HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14213
City of Palo Alto (ID # 14213)
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: 4/4/2022
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Clarification of In-Person Attendance Protocols for Council Committees
and Boards and Commissions
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council confirm the expectation that Councilmembers will attend
committees and clarify expectations regarding board and commission remote
participation.
Background
At its September 27, 2021 meeting, the City Council approved the following actions
related to virtual, in-person, and hybrid council and board and commission meetings:
A. Begin hybrid City Council meetings on November 1, 2021, and not requiring
Standing Committees, Ad-Hoc Committees, Boards and Commissions to
physically convene until January 2022;
B. Require the public, Staff and City Council Members to provide proof of
vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test within 48 hours prior to the meeting;
C. Provide an option for City Council to attend in-person or virtually as long as the
Santa Clara County maintains mandatory indoor masking for public meetings;
D. Upon the end of mandatory indoor masking, modify the City Council protocols to
increase City Council’s teleconference participation to 5 meetings per year;
E. Request Staff to allow virtual attendees to participate by video, barring technical
barriers in doing so; and
F. Upon relevant changes in Santa Clara County’s or the CDC’s guidelines, for City
Council to revisit the guidelines, consider a default standard for in-person
meetings if provided by the Santa Clara County, and discuss other in-person
meeting requirements.
The City Council subsequently postponed the resumption of in-person and hybrid
committee and board/commission meetings until March 1, 2022, and deleted the
requirement for proof of vaccination or negative COVID-19 test in-person attendance.
17
Packet Pg. 221
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Brown Act allows legislative bodies to use remote participation, but it is up to each
body whether to do so or not. There is no requirement in state law regarding how this
decision is made. It may be made by explicit rule, by motion, or simply by practice, but
individual members of a legislative body do not have a right to participate remotely
where their legislative body elects not to allow remote participation.
For legislative bodies that allow remote participation, the Brown Act (Gov Code section
54953) has two alternative sets of procedural rules that must be followed. The default
baseline set of rules requires each remote location to be listed on the face of the
agenda, and mandates that each remote location be open to the public to attend the
meeting alongside the remotely-participating member. Under the recently-adopted AB
361, where there is a State of Emergency and the body makes a finding every 30 days
that state or local officials are mandating or encouraging social distancing measures,
the remote participation procedures are streamlined: remote locations do not need to
be disclosed and need not be open to the public. Legislation is currently being
considered in Sacramento that may modify the baseline requirements in the future.
The Council’s Procedures and Protocols Handbook explicitly authorizes remote
participation for meetings of the full Council, and limits that practice to three times per
year. Subpart D of the Council’s September 27, 2021 action modifies this rule by
allowing remote participation for up to five meetings per year. (The Procedures and
Protocols Handbook will be amended to reflect this new direction.)
To date, the City Council and the boards and commissions have, every 30 days,
adopted a resolution authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government Code
Section 54953(e), allowing for use of the streamlined AB 361 procedures. The most
recent Council approval is scheduled for the City Council’s April 4, 2022 meeting.
Discussion
Several questions have arisen as to the City Council’s expectations of councilmembers’
in-person versus remote attendance at committee meetings, as well as expectations of
board and commission members.
Council Committees. Neither the Council’s motion nor the Council’s Procedures and
Protocols Handbook addresses remote attendance at committees. Council should clarify
– by motion, which will subsequently be incorporated in the Procedures and Protocols –
whether Councilmembers may participate in Council committee meetings remotely, and
if so, is the ability to do so unlimited or limited in number or in some other way.
Recognizing the practical challenges with routine remote attendance, staff recommends
that the City Council affirm the expectation that councilmembers attend committee in
person.
AB 361 Streamlined Procedures. At this time, because the State of Emergency remains
17
Packet Pg. 222
City of Palo Alto Page 3
in place and the Santa Clara County health official continues to strongly encourage the
wearing of masks in indoor spaces, it is possible for Council to continue to make the AB
361 findings and use streamlined procedures for remote participation. This is
discretionary, however. Council could pull the AB 361 resolution from the April 4 agenda
or a majority could register a no vote. Council could adopt the AB 361 resolution for
April but clarify for staff whether it wishes the AB 361 resolution to be placed on the
first May agenda (assuming that a State of Emergency remains in place and the Council
health official’s direction social distancing provides a basis for making the finding).
Boards and Commissions. Council has the option to make a Citywide rule on the above
issues, which would apply to all the boards and commissions, or, Council can leave
these decisions up to each subsidiary body. If a Citywide rule is desired, staff
recommends adopting it by motion tonight for later incorporation into the Board and
Commission Handbook. If Council decides that each board and commission can decide
for itself how to proceed, boards and commissions will have the option to adopt a
procedural rule or simply proceed by practice.
Presumably, Councilmembers serving as liaisons to boards and commissions will follow
whatever procedure applies to that board or commission, but Council can provide
direction on this if a separate rule for Councilmember liaisons is desired.
To summarize, Council should provide direction on the following issues:
1. May Councilmembers participate remotely in Council committee meetings?
a. If yes, is remote participation unlimited, or is there a numerical or other
limit on remote participation?
2. For April and/or thereafter, does Council wish to continue making the AB 361
findings, allowing for streamlined noticing?
3. Does Council wish to weigh in on these issues for the boards and commissions
(including Councilmember liaisons), or should each board or commission decide
for itself? Specifically:
a. Is remote participation allowed, and if so, are there limits?
b. Should the AB 361 findings continue to be made, allowing for streamlined
noticing?
17
Packet Pg. 223