.
18. Clarify rules/meaning around reconsideration of a vote re “vested rights”
19. Quasi-judicial items will be indicated as such on agendas
20. 2.4 - Conduct with Palo Alto Boards and Commissions
21. 2.5 - Staff Conduct with City Council
22. Staff should provide responses to CC member questions to all CC members as appropriate,
so all CC members are operating with the same information
23. Staff is expected to comply with the one-hour rule with Council members pursuant to Section
2.3
24. Role of P&S Committee was essentially broadened a few years ago to balance the work load
with Finance and because Finance was reviewed matters that could have as rationally been
considered Policy matters. This needs to be clarified in the Purpose of P&S.