The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 14498 City of Palo Alto (ID # 14498) City Council Staff Report Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar City of Palo Alto Page 1 Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommendations that the City Council Support a Pending State Bill Regarding Orderly Meeting Conduct (Senate Bill 1100) and Support with Amendments a Bill Regarding Children’s Camp Regulations (Assembly Bill 1737) From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation The Policy & Services Committee recommends that the City Council approve support of a pending state bill regarding conducting orderly meetings (Senate Bill 1100) and to support with amendments a bill regarding children’s camp regulations (Assembly Bill 1737). Background The Policy and Services Committee received updates on federal and state legislation on March 8, 2022 (CMR 14117; Minutes) and May 10, 2022 (CMR 14379; Minutes). The motions passed were as follows: March 8, 2022 Motion: Consider supporting Senate Bill 1100 to conduct orderly meetings. (3-0, passed unanimously) ❖ Support and encourage legislation for all participants to participate in remote meetings even during non-emergencies. (Passed, 2-1) May 10, 2022 Motion: ❖ Support Assembly Bill 1944, Assembly Bill 2449, and Assembly Bill 2647 that allow virtual meetings, remote participation, and encourage adoption of technology. (Passed, 2-1) ❖ C. Support Assembly Bill 2181 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: board of directions. (Passed, 2-1) City of Palo Alto Page 2 B. Support with amendments Assembly Bill 1737 Children’s camps: local registration and inspections. (3-0, passed unanimously) The items with a ‘’ denote those motions that passed 2-1 and are the subject of the City Council discussion on June 13, 2022 (Action Item; CMR #14477). This current staff report is focused on the pending State legislation that the Policy and Services Committee unanimously recommended the Council support (SB 1100 and AB 1737). Discussion As mentioned above, the bills for City Council support through this Consent item as a follow up to the Policy and Services Committee meetings are: - Senate Bill 1100 regarding orderly meeting conduct - Assembly Bill 1737 regarding children’s camps: local registration and inspections The Policy and Services Committee recommended support for SB 1100 and recommended support with amendments for AB 1737. The reason for “support with amendments” on AB 1737 is ensure that the legislation does not impact Palo Alto’s current practices. The Committee votes were unanimous for the positions described above. A description of each bill, status, and timeline is included in Attachment A. Timeline and Resource Impact Staff would submit the letters on behalf of the City upon direction from the City Council on these bills. As mentioned in Attachment A, the bills will be heard by various committees/on the floor in the coming weeks. No resource impact anticipated. Attachments: • Attachment A-Updated Memo CPA Summary of Priority Legislation State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383 Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555 Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Central California Office ▪ 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030 MEMO To: Ed Shikada, City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. Niccolo De Luca, Vice President Andres Ramirez, Senior Associate Carly Shelby, Legislative Associate Date: June 8, 2022 Subject: UPDATED: State Legislative Update/Various Legislative Proposals SUMMARY Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this report for the City of Palo Alto as we move forward in the 2022 Legislative session. As discussed with the Policy and Services Committee, we are highlighting a handful of bills and providing a summary to give a point in time analysis. The City can take a position of support, oppose, or watch. The analysis below is based off text of the legislation, committee analysis, discussions with Members, and others. Senate Bill 1100 (Cortese) Open Meetings; orderly conduct Last amended: June 6, 2022 Status: The bill has moved through the Senate and will have its first policy committee hearing in the Assembly on June 15, specifically in the Assembly Local government Committee. Focus of the legislation: This bill would authorize the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting to remove an individual for disrupting the meeting. The legislation requires removal to be preceded by a warning to the individual by the presiding member of the legislative body or their designee that the individual’s behavior is disrupting the meeting and that the individual’s failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The bill would authorize the presiding member or their designee to then remove the individual if the individual does not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. Argument in Support: According to the author, “It has become increasingly clear that the mechanisms provided by the Brown Act to deal with disruptions during public meetings are insufficient. Across California, public officials and public attendees continue to deal with disorderly conduct during meetings at such a high magnitude that critical business and the legislative process has become impaired. As we have undoubtedly seen, many troubling incidents across the state, including those involving harassment and threats of violence, have demonstrated the need to protect public safety and public meeting access by modernizing the Brown Act so that it provides clearer standards around when removal of a meeting participant is warranted and what authority members of a legislative body can exercise.” Argument in Opposition: The bill is opposed by Californians for Good Governance, Stand UP, and two individuals. Educate Advocate also expressed concerns with the current language in the 2 bill. The opposition feels that the language in the bill is either vague or does not give enough guidance to local governing bodies about what behavior can and should warrant removal. They argue that disturbing, disrupting, and impeding is too subjective and worry about how locals will apply the law. The opposition arguments do not account for the fact that the language in the bill says disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting (emphasis added). Furthermore, the bills findings make it clear the intent of the bill is for its provisions to be interpreted and applied consistently with the holding in Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa. It is impossible to state that all local governing bodies will apply the law consistently with the First Amendment. These scenarios would be as applied challenges to the law under First Amendment jurisprudence and would be highly fact specific. The bill on its face, as described above, is in line with current Ninth Circuit case law on this matter and the proposed amendments provide additional protections for members of the public in exercising their right to access public meetings. Assembly Bill 1737 (Holden) Children’s camps: local registration and inspections Last amended: May 19, 2022 Status: The bill has moved through the Assembly and is now in the Senate. Its first Senate policy committee hearing has not yet been set. Focus of the legislation: Requires specified employees and volunteers of children’s camps to undergo background checks and to complete training in child abuse and neglect reporting. This bill would redefine “organized camps” to include children’s camps. A children’s camp would be defined as a camp that offers daytime or overnight experiences administered by adults who provide social, cultural, educational, recreational, or artistic programming to more than five children between 3 and 17 years of age for 5 days or longer during at least one season. Argument in Support: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, “We are aware of children suffering abuse and injuries at camps, including Roxie Forbes who was killed at an unlicensed camp without proper training, certifications, operational plans, or any county safety oversight. Roxie’s parents established a foundation with a mission to protect kids, not destroy camps. To that end, they have advocated for the need of long, overdue changes reflected in this bill. Argument in Opposition: According to the California State Association of Counties, “We commend the author’s goal to create an oversight and enforcement structure for children’s camps that ensures their safety and the well-being of children in their care. However, we believe AB 1737 falls short of that goal by placing this responsibility with local health departments that exist to protect communities from public health threats, including but not limited to infectious diseases, climate-related illness, and chronic diseases.